The URL can be used to link to this page

CCPC Agenda 04/04/2019 Collier County Planning Commission Page 1 Printed 3/28/2019 COLLIER COUNTY Collier County Planning Commission AGENDA Board of County Commission Chambers Collier County Government Center 3299 Tamiami Trail East, 3rd Floor Naples, FL 34112 April 4, 2019 9: 00 AM Mark Strain - Chairman Karen Homiak - Vice-Chair Edwin Fryer - Secretary Patrick Dearborn Karl Fry Stan Chrzanowski, Environmental Joseph Schmitt, Environmental Thomas Eastman, Collier County School Board Note: Individual speakers will be limited to 5 minutes on any item. Individuals selected to speak on behalf of an organization or group are encouraged and may be allotted 10 minutes to speak on an item if so recognized by the chairman. Persons wishing to have written or graphic materials included in the CCPC agenda packets must submit said material a minimum of 10 days prior to the respective public hearing. In any case, written materials intended to be considered by the CCPC shall be submitted to the appropriate county staff a minimum of seven days prior to the public hearing. All material used in presentations before the CCPC will become a permanent part of the record and will be available for presentation to the Board of County Commissioners if applicable. Any person who decides to appeal a decision of the CCPC will need a record of the proceedings pertaining thereto, and therefore may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. April 2019 Collier County Planning Commission Page 2 Printed 3/28/2019 1. Pledge of Allegiance 2. Roll Call by Secretary 3. Addenda to the Agenda 4. Planning Commission Absences 5. Approval of Minutes A. February 28, 2019 CCPC minutes B. March 7, 2019 CCPC Minutes 6. BCC Report - Recaps 7. Chairman's Report 8. Consent Agenda 9. Public Hearings A. Advertised 1. ***This item is being continued to the April 18, 2019 CCPC meeting.*** PUDR PL20180002020: An Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida amending Ordinance No. 2009-21, as amended, the Esplanade Golf & Country Club of Naples Residential Planned Unit Development, and amending Ordinance No. 2004-41, the Collier County Land Development Code, by amending the appropriate zoning atlas map or maps by changing the zoning classification of an additional 10± acres of land zoned Rural Agricultural (A) to the Esplanade Golf & Country Club of Naples RPUD; by amending the PUD document to revise a Development Standard Table footnote relating to setbacks; to increase the minimum required preserve area for the PUD; to update the Master Plan to label the additional PUD acreage as a Residential/Golf tract and show additional preserve area on that tract; to revise the PUD legal description; to add a deviation relating to environment; to modify development commitments relating to planning and environment; and by providing an effective date. The property to be added to the PUD is located just west of Collier Boulevard, approximately two-thirds of a mile north of Immokalee Road, in Section 22, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, with the entire PUD consisting of 1,668.3± acres. [James Sabo, AICP, Principal Planner] April 2019 Collier County Planning Commission Page 3 Printed 3/28/2019 2. ***This item was continued from the March 21, 2019, CCPC Meeting*** PL20180002552: An Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners amending Ordinance 89-05, as amended, the Collier County Growth Management Plan for the unincorporated area of Collier County, Florida, specifically amending the Potable Water Subelement of the Public Facilities Element to amend Policy 1.7 to reference the updated Ten Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan, directing transmittal of the adoption amendment to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity, and furthermore providing for severability and providing for an effective date. (Adoption Hearing) [Coordinator: Sue Faulkner, Principal Planner] B. Noticed 10. New Business 11. Old Business 12. Public Comment 13. Adjourn 04/04/2019 COLLIER COUNTY Collier County Planning Commission Item Number: 5.A Item Summary: February 28, 2019 CCPC minutes Meeting Date: 04/04/2019 Prepared by: Title: Operations Analyst – Growth Management Operations & Regulatory Management Name: Judy Puig 03/14/2019 11:05 AM Submitted by: Title: Dept Head - Growth Management – Growth Management Department Name: Thaddeus Cohen 03/14/2019 11:05 AM Approved By: Review: Growth Management Operations & Regulatory Management Judy Puig Review item Completed 03/14/2019 11:05 AM Planning Commission Mark Strain Meeting Pending 04/04/2019 9:00 AM 5.A Packet Pg. 4 February 28, 2019 Page 1 of 20 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida, February 28, 2019 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Planning Commission, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 5:05 p.m., in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Mark Strain Stan Chrzanowski Karl Fry Edwin Fryer Karen Homiak ABSENT: Patrick Dearborn Joe Schmitt ALSO PRESENT: Mike Bosi, Planning and Zoning Manager Jeremy Frantz, Land Development Code Manager Heidi Ashton-Cicko, Managing Assistant County Attorney Scott Stone, Assistant County Attorney 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 5 Attachment: 2-28-2019 CCPC Minutes (8315 : February 28, 2019 CCPC minutes) February 28, 2019 Page 2 of 20 P R O C E E D I N G S MR. BOSI: Chair, you have a live mike. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Mike. Good evening, everyone. Welcome to the February 28th meeting of the Collier County Planning Commission. If everybody will please rise for Pledge of Allegiance. (The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If the secretary will please do the roll call. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Mr. Eastman? (No response.) COMMISSIONER FRYER: Mr. Chrzanowski? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Here. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Mr. Fry? COMMISSIONER FRY: Here. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I'm here. Chairman Strain? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Here. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Vice Chair Homiak? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Here. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Mr. Schmitt? (No response.) COMMISSIONER FRYER: Mr. Dearborn? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schmitt and Mr. Dearborn have excused absences. They had other business they had to attend to. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Chair, we have a quorum of five. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That will take us to addenda to the agenda. There are two items on tonight's agenda. One is involving an overlay for Plantation Island. The other is an issue concerning conditional uses for communications towers. And I don't believe there are any other changes. Planning Commission absences. Next Thursday we're going to see each other again. Is everybody that's here now going to be here that we know of? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We'll have a quorum. We were distributed electronically our minutes from January 31st. Is there a motion to either amend or approve? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Move to approve. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Made and seconded. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRY: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 5-0. We'll skip BCC report and Chairman's report and move -- and consent agenda, we have no items 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 6 Attachment: 2-28-2019 CCPC Minutes (8315 : February 28, 2019 CCPC minutes) February 28, 2019 Page 3 of 20 there. We'll move straight into public hearings. ***The first advertised public hearing is 9A1. It's the Plantation Island Overlay which will allow single-family detached dwelling units as permitted uses. This is legislative. Heidi, we would not need swearing in for this? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So with that, Jeremy, we'll turn it over to you. And just so the folks in the audience understand what we're going to do, we get a staff report. First we'll ask questions of the staff and the documents they've prepared. Then after we finish with the staff, we'll turn to the audience, any of those who would like to speak on the issue. So, Jeremy's, it's all yours. MR. FRANTZ: Good afternoon. Jeremy Frantz, for the record. This first amendment is fairly straightforward. We were directed by the Board of County Commissioners to add the ability to construct a single-family home in the Plantation Island area. We're achieving that through the creation of a Plantation Island Overlay. The amendment simply allows for single-family homes. It does not take away the right to put up a mobile home, as is currently allowed. It doesn't change any of the development standards for the area, so a single-family home would have to meet the same development standards, the same state and federal regulations. With that, I'll take any questions, really. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody from the Planning Commission have any questions? (No response.) COMMISSIONER FRYER: I might have one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Oh, I know. Sort of procedural. There was a NIM, but it wasn't recorded. It might have been nice if it had been. Just a thought. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else? COMMISSIONER FRY: I believe there were -- I believe there were minutes from the NIM in the packet. COMMISSIONER FRYER: There were; summary. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They were -- COMMISSIONER FRY: Oh, not recorded. Verbatim. I see. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Verbatim minutes is what we're used to seeing. COMMISSIONER FRY: I see. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Stan? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Do you think when you say "NIM" that the people in the audience know what a NIM is? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Neighborhood information meeting. It's when the public met with the applicants which is, in this case, the county, and heard what the proposal for today's meeting was about. So in case you didn't know, that's -- government's great on acronyms. We use a lot of them. So thank you for reminding me to explain them, Stan. If there's anybody else -- if not, I've got a couple questions. I just to want reemphasize, Jeremy, this is not changing any of the standards associated with the property; is that right? The setbacks, the heights, amount of coverage, all that still stays the same? MR. FRANTZ: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So even though we're introducing a new use, which is single-family, the boundaries that are set by the layout of the community that would apply now today still apply to the single-family. So whatever use you have, you've still got the same standards. MR. FRANTZ: That's correct. 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 7 Attachment: 2-28-2019 CCPC Minutes (8315 : February 28, 2019 CCPC minutes) February 28, 2019 Page 4 of 20 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Karl -- Ned? COMMISSIONER FRYER: One of those Frys. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, you got too close of names. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Sorry. The rule with respect to RVs, while the owner is improving or constructing or replacing or repairing the main dwelling, am I correct that that is a -- there's a one-year limit on that? MR. FRANTZ: I can't speak to that off the top of my head. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think that's the way it reads. MR. BOSI: I believe that's correct that there is a limitation to how long that can be provided for. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Would it be possible for someone who was taking longer than a year to renew it? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Temporary-use permit being renewed? MR. BOSI: There's always an opportunity to seek a deviation from anything that's quantifiable, numeric so, yes, they most certainly could bring a request. COMMISSIONER FRYER: It wouldn't be that onerous, would it? Would they be able to do it at the staff level and get it done quickly, or would it require showings and evidence and things like that? MR. BOSI: It would require -- it would require a petition to the Board of County Commissioners. The Board of County -- the staff could not make that extension without express permission from the Board. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Well, are we at a point where we could recommend something that would make it easier for someone in that position to be able to get, like, a month-to-month renewal or something? Let's say they were going 13 or 14 months to get their main dwelling -- we're looking at an LDC amendment. What about if we wrapped that concept in there? MR. BOSI: The Planning Commission can always -- if it's the will of the Planning Commission to suggest other modifications to the amendment that's being proposed -- and even though we're not affecting that section, if you feel that it provides for a better arrangement from a Planning Commission perspective, then the Planning Commission most certainly can suggest that. COMMISSIONER FRYER: What do others think? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Pardon me? COMMISSIONER FRYER: I was wondering what others think. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think after we hear from the public we might want to comment on that, but I do think that rather than look at a month-to-month, if anything's like that to be considered, it would be better if it could be staff approved, that way it doesn't take a public action up to a certain amount of time, and maybe, like, six months, and the criteria would simply be that they have to make consistent progress on the site that is justified by inspections on the building permit and stuff like that. So that would be somewhat along the same lines, but we'll wait till we get to the end before we make any stipulations. I'm not sure how the folks feel about it, so... Karl. COMMISSIONER FRY: I guess, Mike, I was hoping for a clarification on recreational vehicles. I was looking at a chart that is presented in our packet, our electronic packet. It's Page 100, and it has proposed sections for single-family home, and then it talks about the mobile home zoning, which would remain similar. And it says, proposed RVs. And it says, recreational vehicle allowed by the overlay as primary use must be either highway ready or elevated on a permanent foundation above based flood elevation and anchored, must be connected to available central water, sewer, and electricity. Is that part -- because that sounds like a permanent -- MR. BOSI: No, that's not a part of this amendment. That was a part of the amendment as we had drafted. We received the direction from the Board of County Commissioners to add traditionally constructed homes to the allowable uses within Plantation Island. Commissioner McDaniel's office had asked staff to also include, as a potential, RVs as part of the 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 8 Attachment: 2-28-2019 CCPC Minutes (8315 : February 28, 2019 CCPC minutes) February 28, 2019 Page 5 of 20 uses that we would allow for. During the neighborhood information meeting, there was -- probably 45 to 50 of the residents of Plantation Island showed up, and it was a 9-1 preference to not allow for RVs to be a use that would be -- or not a use, but a structure that would be allowed within the overlay; therefore, that's been removed from the proposed language. COMMISSIONER FRY: Thank you. Yeah, that's what I was looking at was the NIM and your report that 90 percent were against RVs. So, okay, thank you. Appreciate it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Jeremy, I've got a question on a colored map you have. It's on page -- I just noticed, based on what Karl just said, he's got a different set of electronic pages than I have, so I shouldn't be surprised. But it's on the zoning map done by Johnson Engineering, Plantation Island Overlay. Way on the top of that Plantation overlay section is a -- first of all, on the center of this you've got the Plantation Island, and up in the upper right-hand corner you've got two areas boxed in that look like an earlobe on the top of the plan. One's in gold and one's in blue. One already has RSF-1 ACSC, and the other one is MH4 ACSC. Why is that included in this overlay if they -- especially the one that's already got the right to do single-family anyway? MR. FRANTZ: Those were included because we were looking at both single-family and RV at the beginning of the process. So, really, the lot that has already RSF-1, it really doesn't change their ability to put a single-family home there. So we -- the other lot is mobile home as well, and it was just always a part of the overlay, part of the analysis. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But we're not taking any rights away from that property? MR. FRANTZ: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Because the RSF-1, I'm not sure how consistent that is with the -- you're just looking at a single-family. You're not worried about whether it's RSF -- what standards it fits to? MR. FRANTZ: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Because that would be RSF-1 standards for that particular lot. MR. FRANTZ: Exactly. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. FRANTZ: Yeah, on the screen now you can see we don't include any standards. It's whatever is your base -- your underlying zoning development standards. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. So for the MH part, it would be the mobile home standards that actually apply to the single-family. MR. FRANTZ: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But for the RSF-1 piece, the RSF-1 standards would apply for that one. Is that how you understand it? MR. FRANTZ: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And you get into the language, and I think you're on it. What page -- I hate asking this question. What page is the language that we're actually using? Is it that -- because that's not the page I've got. MR. FRANTZ: There's a couple of pages here. It starts with 2.03.07.Q. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. FRANTZ: It goes on to the next page with 3, 4, and 5. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. And I've got -- my language is similar, but mine still has the old RV language in it, so I'm not sure why I've got that, but it's close enough I understand what we've got, so I'm not too worried about it. I just didn't know why I've got that. 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 9 Attachment: 2-28-2019 CCPC Minutes (8315 : February 28, 2019 CCPC minutes) February 28, 2019 Page 6 of 20 Okay. That's all I've got. MR. FRANTZ: Okay. I apologize. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: With that, any member of the public who wants to speak, if you've registered, we'll call those people first. When we get done with the registered speakers, I'll ask if anybody else would like to comment. Come up to either one of the mikes, and the first thing that you need to do is just tell us your name. And if it's a -- if it's more complicated than -- last name, please, spell it out for us. So, Mike? MR. BOSI: Yeah, our first public speaker, Chair, would be Joshua Maxwell followed by Ray Pelletier. MR. MAXWELL: Hello. For the record, Josh Maxwell. My wife and I are partners with Barry Wood at 102 Egret Lane. Asking for you guys to support the modification to allow single-family residence on Plantation Isle. Our mobile home was damaged, and we've removed it since Hurricane Irma. And the prices that it costs to put a manufactured home high enough to meet FEMA is outlandish. I can build a single-family house cheaper, but I can't do it per code as it's written. And we were the 10 percent asking for the RVs, so we're the reason you had all that extra stuff in your -- in your package, so -- but like it was stated, the community wasn't really in favor of it, so please support the single-family homes, and we'll build some beautiful little homes down there on the island. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Next speaker, Mike. MR. BOSI: Next speaker is Ray Pelletier followed by Ray Johnson. MR. PELLETIER: Hi. My name's Ray Pelletier, and I'd just like to thank you for your service to the community. You've done a great job here. And I know how much work and how much time it takes to do what you're doing. What I didn't understand is why the RVs were removed because -- did you say there was only one person? MR. BOSI: At the meeting there was probably 45 to 50 members of the public who attended who lived in Plantation Island, and the majority suggested that RVs was not a use or a structure that they were interested in being added to the overlay. MR. FRANTZ: I would just add further when the Comprehensive Planning department reviewed that potential addition, they found that it would be inconsistent with the Growth Management Plan. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That would mean it couldn't be done under this process even if it -- even if we wanted it to be, so... MR. PELLETIER: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We'd have to change the GMP, the Growth Management Plan. MR. PELLETIER: Okay. So as far as it being in the area of state critical concern, there's no ability to get it out of that? You still have to go through that hurdle to get this thing approved at this point, or no? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Those are more state-regulated rules by statute, so I don't -- I mean, this board sure couldn't do anything about it. Mike? MR. BOSI: No. This will not -- this will not change any of the restrictions and the obligations that these properties have to comply with the area of state critical concern. And it places a limitation in terms of how much actual clearing and impervious square footage will be allowed to be put on any one individual parcel. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's another agreement that they have is specifically for that area. 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 10 Attachment: 2-28-2019 CCPC Minutes (8315 : February 28, 2019 CCPC minutes) February 28, 2019 Page 7 of 20 That's outside our jurisdiction. There just isn't anything we can do with that. MR. PELLETIER: Okay. Because it is a big problem down there, because you only have so much space on a mobile home lot, and now we're going to put a house on a mobile home lot, which I'm in favor of. I think, you know, the guy owns the property; he should be able to put on it what he wants to put on it. I really like the idea of the RV, because I've had four lots down there; two of which I sold. I have two more. And when I started to look at what it took to get something done down there, I bought an RV, and now I can go anywhere and do whatever I want. But it would have been nice to have been able to bring that down there and use it, too, so... Anyway, I hope you approve it as it's written. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. Next speaker, Mike. MR. BOSI: Last speaker, Grady Johnson, Jr. MR. JOHNSON: Ladies and gentlemen, I want to thank you for your time, and especially Mr. Bosi and his staff. I'm the culprit, if you want to say, that got this thing started back after Irma. I got a lot of folks in the community, some are in the audience here, that are really looking forward to this. The island was devastated. It was ground zero for Irma, so there's a lot of people looking forward to rebuilding and building better, safer homes. And like I said, a couple years from now you guys approve this, come on down and take a look at what we did. I think you'll like it, and I think it's going to be good for the community, and I appreciate your time and taking it up in such a timely fashion. And, again, Mr. Bosi and his staff and everybody that's been on board, it was kind of hoisted on them at the last minute, and they've done a great job, and I wanted to thank them for it. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. COMMISSIONER FRY: May I ask you a question, sir? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Karl? COMMISSIONER FRY: I'm just wondering the size of your lot and what your understanding is of what you can build on it in terms of square footage and -- MR. JOHNSON: Yes, sir. We're under the area of state critical concern. We can develop up to 2,500 square feet or up to 10 percent. In other words, if you had 10 acres, you could develop something bigger than 2,500 square foot. There's some very nice-size homes currently that have been built since we fell under area of critical concern. It is a hurdle. It's not a stop-all, be-all. We do have to have, you know, consideration for it, but we can build some nice homes. We're just going to have to stay within those parameters. As Mr. Bosi can probably go a little deeper than I can, it affects -- in other words, if you want a concrete driveway, that's going to figure into the square footage of your house. You may not want to go with concrete. You might want to go with, you know, a surface that they approved that's going to be, you know, not impervious. Your docks -- Mr. Bosi can correct me if I quote anything wrong, but your piers, your docks, things like that don't figure into it because they allow the watershed to go through, and they don't divert it in any manner. So, for instance, in the backyard, you know, a walkway leading from the house to the dock, if it was built out of the wood and raised up above the ground not affecting the surface, it would be approved, and it wouldn't figure into the 2,500 square feet. We've just got to be -- some hoops, but we can work with it, you know. And people that live there -- I've been here all my life. We don't like that we fell under it, but we understand it, and we'll work with it and do what we can to make it work for us. COMMISSIONER FRY: And I asked you that because I was trying to just track exactly how much land you needed to actually build a home, and it sounded like the minimum was 2,500 square feet, 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 11 Attachment: 2-28-2019 CCPC Minutes (8315 : February 28, 2019 CCPC minutes) February 28, 2019 Page 8 of 20 which would mean you need at least 25,000 square feet, which is about six-tenths of an acre to build, and you can improve 10 percent of that, 2,500 square feet. Is that accurate? I think for everybody in the audience it would be great for them to understand exactly what they can and can't do. MR. BOSI: Well, I mean, you can build a house within a smaller footprint. The height limitation is 30 feet. There's enough -- with the side yard setbacks, the limitations of them, there's enough opportunity to be able to go two stories towards where you can accumulate square footage towards where I think you could -- your yield in terms of your construction would be -- you know, would be able to offset whatever the costs of the construction were. It's not so prohibitive and those lots aren't so small that you can't fit a house on it. It's just it limits the size of the house, and you have to go up instead of -- rather than horizontal. COMMISSIONER FRY: Part of the discussion was that the .1 or .2-acre lots, I guess very small lots, were too small to actually build a home on because you needed a minimum of 2,500 square feet, and it could only be 10 percent. MR. BOSI: There's no minimum. COMMISSIONER FRY: There is no minimum? Is the 2,500 a maximum? MR. BOSI: The 2,500 is a maximum, and that's a maximum on the impervious area, not your house. That's a maximum on the impervious area. COMMISSIONER FRY: Impervious, including driveways if it was a paved driveway. MR. JOHNSON: Right. That's why I said, you know, we have to work with the county and stay within the state guidelines. For instance, the driveway, I'm not going to build a concrete driveway just for the fact that, you know, it's going to take away from the size of my house. You know, but if I wanted to, for instance, I could build -- like, the pier, I could build it out of wood, you know, and I can do whatever dirt -- I know there's been some discussions on whether lime rock or what type of lime rock is going to be considered impervious or nonper -- I mean, but there are materials available that can meet those requirements. We've just got fall within that guideline and keep that in mind when you design your home. Like me, for instance, I'm putting in every available square footage into my home and, you know, and I'll work around what I need to do to accommodate driveways and things like that and such. COMMISSIONER FRY: Gotcha. So every lot down there would be able to build a single-family home on their property; is that accurate? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't think Mike can speak for every lot, but there are -- COMMISSIONER FRY: In terms of size, there are really no -- even the smallest lots are still -- following the rules, you could still build a home? MR. BOSI: Any lot that could accommodate a mobile home will be able to accommodate now a traditionally constructed house. MR. JOHNSON: I think I can answer what your concern is. We have 40-foot lots, we have 60-foot lots, and we have 80-foot lots. We have some people that have bought multiple lots; like the one gentleman said -- he said he had owned four. I know people down there that have four lots side by side that have incorporated them together. My current residence that I live in is actually a lot and a half. It's 60 -foot. I have a 40-footer and a half of a 40-footer. Now, that was done back in the '60s. My place has been there forever and a day. That being said, there's a lot of people down there that, you know, own 40-footers or some that own 60, some that own 80s, so, on. So you do have to be aware as a property owner. But, you know, I would caution people that are not from the area that may be coming to buy there, to do their homework and realize what they are getting into. But I have spoke with Ms. Barbara Pow, who runs the area of critical state concern for the State of Florida. I had a conversation with her. Very nice lady; very helpful. In fact, she was supportive of what Mr. Bosi and them were able to do and said that it only made sense, because we are in a flood zone, 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 12 Attachment: 2-28-2019 CCPC Minutes (8315 : February 28, 2019 CCPC minutes) February 28, 2019 Page 9 of 20 storm surge zone, and FEMA regulations and everything else being changed -- and, I mean, nobody recommends anybody living in a mobile home ever if you can get around it. I understand there's other places that it may work, but on the islands and barrier islands and things that we're living on, it just didn't make sense to keep us in that box, you know. Because we can still develop this land. We just have to maintain within those rules of area critical concern. But as Mr. Bosi pointed out, I could go right now to the manufacturer, which I did my homework, and the gentleman that was here earlier, I'd back up what he said. I can build a very nice stick-built home for way less than what they quoted me at the manufacturer. I mean, they started at 350,000 and didn't even want to do a contract for that. It was an open-ended contract, and I basically looked at the guy and said, I don't think you're going to sell too many houses if you want to start at 350- and tell me that 18 months from now when you deliver it it might change. Now, that was including the pilings and everything that go up, but it was just an insane amount of money that they were quoting on an open-ended contract. So what you guys are doing for us as property owners is going to be tremendous because, as the gentleman said, I know contractors that can build me a really, really nice house up on stilts for a whole lot less than $400,000, so... COMMISSIONER FRY: And just to explain a little bit, like where I was going, really, was I think it seems like a great option for all the homeowners down there. I was a little bit confused in the verbiage as to where some of the smaller lots might not have the option to build a home, and there were a couple of people that expressed concern about mobile homes being affordable housing and this might push them out or, you know, just eliminate the availability of lower-cost housing. The majority of people, obviously, believe that this is an advantage, and I just was trying to make sure that even people with the small lots had the ability to improve their lots with a home. MR. JOHNSON: Yes, sir. And I think the answer to that question -- and, again, I'm not an expert in this field, but what the gentleman said earlier, the new regulations that are coming out of the fact we suffered Irma is going to negate that being an affordable housing area. You know, the fact that FEMA's requiring us to go so high in the air and the type of foundations that you're going to have to build to put that mobile home up on -- the quotes I got were anywhere from 100- to 150,000 just for the foundation, just for the slab and the pilings for the house to sit on. I don't know anybody that's going to pay, you know, $80,000 for a mobile home and spend 150,000 to put it up on pilings. It just doesn't make rational sense for your investment, especially on a mobile home. As we all know, they're like cars. By the time they take delivery on it, it's going to devalue. So from that aspect of it, as the county's aspect, it's going to be better for everybody in the whole county because now you're going to have properties down in that area, instead of devaluing every year, they're going to do like everybody else's property and they're going to go up in tax revenue. So that will be a help. COMMISSIONER FRY: Yeah. Thank you. I really appreciate your dialogue and explaining. MR. JOHNSON: Just one other quick thing. If you guys want to take a look at what can be done -- now, they've done this on Bayshore on I believe it's East Van Buren side. If you look down in that area, there's a small area there that they've built some really nice concrete block homes, and they're on really tiny, old trailer lots there. I don't know what the dimensions were, but I drove down there and looked out of curiosity. So if you want to get an idea what can be done on these small trailer lots, I recommend running down to the Van Buren side there and taking a look at what them folks are doing. I don't know who's doing the construction, but they're doing a really good job. So thank you for your time. COMMISSIONER FRY: Thank you very much. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Sir, would you take one more question, please? Thank you very 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 13 Attachment: 2-28-2019 CCPC Minutes (8315 : February 28, 2019 CCPC minutes) February 28, 2019 Page 10 of 20 much. MR. JOHNSON: Yes, sir. Absolutely. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Earlier I had raised the question of whether a year is long enough for an RV to be present while someone was reconstructing or remodeling or improving or replacing their mobile home or their single-family dwelling. MR. JOHNSON: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I don't want to create a problem or create work to address a problem if none exists. You're a knowledgeable property owner down there. Would there be a need for an extension less onerous than having to come back and go through a process that could otherwise have been handled administratively by staff, maybe a month-to-month extension? MR. JOHNSON: Yes. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Am I -- is there a need there? MR. JOHNSON: I think you're on track. I do know one gentleman personally that is in that situation that brought that up at the NIM, I believe you called it. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yeah. MR. JOHNSON: And, yes, I think -- but I think it would be -- need to be done just as you suggested; whatever the standard limit is right now, let people draw their permit for that, and then if -- like you said, if there -- I would think as long as it was worded if their actively building their home. You know, I don't know that the neighborhood, you know, would want to create a loophole to where -- the concern on the RV -- and I could tell you this from 90 percent of the people I talk to down there, we did not want our community to turn into a rental RV lot center, because we are in the center of the Ten Thousand Islands. We live in God's paradise, I call it. A lot of people want to come visit. The last thing I wanted was a different set of RVs next door to me every weekend. You know, we don't know who's coming and going in our community and everything. So that was the overlying concern out of the majority of the residents was, wait a minute, we don't want to open this up to where we're going to have, you know, people coming and going on a regular basis and turning into a weekend warriors' fish camp, you know, that we're having to live in the middle of. So that was where that concern came out of. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Understood. Thank you very much. MR. JOHNSON: Yes, sir. I think you're tracking, though. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Thank you. MR. JOHNSON: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Do we have any other speakers, Mike? MR. BOSI: None registered. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else in the audience who hasn't spoken like to speak? Sir, please come on up and identify yourself for the record, and we'll be glad to hear you. MR. REED: Hi. My name is Jim Reed, and I'm here about six, seven months a year, and I live in Alaska the other four or five, so -- we like the commute. Anyway, the deal is is that -- the only thing I had a concern about was that we can keep our mobile homes -- not mobile homes, I mean our campers on the lot as long as they're not occupied; is that correct? With this -- I mean, I come in from Alaska, and I put the thing in my yard. I have a house, I mean, a trailer, and I have a -- actually, I have the only pole barn with a permit in Collier County. I did at the time. But, anyway, I put my unit there and it sits there empty. Nobody's living in it or anything, but I can keep it there for -- I don't know, is there a length of time on that or something? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I don't think the rules in that are changing by this, are they? MR. FRANTZ: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. So whatever rules are in place now that you're living by, we're not changing any of those. 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 14 Attachment: 2-28-2019 CCPC Minutes (8315 : February 28, 2019 CCPC minutes) February 28, 2019 Page 11 of 20 MR. REED: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't really think that answer's going to be readily available tonight. But we're not -- the only thing we're changing is saying you can put a single-family house up. MR. REED: All right. Well, thank you. Appreciate it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Everything else stays the same. You're welcome. Anybody else in the audience? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is there -- Jeremy -- yes, sir, come on up, and please identify yourself, and we'll be glad to hear you. MR. BARTLY: I apologize. I'm still trying to catch my breath. I raced over here from Miami, and my hearing aid broke on the way, and so I'm a little handicapped. I live on Lot 20, Plantation Island. We've been there for over 30 years. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You'll need to -- remember to identify yourself. MR. BARTLY: I'm sorry? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What's your name? MR. BARTLY: Allen Bartly. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. MR. BARTLY: And, anyway, we've had a second home there for over 30 years. I don't know the exact years. I'm actually on everybody's side; however, we don't live in a perfect world. It's difficult to do that. I strongly advocate for affordable housing. The Keys have just wiped out all of their affordable housing, and there's been articles and articles written about how bad it is. They're having to bus in the help to keep the businesses going. I wouldn't want to be living my life like that, and eventually I think it will peter out for them, and they'll have serious problems. We're in an area where nobody sees us. We don't affect Everglades City because nobody goes back there unless it's a curiosity seeker. Can you build on -- could you fit a house on there? Certainly you could. Just so you know, my family has property all over the state of Florida, and I have fought a lot of counties over taxes. That's a no-win situation unless you have an attorney, which I do use in Miami. That is the only way you have success. It doesn't matter whether you have a mountain of evidence in your favor -- and I have -- they will not rule in your favor. They have an agenda. Now, I'm not here to insult anybody. I'm just telling you what the facts are and how it goes for us. The reality is that affordable housing is very much needed, and it only gets worse that we need it. The problem -- and, again, I can side with everybody here. I'm not poor, but I'm not wealthy by any means either. My wife very much would like to leave Florida and move to the Carolinas. She loves it up there. We travel up there; we visit up there. We have a good time. I'm practical. I was born and raised here. I want to stay here. I see the advantages to being here. The reality is in North Carolina there are a lot of places where you can put a -- you can put a cabin on the property, but there are mobile homes in the distance in your subdivision. And I'm just being honest. I'm an honest man. If I'm going to buy a cabin in the woods, I really want to be surrounded by cabins, not mobile homes. And other people feel the same way, and I get that mentality. It's just another mindset you fall in when you get into that situation. We are a mobile-home community right now. And as soon as we allow single-family homes to come in -- and I do understand because, by the way, I am also a builder and have been all my life. I get it; I really do. I know the difference between superior-built homes and so forth. The only problem is, once you started letting single-family homes in, it only takes a couple of them, then all of a sudden you have 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 15 Attachment: 2-28-2019 CCPC Minutes (8315 : February 28, 2019 CCPC minutes) February 28, 2019 Page 12 of 20 given ammunition to the taxing authority to raise your property values, therefore, pushing you out of that community. That's a fact. Believe me, I fought enough of these battles to know. They only need a little bit of ammunition, and you're done. And I have struggled to stay there for a long time. I am a good resident of the community. After the hurricane, I went out, I cleaned my canal out. Nobody else that I know of did that. I took all the garbage cans out. We took a kid's Jeep, battery operated, out of the canal. It was up in the trees. We took somebody's boat, my wife and I, out of a canoe. Anyway, the point I'm trying to make here is I am a caring individual about everything and everyone, and I try to be compassionate. But the reality is -- I look around; I see a lot of gray hair here, just like myself in the room, and we are baby boomers that are aging. And once you put those structures up at those elevations, the first floor being 10 feet, you now need an extension ladder and a scaffolding to maintain the outside of your home. Just to get up to your gutter you're talking about 20 feet. That's not going to be real doable for a lot of these seniors. As a matter of fact, the stairs alone are going to be a challenge as they age. I'm only 59, turning 60 this year, and my body is already doing things that I never foresaw it doing. My knees -- I've never had knee problems, and my knees are already saying, you've got knee problems on the way. So I'm just saying, the reality is I don't think anybody has really, really thought this through carefully enough. I don't think it's been deliberated long enough. I think that -- I looked at what you have online, and I saw the people that turned in cards. There was a total of 32, I believe it was; 32 people that turned in -- forgive my nasty notes. I had hoped to have all typed up. But I actually thought this meeting was tomorrow, not today, and discovered that late last night. Here it is. Thirty-two cards were turned in, responses. A lot of them weren't even signed. And I did tabulate what everybody's feelings were that showed up. And of the 32, that is actually -- of 143 residents that I count on the island, that is .22 percent response. That is not a supermajority, by any means, of an opinion as to what should be done with the island. I think more people should have input before anybody makes any decisions. The other thing is that as far as RVs go, I have a neighbor that is an RV, and I know there are others down the street from me. I don't have any issues against RVs per se, but there does need to be some guidance and rules. I get that. The reason I say this is these are -- a lot of these are retirees. The one thing retirees want to do is travel, and so an RV is a suitable thing for them to utilize in doing that oftentimes. So for them to come down from up north, as a lot of them do for several months at a time trying to escape that bitter cold -- I don't care if they're here for several months at a time. The benefit to that is that when they leave, there's less traffic. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Bartlett (sic), I've got to ask you to wrap it up. You've already reached the maximum time we allow a speaker -- MR. BARTLY: I apologize. And so what I'm saying is I think that, perhaps, what should be done and -- I think maybe we could -- could you give us an extension, give people more time to respond? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's not within our -- that's not our jurisdiction. That's something -- the Board of County Commissioners is the one -- the next board up, after it leaves here it goes to the Board of County Commissioners. You could talk to them about that. MR. BARTLY: About that, okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. That's not our purview. MR. BARTLY: There will be another meeting? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't know when it will be scheduled, but there will be a meeting at the Board level at some point. I just don't know when. And, Jeremy, do you know when? MR. BARTLY: Any idea what kind of time frame we might be talking about? MR. FRANTZ: We don't have a date picked yet. Once we get a recommendation from this advisory board, then we will schedule the Board of County Commissioners' meeting, and that will 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 16 Attachment: 2-28-2019 CCPC Minutes (8315 : February 28, 2019 CCPC minutes) February 28, 2019 Page 13 of 20 probably be at least a month out. MR. BARTLY: How much? MR. FRANTZ: At least one month out. MR. BARTLY: One month out. And we will all be informed by way of mail? MR. FRANTZ: Correct. MR. BARTLY: Okay. Well, I appreciate you and your time. And thank you for giving me a chance to speak, because I really did, I left 2 o'clock Miami, and between traffic and everything, it's amazing I got here. And, again, I apologize. I have not meant to step on anybody's toes. I'm a nice guy and I mean well, but I just want everybody to be part of this picture that's good for everybody because, really, affordable housing is an important thing. I mean, I could build a house myself, but -- and one quick thought. My neighbor who lost their home, he -- I feel sorry for the guy. He lost his home. He bought a place that was being rented. He let the tenant stay there. The hurricane came. He lost everything. He just had to have it pulled out. He's a shrimper. I think he's still out at sea, and he's busy hunting for a mobile home to put on his property. And he -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Bartlett (sic), I've really got to ask you to stop at this point, if you don't mind. MR. BARTLY: I was just going to say, the quotes that he gave me are 25- to 50- -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think the other gentleman told us everything is pretty high down there, so that's unfortunate. We understand. Thank you very much. MR. BARTLY: Thank you for your time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Is there any other member of the public that would like to speak on this matter who has not spoken? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that, Jeremy, I think the only issue that's come out of this that we haven't addressed -- I know the recreational-vehicle issue is a GMP issue, so that's really off the table. Changes to the ASC are off the table; they're not part of this review. We're simply changing one use, adding a single-family. We've had testimony or comments from the audience going both ways. This board will make a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners, and I believe the only issue is looking at an extension presumably by administratively for a temporary unit while a home's being constructed consistent with the fact that a home is being -- making normal progress. Is that something that you feel comfortable writing up or -- MR. FRANTZ: Yeah. We can write that up as a recommendation. I don't think that that requires any change to this section of the code that we're proposing, because there is another section, I believe, in the Code of Ordinances that deals with that rebuilding scenario, so it may be a separate -- it probably should be a separate process. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, at some point I'd like staff -- and since you're in charge of writing the code, that you could take a look and see where it would need to apply and report back to us at some future to make sure it doesn't get lost in the mess that we usually have where things get lost all the time. MR. FRANTZ: Sure. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Part of your recommendation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Pardon me? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: If part of your recommendation is to direct -- to ask the Board of County Commissioners to direct staff to put the extension language in a future amendment, then that would be appropriate. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. That's -- Stan? 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 17 Attachment: 2-28-2019 CCPC Minutes (8315 : February 28, 2019 CCPC minutes) February 28, 2019 Page 14 of 20 COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I'd like to make some comments on the record. I'm a little torn on this issue, and I'll tell you why. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I've been a licensed engineer since 1975. I used to subscribe to Nature and Science. Now I just share a subscription to Nature. I subscribe to Discover, Popular Science, Scientific American. I'm a firm believer that the climate is changing. The world is warming, and the sea level is rising. And I know that's not a popular belief among a lot of people. I don't really care, because I'm not going to see a lot of it. I'll be dead before it happens. I wonder what -- or before the worst of it happens. I wonder if anybody's making plans to take these communities out if the sea level -- the IPCC, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, is going -- I'll slow down -- is going to issue a report, I think, in August or September of this year, their latest projection of sea level rise. At that time you may -- you may see a number that kind of shocks you, and it may be that FEMA suddenly decides that floors should be higher than what they're already saying. They may realize that, you know, you can't redo your FEMA maps every five years or every 10 years and raise everything up a foot. You know, it's just not practical. So I -- but this is America, and you have the right to do things I wouldn't do with your property as long as you don't harm other people. So I'm going to not say anything against this, but I would feel remiss if I didn't bring up the possibility that, you know, within -- not your generation. You're going to be here. My grandkids are not -- I firmly believe are not going to be able to live anywhere near Plantation Island. Most of you are my age. It's not going to affect you. But, you know, I wonder how we're going to remove all this stuff if it does happen. Who pays for it? And that's just -- you know, I'm going on the record as being a little leery about this but, like I say, it's America. You own a piece of land. You want to do something on it. Have at it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none, is there a motion for a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners? COMMISSIONER FRYER: I'll move approval of the proposed language addition to the LDC to permit single-family dwellings and, also, if I may add to that a recommendation that staff prepare language that would create a month-to-month administrative, less onerous extension process for the RVs during active construction or reconstruction or remodeling. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a second? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I'll second, but that recommendation is to recommend that to -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Board. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: -- the Board would decide that? COMMISSIONER FRYER: It doesn't need to come back to us. I'm just -- I'm recommending that staff -- or I'm asking that staff prepare something as a recommendation from us to the Board. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So you still second? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Yes, second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The only comment I have, I think by asking someone to come in from Plantation Island month to month to deal with Developmental Services and the processes there is going to take up someone's lifetime. So rather than let it do on a month to month basis, just give them six months. And after six months, if they want to come back for a renewal, then they go into a different level. But let the staff have the first six months. That saves people six trips to the county center, and it's so busy over there right now, it's just going to -- it would be difficult to do. COMMISSIONER FRYER: You mean in excess of a year? Another six months. 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 18 Attachment: 2-28-2019 CCPC Minutes (8315 : February 28, 2019 CCPC minutes) February 28, 2019 Page 15 of 20 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. But one block of six months, not every month. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I'll accept -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You've got six separate trips -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: I'll accept an amendment to my motion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Would you, Karen? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Yes. Isn't that done online anyway? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, however it's done. (Simultaneous speakers.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think six months is -- (Simultaneous speakers.) COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: -- it is, so it must extend for these people that had damage then, right? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't -- no. If someone's replacing their home and they want to live in a temporary facility on site while they're replacing a home, they have one year with that the way the code's written now. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Oh, okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What I'm saying is they can extend the one year administratively by staff by whatever means staff requires, whether they have to drive to Developmental Services, if they have the Internet, they can do it by cell phone. I don't know what ways you do it. But whatever way they do it, I think we ought to give them six months instead of one month at a time for X number of months. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: As long as there's open permits. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Pardon me? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: As long as they have permits open to build. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They couldn't -- yeah, they couldn't get it any other way. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I don't know. What if they didn't pass inspection and the permit runs out? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If they didn't pass -- they'd be red tagged. They couldn't do much else. Okay. Well, there was a motion made and the motion maker approved the six-month extension. Are you going to go along with that or not? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRY: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 5-0. Thank you all for coming. This will go to the Board of County Commissioners in 30 or 45 days for final, and then once they do it, it's a done deal and everything's taken care of, so... Thank you. ***The next item up is Item 9A2. It's the communications towers as a conditional use in a couple sections of our code. And with that, Jeremy, I'll turn it over to you for presentation or discussion. MR. FRANTZ: Again, another fairly straightforward amendment. We're looking to add uses in some limited areas of the county in the rural fringe mixed-use district sending lands and the conservation 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 19 Attachment: 2-28-2019 CCPC Minutes (8315 : February 28, 2019 CCPC minutes) February 28, 2019 Page 16 of 20 districts. Again, no changes to existing development standards related to communication towers, just allowing them in some new districts. And this will also be in compliance with the U.S. Telecommunications Act of 1996. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Questions? Go ahead, Ned. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Jeremy, I have a question about the use of the word "essential." And I went back and looked at the Telecommunications Act, and Section 254 of that act actually called upon a joint federal and state commission to determine whether cell service is to be considered essential. Congress did not make that determination. They bucked it to a joint federal and state group. And I didn't research it further to see if that has been accomplished or not, but unless the concept of essential services -- unless cell phone services has been connected to that word, I recommend that we not use it, and I don't think we need to use it. We are -- we're adding a conditional use, and if the federal government hasn't adopted the notion that cell service is essential, I don't think we should extend farther than we have to. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Did you look at the definition for essential in the code? COMMISSIONER FRYER: In this code? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Our code. COMMISSIONER FRYER: No, I don't believe I did. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Because telephone services are -- telephone, electricity, cable television, or communications to the general public by providers that have been produced or authorized, according to laws, have appropriate jurisdiction and government facilities. T hose are all part of our essential services definition for the county. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So from our perspective at the county, it's an essential service. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Understood. Just the -- in the material it was indicated under the Telecommunications Act of 1996 it's an essential service, and I didn't find that to be the case, but my research was limited. MR. BOSI: And I could provide a little clarity to how that was. In 1996 when the Telecommunications Act was written, cell phone services did not provide E-911 service. They now all are required by federal law to require E-911 service. And because of that, that provides them the establishment or the rational nexus as to why they are essential services and why our code defines them as an essential service, because they all provide emergency communication opportunities. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Well, I'm fine if we're tying it to our code, but we cite the Telecommunications Act as a source of authority for calling phone service -- cell phone service essential, and I just couldn't find that. MR. BOSI: We site the 1996 Telecommunications Act because it says you cannot -- you cannot prohibit telecommunication towers from large swaths or geographic areas of your county or your jurisdiction, and that's the motivation of why we are bringing this before the Planning Commission because the sending area is large geographic areas that are, essentially, per our code, currently prohibited from allowing a telecommunication tower. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Wait a minute. I've just found what I was looking for; excuse me. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure. COMMISSIONER FRYER: On Page 154 of the packet you say, "This LDC amendment would ensure compliance with the U.S. Telecommunications Act of 1996 by defining communications towers as an essential service." MR. FRANTZ: I think what is meant there is that we are defining as an essential service and 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 20 Attachment: 2-28-2019 CCPC Minutes (8315 : February 28, 2019 CCPC minutes) February 28, 2019 Page 17 of 20 allowing as communication towers, not saying that the Telecommunications Act does that. But I don't mind clarifying that language and clearing it up. That's not what we intended to say. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I think you should, and that's all I would like to ask that you do. MR. FRANTZ: That's not a problem. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Because when I looked at the act, it didn't do that. That's all I had. COMMISSIONER FRY: I was curious what percentage of Collier County, the conservation district and the RFMUD comprises, just what percentage the county is. And if this is a pressing problem -- is this a formality? Is this an "i" we're dotting, or is this a critical change that needs to be made that's holding up something of great importance? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: We've had a couple pre-application meetings with cell phone representatives that would like to place cell towers in these locations in Collier County. If they're not able to put towers within an area they've defined as a service area, then there'll be lapse in coverage for people, and that's what they're trying to avoid. COMMISSIONER FRY: So that was the impetus for this coming to us now? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Jeremy, are you going to fix that language that you and I talked about? MR. FRANTZ: Yeah. I did take a look at that. Commissioner Strain pointed out earlier today that there was a reference in some of the existing language. This is in G.1 -- I'm sorry -- G.2 that does not exist. This language here in 4.08.08.C.2 in 19 -- or sorry -- in 2005, that section was moved to 4.08.05. So we could modify that reference there to 4.08.05.H.3. The rest of the sentence also says that these uses in 2 below are in addition to the essential services identified as conditional uses in G.1 above; however, when you look at G.1, G.1 says that these conditional uses are -- or these are conditional uses in every zoning district except the zoning district that is referring us there. So we would just propose to remove that reference to it being additional to 2.01.03 above. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that's the only other comment. Oh, one other comment. I read the letters that we've received concerning this bird reference. I don't necessarily disagree with the Florida Wildlife Federation that we should be making sure there's no obstructions to birds. I just don't think a private organization that they're referring to is the right way to go. I do agree with the other letter we received that it's already handled by the various governmental agencies that have to require -- their requirements. And I just wanted to make that note. I didn't know if you planned to change anything anyway or not. MR. FRANTZ: And I'll add to that. I did respond to Ms. Budd that in the communication towers Section 5.05.09 we do address most of the issues that are addressed in the references that she made. I don't have a response from her. I'm not here to speak for her, but I did want to point out that I did that analysis, and many of those things, like tower height, the use of guy wires, the lighting, those things are addressed in our existing standards. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And the one last thing I have, Jeremy, is when you use something other than our code as a basis for your argument, as Ned was alluding to in the U.S. Telecommunications Act, I don't need the whole act, I mean, that's probably thousands of pages, but the section that you referred to specifically, 332(c)(3)(7)(B)(i)(II), that section, if you -- next time we do something like this, could you provide it with the backup so that -- MR. FRANTZ: Yeah. That section is sort of demonstrated in Exhibit A to this amendment. I attached the executive summary that went to the Board, and that was a part of the executive summary. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, was it? I didn't -- okay. I don't have 159 pages either, so... MR. FRANTZ: I'm not sure what happened in getting the packet to you, but -- 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 21 Attachment: 2-28-2019 CCPC Minutes (8315 : February 28, 2019 CCPC minutes) February 28, 2019 Page 18 of 20 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I get it from a different source, and I notice all the time -- like Karl had over 100 pages for that one. I only had 99, and I got eight pages for this. MR. FRANTZ: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I'm fine other than that. Anybody else have any questions? COMMISSIONER FRY: Jeremy, one of the main things in the letters that were included, the FCC -- and I think you addressed this. But one specific thing that struck me was the steady burning lights attracting birds and that -- wanting to outlaw or change those especially in the heights over 350 feet. Is that covered in the 5.05.09, elimination of the L-810 steady burning lights? MR. FRANTZ: Related to lighting -- and you can see on there there's a couple of sections that deal with lighting and even security lighting, I think, at the base of the communications tower. I don't have that section up at the moment, and I don't remember the specific standards that we have, but there are some discussion about the use of flashing lights and when to use lights at all. COMMISSIONER FRY: But whatever those rules are, that is the appropriate place for them, correct; 5.05.09? MR. FRANTZ: It is. COMMISSIONER FRY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a -- any registered public speakers, Mike? MR. BOSI: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there -- anybody in the public like to speak on this matter? Come on up and please identify yourself again for the record. MR. PELLETIER: I was here -- my name is Ray Pelletier, and I was here for the other issue. But I saw that you're stipulating sending areas, and I'm in support of putting these things wherever you need to get them, because it's a safety issue in my mind. But are these sending areas that have their development rights intact still or ones that have been stripped of them? MR. FRANTZ: This just adds the use to the district as a whole. So the sending lands is not where we would strip development rights from. That's where we're sending development to. I'm saying that backwards. Sorry. MR. BOSI: No. Yes, you're correct. If they've severed their TDRs from their property, there's a limitation to the development rights that's established on that property; therefore, they wouldn't be able to host a tower because they've extinguished the rights that are associated with the development of their property. It would only be for sending lands that have not -- that still would this have -- that would still be eligible with TDRs intact within their -- within their parcel of land. MR. FRANTZ: Sorry for the confusion. MR. PELLETIER: Okay. So -- all right. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Anybody else have anything they'd like to say? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Jeremy, thank you. I'll turn to the Planning Commission. Is there a -- if there is a motion, the only suggested changes are the corrections on G.2 that Jeremy reiterated as part of the motion. I think that will get everything cleaned up. Is there a motion from anybody. Stan? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I'll move to forward this. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Second? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Ned. Discussion? 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 22 Attachment: 2-28-2019 CCPC Minutes (8315 : February 28, 2019 CCPC minutes) February 28, 2019 Page 19 of 20 (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRY: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries, 5-0. And that takes us to the end of our agenda. Under new business, there is none. There's no old business. Are there any further public comments? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none, is there a motion to adjourn? COMMISSIONER FRYER: So moved. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Made by Ned, seconded by Stan. All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRY: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 5-0. Thank you. COMMISSIONER FRYER: We're out of here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're out of here. ******* There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 6:02 p.m. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION _____________________________________ MARK STRAIN, CHAIRMAN 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 23 Attachment: 2-28-2019 CCPC Minutes (8315 : February 28, 2019 CCPC minutes) February 28, 2019 Page 20 of 20 ATTEST CRYSTAL K. KINZEL, CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT & COMPTROLLER These minutes approved by the Board on ____________, as presented _______ or as corrected ______. TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT, INC., BY TERRI LEWIS, COURT REPORTER AND NOTARY PUBLIC. 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 24 Attachment: 2-28-2019 CCPC Minutes (8315 : February 28, 2019 CCPC minutes) 04/04/2019 COLLIER COUNTY Collier County Planning Commission Item Number: 5.B Item Summary: March 7, 2019 CCPC Minutes Meeting Date: 04/04/2019 Prepared by: Title: Operations Analyst – Growth Management Operations & Regulatory Management Name: Judy Puig 03/21/2019 10:27 AM Submitted by: Title: Dept Head - Growth Management – Growth Management Department Name: Thaddeus Cohen 03/21/2019 10:27 AM Approved By: Review: Growth Management Operations & Regulatory Management Judy Puig Review item Completed 03/21/2019 10:27 AM Planning Commission Mark Strain Meeting Pending 04/04/2019 9:00 AM 5.B Packet Pg. 25 March 7, 2019 Page 1 of 91 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida, March 7, 2019 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Planning Commission, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 a.m., in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Mark Strain Stan Chrzanowski Karl Fry Edwin Fryer Karen Homiak Joe Schmitt ABSENT: Patrick Dearborn ALSO PRESENT: Mike Bosi, Planning and Zoning Manager Jeffrey Klatzkow, County Attorney Heidi Ashton-Cicko, Managing Assistant County Attorney Tom Eastman, School District Representative 5.B.1 Packet Pg. 26 Attachment: 3-7-2019 CCPC Minutes (8393 : March 7, 2019 CCPC Minutes) March 7, 2019 Page 2 of 91 P R O C E E D I N G S MR. BOSI: Chair, you have a live mike. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Mike. Good morning, everyone. Welcome to the March 7th Planning Commission meeting. If everybody will please rise for Pledge of Allegiance. (The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Roll call by the secretary, please. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Mr. Eastman? MR. EASTMAN: Here. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Mr. Chrzanowski? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Here. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Mr. Fry? COMMISSIONER FRY: Here. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I'm here. Chairman Strain? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Here. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Vice Chair Homiak? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Here. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Mr. Schmitt? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Here. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Mr. Dearborn? (No response.) COMMISSIONER FRYER: Chair, we have a quorum of six. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Dearborn had notified me he couldn't make it today for health reasons, so he will hopefully be here next time. That brings us to the addenda to the agenda. We have three legislative items on the agenda today. There's nothing else that I know of. We'll move on to the Planning Commission absences. Our next meeting is March 21st, 2019. Does anyone know if they're not going to make it on the 21st? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Looks like we'll have a quorum. We were issued our -- electronically our minutes from February 7th. Is there any changes? If none, is there a motion? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Move approval of those minutes. COMMISSIONER FRY: Second. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Made by Ned, seconded by -- okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Karl instead of Joe. How's that? Karl said it first. COMMISSIONER FRY: Either way. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRY: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) 5.B.1 Packet Pg. 27 Attachment: 3-7-2019 CCPC Minutes (8393 : March 7, 2019 CCPC Minutes) March 7, 2019 Page 3 of 91 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 6-0. BCC report and recaps. Ray's not here. Did you have anything you wanted to throw in, Mike? MR. BOSI: Yeah. At the February 26th Board of County Commissioners' public hearing the Board denied the conditional use and GMP amendment for the Grace Romanian Church. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Chairman’s report: I don't have anything. Consent agenda: There's nothing there. ***So we'll move on to 9A1. The first item up today is an advertised public hearing for the water pollution control and prevention ordinance. We'll be sitting as the EAC in review of this. It was continued from another previous meeting in which we went through quite a bit of it. They came back today with some answers to our questions and hopefully cleanup language. Danette, it's all yours. MS. KINASZCZUK: Good morning. Thank you. I'm Danette Kinaszczuk, and I brought Rhonda Watkins with me also with pollution control. Thank you guys for making time for us again. Hopefully after today we can make an ordinance that will last another 30 years. From your packet you can see that all the requested changes were made except for the increase in the fine amount, and we also have some slides that will address your questions from the February 7th meeting. So the first question was about water-quality impairments and how those impairments tie in with existing regulatory oversight specifically with the Clean Water Act. In a nutshell, the Clean Water Act gives authority to the state to implement some water-quality controls via environmental resource or other types of permits. Now, these permits use presumptive criteria. For an example, a stormwater engineer will presume that a retention pond treats for 80 percent nitrogen and 80 percent of the phosphorus in the stormwater it holds. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You know, you're going to be in the same trouble I'm in by talking so fast. So you should probably figure out a mellow way to slow down, so... MS. KINASZCZUK: Okay. Thank you. There is rarely any water-quality monitoring done after the pond is built to followup on the presumptive criteria. It's just presumed to work. So then a 2007 study was done by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection that showed those same ponds only treat for 45 percent of nitrogen, 70 percent of phosphorus, and they don't treat for any other pollutants, which brings us to our water-quality issues and the regulatory requirements of the Florida Administrative Code 62-303, the Impaired Waters Rule. So Rhonda here has over 28 years of experience doing pollution control in Collier County working with the DEP water-quality programs. So she's going to review the Impaired Waters Rule process, and go through the Collier County impairments with you guys. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Good morning. MS. WATKINS: Good morning, Rhonda Watkins, Collier County Pollution Control. I apologize, Commissioners. I wasn't here for the last meeting and probably could have answered a lot of these questions that you have, but feel free to ask as many as you need to while I'm here. 5.B.1 Packet Pg. 28 Attachment: 3-7-2019 CCPC Minutes (8393 : March 7, 2019 CCPC Minutes) March 7, 2019 Page 4 of 91 So the Impaired Waters Rule is actually Florida Administrative Code 62-303, and the Clean Water Act mandates that each state assess their waters to see if they're meeting water-quality criteria and, for the State of Florida, that's done through the Impaired Waters Rule. The Florida Administrative Code 62-302 is actually the rule that has all of the water-body classifications and those water-quality criteria that the state uses to actually do that assessment. Pollution Control does collect quite an immense amount of water-quality data that is used by the state for this Impaired Waters Rule, but we are not the only ones that collect water-quality data. It's done by many different agencies, and that data is then uploaded to the state's database. It used to be called STORET. Now it's called WIN. And if you want your data used in that assessment, you have to upload it to the state's database. Then the state does that assessment. That's actually done on a five-year cycle. So we collect the water quality in the first cycle. Then it gets assessed, and they determine that impairment. Once that impairment is determined, then they come back in and set that TMDL, that total maximum daily load, and then once that total maximum daily load is established, they come back in and do a Basin Management Action Plan, which is the plan that's going to help you meet that total maximum daily load, and that involves all the stakeholders in the watershed. So it's not just the county. But the county is typically the biggest stakeholder because we hold the MS4 and PDS permit, which is basically all of our canals that drain that watershed. And then once that BMAP is set, you do projects to fix and meet that TMDL, and then you come back in and you reassess in five years to see if you're meeting those water-quality standards again. So this is the map that you saw last time, and we have -- currently 33 percent of our water bodies are impaired. We do have three TMDLs: One in Lake Trafford, one in Gordon River extension, and one in Cocohatchee River, and we don't have any basin management action plans currently. So there were questions about the water-body classifications. So a WBID is DEP's terminology for a water-body identification. It's basically the outline of the watershed. And so they assess the water quality based on the watershed. So what you're seeing in this map are the outlines of the WBIDs, and then all of the stations that were used in the assessment for the impaired waters. Those aren't all of our stations. That's everyone's stations. That could be South Florida, that could be DEP, it could be Lakewatch. It could be anybody that's contributing data to that database. If you want to dig into the individual impairments, I'm prepared to do that. If you have questions about the Impaired Waters Rule specifically that I can answer while I'm here, I can do that, or we can dig into the impairments that we have right now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Normally we wait for the presentation to be finished before we ask you questions. Do you want questions during your presentation? MS. WATKINS: I didn't know how far you wanted to go into this. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So some of your answers may be completed (sic) if you complete your presentation first, so... MS. WATKINS: All right. So these are the -- based on that same map that you saw initially with the 33 percent of the impaired water bodies. So these are the water bodies that are impaired for bacteria. And that bacteria impairment is based on fecal coliform criteria, and that criteria is listed in Florida Administrative Code 62-302. So the WBIDs that you see in red here are the ones that are impaired for dissolved oxygen. And DEP, initially, in their first run-through of this determined that dissolved 5.B.1 Packet Pg. 29 Attachment: 3-7-2019 CCPC Minutes (8393 : March 7, 2019 CCPC Minutes) March 7, 2019 Page 5 of 91 oxygen impairments were based on nutrient impairments because we don't have any nutrient criteria for canals in South Florida. We don't actually have a number to say that total nitrogen or total phosphorus is meeting a specific criterion. What we have is narrative criteria and dissolved oxygen concentrations. So DEP recognizes that a lot of our low oxygen in our canals is because we have a lot of groundwater coming into the canals. We also have a lot of slow-moving water. We have a lot of dark water. That all leads to low oxygen impairments. So if and when we get numeric-nutrient criteria, these would probably change drastically. We already have new dissolved-oxygen criteria, and a lot of these impairments are probably going to go away. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Do we have to wait till she's done? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We typically do. If you want a question that's pertinent now, go ahead. She might answer it, but... COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Your DO is a snapshot, right? MS. WATKINS: Correct. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: So it varies -- I mean, these boundaries would vary with the water temperature and season and rainfall and all? MS. WATKINS: Correct. Yes, they're definitely -- you can see a daily pattern and a seasonal pattern. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: So this snapshot would be just typical or just -- I mean, if there's that much variation, the map looks pretty specific. How do you do that? MS. WATKINS: Just all the readings that we take -- and, again, they're all during daylight hours, and we're not going out and getting diurnal samples for dissolved, and diurnal just means that we're taking them all through the night. We're just taking them during the daylight period, so we would expect there to be dissolved oxygen. In part of their assessment, when DEP does this, they actually do it to a time of day and temperature. So they relate it back to that. So it albeit a snapshot, it's a snapshot for the conditions at that time. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Okay. Thanks. COMMISSIONER FRYER: May I -- MS. WATKINS: No, go ahead. COMMISSIONER FRYER: -- also ask a question? And this comes from someone who is not an engineer or science prone. But what in the world is dissolved oxygen? Oxygen's an element, right? What does it dissolve into? MS. WATKINS: It's dissolved in the water, so that's what the fish use to breathe. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Oh. So it's something you want? MS. WATKINS: It is something you want. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Got it. Thank you. MS. WATKINS: Yeah. It's the only thing in this slide that you want more of and not less of. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Got it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Since we're stopping at this point to ask questions, what -- how do you consider oxygen -- less oxygen to be a discharge of a pollutant? You said that it comes from groundwater, potentially, and other things, but when you do your analysis and you say all these bodies are impaired, that means they have some level of discharges of pollutants that are problematic. 5.B.1 Packet Pg. 30 Attachment: 3-7-2019 CCPC Minutes (8393 : March 7, 2019 CCPC Minutes) March 7, 2019 Page 6 of 91 If oxygen can be -- if low oxygen levels can be introduced naturally, how is it a discharge of a pollutant then? MS. WATKINS: Well, that's what they go in -- when they do the TMDL, they have to make a determination of the source of that pollutant. So in our case the source is likely groundwater inputs. There are situations where you do have potentially industrial runoff that has things in it that you're going to consume the oxygen in the water, and so that's what they're looking at. So even though it's impaired, they're still going to come back and verify that through the TMDL process. Is that an actual natural impairment, or is that a real impairment? And it gets a different classification. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But I'm worried about how you're defining impairment. Impairment, according to your definition, is supposed to be a holder in part due to discharges of pollutants. So can we confirm that all of the -- let's go back to the oxygen page, because that was the one where all this came up. So all those areas that are -- have dissolved oxygen above a certain level, has someone made a determination that it isn't -- it goes beyond just groundwater, especially in areas -- these are all residential in farm areas. So I'm wondering how we get there. MS. WATKINS: So the actual -- the definition of impairment is actually that you're not meeting the classification for that water body. So in the situation -- most of these that are red, they're Class 3 fresh water bodies. And the dissolved oxygen standard for them at the time was 5 milligrams per liter. If you're not meeting that 5 milligrams per liter, which means that's healthy for fish to be able to live in, then it's considered impaired. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But is it because of a discharge of pollutants or something else? MS. WATKINS: That's what we have to come back and determine after -- after DEP says it's impaired, then they have to come back and determine what's the source. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you've made the determination in all these colored areas on this map that the sources are all pollution discharges and not natural? MS. WATKINS: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then why is the map colored in the way it is? MS. WATKINS: DEP makes the decision on whether or not it's impaired. That's by Florida Administrative Code, not -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let me read your definition in the ordinance you're asking us to approve. MS. WATKINS: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Impaired waters shall be defined per Section 1640.210 (sic) FAC, as it may be amended from time to time, which means a water body or water-body segment that does not meet one or more of its designated uses due in whole or in part to discharges of pollutants and has been listed as impaired by order of the secretary in accordance with the procedures. So, again, why are we -- why are we saying all these are impaired if our definition says it has to be more or less proven to be whole or in part by discharges of pollutants? And I think you just said that isn't the case. MS. WATKINS: So in this situation, for dissolved oxygen where the state is saying these water bodies are impaired for dissolved oxygen, the goal of the ordinance is to address those impairments that are tied back to a pollutant discharge. So in this case we're not going to go out and do anything for somebody to try to meet an impairment that we know is from a natural source. 5.B.1 Packet Pg. 31 Attachment: 3-7-2019 CCPC Minutes (8393 : March 7, 2019 CCPC Minutes) March 7, 2019 Page 7 of 91 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then who produced this map? You said the state. MS. WATKINS: That is -- yes, DEP does the assessment. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Would you send a link to us for that map so we can see it? MS. WATKINS: I actually produced this particular map, but it's based on the DEP Florida Administrative Code FAC 62 -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, can we see a map based on the definition we're asking to approve in the ordinance you're rewriting today? The definition I just read to you is -- part of it's on Page 6 of that ordinance. So if you're -- if your definition says one thing, I don't really care what the state says. I don't really have a lot of faith the state's doing anything for home rule in Collier County. I'd more like to see what we really think the problems are, because I'm worried about the property rights of people that live there. You're covering most of Golden Gate Estates as well as the coastline as well as Immokalee, as well as parts of the RLSA, and I know it's -- conveniently, the Big Cypress and the rest of them aren't covered. And if Mike will put on that map, I'll show you why I'm concerned about that. One of the problems I have is if someone were to come in and do a proper due diligence and want to understand what kind of property they're buying, these maps may give them pause saying, wait a minute, what are we buying here? Is this an impaired property? Well, it's not the property that's in question. It's those points that you take out of the canals. And I would agree with you, if the canal numbers are not accurate, the canal itself may be impaired by the numbers if they hit the proper definitions. But up in the north -- let's take a look at the northeast part of this map. All that red area is all of a sudden impaired because of two points that go out from the east side of Immokalee. So why do we have thousands of acres that are considered impaired for just a small number of points? And at the same conclusion, if we looked at the south part, the area where the Picayune Strand is and Big Cypress and all that, there's a whole pile of the impaired points there, but none of that's got impaired properties. How does that happen? MS. WATKINS: That happens -- so let's use -- OK Slough is the one you're actually referring to out in the northeast side. And there are two places where we can sample that watershed and still be not on private property. The other issue is we don't have an unlimited budget for water-quality monitoring, so we have to monitor all the waters in the county and able to -- for them to be able to do this assessment. Technically, DEP only needs one site four times a year in any WBIDs to make a determination. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And what's the radius from that one site that the county -- MS. WATKINS: Just in that WBID, in that watershed. So that outline of that watershed, they only need one site. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Don't you think that's a little bit of an overreach? MS. WATKINS: I do; that's why we do our own water-quality monitoring. We're not required by state to do any water-quality monitoring in Collier County, so that's why we get -- we have as many sites as we do, because we want to make sure they're using accurate data and the most efficient and most numerous data points that we can give them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now, I'm not against the water-quality monitoring. I think it's great you're doing it. And I would -- hopefully you -- for the most part, this 5.B.1 Packet Pg. 32 Attachment: 3-7-2019 CCPC Minutes (8393 : March 7, 2019 CCPC Minutes) March 7, 2019 Page 8 of 91 document I'm in favor of it. What I've been concerned about is the unintended consequences of a map like this that spreads an impairment by philosophy over huge acreages in Collier County when the impairment is a point within a water body. We're going way beyond water bodies here. And if you were to outline the canals which are about -- anywhere from 60 to 100 feet wide, and say that water body is what we're talking about being impaired, that's one thing. But then saying all these lands are impaired, I'm concerned about that. MS. WATKINS: Yeah. We're not talking about the land. We're just -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why are they colored? MS. WATKINS: We're just talking about the watershed. So any -- I don't think there's a lot of canals out in OK Slough. I mean, there's only a couple plus the slough itself. What we're trying to capture is the actual slough as it comes through and hits 848 -- or 846, I think, and 585. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I would rather that instead of all these lands being labeled red as impaired, they be labeled as to if they're discharging to an impaired point. That's different than being impaired. MS. WATKINS: That's not -- that's not our legislation. That's -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You said you made this map up. MS. WATKINS: I made the map up with what DEP -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But you can't give us a link to what DEP provided. MS. WATKINS: I can give you a link to Map Direct, and you can map it yourself. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, if they're not going to show this, then how would be map it? I mean, I don't even know how you mapped it. I assume someone in GIS did this. MS. WATKINS: No, I actually did this. So you can go to Map Direct, and you can pull up the layers of Map Direct and say, show me the impaired water bodies, and it will produce a map very similar to this. It will highlight those WBIDs that are considered impaired. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And then all the lands around those WBIDs, as you call them, whether they're thousands of acres or 10 acres, are all of a sudden impaired by the color red? MS. WATKINS: The watershed, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Joe? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Just to be clear, what you're stating or what this is actually stating based on -- let's use the example that Mark brought up on the northeast. You have two points you measure so, therefore, you extrapolate and basically say everything within the watershed potentially is to the -- is heading to these two points so, therefore, the state is classifying the whole watershed, then, in that area as impaired because of the data from these two points. MS. WATKINS: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: But you don't validate -- you don't go up in the northeast corner and you don't have another -- do you go up and access, let's say at the corner of -- northeast corner of Collier County, you don't have any access to go up there and validate that -- MS. WATKINS: Yeah, there's no access point. The sites that we pick, we try to pick to be the most representative of that watershed. So the water is draining to that slough. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And there's a statistical basis to make that assumption with no -- is there a confidence interval? Are you doing a statistical analysis? MS. WATKINS: No, we're not doing statistical analysis. I mean, it's just -- 5.B.1 Packet Pg. 33 Attachment: 3-7-2019 CCPC Minutes (8393 : March 7, 2019 CCPC Minutes) March 7, 2019 Page 9 of 91 COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: It's just basically the assumption it's in the watershed; therefore, it's impaired. MS. WATKINS: No. We're looking at how the water flows through that watershed. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. So you have to -- MS. WATKINS: So we also have to have access to it. We can't walk out into the middle of the slough on the very north end and get water-quality samples, unfortunately, unless we want to get a helicopter. (Simultaneous speakers.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean, I'm real concerned about the unintended consequences of maps like this being all of a sudden produced by the government, and now the government has rights we never expected because a map was labeled this way. I'm not sure this is the right way to go. And, also, addressing to the south, in the Picayune Strand and Big Cypress, why isn't the state showing -- there's more points down there apparently may be impaired than the ones to the north, so why aren't those being looked at or considered? Or are they all clean? MS. WATKINS: They're all looked -- they're all being looked at. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, how come they're not colored red? MS. WATKINS: Because they're not impaired. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's what I'm saying. So those points down in the south have all been determined not to be impaired? MS. WATKINS: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But the one point to the north that basically encompassed all that acreage -- and, I mean, I know there's a lot of farm and cattle land up there and, I mean, I've been on the properties up there. They're beautiful properties. I don't know why, especially if they're not actively farming a lot of it, there's impairment issues with the whole thing. So anyway, this map -- and I overlaid your two maps that you gave us previously to produce what you see in front of you, and that's how I came up with my questions, because the points just didn't make sense in the areas that they were encompassing. I am worried about properties within those red areas getting caught up into issues that may be problematic because they're of the colorations. And I don't find necessarily the supporting data to call these impaired in regards to how Collier County's definition's looking at it. But we'll go on. COMMISSIONER FRYER: There's a question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER FRY: Hi, Rhonda. MS. WATKINS: Hi. COMMISSIONER FRY: Also not a water-quality engineer, so looking for two clarifications from you. MS. WATKINS: Okay. COMMISSIONER FRY: First is just the definition of a watershed. I believe you're saying you're taking point measurements in a water body, and the watershed is all the properties that the water drains into that body of water; is that correct? MS. WATKINS: Correct. COMMISSIONER FRY: So that's why the red area is much bigger than just the waterway. It's all the areas around it that drain into it? MS. WATKINS: Correct. 5.B.1 Packet Pg. 34 Attachment: 3-7-2019 CCPC Minutes (8393 : March 7, 2019 CCPC Minutes) March 7, 2019 Page 10 of 91 COMMISSIONER FRY: Okay. Thank you. And the second is dissolved oxygen impairments, meaning too little oxygen in the water for fish to live in a healthy fashion. MS. WATKINS: Correct. COMMISSIONER FRY: Is the assumption that that oxygen is being eaten up by fertilizers -- nitrogen, phosphorus from fertilizer runoff, or industrial runoff? Is that the -- MS. WATKINS: Correct. COMMISSIONER FRY: -- likely assumption of the causes of those? MS. WATKINS: You got it. COMMISSIONER FRY: Just not confirmed specifically that it is that, correct? You just -- MS. WATKINS: Right -- COMMISSIONER FRY: -- know there's not enough oxygen. We assume it's from fertilizer and natural, perhaps, livestock runoff, that type of thing? MS. WATKINS: So the state determines that it's impaired, then we have to come back and figure out why it's impaired, and that's part of the reason this ordinance is going to help us come back in and determine why it's impaired. Can we find a point source? Maybe we're assuming it's groundwater, and it's just naturally low. Maybe we're missing a point source in that watershed that's discharging that has high biochemical oxygen demand, which is something in the water that will consume the oxygen, and we need to be able to address that, and right now we don't have the tools to do that. COMMISSIONER FRY: But when you say -- you use the term "groundwater," that implies that it might have fertilizers in this. MS. WATKINS: Groundwater is naturally low in oxygen. It's just not exposed to air, so it just doesn't have a lot of oxygen in it so -- COMMISSIONER FRY: This is not runoff. This is not storm runoff. This is groundwater -- (Simultaneous speakers.) MS. WATKINS: This is groundwater seeping into the canal. COMMISSIONER FRY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Stan. THE COURT REPORTER: I can only get one at a time. You guys are talking over each other. COMMISSIONER FRY: Sorry, Terri. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Stan. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: If the state's driving this train, is anything we do of any consequence? MS. WATKINS: It is, because we've been able to keep ourselves out of getting basin management action plans, and we would hope having an ordinance like this would actually keep us possibly from getting into a TMDL situation. If we have a document that says we can go in and do our own source track and we don't have to wait for DEP to come in and tell any MPDS holder that they need to do it, then maybe we can get ahead of the game and stay out of that whole TMDL cycle and take care of our own water-quality problems instead of having the state come down and telling us what to do. MR. KLATZKOW: Have these canals always been impaired, or is this recent? MS. WATKINS: This is actually the 2012 iteration and, again, this process happens every five years. So guess what we're in right now; it's another assessment cycle. MR. KLATZKOW: You're saying it's likely caused by groundwater, and you said 5.B.1 Packet Pg. 35 Attachment: 3-7-2019 CCPC Minutes (8393 : March 7, 2019 CCPC Minutes) March 7, 2019 Page 11 of 91 that's because groundwater does not get oxygenated. MS. WATKINS: Yep. MR. KLATZKOW: And, you know, they built these canals decades ago, and they've been having groundwater in these canals decades ago. So my question is, have they always been impaired? MS. WATKINS: So by their definition, yes, but the state recognizes after this first iteration that state water-quality standards don't always apply for a natural stream versus a canal. So they're actually coming back, and they've come up with new dissolved oxygen criteria which have not been applied to what you're seeing now. They're also coming up, trying to develop numeric nutrient criteria to address that in canals, but they haven't done that. They have that -- MR. KLATZKOW: If they've always been impaired, what is that we can do? MS. WATKINS: For that situation, if we can prove that it's a natural condition of the canal, we do nothing, and DEP won't -- they'll classify it as impaired but impaired from natural conditions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Karl. COMMISSIONER FRY: Rhonda, does your presentation cover what specifically this ordinance will allow you to do in order to identify the source? MS. WATKINS: Yeah. Danette's going to cover that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So what you're doing with these colored areas, you know the canal has a questionable numeric issue with whatever standard there is. So instead of showing the canals that have the problem, you're also making the presumption of guilt on the rest of the watersheds around those canals that they are causing the problem by the way you've structured these maps. And my concern there is we're not supposed to be approaching farmers and communities on a presumption of guilt but a presumption of innocence. I don't know -- you have no proof that these watersheds are contributing it to (sic). You're saying you need this document here to research those watersheds. I don't disagree with the text in the document. We've gotten into a point where I think I'm more comfortable with it. What I disagree with is the presumption that's put forth by these maps, and I think those maps are harmful to property owners across the county, especially the far eastern property owners. And from that perspective I'm having a real problem fitting those into this whole conversation. I would much prefer you just show your data points and not produce this coloration that's an assumption of a problem that has yet to be proved based on the ability for you to now go out and test it on the language you're asking for today. Does that sound reasonable or not? MS. WATKINS: I mean, we can't get away from what the state's doing. They're going to produce their own maps, and -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you just said that we can -- we can -- if we do our thing and we can keep out of the state's interference to a certain extent, it looks like they've substantially interfered if we're accepting their presumption that all these properties are problematic. MS. WATKINS: But they're required by the Clean Water Act to assess the waters and report back to EPA through that 303D report, and that's what this whole program is. There's -- I don't think there's any way around that. We can get around the TMDL process and BMAP, but we're not going to get away from the impairment process. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But the assessment of those properties has not occurred. 5.B.1 Packet Pg. 36 Attachment: 3-7-2019 CCPC Minutes (8393 : March 7, 2019 CCPC Minutes) March 7, 2019 Page 12 of 91 You've only assessed the sampling of the canals. MS. WATKINS: Which represents that watershed, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. Okay. Ned? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Are these images official pronouncements of the county, or are they just to illustrate something for us? MS. WATKINS: They were just to illustrate for you all to see what -- where the impairments are. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. So it's not part of the ordinance. It's not going to be part of rules and regulations of the county. MS. WATKINS: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So when you look for the definition of impaired water, what will you be looking for as far as impaired areas? Will you use these maps? MS. WATKINS: We will use the latest iteration of what DEP is saying is impaired for Collier County, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Would you use these maps then? MS. KINASZCZUK: I think what -- where we would go with the source tracking is we would find the outfalls. So we would look within the red area, or the gray -- whatever -- for the impairment is, whatever we're searching for, and then we would go to every development that drains into there and try to find the source. So would we use the map as a tool? Yes. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I think if I understand the Chairman's concern, it is, as he says, the unintended consequences of having -- I mean, we're a government. You're part of a government, and you've got these maps. You're using them for illustrative purposes to show us something. But what happens -- after today, what happens beyond this meeting in conjunction with these maps is of concern, and why wouldn't you just be able to say to us that they will not become a part of the record? Once you're finished with them you'll dispose of them; is that a fair request? MS. KINASZCZUK: We will not include a map as part of the ordinance. I mean, these maps will change once every five years, I mean, at the very minimum. But, yes, we use them as a tool, and we will not add a map to the ordinance. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Maybe there's a legend of some kind you could put on the map, then, that clarifies that this is not an official pronouncement of impaired land. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Well, it appears to be, if the state is classifying it as -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: Well, let the state do it. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: -- through the Florida Statutes. That -- my other concern is, if I'm a property owner in that area and I'm selling and somebody does due diligence and they would say, do you know you're trying sell me a piece of property that has been identified in an area that has water impairment? And, I mean, there's homes up there. There's wells. Are the homeowners advised of any concerns that the county may have or any of the other governments in regards to water quality? I'm just -- I'm looking at how this whole thing can be interpreted, especially as Mr. Strain pointed out, about the property owners up in that area. He's done -- two points made a very broad assumption that certainly could impact anybody that's doing due diligence and trying to purchase a piece of property up there and go back to the owner and say, hey, your property has far less value because you're in a watershed that has -- has been determined to be impaired. MS. KINASZCZUK: Well, as Rhonda said before, the DEP allows it to be done at 5.B.1 Packet Pg. 37 Attachment: 3-7-2019 CCPC Minutes (8393 : March 7, 2019 CCPC Minutes) March 7, 2019 Page 13 of 91 one site per watershed only sampled quarterly, whereas we're doing as many sites as we can monthly. We're using the best available data. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I'm having difficulty -- MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Can you show them page by page. COMMISSIONER FRYER: You're not on the air. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Can you show them page by page where the definition of impaired water is within the text of the ordinance. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 6. Top of Page 6. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Well, it's under definitions, but I want to know where it is in the text where you're enforcing it because it may be a definition that's not even mentioned in the ordinance. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There's nine, if you look at the word "impaired" -- "impair." If you look at the word "impaired," you get less. If you use the word "impairment," you get different. So we'd have to do three searches of three different words to get them all. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Getting back to these images. Can't we -- MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Well, I mean, the point is the whole ordinance is relating to the discharge of pollutants and enforcing things that are polluting. So it's not just those areas that are shown in red. It's anybody who's polluting they could technically go after. So I'm not really seeing the connection as far as where it is in the ordinance with what you're displaying. So I was just asking if you could show the connection within the body of the ordinance. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I think there's a simple fix to this problem; I really do. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Maybe we can get rid of the definition. COMMISSIONER FRYER: If you could relabel a map like this to show that it's an internally generated document and it is not a county pronouncement of land impairment. Whatever the state does, it does. But the concern is is that this would -- this could affect adversely someone's property. MS. KINASZCZUK: We do that, and I think we just -- the map is part of the presentation. It's not -- it's not included as part of the ordinance. So the map won't -- won't make it into -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: We don't know what will happen to the map, so let's just label it correctly. MS. KINASZCZUK: Okay. We can do that. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just so we're comfortable, what will the label be? What were you suggesting, Ned, for the label? Just so we get it right. I want to make sure everybody's in agreement, because when this gets resolved, when we finish this item for today, I want to make sure the resolution is correct. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I may use too many words; it could be boiled down. But the concept would be internal for illustrative purposes, not a county pronouncement of land impairment. Boil it down if you can. MS. KINASZCZUK: How do you feel about "for internal use only"? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It still doesn't say what you're going to use the map for. COMMISSIONER FRY: May I suggest an alternate solution? I believe the map has created unintended consequences to your mission by showing a giant area in red when, in fact, what is actually red, what is actually impaired are these spots where you've measured the water. So that body of water is considered impaired. 5.B.1 Packet Pg. 38 Attachment: 3-7-2019 CCPC Minutes (8393 : March 7, 2019 CCPC Minutes) March 7, 2019 Page 14 of 91 I think if the map showed the bodies of water that are impaired and maybe just had a dotted line around the watershed around it that isn't red but just kind of guides you as to the areas that are feeding that body of water that you want to investigate, that might raise less of a red flag with the Chairman and others in terms of property owners seeing they're in a field of red for whatever reason and believing that they're in a challenged area. MS. WATKINS: Yeah. I don't think -- the intended consequence of putting this map in there was just to show you that in places in the county we aren't meeting water-quality standards. So we need to have the tools to be able to enforce our own pollution discharges to our water bodies. So this is not something that's going into the ordinance. It's just a tool to say, hey, what we have in place right now isn't working. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you're saying you're going to use this for enforcement purposes? Can you explain that? We're just digging a deeper hole here, and I'm -- MS. KINASZCZUK: We're going to use it for source tracking. So when we are trying to find -- when we have a pollutant load, we're going to try to find out where it's coming from. And so we're going to say, okay, in this red area -- and truthfully, this one's dissolved oxygen. At this point we're going to -- that's not our focus. So we're going to go to an area that has a different impairment, and we're going to look at that, and we're going to look at it on a map, and we're going to find every development that discharges to that water body, and then we're going to try to narrow it down where it's coming from so we can find the source. But I think -- I'm completely comfortable with putting some language on -- putting some sort of disclaimer language on any maps that we use going forward. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But based on that, what you just said about you being able now to pinpoint what developments are causing potentially the discharges, you previously said those points were minimal up in the slough area that I started out, because they were surrounded by private property and you couldn't go on the private property. Well, now that these impairments are thought to be beyond the water body you sampled, and this -- if this ordinance were to go into play, would that give you the right to enter those properties even though they're private? MS. KINASZCZUK: Yes. We have a section about right of entry. It's the last -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So these maps are being used to provide a right of entry onto properties that are presumed problematic where they're not known to be -- MS. ASHTON-CICKO: No, that's not -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- that you can't do today. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: That's not correct. I just did a quick skim. I don't have electronic access to be able to search the word "impaired water," but the impaired water definition is there for reference. It's not referenced anywhere that I could find in the ordinance. I don't know if you, being more familiar with it, could point out those locations. I mean, the point is, with this ordinance, if they find a place, whether it's in the urban or rural area, that is polluting, they can contact people, go on their property, and enforce it before the Code Enforcement Board if they don't get assistance from the property owner. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just so you know -- MS. ASHTON-CICKO: But the impaired water, that's just a reference in the definition. It's not in your definition of pollutants or discharges that I could find. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, there's nine references using that in the document. I did electronic scan. 5.B.1 Packet Pg. 39 Attachment: 3-7-2019 CCPC Minutes (8393 : March 7, 2019 CCPC Minutes) March 7, 2019 Page 15 of 91 MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Where it says "impaired water." CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It says -- it uses the word "impaired." MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Yeah, but the defined term is "impaired water." That's the defined term. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So I'll search "impaired water." I mean, I -- I didn't know this was going to -- MS. ASHTON-CICKO: I mean, if it's the defined term, it's capitalized with INW. (Simultaneous speakers.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nine locations that I show use the word "impaired," and I'd have to go to each one of those nine to tell you for "impaired water"; otherwise, I'll get too many that will just say water impaired. I would get them together. But I think I now understand why you want this ordinance, because if you've got a -- if you've got an impaired water body, like you do in the slough with one point that shows you've got possibly too many height of dissolved oxygen, you don't know if it's coming from the groundwater or from the farm activities out there. You now have the right, based on this ordinance, to go out to those farm fields basically anywhere you want and start plugging around to see where this dissolved oxygen could be coming from. And if you can't find it anywhere there, then the assumption would be it must be natural. Is that a scenario that you might be doing? MS. KINASZCZUK: Yes and no. When I was talking about right of entry, Heidi is right, it was more about a place where we're finding -- it would be more as a response to a pollution complaint. But we already have the right to test at the outfall because it's outfalling into our water body. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MS. KINASZCZUK: So we will be standing in the canal testing water coming off. But we already -- we could do that right now with or without the ordinance. But then the other part of it is, leading up -- maybe we need to test a little bit upstream of that and then, in coordination with the property owner, we would try to do that. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Danette, are you going to start testing and then searching for property to find out if there's a pollutant, or you going to wait for calls? You know, how is that going to work? MS. KINASZCZUK: It's a little up in the air right now without the funding for it. But the best that we can, we'll take on our most polluted water body and try to, okay, at this point, we have -- we'll say we have 20 outfalls, right, so we're going to test right in the middle and try to eliminate here downstream, and then we're going to focus on trying to find the development that is causing the pollutant, whether it's copper or nutrients or what have you. MR. KLATZKOW: Is -- are you going to be testing septic fields at all? MS. KINASZCZUK: No. We would -- if there was a -- if we saw a septic issue, then we would respond, but we're not going out and randomly testing septic tanks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Stan. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: When you have a test point that's impaired, you don't call the whole watershed that it's in impaired. You just have the portion of the watershed that's upstream of the test point that's impaired? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The map. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Well, yeah, but you can't say that downstream of the impairment is where the impairment is coming from. MS. WATKINS: That's the way it is actually done is it could be one point in that watershed. 5.B.1 Packet Pg. 40 Attachment: 3-7-2019 CCPC Minutes (8393 : March 7, 2019 CCPC Minutes) March 7, 2019 Page 16 of 91 COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: And it's the whole watershed, even what's downstream of the one point? MS. WATKINS: It's the whole watershed. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: That's crazy. MS. WATKINS: So -- but that's what -- the TMDL will try to take into account the sources of that and define more monitoring in that watershed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I don't know if you had gotten far enough into your presentation or had any more you wanted to do. MS. WATKINS: Just going through the rest of the impairments. So these are the water bodies that are impaired for nutrients. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Again, they're not water bodies. They're apparently watersheds, because the water bodies are the only points of discussion that you -- MS. WATKINS: I apologize. I used the term watershed and water body interchangeably because DEP uses WBID, which is water body identification. For the layman it's a watershed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does DEP have a definition for water body? MS. WATKINS: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you know what that says, or do you have that handy? MS. WATKINS: I do not know what that says off the top of my head. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Because if a water body defined by DEP is strictly the water body where the sample points are taken from and not -- they don't refer to the watershed because the watershed is upland. MS. WATKINS: No. It's defined as that entire unit that you're seeing there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I would like -- okay. Go ahead. MS. WATKINS: These are the copper impairments. Any more questions? Iron impairments. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Afraid to ask anymore. COMMISSIONER FRY: Have we resolved anything? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. I mean, some may. I'm very concerned about the unintended consequences of the way you're approaching this for the property owners who not necessarily -- I understand the gated communities and the other things that have discharge -- point discharges, but I'm looking at a broad swath of, what, 195,000 acres alone in the RLSA plus the Golden Gate Estates area in the RFMUD and even Immokalee, and I'm just wondering how this is going to have -- what kind of impact that's going to have on those property owners. MS. KINASZCZUK: Again, the only reason this map was put in this presentation was to show you that we do have impairments in Collier County and that currently what's happening for water-quality treatment isn't working. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. WATKINS: That's it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I would -- I understand that. But, again, you keep saying the word "impairments," and there's nothing that's been produced that I can see that shows sampling that shows the properties, the uplands are impaired. You have a point that you tested in a canal that shows an impairment from some source that's unknown, whether it's natural or a pollutant. And that's going to lead to a whole bunch of consequences for the adjoining 5.B.1 Packet Pg. 41 Attachment: 3-7-2019 CCPC Minutes (8393 : March 7, 2019 CCPC Minutes) March 7, 2019 Page 17 of 91 property owners in the sense that they're now all considered impaired. MS. WATKINS: That's why we need to be able to go in there and source track. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ah. And then you're going to go in there based on the areas shown on this map in the various colors and charts. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Well, they have to have the rights to enter easements. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think this document is giving them that right. That's what I'm concerned about; is it not? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: You still have to apply for lands easements for rights-a-way, don't you, to enter a private property? (Simultaneous speakers.) MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Well, it's the entire county, okay. If somebody is polluting, they can go to the property, whether it's impaired or not impaired, okay. That's what this gives them the right to do and enforce it if there's a pollutant. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But don't they need to have some reasonable cause to go onto the property, as this map is, that's the piece I'm puzzling with as -- this map, is it intended to provide reasonable cause? Is the watershed enough reasonable cause? Is the unknown source in a point discharge -- I mean in a discharge in a canal -- say a canal is sitting there, and they did -- and it could be groundwater or a pollutant, is that enough reasonable cause just to go onto private properties and start poking around? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Well, I don't think this ordinance is about monitoring and testing, I think. This ordinance is about enforcing of the monitoring and testing that they already do or they become aware that somebody's discharging oils into one of the canals, a business, and they can't do anything about it. And DEP's -- it's not big enough for DEP to get involved, so they're, you know -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And, Heidi, that's exactly what I thought this ordinance was going to do, and I applaud that. That's what I thought was a good thing, but it now sounds like it could go beyond that. You could be taking thousands of acres up on a questionable point in a canal way out east, and all of a sudden, as we've seen here, all those areas are now subject to additional trespass by government officials to find something that may not even be part of that party's problem. I do understand -- MS. ASHTON-CICKO: I don't think that's the intent of the ordinance. If staff overreaches, hopefully that can be controlled by management. But as far as what the ordinance gives them is the enforcement part. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Can you show us -- can you -- rather than have us look through 48 pages, can you tell us what paragraph we could read your enforcement provision so we could refresh our memory in the language now? MS. KINASZCZUK: Sure. Under the one that you were just given, it's Page 16, Article VIII, right to enter and enforcement fees. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Article VIII. MS. KINASZCUZK: The area that you're referring to, Mark, it's the least of our worries at this point, and still -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know it is, and I -- and, Danette, I like everything you're doing. The problem is, government has a way of changing. And, look it, I've been -- the little bit of time I've been at Developmental Services people -- there's almost all new staff constantly. They'll read things differently. They'll start exercising rights that were never intended at a meeting like this, and because -- we never discussed it because we knew you never wanted to go there. It's not what your intention is that I'm concerned about. It's how this could be misread for unintended consequences down the road by somebody else. 5.B.1 Packet Pg. 42 Attachment: 3-7-2019 CCPC Minutes (8393 : March 7, 2019 CCPC Minutes) March 7, 2019 Page 18 of 91 That's where I'm -- that's the problem. That's been the problem with a lot of our interpretations in our code, and I'm worried about that when I see this broad swath of land being considered something questionable as an impairment. Let me look at this language that you've just pointed us to. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: And closely regulated facilities are really any property in Collier County. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Pardon me? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Closely regulated facilities, under this definition, is any property in Collier County whether it's residential, commercial, industrial, agricultural, okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Which is the first reference that they talk about in -- MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Yeah. So they can go up to anybody's home and they can go up to anybody's business and say, you know, we're here for an inspection. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well -- MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Which I suppose they could do already. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What do you mean they could do already? Don't they have to have reasonable cause, Heidi? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Well, right now they could contact somebody and say, we want to meet with you on your property and go look at a whatever it is that's discharging. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But wouldn't there have to be reasonable cause? I mean, they just can't wake up one day and say, I want to go inspect that property over there at so and so street. They've got to have a reason. They've got to have something that ties that property to a -- MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Well, they can do that now. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Look at the definition of closely-regulated facilities on Page 4 of the ordinance. It says, it shall be defined at those facilities or property regulated by the provisions of this ordinance. It's circular. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Yeah. So anything that pollutes. It's any property within Collier County. COMMISSIONER FRY: What would the procedure be now? If you had a large ranch out east that you had an impaired waterway and they had a creek running from their property that fed into that waterway, would you now be able to go upstream in that creek and do measurements? If so, how? MS. KINASZCUZK: If we own the creek, we could. If it's a public -- if it's part of the Collier County stormwater system, we could, but if it's a private area, we would go knock on the door and say, hey, can we test your water or, you know, can we take a look around and see what's -- we have an issue here, can we figure out what's causing it. COMMISSIONER FRY: Does this ordinance change that process? MS. KINASZCUZK: No, it doesn't change the process. COMMISSIONER FRY: So you still need permission to go on private property to test their water? MS. KINASZCUZK: That's my understanding of it. I mean, we're able to do it between eight and five Monday through Friday. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Yes. COMMISSIONER FRYER: So you can't get a warrant the way this ordinance would permit you to do? MS. KINASZCUZK: Yes. We could ask the Sheriff's Office to get a warrant. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: It says in the subsequent paragraph below, 5.B.1 Packet Pg. 43 Attachment: 3-7-2019 CCPC Minutes (8393 : March 7, 2019 CCPC Minutes) March 7, 2019 Page 19 of 91 basically -- I could say no, but then they can go get a warrant to come on the property. (Simultaneous speakers.) COMMISSIONER FRYER: But you can do that now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: One at a time so that the court reporter -- MS. ASHTON-CICKO: And they can still say no for one of our landfills. In the past, the county had to condemn the property with a temporary easement in order to go on and do the testing when the property owner said no. That was in the '90s. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Could I say something? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Stan. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: There's a rule in the state of Florida that a licensed professional engineer in pursuit of his duties has the right of trespass. You know that, right? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Yes. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Okay. If you have a licensed professional engineer saying I have an engineering problem here, I have too much pollution, can they order somebody to go on that property without anybody's permission under that rule and do what they have to do? It was always my understanding. When I worked in private sector, we did that all the time. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: I can tell you that we had at least one case where the county had to go and condemn the property with a temporary easement in order to go on the property. So in that case, there was an ability to say no. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: You may want to check out that rule. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: I'm familiar with the rule. I wasn't involved in the eminent-domain case at the time that did the temporary easement, but I'm sure that that was evaluated as part of the proceedings. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we'll have to figure this out as we get to voting on it. Do you have anything else you want to present? MS. KINASZCUZK: Do you want to hear more about impairments? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure. I mean, we're here to -- I still want to understand what you're doing. Unfortunately, the more you talk, the more understanding we all seem to have, and it becomes more of a question. MS. WATKINS: At this point I'm afraid to speak. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, if you speak slowly, everything will be fine. Is that the -- well, you've got herbicides, okay. MS. KINASZCUZK: Well -- so the last unanswered question from the February 7th meeting was about homeowner exemption for herbicide application in Article II, Section 2. You guys asked if a homeowner could apply to a water body that's on their own property, and the answer is yes, they can, unless it's a restricted-use pesticide. Then they need to get a private applicator's license, and a homeowner is not allowed to apply to a water body that's shared amongst multiple properties. COMMISSIONER FRYER: And that's by a reasonable language change you made. MS. KINASZCUZK: Yes. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Thank you. MS. KINASZCUZK: And then our last slide. This was actually taken -- this was a complaint that we got a day after our last meeting. Just a little reminder of why we're 5.B.1 Packet Pg. 44 Attachment: 3-7-2019 CCPC Minutes (8393 : March 7, 2019 CCPC Minutes) March 7, 2019 Page 20 of 91 here. These pictures are of a stormwater pond and one of its inhabitants. A local business cut through the concrete curbing that was containing their stormwater in their area that housed their fuel tank and their grease tank, which allowed the contaminated discharge to flow out into the stormwater pond. And as you can see, this turtle is covered in so much grease and other contaminants that it's creating its own sheen while it swims. So with that, staff's recommendation is that the Planning Commission, sitting as the EAC, provide a recommendation of approval to the Board of County Commissioners of the proposed Pollution Control and Prevention Ordinance consolidating, repealing, and replacing Ordinance No. 87-79, regarding the transportation and disposal of sludge and repealing Resolution No. 88-311 regarding fees for sludge transportation and disposal permits. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Any further questions of -- go ahead, Ned. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I have at least two general questions and maybe four or five specific ones. The general question that -- if it was answered, I didn't comprehend the answer. Would this ordinance give you more power than you currently have, you being the County of Collier, to enter private property against the wishes of the owner? MS. KINASZCUZK: No. COMMISSIONER FRYER: It would not. MS. KINASZCUZK: I need a little help with this one, Heidi, because I'm not sure how much power we actually have right now. I mean, our standard operating procedures is if we have an issue, we walk up to the front door of the business or the front door of the house and say, hey, can we see what's going on. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Those are the easy cases. I'm talking about where you're denied entry. Would this ordinance give you more power than you already have to overcome that denial? MS. KINASZCUZK: I don't think so. And I would look to our county attorneys to answer that one because I'm not -- MS. ASHTON-CICKO: I'm reading through it, and I don't really think A or B would. C is requiring them to maintain records that I'm not sure what rules they already have in place in the state level on keeping the records, so that may be an increase. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I'm just talking about entry. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: For entry? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yeah. Well, while that's being looked at, the other general question I have -- MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Well, the difference is it makes it a violation of the ordinance. But to enforce -- if they say no, it makes it a violation of the ordinance that gives them a little bit more teeth than what they currently have right now. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Currently they'd have to declare a temporary easement; is that what you're -- MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Well, I think in -- I'm not really saying that, but I'm saying if push comes to shove, even under the ordinance, they may have to proceed. You know, that would be the worst-case scenario, and they probably -- they'd have to file suit; the Board would have to authorize it. So it would -- I doubt that it would probably happen. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. So you don't -- then you don't think that this gives more substantive power to the government than it already has to enter the property against the wishes of the owner? (Simultaneous speakers.) 5.B.1 Packet Pg. 45 Attachment: 3-7-2019 CCPC Minutes (8393 : March 7, 2019 CCPC Minutes) March 7, 2019 Page 21 of 91 MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Probably not, because I think it might be a little bit more intimidating to the owner if they said, hey, here it is written in our ordinance. You have to let us on. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: But as far as can they say no, I think even with a warrant they can say no. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. Then my second question, which I think is really quite a bit more simple to solve, and that's just to label these maps so that it's clear that the county is not -- by having them the county is not pronouncing that land is impaired. At most it's saying that maybe certain lands need to be looked at, but it's far too early for anybody to conclude that the surrounding land is impaired. MS. KINASZCUZK: We'll pull up the language you recommended, and we'll use that on our impairment map going forward. COMMISSIONER FRYER: All right. Then I have some procedural questions about the language. First on -- well, it's Page 112 of the packet, but it is Page 2 of the ordinance. The thing at the top where it says Section 1, Collier County adopts an ordinance that reads as follows. I think that's a non-sequitur. It follows Page 1 where you've said, now, therefore be it ordained. And usually you wouldn't have an article being a subset of a section. So it just looks like a non-sequitur to me. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: It is a little bit atypical in how we do ordinances, but it was a little more tricky because of the consolidation. So I followed the format that we did for the consolidation of the code enforcement ordinance, so that section is necessary to be there and somehow got omitted. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. So there's a Section 2? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Yeah, Section 2 is actually on page -- MS. KINASZCUZK: Nineteen. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: At the end of the ordinance, which is on page -- I'm not sure where it is in the electronic version, but it's labeled Page 19 of the ordinance. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Well, I agree it's unusual. I don't have a problem with it if there's a method behind it. So articles have become a subset of sections but that -- MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Yeah, it's a little atypical, but we have done it in previous cases. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. Thank you. Can I say something complementary of staff: I thought that the chart you prepared was very helpful where I had asked for points where it was more strict than the state law. And I went over those and they all made sense to me, so thank you for doing that. MS. KINASZCUZK: Thank you. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Then I go to Page 9 of the ordinance, Section C, having to do with fire departments washing down motor vehicle scenes. And the way it's still worded, let's say that a pumper arrives on the scene, washes down the MVA, and the pollutants then flow onto the land of an adjacent landowner, it becomes that landowner's responsibility to remove those pollutants? MS. KINASZCUZK: It does if the responsible party doesn't clean it up. COMMISSIONER FRYER: And the person responsible for site rehabilitation, would that possibly contain the driver who caused the accident? MS. KINASZCUZK: That's what's typical. If, you know, a truck overturns, then they're -- they call their insurance company, the insurance company calls the cleanup crew, the environmental cleanup crew, and they take care of it all. At the end of the day, if 5.B.1 Packet Pg. 46 Attachment: 3-7-2019 CCPC Minutes (8393 : March 7, 2019 CCPC Minutes) March 7, 2019 Page 22 of 91 there's no -- I think we've only had one case, and we actually got DEP to come out and take care of it at this point. So I haven't seen it fall on the property owner but, at the end of the day, if there's no one else, then it does fall back on the property owner. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I don't want to lose my place by going back to this definition, but can you refresh my -- the definition of person responsible for site rehabilitation, just to show that it starts with, I guess, the tortfeasor. MS. KINASZCUZK: Sure. It says, person responsible for site rehabilitation shall be defined as the real property owner, the facility owner, the facility operator, the discharger, or other person or entity responsible for site rehabilitation. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Well, it doesn't really sound solid to me getting at the trucking firm, but I don't know. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Wouldn't that be a legal issue? I mean, we're not going to cover that in the ordinance because that's a -- that would be after the accident, a legal issue or a -- (Simultaneous speakers.) COMMISSIONER FRYER: Is the County Attorney okay with that? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: -- the insurance company. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Yes. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. On to the next one. Oh, could you briefly tell me the status of the cooperative efforts that are taking place, the partnering effort with the City of Naples in that area around Ridge and Rosemary and septic tanks. How far along is that? MS. KINASZCUZK: Last I heard it was in the planning process. They had a bunch of community meetings and were able to get the price down for the individual homeowners with various grants from the Water Management District and other places. So as far as I know it's in the planning stage. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Thank you. MS. KINASZCUZK: Or maybe in the design stage by now. COMMISSIONER FRYER: That's all I have. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Joe. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Well, as a point of discussion. I know there are issues with the map. I had some conversation with the staff in regards to this, and just for a little background, of course, as a former district commander and district engineer in the Army Corps of Engineers, I have lots of experience with dealing with the federal permit issues and, of course, my time with the county and state. The sad part about it is the Clean Water Act, though it mandates requirements under Section 4.04 and specifically 4.01 for water-quality certification and in the state through your ERP process, Environmental Resource Permit, they're very strict in regards to the staffing and issuing of the permit, but once the permit is issued, none of the agencies are funded to do enforcement. Now, that may be a choice of our legislators. I know in my years in the federal government, enforcement of 4.04, it's probably the most sorely funded program in the federal government because I think it's a conscious decision of our elected officials; they want enforcement but they don't fund it. And if you don't fund it, it doesn't get done. So the sad part about it is under state and federal permit process, they enforce the issuing of the permit, and they're, like I said, very strict prior to the issuing. But once it's issued, everything falls on the county. And if we want to assure at least some water quality within Collier County, I really have to support this ordinance as written. There may be flaws in the map, but we have to 5.B.1 Packet Pg. 47 Attachment: 3-7-2019 CCPC Minutes (8393 : March 7, 2019 CCPC Minutes) March 7, 2019 Page 23 of 91 do something. And sadly to say, it falls down to the local government. And unless we go back to the state and feds -- and the only way that the federal -- the feds will get involved is if, in fact, there's a validation of a violation, but it has to be significant enough even for the -- for the -- what do you call it? Well, through the Army Corps or through the U.S. Fish and Wildlife or through Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, to actually come down here and do an enforcement measure. So I support the ordinance as written. There may be some discussion on some modifications and changes. I think you've made the changes, and I'm happy to support it. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: And as the other environmental member on the Board, ditto. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have a question or two. On Page 18, the first paragraph, you changed some language in the sentence, the water is -- last sentence of that first -- or second-to-the-last sentence. The water purveyor shall, within one hour of notification is what it used to say. Now it will say, the water purveyor shall, upon notice by the County Manager or his or her designee, reinstate water surface. That's almost instantaneous, and you changed it from being an hour. Is that going to work? MS. KINASZCUZK: It will work. The problem is with the -- I had a meeting with Water Distribution, and we had talked about it earlier in the process, and they had wanted -- like, if it's 3 in the morning, they have two crews out and they have a main break, they might not be able to get over to that house to turn the water back on within one hour, so that was the change. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So upon notice, though, you'd notify them and they'd come out within what, some time then. You think that provides enough latitude. It doesn't have to be within an hour. It could be within one day. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I think it's within a reasonable time. I had raised that question, because when you put an hour in there, then it's no longer within a reasonable time. When you take it out, I think that's implied. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I just want to make sure "upon notice" doesn't make it worse. I was just -- this doesn't say reasonable time. It shall within -- upon notice. That almost seems instantaneous. Maybe it's within a reasonable time upon notice or something to that effect. MS. KINASZCUZK: Sure. We can make that change. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I don't want anybody to misread it in that regard. The maps. I understand -- MS. KINASZCUZK: I will never make a map again. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I will never make a map again. COMMISSIONER FRYER: That's what Christopher Columbus said. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Since there's a need to differentiate between the word "impaired" and "watershed," when you make this presentation to the Board, the Board's records are usually looked at a little more than ours, and their records are easier to find than ours for that matter. I would -- there's two things. You got the -- you're going to have the language, but could you try to remember using the reference to watershed for the lands around the impaired water bodies? And an improvement on the map, in those areas that you've got colored and crosshatched, instead of having the table on the side say they're impaired, why don't we just say -- or whatever they want. Why don't we just say those are the watersheds 5.B.1 Packet Pg. 48 Attachment: 3-7-2019 CCPC Minutes (8393 : March 7, 2019 CCPC Minutes) March 7, 2019 Page 24 of 91 that are contributing to the impaired or that are -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: Abutting. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- abutting the impaired sample point? And that way it's also -- it's not saying something is impaired. That's the -- and that's the piece that got me concerned when we first started this. Is that something you could do instead of using where you're calling them out now? MS. KINASZCUZK: I'm having a little trouble trying to separate our program from -- on something like this, that it's kind of an industry term and an industry standard. I mean, yes, we can do it and we can talk about the distinction and talk about what your concerns were. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: I think Danette provided the map to provide context that, you know, we have a problem in Collier County. There are certain areas that have been designated by another agency as impaired, and they attempted to reproduce a map based on the data that they were giving. So I think it was more of a context than these are the areas we're going after, but -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: And, Heidi, that's clearly the intended consequence, but it's the unintended consequence that I think we're concerned about. MS. KINASZCUZK: The board members -- actually, we've met with them to talk with the Pollution Control Ordinance, and they've already seen that map. So we can -- we can talk about leaving the map out altogether after this discussion, but they have already seen it. So I will definitely -- we will work on, during that presentation, to making some sort of clarification that we sample in a water body, and the drainage basin may or may not be in -- may not -- may or may not be the cause of the impairment; how about that? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That works as long as -- yeah, as long as you make that clear. That's what got us -- at least got me into a tangent that I wish -- probably none of us wish we had gotten into. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a motion on this particular ordinance as the EAC? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah, I make a -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Consistent with staff's recommendation. Go ahead, Mike. MR. BOSI: I'm sorry. Tony Pires had submitted a speaker slip. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm sorry. I thought he was for -- boy, he's a man of all things, isn't he? MR. BOSI: It was a late addition. I think he was compelled by the discussion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, okay. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: He just happened to be here. MR. KLATZKOW: And now he can bill two clients. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: He can bill two clients. MR. PIRES: I'm trying to find a third. Thank you. For the record, Tony Pires, law firm of Woodward, Pires, Lombardo. I'm just speaking on behalf of myself, listening to the conversation. It's a good conversation and a good discussion. Just a couple of items came to my attention while listening to the discussion and reading the ordinance. First of all, on the construction status of Ridge and Rosemary, that area, I can tell you it is way underway. Our office is on Ridge Street and 41. They've got this big hole in the ground that they've put something big in the ground, they've been working since January, the first of January, that's why Ridge Street is cut off between 41 5.B.1 Packet Pg. 49 Attachment: 3-7-2019 CCPC Minutes (8393 : March 7, 2019 CCPC Minutes) March 7, 2019 Page 25 of 91 and Goodlette pretty much. COMMISSIONER FRYER: When do you think it will be completed? MR. PIRES: They said 10 months. I'm thinking two years, but -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: From new or from the beginning? MR. PIRES: Well, they said 10 months from January. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Got it. MR. PIRES: But it's a big project, as we all know, and that's just Ridge Street. They haven't started Rosemary yet, and Rosemary has a narrower right-of-way, so it ought to be interesting as sidewalk superintendents. So we have firsthand observation of that. A couple of comments. With regards to inspections, just quickly I was looking at the Florida Statutes, and there's a statute, Section 933-20 through 933-30, it talks inspection warrants, which I'm sure the county staff is very well aware of, and I think that provides the mechanism for inspections of the laws because it involves directed to a local or state official commanding him or her to conduct an inspection required or authorized by state or local law or rule relating to municipal or county building, fire, safety, environmental, animal control land use, plumbing, electrical, health, et cetera, standard, so I think there is that mechanism available to your point about how do they inspect. They can get inspection warrants. COMMISSIONER FRYER: You say that was a part of the Florida Statutes? MR. PIRES: Yes, 933.20 to 933.30. The reality, though, it might be difficult to get those. I remember the State Attorney's Office and law enforcement, generally -- hopefully they're more helpful nowadays, let me put it that way. Lastly, with regards to the section -- there's one section that caught my eye was with regards -- in Section 3: Requirements to prevent, control, and reduce pollutions by the use of best-management practices. As I read that, that excludes county bus barns, that excludes the county maintenance facility, that excludes the school bus barns or maintenance facilities because all it says, the owner or operator of a commercial or industrial facility activity or owner of residential property shall provide, at their own expense, reasonable protection from accidental discharge of pollutants or other waste into the environment through the use of structural and nonstructural BMPs, best management practices. And you look at the definition of commercial, and the definition of commercial is defined as property devoted in whole or in part to commerce that is the exchange and buying of and selling of commodities or services. I would submit that does not occur at a fire station. It does not occur at a governmental bus barn, maintenance facility. Industrial is defined as being business engaged in industrial production or service. It is a business characterized by manufacturing or productive enterprise or related service business. So I would submit that that exemption needs to be looked at, because right now you could drive, no pun intended, a bus through it the way it's so wide. And, secondly, South Florida Water Management District has BMPs for structural and nonstructural urban water management systems, and my understanding is that they are incorporated into their stormwater management permits, their ERPs that they issue. So I would suggest looking at that exemption more carefully to make sure that your unintended consequences -- that you're going after and penalizing residential property owners, but the governmental facilities are left completely out of it. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Stan. 5.B.1 Packet Pg. 50 Attachment: 3-7-2019 CCPC Minutes (8393 : March 7, 2019 CCPC Minutes) March 7, 2019 Page 26 of 91 COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: As long as we're reading into the record, Florida Statute 471.027, engineers are authorized to enter lands of third parties under certain conditions. Engineers are hereby granted permission and authority to go on, over, and upon the lands of others when necessary to make engineering surveys, et cetera, et cetera. And that's different from a land survey. A land survey is done by a land surveyor. An engineering survey, you go in and you look at what parameters you have to take into account to design the engineering product to clean up the water. So you might want to take a look at that as giving you the right to enter upon those lands. That's all. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What I would like you to do is respond to Tony's concerns over the definition that was -- especially the maintenance facilities and bus barns. It seems like those are real concerning activities. So are they intended to be exempt from this ordinance? MS. KINASZCUZK: No, the government facilities were not intended to be exempt. In fact, we should be leading by example, so we can include -- in that particular one we can put in government facilities as well. I'm not sure what the code enforcement process is for the county bringing ourselves to Code Enforcement. MR. KLATZKOW: We don't do that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We don't do what? MR. KLATZKOW: We don't bring ourselves to the Code Enforcement and say -- we just fix it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh. Well, okay. So you're going to add that language for governmental facilities. I think that's a -- MS. KINASZCUZK: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- good suggestion, and appreciate Mr. Pires bringing it up. Okay. Now, with that, is there any other speakers, Mike? MR. BOSI: None that are submitted here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there anybody here that would like to speak on this matter? Garrett, come on up. Identify yourself for the record, and we'll be glad to listen to you. MR. BEYRENT: For the record, I'm Garrett FX Beyrent. I had this piece of property on Rattlesnake Hammock Road rezoned for affordable housing, and now it is a bus storage depot. Somewhat complicated, but I'm only up here because I went out to the site to see what it evolved into. It was originally called College Park at the end of Rattlesnake Hammock Road, and I traded the property for -- it was somewhat a convoluted trade, but it was an 80-acre mangrove high school of Marco Island High School. And in any case, the property now is almost totally paved where it was all trees before, and it's -- I traded it to the school board, and it is a bus storage depot. The odd part was I put a well in the back of the property way before I traded it, and the well is still there, and it's sitting right next to, believe it or not, where they wash the engines of the buses. So -- and I'm sure that that dirty, oily water is filtering down to the well that I drilled back in 1981. So I just thought the perfect example of the government has its own criteria for determining whether or not they're going to pollute something. And I think it's not intentional; it's just -- it's problematic, and thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. Anybody else wish to speak on this item? 5.B.1 Packet Pg. 51 Attachment: 3-7-2019 CCPC Minutes (8393 : March 7, 2019 CCPC Minutes) March 7, 2019 Page 27 of 91 (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Now, if we want to entertain a -- first of all, anybody -- any further discussion on the Planning Commission? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If not, we can entertain a motion as the EAC for the Water Pollution Ordinance that's in front of us. I would like to suggest that if the motion maker continue, two things: Subject to clarification on the maps for the intent of those maps regarding the -- how they're described as impairment areas, and then the government facilities to be included in the context that Mr. Pires had brought up. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I support that -- those inclusions as stated. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Second by Stan. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRY: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 6-0. See, in the end, Danette, we got through it. MS. KINASZCUZK: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: With that, let's take a break for -- till 10:30 and resume at that time. (A brief recess was had.) MR. BOSI: Chair, you have a live mike. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mike, thank you for the live mike. Welcome, everybody, to the second item for today's public hearing, and it will be a -- it's a continued item from February 7th. It's for a series of LDC amendments. And, Mike, before I read these off, are any of them -- are we going to hear all of them on the list today or some of them -- or, Jeremy, is all of them up for discussion today? MR. FRANTZ: I think they're all up for discussion. I expect that at least two of them we'll have to come back to you again on. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then I'll read them off. The ones we'll be discussing is to add outdoor lighting limitations on single -family dwellings, two-family dwellings, and duplex dwellings; to provide standards for tree replacement and tree removal in shopping centers; to allow additional signage for facilities with fuel pumps; and to allow electronic message boards for price signage, and to add standards and requirements for permanent emergency generators for single-family and two-family dwellings. So before we go into that, I'd like to accommodate the members of the public who are here for a specific item, if there are any. So we may take them out of order. So what I'd like first to ask, is there any member -- I know, Tony Pires, you're here for the generator issue. Is there any other member of the public here for a specific item? Norm. MR. TREBILCOCK: Lighting. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Lighting. Okay. So we've got the lighting and -- 5.B.1 Packet Pg. 52 Attachment: 3-7-2019 CCPC Minutes (8393 : March 7, 2019 CCPC Minutes) March 7, 2019 Page 28 of 91 COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: We have -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They're not members of the -- they're government employees, so they have the whole day to sit here and wait. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Oh, no. The chief's got to protect us. Come on. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So we'll start with the generator one, and then we'll move in order that -- we'll move in order of the -- Norm is privately here, so we'll go to Norm, and then third we'll go to the -- well, the generators are here -- the Fire Department's here for the generators; is that not the case? MR. FRANTZ: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All right. Let's just take the generator one first, for the benefit of the Fire Department. CAPTAIN LINTZ: Appreciate it, sir, thank you. Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Go ahead, Rich. MR. HENDERLONG: Okay. Good morning, Commissioners. Rich Henderlong, for the record, principal planner. In followup to your last month's meeting, we provided in your packet, which is highlighted in yellow, text changes based upon some of the recommendations and comments made by the Commissioners. We've also included an exhibit in there that identifies to help you analyze a little bit more about the noise study, the 2017 noise study that was presented to the Commission back then. And in addition, we went back and looked at the manufacturer's normal operating hours recorded sound levels, as well as their testing levels. If it's -- on the chart there's one particular manufacturer. There is no information there because they didn't give us that information. Additionally, there's a note there that we provided for you on that exhibit that -- we went back and talked to Code Enforcement to find out, since January of 2017 up to about this year, how many complaints had been registered by noise. There were over 274. Out of that, that was registered, only four were related to generator noise, and of that that generator noise was not permanent generators, but they were all temporary generators. I want to just make that for the record. Secondly, we've got two letters that have come in since then. One from Mr. Joe Dvorak. It's in your packet. He's in support of the -- he couldn't be here today, he wanted it read into the record, and so just -- we gave it to you as a backup recommendation to let you know he's supporting the issue. His primary issue is that it's two or three inches. That once this gets approved, he'll be in compliance with it as it relates to the side-yard setback. As it relates to the distance separation between a generator, we don't know until we see -- he will have to come back for another application for that. Secondly, Mr. Tony Pires is here today to represent Fiddler's Creek Community Development District. Staff has reviewed that letter. It's been talked amongst staff with the Planning and Zoning Department, both Matt McLean and Chris Scott and ourselves, and we have no objections to the language that he is proposing to be amended to the text. We can put that on the visualizer for you when we get there at that point. Lastly, but not least, is we have the presence of, today, representatives from the North Collier Fire Control and Rescue District, Mr. Captain Sean Lintz. He's here to address any -- some of the concerns that you had raised at the last meeting regarding emergency service and access between the smaller zero lot lines. So with that, I turn it over to you, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. There's been some new language generated or corrected since the last time we got together, so let's start out with, is there 5.B.1 Packet Pg. 53 Attachment: 3-7-2019 CCPC Minutes (8393 : March 7, 2019 CCPC Minutes) March 7, 2019 Page 29 of 91 any questions of staff from the new language for this item? Go ahead, Stan, then Ned. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: It's not exactly new language, but I had a phone call from someone about this item, and they asked if you guys are talking to Florida Power and Light, because they expressed some concern that when these systems go in, if they're not wired extremely well, that when these systems -- when the other systems are being worked on by their people, these systems could accidently electrocute some of their guys. So are you keeping FPL in the loop about this? MR. HENDERLONG: Yes. They're very involved. And one of the things that the Building Department, and particularly the electrical guys that are reviewing this, is they look -- FPL has a requirement that they want at least three feet setback from those transfer switches and boxes that are set up there, and those loads have to be set up so that they're not immediately interacting. They have to have a shutoff, and they have to have an interconnect, and they coordinate regularly with FPL on it, on every type. So when a new system comes in by another manufacturer, they run it through and make sure that they're both working in sync together. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Good. Thanks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Ned. COMMISSIONER FRYER: The new language that all easements burdening the property be displayed, what would the cost of complying with that new language be, and who would bear it? MR. HENDERLONG: As it relates to the fee in the process, staff sees this as about $100, $200 to the applicant to go through if -- they would have to make a request. Staff would also revert to the holder of the easement. They will ask for that request, that that easement holder be signed off, allowed as a permissible use before they would issue the permit. That would be the direct cost to the applicant. COMMISSIONER FRYER: So you're quantifying it about 1- to $200 only? MR. HENDERLONG: Yes, that's correct. It's just a form and an application. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anything else? COMMISSIONER FRYER: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? Go ahead, Joe. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah, I had several emails and communication with the staff in regards to the placement of these generators. Specifically, I was using my neighbor as a -- he had applied. He ended up having to put it in the backyard. And I got clarity on everything that needed to be done now. But I have to again ask, the 10-foot clearance -- and I did respond to you-all, and I finally understood the 10-foot clearance between two generators was mainly because of the air intake for the safety factor there. But my concern -- and maybe the captain will talk about -- my concern, again, is emergency -- ability for emergency services to go between -- between pool equipment, air conditioner, and the generator if all of them are placed in the side-yard setback. Are you-all looking at the spacing of all of the various items in the side yard to assure that there is access to the rear yard of single-family homes or multifamily homes? That was my main concern. I want to make sure that with the various items that are in the side-yard setback, that there -- and especially when you have the two homes, either at a 5-foot setback or 7-and-a-half-foot setback, typical -- or a zero lot line even, that there's sufficient access in case emergency services have to get through the side yard to get to the rear yard. MR. HENDERLONG: To answer your question, are they looking at it, the answer 5.B.1 Packet Pg. 54 Attachment: 3-7-2019 CCPC Minutes (8393 : March 7, 2019 CCPC Minutes) March 7, 2019 Page 30 of 91 is yes to the extent that there's any -- that mechanical piece of equipment has an air intake system of some sort. A/Cs or compressors do not. The handlers, unless it's a packaged unit -- the two units come together -- it would be a concern. But when the staff looks at it, they look at the mechanical equipment, and they make sure that we do have a criteria for air intake. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I understand that. MR. HENDERLONG: But for the other, as it relates to pool services and so forth, there is no standard for -- (Simultaneous speakers.) MR. HENDERLONG: -- a relationship between that and -- other than what the manufacturer recommends. For example, when you put a generator in, the majority of manufacturers require a 3-foot separation around, so they adhere to that. That's test one. So if they're going to have an A/C, they'll see that that's too close. If it's impeding within that space of 3 foot, they would not accept it. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Well, if you have an A/C unit and a generator, the A/C unit is just the heat exchanger. It's not the air intake. MR. HENDERLONG: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: So you've got the various -- and let's say the pool equipment, so you've got various pieces of mechanical equipment, some developments require sound walls to be constructed. That's not a requirement of the county. It's typically required as part of the -- MR. HENDERLONG: Right. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: -- HOA or other criteria for the development. My concern was for access for emergency services. I mean, what kind of spacing is required for -- in case someone had to get into the -- a firefighter has to get to the -- into -- through the yard to fight a fire in the backyard. If all these -- this equipment is in the way, are there any spacing requirements to allow for emergency services to access or to get through the -- compete with the various items that are now going to be in the side-yard setback? MR. HENDERLONG: I would like to defer to our fire official to answer that question. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. COMMISSIONER FRYER: You're talking about apparatuses, aren't you? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Well, not -- typically not apparatus. They won't -- but it would be a firefighting crew hose through the yard -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: Hose, ladders or -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: -- or emergency -- somebody's incapacitated in the backyard, you've got to have access through these side-yard setbacks for litter or whatever you're going to -- so my concern was the spacing required for that, that there's sufficient spacing, that it doesn't restrict access to the side yard through the side-yard setback. But I'll defer to the captain. CAPTAIN LINTZ: Certainly. Good morning. For the record, Sean Lintz, North Collier Fire District, Captain Lintz speaking on behalf of Chief Ricardo. So I believe that what we were presented with in this package that we reviewed, we do not see any concerns with emergency access, EMS, or firefighting tactics, you know, within this. You know, the only thing which we have addressed here today, and we've talked some about, was the ownership safety of this generator, the carbon dioxide, possible carbon dioxide intake into the home and, therefore, you know, recommending to the 5.B.1 Packet Pg. 55 Attachment: 3-7-2019 CCPC Minutes (8393 : March 7, 2019 CCPC Minutes) March 7, 2019 Page 31 of 91 commission that we implement carbon dioxide detectors in these homes if these generators are placed. We have -- I believe, worst-case scenario, from what I had seen in the packet, we did have a 2-foot separation between these in this lot line; is that correct? MR. HENDERLONG: For the zero to five, it's a minimum one foot off the property line, which would give you at least two feet, but the generators would have to be offset 10 feet between adjacent abutting properties like this. CAPTAIN LINTZ: Again, getting back to, I see no problems with firefighter tactics in that. COMMISSIONER FRYER: So 10 feet is the distance, or excuse me -- yeah, the distance that you would need to pull hose through, ladders, stretcher, medical equipment, that type of thing, but you wouldn't -- you wouldn't ever, or would you need to drive an apparatus between properties? CAPTAIN LINTZ: No, no, we would stretch our equipment across. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I got it. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Clarity, the 10-foot is the separation between two generators, nearby generators. So one on one home, one on the other, but it's not a 10-foot separation between a generator, an air-conditioner, and pool equipment. It's -- there's no criteria, as I understand it. COMMISSIONER FRYER: How narrow could it be? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: That's my question. There's -- there are no criteria. It's basically -- the only criteria that was established -- (Simultaneous speakers.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But see -- yeah, we're going to be establishing the narrowness based on how much space we leave between the outside edge of the generator and the property line. And then the distance between one generator -- and I would strongly suggest to the Fire Department not to consider generator to generator but generator to any other obstruction. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Because what could end up happening is pool equipment, A/C equipment, who-all knows else, right up to 1 foot for -- 3 foot into the -- into the setback. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: That was my -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You've got a generator, yeah, right across the way because the ordinance says generator to generator. It should be any other obstruction. So you -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: I agree. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- always have diagonally 10 foot or more clear, and I think that's probably where you're coming from. CAPTAIN LINTZ: Absolutely, I agree. There should definitely be an offset between this equipment if entertained. I mean, again, as you go down the wall of these homes, you've got, you know, well-water equipment, pool-water equipment, you know, air-conditioning, generator, but we do have an offset from the home on the generator, so we're -- and I believe you're presenting the three feet, you know, clearance around that, so -- but definitely offsetting the equipment would give us the advantage, you know, instead of side by side. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Is the widest thing that would go through a stretcher with medical bags on it? CAPTAIN LINTZ: Would be a person -- yes, a stretcher or a person carrying 5.B.1 Packet Pg. 56 Attachment: 3-7-2019 CCPC Minutes (8393 : March 7, 2019 CCPC Minutes) March 7, 2019 Page 32 of 91 those medical bags around. But as far as firefighting equipment, you know, a hose, a ladder with a potential of, let's say, six inches to a foot. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: When we finish, before we -- you're going to see probably some paperwork from Tony Pires that shows an interesting scenario, and it isn't an obstruction like an air-conditioner or a generator or a pool equipment. It's actually hedges. Some of these facilities have hedges or walls weaving around the side setbacks to a point where you're going to almost be going through an English maze to get around there with a stretcher. So I think that all this ought to be taken into consideration, not just generator to generator. But if they've got landscaping that's going to impede a 10-foot pathway to the back diagonally, that's a problem. If they've got equipment that's not offset enough to give that 10-foot clearance so they can get through it diagonally not -- because they're not going to be hitting it on straight on, and either their landscaping or something else is preventing that, we've got a serious problem. And so I would suggest when we wrap this up today we consider all these elements, not just generator to generator. So we might ask you to come back up to comment on it after you see some of the pictures that I'm sure Tony's going to show us today. CAPTAIN LINTZ: Absolutely. COMMISSIONER FRY: What is the minimum width that you need for access? I mean, we mentioned a person carrying bags. Is -- if you're weaving between equipment, though, if you have a path of five feet width, is that sufficient? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's what I mean. It's got to be -- you've got to understand a diagonal width, not a straight-on width, because they're going to be a stretcher and two men with heavy packs and hoses and all the other stuff they're going to be carrying, is going to require a little bit wider width at a diagonal than there would be necessarily straight on, so that's the question I think we -- COMMISSIONER FRY: This seems to me we're talking about where you have a generator adjacent to an air-conditioning unit, adjacent to pool pad on the same -- on the same homeowner's side, and then you have similar equipment on the other side, you need a path between that of a certain width to be maintained, which I think is what we're after here, correct? And I'm just wondering what you think the minimum width is that allows you safe access and efficient access for anything you might need to get back there. Is it five feet? Is it -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Diagonal. COMMISSIONER FRY: On a diagonal. CAPTAIN LINTZ: Yeah, on a diagonal. Yeah, you know, again, I do want to make, for the record, though, that we have no governing authority over one- and two-single-family homes per the State of Florida. So we can only give you recommendations. Our recommendations, I would say, two to three feet, you know, for us to be able to -- you know, be able to get equipment through there safely. But I do agree, when you throw landscaping into this issue, hedges, things to that nature, this could pose a problem, and we'd be relying on you guys to enforce that. COMMISSIONER FRY: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else of the fire chief while he's up here? (No response.) 5.B.1 Packet Pg. 57 Attachment: 3-7-2019 CCPC Minutes (8393 : March 7, 2019 CCPC Minutes) March 7, 2019 Page 33 of 91 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you, sir. We might ask you to come back up before we wrap up today. CAPTAIN LINTZ: Certainly. Thank you, Commissioner. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Rich, anything else you had to offer? MR. HENDERLONG: Other than that you may want -- the Planning Commission may want to make that a recommendation that it be three foot between all mechanical equipment. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, yeah, I think what we're -- what I -- MR. HENDERLONG: That's what I'm hearing today. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We've got to hear from the public yet, but there are some questions I have if everybody else is done. I am concerned about the clear distance between any obstruction from any new element, and if we're adding a generator and it will have a greater input to the setback than we allow by standard three feet for air-conditioners and pool equipment, now we're looking at, what is it, four feet, whatever it would take to put a generator there. MR. HENDERLONG: It's minimally four feet, but if it's a wider setback, if could be five-and-a-half to six feet, seven, depending upon the side-yard width. The bigger the lots go out, the further they have flexibility to place it in. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. My understanding from Rich, what I got back from you-all, was a seven-and-a-half -- or seven-and-a-half yard setback, so it's -- but even a five -- MR. HENDERLONG: Yeah, it's -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Five -- or 7-and-a-half foot or 5-foot setback between houses. But you said it still has to be no -- it has to be within two feet of the property line or greater. MR. HENDERLONG: Well, the table in your text is based on four different side-yard setbacks. Zero to five, it's one foot from the property line; five to seven-and-a-half, it's two feet; from seven-and-a-half up to, I believe it's 20, it goes to a three; and then it goes to -- there it is up there, greater than seven-and-a-half, above 20, it's four feet. So you would have, between two lots, under the first-case scenario, a 2-foot if they're perpendicular together, you'd have four feet, five to seven-and-a-half feet; at seven-and-a-half up to 20, you'd have eight feet; and then 20 or greater you're going to have 20 feet. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Rich, the intention of our setbacks was also to offer a compatibility standard -- basically, it was part of a compatibility analysis for a unit. So when two units are set back by -- we started out at greater -- seven-and-a-half years ago it used to be our standard, then it got down to five. But we always required a minimum 10 feet between buildings, and then we started creeping into the setbacks with these various types of appliances, and now we're looking at a third element. I mean, pool equipment and air-conditioning units have become almost standard. Now we're going to be adding a generator. And, of course, we've got drainage swales usually between the unit, and we've got now landscaping, and in some cases some developments require walls around their elements that go there. Well, setbacks are becoming almost wiped out by some of this, and I'm not sure, from a compatibility standard, it's 100 percent right to do that, especially if you look on page -- I think it's 20 -- you did a sound analysis -- 25. I find this interesting, the sound level limit of 75 dBA. First of all, what does that mean, the first -- it's on your slides that you didn't show us. 5.B.1 Packet Pg. 58 Attachment: 3-7-2019 CCPC Minutes (8393 : March 7, 2019 CCPC Minutes) March 7, 2019 Page 34 of 91 MR. HENDERLONG: Commissioner, would you -- the packet page, I've got the copy for the -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I have a different -- it's Page 25 in my packet, but that doesn't mean anything for anybody else. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: He's always on a different sheet of music, I've got to tell you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's a -- MR. HENDERLONG: Help me along. What packet page? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's a black page like that. MR. HENDERLONG: Gotcha. Got it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And it starts out on the top of this particular -- it looks like a slide somebody was going to use, sound level limit, 75 dBA. Where did -- let's start with that. What does that mean? Where did it come from? MR. HENDERLONG: That number came from code as it relates to manufacturer or industrial. It's your highest allowed permissible sound levels for -- by the noise ordinance adopted by the county. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If I'm not mistaken, when we assess for sound levels, they do it at the property lines. MR. HENDERLONG: Actually, it can go up to 50 feet away depending upon what the noise complaint is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Where this comes into play is look on that page. If 75 is the sound limit level, we only got one -- two instances way down on the bottom, 45 kWs that get us there, right? MR. HENDERLONG: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So we know we're going to be introducing a problem, because a 45 kW is a pretty big machine, and not everybody's going to need it or want to afford one like that. I think I've got one at 15, or less than that. I just don't know -- and mine is a portable. I'm not sure how we think this is going to be acceptable to people living next door on a standard for compatibility by allowing a dBA we know is going to be higher than what they should be expecting from their neighborhood property. MR. HENDERLONG: That issue was -- just recalling the minutes, in 2017 (sic) the issue with the Commission that struggled with it at the time, tried to get around the fact that these are -- some refer to them as a standby generator in the sense that they're -- it's usually a testing period. We've regulated that, so that noise is a very short period. The probability of them being used full time can only occur, state of emergencies, or when there's extended power outages beyond 30 -- 30 minutes, for the most part, because most of the equipments they're putting in a trip button or a mechanism in there that allows it after 30 minutes, the quick power outage, it's not going to kick on. So there is an override there that kind of protects that. If it goes beyond 30, then it will kick on. It's a matter of trying to decide whether the sounds, as they relate to here. And this technology, this database that you're looking at were, at the time, in 2007, the best information that they had for that equipment. I'm told by some of the vendors that -- that's why we gave you Table F. That database is more relevant in terms of the decibel levels and that they can vary as much as from zero to 5 dBAs. So when you're looking at that data, it's an average of operations, because when you're in what's called a free environment, Exhibit F, the free environment tells us that at 23 feet away, when that equipment is running, without any background -- it's a controlled 5.B.1 Packet Pg. 59 Attachment: 3-7-2019 CCPC Minutes (8393 : March 7, 2019 CCPC Minutes) March 7, 2019 Page 35 of 91 environment. They do a decibel reading over a series of them, and they come up with an average. Every manufacturer does that. So these are their database that's recognized in what they call the free environment without any background noise. The numbers you're looking at in the 2007 study include background noise which will increase the decibel levels. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mike, would you put on that overhead I asked, or Jeremy. That table you just showed us, see those houses? How can you be 23 feet away from them? You can't, and that's the problem. I understand what you just said, but you're going to be -- now those are 10 feet apart, five foot each side. You put a generator four feet into the side lot, you're going to be six feet from that house next door. That's going to produce an echo chamber, most likely, in that -- between these two walls that are just going to sit there and vibrate and even make it seem louder to the people involved. I don't care if it's 30 days or -- I mean, 30 minutes or five minutes. I don't know if that -- if you -- you come down here to move into a lot with a small house on it with tight setbacks, you're almost forced to be contentious to your neighbors, and I'm not sure allowing generators to be installed in those very narrow situations is beneficial to people who moved into a community not expecting that to happen, to be honest with you. MR. HENDERLONG: I respect that, and that's a policy matter for the Commission to decide whether they want to allow them at all in those tighter confiner spaces -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well -- and the way your -- the way your tables work out, they -- theoretically, if we look at a -- because you have a -- on the table it says, if you have a setback of five feet or less distance to the lot line, one foot. So those are the extremes, and even the one above that. So I'm real concerned about how close these units are going to be to the properties next door as a compatibility standard. And the other piece that I'm worried about is obviously the separation distance when you take all of the obstructions that go in that little confined area between those two houses and then tell a firefighter to figure out how to get back there to save someone's life. I don't know how you could do that with a lot of the other pictures that I'm sure Tony's going to show everybody. His purpose is to show everyone to make sure we have concerns over the easements that may be in place. But in looking at those pictures, it reminded me, there's a lot more to this than just an easement, and that's just -- the maze of getting back there is a bigger problem. So I just wanted to mention that part of it. On that same table that we've got where it talks about generator setback and separation standards, the separation on the second part of that table, it says, distance to public and private road right-of-way, five feet. I would suggest we need to cross that out where it says "public" and just say "private," because if we have a public road right-of-way and we get into a situation where we need to expand the right-of-way for whatever reason, five feet may not give us much of an issue before we have an eminent domain issue that's going to cost us a generator relocation, and those could be extremely costly. So I would not think that's a good idea to have the public roadway -- it be five feet off a public roadway, but maybe that's something the County Attorney's Office can weigh in on if they have a concern over it. Heidi? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: I always recommend a 10-foot setback from public right-of-way. I think this was in response to something that must have been raised at the 5.B.1 Packet Pg. 60 Attachment: 3-7-2019 CCPC Minutes (8393 : March 7, 2019 CCPC Minutes) March 7, 2019 Page 36 of 91 last meeting. MR. HENDERLONG: DSAC brought it up during the DSAC recommendation was that it include public right-of-ways. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I didn't know they brought it up, but it wouldn't matter. I don't agree with them; that's not unusual. I think it -- I think we ought to strike the word "public," and if there is a public road right-of-way, we separately list it for 10 feet, and that way we've got some clearance in case we need it for any unknown effort in the future. MR. HENDERLONG: We can do that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And then you were already -- we're going to be talking about adding the language that Tony Pires is suggesting, and those are the only issues I have right now until we hear public speakers. Anybody else? Karen. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Does the language that's being added to that give the ability to keep the generators out of all drainage easements in -- MR. HENDERLONG: No. What the language allows is that there has to be a requirement. First of all, let me back -- make a point -- a clarification. The county does not allow them in drainage easements that they own and maintain and so forth. If it's to go in any kind of a drainage easement, be it an HOA, which is what is proposing, or any other holder, which would also include the county, in order for it to get a go-ahead light, they have to have an agreement signed. And I've shown a draft of that that Palm Beach County uses, and it's very common in that regard to get -- as long as the landowner's in agreement on it. Now, there's yet to be discussed about whether a removal agreement could be brought in at some point in time, that the easement holder may want that, and they're certainly at liberty and freedom to do that, is to say that you, the owner, or the corporation or the entity go ahead, put it in the easement, we'll let you go. But in the Palm Beach code requirement -- I want to make a point of clarification -- it stipulates this; they go one step further. There has to be a demonstration and proof that it cannot fit to anywhere else on the property. I hope I didn't confuse you or get -- go off in a different tangent there, but they will be allowed. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Well, I'm just concerned about being in a drainage easement, like on the side of my house there's a -- our property lot there's, you know, 10 feet on each side of our house, and five feet from the property line, each side, is the drainage and your public utility easement. And it is for drainage, because there's water in it when it rains hard. So this could either make it -- the neighbors air -- the generator, if it could even fit with the pool pumps and the air-conditioning units, it could go possibly within the five feet, but you're giving the ability for it to go into the drainage easement -- MR. HENDERLONG: Right now -- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: -- two feet even. So, you know, if people want to -- if you need something done in the back of your house, tree trimming or anything, something needs to get in there, you're taking up -- you're taking that ability away or making it cost more for the homeowner to trim a tree because everything has to be done by hand, cut up smaller, pulled out. So I'm not -- I don't understand it going into an easement. And sometimes even -- the FPL on Lakewood Boulevard a few years back, there was poles that needed to be replaced between Lakewood and Kings Lake. They drove the trucks in between the 5.B.1 Packet Pg. 61 Attachment: 3-7-2019 CCPC Minutes (8393 : March 7, 2019 CCPC Minutes) March 7, 2019 Page 37 of 91 homes, because there's 10 feet there. MR. HENDERLONG: Okay. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: So if that were to occur, then if there was a generator in that easement, then the homeowner has to move it out if it were allowed. MR. FRANTZ: Perhaps we could put the language up that was suggested, because staff is in agreement that we can add that language in. It does provide the requirement to have a sign-off from the easement holder, and if that were not provided, that approval would not be obtained. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: The easement holder being who in a situation like mine, if there's five foot on my neighbor's side and five foot on my side? MR. FRANTZ: Well, I don't know who holds the easement. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: So that's the whole -- the homeowners own it. MR. FRANTZ: Then it would be coming from the homeowners' association, whoever is -- whoever's the -- on that easement. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Your plat would say who the dedicator is for the easement, so who receives the easement. That person would have to provide a letter of no objection to the county in order to put a generator in there. Usually that letter of no objection would have something into the effect that if the generator needs to be moved, harmed, or destroyed, then it's their problem. It's not the HOA's problem. But go ahead, Joe. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I think, Karen, maybe -- a drainage swale may be -- is different than a -- a drainage easement is shown clearly on the plat or plan. It's a drainage easement -- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Well, it is. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: -- and it's dedicated -- let's say the HOA -- and typically, if the HOA owns them or the CDD, what it typically is, is a -- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: We're not a PUD. I'm not talking about a PUD. This is just a subdivision, and it's our own property. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: It's a subdivision. It's typically a dedicated drainage easement, the outfall from the street where it drains, there's a pipe, typically, underground in that drainage easement that may run into the -- one of the lakes or retention areas. And what my concern was -- and I've had this with the staff and then I saw Tony's language, basically, it's saying, okay, you can get the easement -- approval of the easement owner, except for the county. The county says not in the county drainage easement. But you can get the approval of the -- in this case let's say it's a CDD, and then the CDD may say, yes, you can put the generator there, but if we, some day, have to dig up and get into our pipes, you're solely responsible for any and all costs to remove that generator. So if you get the approval of the easement owner, it holds harmless the easement owner and puts the onus on the property owner to pay for any -- if, in fact, that generator had to be removed. That's my understanding. MR. HENDERLONG: Yeah. I can give you an example of Palm Beach, if you'd like, to show you -- they have an instruction sheet, and it gives you an example. But in talking with staff, that's the sort of thing they will be looking for the easement holder to generate and submit to the county, if that helps. (Simultaneous speakers.) MR. HENDERLONG: And then we have on the visualizer for you the language as well. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And who is the -- 5.B.1 Packet Pg. 62 Attachment: 3-7-2019 CCPC Minutes (8393 : March 7, 2019 CCPC Minutes) March 7, 2019 Page 38 of 91 COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Both sides, both owners, five feet on one side and five feet on the -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You've got to use your microphone, Diane -- Karen. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: It fills on one side of the house, because my house is older. Their house is nine feet and mine's seven. In a heavy rain there's actual water in the grass. So it's for drainage. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: If it's a dedicated easement between the two homeowners, you'd have to get approval from the two homeowners, am I correct? MR. HENDERLONG: Correct; that's correct. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else have any questions at this point? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mike, we'll start with registered speakers and then anybody else that wants to speak. MR. PIRES: The only registered speaker we have for the generator issue is Mr. Pires. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Didn't he already speak once today? MR. BOSI: Yes. MR. KLATZKOW: Different client. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Different client. MR. PIRES: This is the client. The other one was a public service. This is a -- these are clients, yes. Tony Pires, law firm of Woodward, Pires, Lombardo, representing Fiddler's Creek Community Development District No. 1 and Fiddler's Creek Community Development District No. 2., two community development districts that are the infrastructure owners and operators within Fiddler's Creek. Thank you for this opportunity, and I appreciate the reception that my proposed language has obtained. And I provided photographs, and I can give one to the fire official also, of the situation that generated the interest on the part of both District 1 and District 2. The photographs that are provided reflect placement of a generator in a side yard but also within a 7-and-a-half-foot drainage easement. In this situation, the distance between the two structures is 15 feet, and they are set back each seven-and-a-half feet from the property line, but that entire distance between the two homes as reflected on that one photograph is encumbered by a drainage easement. And it's dedicated on the plat, the drainage easement, to Collier County with no responsibility for maintenance. And to the CDD2, in this instance, to -- with responsibility for maintenance. So I would submit that Collier County would have a stake in those easements even if they have no maintenance responsibility to have a drainage easement, which provides them the ability, if they wish to -- if the District doesn't do its work, the county can go in there and perform maintenance activities or drainage activities. In this instance, the specific instance that's depicted in the photographs, that occurred in District No. 2, but my understanding is we have other issues in District 1. The districts are not notified when permit applications are made, and quite often we find these encroachments after the fact, sometimes many years down the road. That happened in Pelican Marsh with fences going into lakes, and it's happened in other communities where structures are placed within the District's dedicated drainage easements or easements provided by a grant of easement. And the difficulty is -- I understand the question was about how much does it cost to get a survey up front or what cost is associated with getting the necessary information to 5.B.1 Packet Pg. 63 Attachment: 3-7-2019 CCPC Minutes (8393 : March 7, 2019 CCPC Minutes) March 7, 2019 Page 39 of 91 put on the site plan, and it might be 100, it might be $400, but I tell you it's a much more expensive proposition when three or four years or five years down the road the entity that has that easement discovers that the structure is in the easement. We don't go doing home inspections, we don't do building inspections, and then we try -- we, the District -- in my case it's happened a couple of times -- tried to get the homeowner to comply. The only option then is to go to court to require removal of that particular structure, and then on the homeowners' parts it becomes very expensive to have to remove that facility, relocate it, and it becomes expensive for the District to enforce its easement rights. So I think a proactive approach, I applaud that. I think it would help the districts, help the property owners, everybody, to not have these issues on a go-forward basis. Fortunately, in this case, you see from the photograph, the first photograph, were taken by the neighbors to the south where they saw this generator show up one day in the side yard. A few days later, after a demand later was sent to the property owner of the Lot 2 to the north and to the contractor, the generator was removed and pad remained. The pad has ultimately also been removed. The third document in here reflects the -- basically the location of the properties and the location of the drainage easements, and the last one is an overhead shot showing the distance between these two structures and where the drainage easement takes up the whole space between two structures. I do appreciate that in this instance of this generator, the county staff, during the permit review process, did tell the contractor to get the consent of the easement holder with responsibility. The contractor did not and went ahead and placed it. So I do appreciate the fact they did, but this has happened in many other instances where the county did not require that the consent of the easement holder be obtained. To the question as to what type of document, there's a -- sort of a standard template I've created, and I've used other counties' examples of an encroachment and non-disturbance agreement. If my CDD clients are agreeable, amenable to an improvement being constructed, say, pool equipment, air-conditioning equipment, walls, or generators within a drainage easement or a lake maintenance easement, because they also can be impacted, then this encroachment and non-disturbance agreement tells the property owner, okay, you can build this improvement, or you can keep the improvement, but it we ever need to use that drainage easement or replace what's in that drainage easement or that access easement or that lake maintenance easement, we will notify you. We will first try to see if we can work around it. If we can't, we will notify you to remove the items, the structures or improvements, and if you don't, we can remove it, and you hold us harmless, and then you're responsible for the expense. So there are a number of those agreements already of record, and that gets recorded in the public records of Collier County. So that's how we've approached it both here in Lee County and in Collier County. I appreciate the consideration by the Planning Commission and request this additional language. Any questions, I'm here to answer them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. I don't have any questions. I don't think anybody else does. Pretty straightforward. MR. PIRES: Thank you very much. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We appreciate your recommending it. It looks like staff supports it as well, so that's good to hear. 5.B.1 Packet Pg. 64 Attachment: 3-7-2019 CCPC Minutes (8393 : March 7, 2019 CCPC Minutes) March 7, 2019 Page 40 of 91 Anybody else have any -- or any other speakers, Mike, first of all? MR. MITCHELL: None for the generators. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody here who would like to speak on this item who hasn't already spoken? Norm. So you got two clients, too? MR. TREBILCOCK: Taking Tony's lead. No. I just want to echo, actually, one of the concepts you brought up about the -- for the record, Norman Trebilcock, Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, professional engineer and certified planner. The idea of the setback from the right-of-way, I think it would make sense to apply that for the private right-of-way as well because, typically, when we plat road right-of-ways, whether they're private or public, and particularly on the private, we normally have a 10-foot PUE, a public utility easement, and so that would really prevent that conflict from ever happening. You know, most of the time we will always have a 10-foot PUE next to a right-of-way, and so that will keep the equipment clear of that particular easement. So I would echo that same idea that the County Attorney mentioned for the public -- to do the same thing for a public right-of-way. And then also you mention about the decibel levels. I mean, it's good having that criteria you have because, you know, oftentimes they can put additional measures in to prevent the noise levels from occurring, too, you know, additional over the equipment itself, so that's good. And then also on the -- not in the easement, just echo the idea that you have about the permissions, but really put it incumbent on the applicant to verify. You normally have this anyways to make sure they've gone to the HOA. Our HOA does not permit any type of equipment or anything like that in a drainage easement or other such easement as well. So having that measure that you all have in your system makes a lot of sense to prevent that from happening. So with that, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Norm. Anybody else? Sir, come on up. CAPTAIN LINTZ: I'd just like to reiterate, after looking at the pictures that were presented there, that I am very confident that we would have the ability to perform our tactics regardless of the situation. I mean, we train for everything. We train for every scenario that we encounter. After seeing those pictures, I'm very confident that we'd be able to perform. Again, I commend you for pushing the carbon dioxide detection within the home. I think that is a very, very important element. So, thank you. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Are you talking carbon dioxide or carbon monoxide? CAPTAIN LINTZ: Carbon monoxide; I'm sorry. My apologies. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Is that in the ordinance now? I didn't -- COMMISSIONER FRY: Yes, it is. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Carbon dioxide detectors. I didn't catch that. Where would they be located? It would be throughout the house or -- MR. HENDERLONG: They -- if it's within 10 feet of the generator, they're required -- on every floor on that window opening they will be required. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Good. I know a lot of homeowner services now -- I mean, home secure services have those as integral parts of their security system, 5.B.1 Packet Pg. 65 Attachment: 3-7-2019 CCPC Minutes (8393 : March 7, 2019 CCPC Minutes) March 7, 2019 Page 41 of 91 so -- yeah. Good, thanks. COMMISSIONER FRY: Would the installation of that carbon monoxide detector or detectors be confirmed at inspection time for the generator? MR. HENDERLONG: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Good point. CAPTAIN LINTZ: And that's what we would recommend, that those carbon monoxide detectors go inside and outside every sleeping quarters. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: So that is a specified point of inspection by electrical or mechanical when they come? MR. HENDERLONG: Electrical. We've had the discussion. Yep, when they go out for the final to do the spot survey at the end, they're going to go and double-check that that's installed, or they don't get the final. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: The final approval. MR. HENDERLONG: Correct. COMMISSIONER FRY: Captain, you just made a comment about positioning of multiple carbon monoxide sensors inside and outside bedrooms. That's not required specifically in this amendment. CAPTAIN LINTZ: Okay. Again, we recommend that, you know, as we do smoke detection inside and outside every sleeping quarters. Obviously, outside for the early detection. If it was to venture inside, you would have the detection inside of it. So that's what we'd recommend, inside and outside of every sleeping quarters. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Provided it's got an exterior opening on the wall that's facing the generator, right? CAPTAIN LINTZ: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER FRY: Yeah. This is specifically requiring at least one inside the structure near the exterior opening, the window or door, and on each floor level. So it would be one per floor level near that opening. Is that sufficient for your life-safety concerns? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Where are you reading that? COMMISSIONER FRY: It's on the -- MR. HENDERLONG: It's the visualizer. COMMISSIONER FRY: -- visualizer. It's the top of Page 5 in the amendment. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But you didn't -- I thought -- I didn't hear you state what was No. 4. No. 4 says, if any exterior wall openings are within 10 feet of the generator's exhaust outlet, at least one carbon monoxide (unintelligible) should be installed inside the structure near the exterior wall opening on each floor level. So it's not every bedroom. It's just those that have windows within 10 feet of that exhaust. COMMISSIONER FRY: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. As long as we understand that. I thought you were looking at a broader application. COMMISSIONER FRY: So if it's more than 10 feet away -- if that window or door is more than 10 feet away from the exhaust, you're not concerned about carbon monoxide getting into the home? MR. FRANTZ: This is -- just to be clear, this is the language that staff recommended. It sounds like he may be suggesting something a little more restrictive. COMMISSIONER FRY: It does. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what I'm trying to find out. CAPTAIN LINTZ: Actually, I'd like to introduce -- I brought with me Daniel 5.B.1 Packet Pg. 66 Attachment: 3-7-2019 CCPC Minutes (8393 : March 7, 2019 CCPC Minutes) March 7, 2019 Page 42 of 91 Zunzunegui. He is from North Collier Fire Plans Examiner, and he kind of specializes in those codes and looking into those distances, so if I may allow him to -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure. As long as he spells his name. And don't introduce any maps, please. MR. ZUNZUNEGUI: Daniel Zunzunegui, for the record. I'm actually a retired fire lieutenant. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You didn't spell that name. MR. ZUNZUNEGUI: Z-u-n-z-u-n-e-g-u-i. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the reason I ask is our court reporter has to get it accurately. MR. ZUNZUNEGUI: No, I got you. I'll give her my card after that as well. So to agree with the captain, I think it is a little more restrictive, but there could be an opening. If we have multiple generators abutting each other -- and this is something that's spreading throughout our community -- it doesn't hurt to have these inside sleeping areas and outside. Certainly, I think there's a higher risk when people are asleep, just like with smoke detection. We want to wake them up; make them aware of a hazard. So I agree with the captain's recommendation 100 percent. I think that that's something we want to look at within your amendment. Also, just to reiterate, we don't regulate on one- and two-family homes. We stay out of that. We're commercial and multifamily. So we just want to support education, when it comes into installing these, installing them safely. I think Richard's done a great job on what he's put together, been able to review that a bit, and I think he used a lot of standards that we would use on commercial properties and multifamily that really help make this safe and help to guide these in a way that's safe for the community. But, again, just -- our stance is that we would just recommend that CO detection is put in, and if there's anything we can do to help with the public education with these, we're glad to do it, so... CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Before you -- COMMISSIONER FRY: To your point about inside and outside sleeping quarters -- so I have a background in low voltage systems including -- not fire alarm, but security, and carbon monoxide detectors were a part of that. So in different municipalities, Collier County, City of Naples, different requirements for the location of those carbon monoxide sensors. So those are handled by the code when the building is constructed or a major remodel is done. This is only what would have to be added when a generator is installed. So just in thinking this through, we have a requirement here for one per floor near any window or door that's within 10 feet of the exhaust. Would that not be enough? It would catch carbon monoxide, it would measure carbon monoxide that enters through the window if it was -- and it's required to be near the structure -- inside the structure near the exterior wall opening. So inside the window, inside the door. Would that not be enough? Do we need to add a requirement for additional carbon monoxide sensors, or would this be sufficient? MR. ZUNZUNEGUI: Well -- so let's say we had a new multifamily dwelling come in with a communicating garage. We would have on the floor, a fuel burning appliance or communicating garage, parking garage, we would -- that floor would be protected with CO detection and outside the sleeping rooms and inside. So that's where that recommendation evolves from. Would one be enough, I don't know. If it's your family, I guess -- again, this is 5.B.1 Packet Pg. 67 Attachment: 3-7-2019 CCPC Minutes (8393 : March 7, 2019 CCPC Minutes) March 7, 2019 Page 43 of 91 one- and two-family. It's -- we don't push any fire codes or local codes from our district on single-family homes. But just looking at what we would do commercially or on a multifamily unit, I think it's a sound recommendation to go a little above and beyond with CO detection. It binds the hemoglobin in your blood. It has a greater affinity than oxygens. So it's a harmful substance. And if we're -- if you guys are potentially looking at these popping up throughout Collier County, and they're -- you know, with the threat of storms and power outages, multiple generators going off, and we have them issuing out CO, we want to make sure that people are safe and they can go to sleep at night with confidence that if there is a leak in their home, they're woken up; they can get out. COMMISSIONER FRY: And I agree with that completely. I'm just -- I'm noticing the scenario, is that a company that installs generators is -- as part of the project, this is requiring a carbon monoxide sensor to be installed in the home, which is probably not inside their core competency. So I want it to be enough to be safe but not so much that it's burdensome or, you know, imposes an undue burden on the homeowner. So just to use an example. Let's say that the generator is here and within 10 feet is a bedroom window, a child's bedroom window, and this would require a carbon monoxide sensor inside that bedroom near that opening. Would you then need an additional carbon monoxide sensor to be safe outside that child's bedroom? Because to me that seems a little bit like overkill. But I'm not a life-safety expert, so that's why I'm asking you. MR. ZUNZUNEGUI: My recommendation -- what I would recommend is looking at what is a good practice for multifamily out of NFPA or the Florida Fire Prevention Code and what you would do if you had a communicating garage or a fuel-burning appliance in the home. And I think that's -- the risk is similar, so -- in terms of implementing CO detection, so that's why I would say. And just -- you know, what the captain recommended is in alignment with that. So we would just recommend to you that you look at those standards, and if you're concerned about CO, that you implement something that's already out there and it's vetted. So whether or not it's overkill, that's up to you. Again, we have no stake in the game. We want to stay out of the one- and two-family. We're not looking to overreach. I think that was part of your previous discussion. We never do that at North Collier, so -- but if you're looking at CO and what to do and what the best practice is, look at what's already written for multifamily and try to implement something along those lines. COMMISSIONER FRY: Would it be possible -- last question. Would it be possible for the sensor near the window where the exhaust is traveling in to not measure a reading or not alarm -- not arrive at alarm condition but the sensor outside the bedroom to realize carbon monoxide from the generator? Without the first sensor going off, would the second sensor possibly go off? MR. ZUNZUNEGUI: I mean, anything is possible if you have a malfunction. COMMISSIONER FRY: Malfunction. MR. ZUNZUNEGUI: And some of the -- there's combination smoke/CO detection out there as well. We see a lot of that being installed in remodels, like you mentioned. We get renovation and for a condo or something. And a lot of the contractors are really good at putting those in even when CO isn't required. They want the added protection for their customers. And we recently had a contractor put them in where it wasn't required per code, and it actually saved a life. They put it in a neighbor's renovation; another neighbor had their car on in a communicating garage. It filled her home with CO, and then got into the neighbor's house. He was alerted by the detector and was able to call our district out for 5.B.1 Packet Pg. 68 Attachment: 3-7-2019 CCPC Minutes (8393 : March 7, 2019 CCPC Minutes) March 7, 2019 Page 44 of 91 help, and we went around, found that there was a leak, and evacuated everybody that was affected, and no one was hurt. So CO detection is great, and we recommend it. And, again, if you're going to implement it into your plan here, we recommend you use something at a multifamily and do it thoroughly, do it right. COMMISSIONER FRY: Okay. But we are talking about supplementing the already existent carbon monoxide system within a home when they add a generator. MR. ZUNZUNEGUI: If they have one. I don't -- if they have one already, how would you supplement it? I mean, if they had one installed per code, it's there. So that should suffice. Now, if they're putting in a generator, from what I understand, that's what this is about, and it's not present, then you should probably look at implementing it with a standard that's out there, and that's all I would say. COMMISSIONER FRYER: It may be present but not -- MR. ZUNZUNEGUI: Then, again, this is all up to you. Our district is not -- we're just here because you asked us to come, and we wanted to collaborate with you and see if there's anything we can add. But we're not trying to push this or -- you know, we're impartial to whatever you decide. And to reiterate from -- what I saw as well, as a former fire lieutenant, I'm very confident in our district and what we can do on scene. We overcome challenges, and we train for all sorts of obstacles. We may have other things in people's yards that get in our way, and we get around it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Stan? MR. ZUNZUNEGUI: Thank you, guys. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just a minute. Stan. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: A comment for Karl. I'm in a small unit, and I have four smoke detectors just in case, a couple battery, a couple hard wired in. I'm curious, is it possible for somebody to install a generator that is closer than 10 feet to their neighbor's window? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, if you look at the setback -- if you have a five and five on each side and you install a generator that has to be two or three feet from the wall and it's going to be one foot from the property line, it's going to be less than 10 feet to the property next door, which is exactly the issue that's going to come up, how do you protect the people next door if they don't want to have a smoke detector or carbon monoxide detector installed in their house? MR. HENDERLONG: I'd like to -- after looking at so many permits -- to answer your direct question, yes, it's been done. The windows that are fixed, that's a problem. We're cleaning it up with this regulation. Once you adopt this, they're going to -- whether it's fixed or not fixed, it's going to be 10 feet. Right now that's not -- there have been permits that have gone through with that. I've talked to some of the building guys regarding that as well, Stan. So with this regulation, they're going to have to be 10 feet from those, even if they're fixed. They're going -- because a fixed window is not considered like an awning where you can open it up or -- to get the air in, and so -- COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: So they're going to have to submit a drawing that shows where the neighbor's windows are -- MR. HENDERLONG: Exactly. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: -- and they're not allowed to be within 10 feet -- MR. HENDERLONG: They might, depending upon the parameters that we adopt 5.B.1 Packet Pg. 69 Attachment: 3-7-2019 CCPC Minutes (8393 : March 7, 2019 CCPC Minutes) March 7, 2019 Page 45 of 91 today. These parameters, they're going to be looking at the adjacent as well, particularly on those smaller lots. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But, Rich, one of the choices you've got on the table, Table 1, if you could put it -- right there. Bring it down a little bit. Five feet or less distance to lot line, one foot. That means a generator would be, what, three feet -- say you've got a 24 inch -- how much separation from the wall of the house? MR. HENDERLONG: Eighteen inch for a one-hour fire-rated wall. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So you've got 18 inches. That gives you three-and-a-half feet. You're going to be one feet, so you're two-and-a-half feet away from the property line. That means you're going to be right on top of that 5-foot set-backed house next door. So the question is, will they have to install a carbon monoxide detector if they have a window within 10 feet of the air-conditioner? MR. HENDERLONG: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think the answer would be yes. MR. HENDERLONG: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now, can we enforce them to do that? No. MR. HENDERLONG: You can't today. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. But somehow that would have -- be an application if we went with that minimum setback standard of five foot or less side lot line. MR. HENDERLONG: Good point. MR. FRANTZ: I would suggest that if you have a concern about the neighboring property's windows, that maybe we just adjust the setback from windows so that it is outside whatever distance is concerning rather than trying to enforce installation of a carbon monoxide detector on someone else's property. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We haven't accepted that table yet. MR. FRANTZ: Understood. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So by the time we get done today, that table may be moot, so... COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Yeah. And I'm kind of worried, if you put a generator in the lot next door -- thanks -- and the lot next door is vacant, I assume when this guy submits his building permit for his house, somebody's going to look to see that the property next door doesn't have a generator on it within where this guy's window is going to be? MR. HENDERLONG: That's correct. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Good luck. COMMISSIONER FRY: Is there science behind the carbon monoxide requirement of 10 feet from an opening where the carbon monoxide detector is required? Is there science behind that 10-foot measure? Meaning beyond that it's no longer a risk? Because this is -- this is life or death, I mean, in talking with our fire guys. MR. HENDERLONG: As he had mentioned, it follows the mechanic -- the Florida Building Code and the mechanical code that is adopted by the county, and that's the criteria that they regulate, but I do want to make clear that right now carbon monoxide monitorings are not required in any single- or two-family home, period. There's nothing in the Florida Building Code on it. The fire code for the state does not require it. Those are recommendations. And I had this discussion with a couple other fire officials, and they basically said that it's -- once you move into the interior of a home, what people do within their private property within the house is up to them. So this is a standard -- a new standard that we're introducing to the Commission. 5.B.1 Packet Pg. 70 Attachment: 3-7-2019 CCPC Minutes (8393 : March 7, 2019 CCPC Minutes) March 7, 2019 Page 46 of 91 COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Yeah. But we'll be breaking new ground if this guy's generator does anything to people in that house and we let them do it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's only if we adopt some of the table standards that are here. We don't have to adopt those. That's what today's all about. So we can avoid that whole issue by just structuring the setback to be appropriate. That's what I think we should do as we get to wrap this discussion up. Anybody else have any questions of anybody? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, then let's talk about discussions on the generator issues. I think we all concur that Tony's language should be added to the ordinance. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Looking at clear distance to any obstruction, including landscaping. Initially the plan says 10 feet to generator to generator. I'd suggest, based on discussion we had today, that it's 10 feet to any obstruction. So you've got a clear 10-foot diagonal somewhere between the property -- between the different elements going in the setbacks to get to the back of the lot. Is that what everybody's thinking? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yes, but my only concern is on landscaping; typically that's not showing on a spot survey or for an individual home. Is that something you're going to ask to be inspected once they're out there doing their final inspection? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think if we want to assure the fire department's got access to a back of a lot, we're going to have to show it, because how are they going to -- if someone doesn't show the landscaping and they can't get through the hedge very easily, is that a right thing to do for public safety? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I'm not arguing the point. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean, I'm just -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I'm trying to understand how we're going to enforce it, because landscaping can always be planted once the final permit is approved, and next thing you know somebody's putting ficus hedge or something in there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. We're using side setbacks for things they were never intended for. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I agree. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And it's causing -- it's starting to build up to a problem. But now it's getting to be a life-safety problem more than anything else. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I mean, you're exactly right. We're talking, in essence, could be in some units four different systems: Air conditioner, generator, water softener system or water system if you have a well, and pool equipment. MR. HENDERLONG: We can stipulate that that -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. I mean, I agree, show where the landscaping is, and if it has to come out, it comes out. MR. FRANTZ: You-all may want to just consider looking at those distances to the lot lines in general, and if it's a setback of five feet or less, you may have an issue with that, period. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have two other issues that -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I would agree with that because the -- as Mark pointed out, we were typical in this county at 7-and-a-half-foot setbacks, and we went to 5, which was -- so the minimum became even zero lot lines it was 10 foot between individual homes. And, you know, we really start filling up side-yard setbacks. It becomes a problem. And I think that's -- the five-yard one is one we need to look at as well, the five-yard setback. 5.B.1 Packet Pg. 71 Attachment: 3-7-2019 CCPC Minutes (8393 : March 7, 2019 CCPC Minutes) March 7, 2019 Page 47 of 91 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, there's two other items. And addition -- the distance to a public or private right-of-way would go from five to 10 feet. Is everybody satisfied with that? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And then the last issue is the one that's probably most impactful. How much distance should we require to the property line from the generator? And that is -- if we look at the table, we're already learning that if you do a -- if you have a 5-foot setback, one distance that -- one foot's going to create problems for your neighbor. Two foot certainly probably would because you're going to be 18 inches. So most of the time that stack's going to be pretty close to the wall of the other house. When you get up to the greater than seven-and-a-half, up to 20 feet, you're looking at four feet, that leaves you eight feet clear between the accessory uses that are there. I don't -- I don't know, this board hasn't discussed these distances yet but, you know, the first two don't seem even logical based on the carbon monoxide issues we've been hearing about, and I -- that's a starting point. Does anybody have any comments? COMMISSIONER FRY: Well, I think I -- I would like to see a stipulation that the generator is not placed within 10 feet of a neighbor's window or door that might allow carbon monoxide intrusion, because I guess I'm concerned a way to enforce that the neighbor has to put a carbon monoxide sensor in their home because of my generator. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well -- but if we -- COMMISSIONER FRY: That's problematic. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- required a 5-foot setback to the property line regardless of where the generator is, that means the other side would have to have 5-foot. It couldn't be. See, the problem we're going to have is if you say the neighbors -- if you're five foot closer to the neighbor's window, what if the neighbor's not built yet and he builds later on? Now, he's restricted on where he puts his window or he has to put a monitor in because the guy next door wanted to put a generator because he wasn't there. I'd rather look at it as potentially saying why don't we just keep the setback enough from the property line that we can never see that happen. Then you don't have the issue. I mean, wouldn't that -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: These distances just don't work. I mean, the concept didn't work. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: If you have a 5-foot setback, let's say -- Mark, you're saying on five -- let's say 7-and-a-half foot. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You couldn't do it with a 7-and-a-half foot. You'd need an 8-foot or greater. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: You need 8-foot or greater. And if you have a 5-foot setback requirement, the unit is 18 inches from the structure. The unit itself is, in many cases, 30 -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think you said 30 inches earlier. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: -- 30 inches. So you're probably never going to be able to install it in a side-yard setback. MR. HENDERLONG: That's correct. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: So it's either going in the front or the back? MR. HENDERLONG: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Which is interesting, because the rear lot setback is five feet, so that means most of these homes, the aerials we saw, all have pools. They could put one of these in the corner of their pool enclosure -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: That's right. 5.B.1 Packet Pg. 72 Attachment: 3-7-2019 CCPC Minutes (8393 : March 7, 2019 CCPC Minutes) March 7, 2019 Page 48 of 91 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- and run it right there. But the reason they want it in the side setback is? They don't want to have the disturbance of that machine near an area where they're probably living. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Typically cost. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. So that's what's happening. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: A lot of these are -- some of these are natural gas, and they have to now run -- both the cost of running the gas line and the electrical. MR. HENDERLONG: Correct. It is more expensive in the rear than the front. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: But I don't care. COMMISSIONER FRY: Isn't the concept -- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Why is it more expensive? Because their pool probably has it anyway. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: No. You'll put the -- what do you call it -- the junction box and everything on the side of your house so you've got to then run everything -- all the feeds back to the generator, which is behind -- MR. HENDERLONG: Supply. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: -- the supply behind the pool. Not a bad place, really, for it to be, quite honestly. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Isn't the concept that we're going for that we don't want to allow a generator to be placed closer than 10 feet to someone else's house? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Correct. Someone -- COMMISSIONER FRY: Someone else's, yeah. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: An opening, a potential opening. Is that what you're saying? Or someone's house? (Simultaneous speakers.) COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Well, if it's 10 feet, then it's not going in the side-yard setback. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Not with the houses that close together. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. You have seven -- if you have 7-and-a-half yards -- 7-and-a-half-foot setbacks, and we require it 10 foot from the house, it's not going in the side-yard setback. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Exactly. And I think that's probably the -- that's what I would like to see be prohibited. MR. HENDERLONG: Commissioners, I would like to clarify that when they're raised 30 feet above the ground, it is 10 foot. It's considered structure. So we require 10-foot setback structure to structure. We're talking about generators that are below that aren't raised up above that 30 inches above. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Like the pad that was shown in the photograph. MR. HENDERLONG: Exactly, exactly. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So on that pad, if that pad would have put the generator closer to the -- closer to the -- let's say that was a seven and -- do we know what if that was a 7-and-a-half or 5-foot? MR. PIRES: Seven-and-a-half-foot yard. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seven-and-a-half-foot yard. So that generator at the width would be 30, plus 18, you're looking at five feet, so you're about two-and-a-half feet off the property line. The nextdoor neighbor would be seven-and-a-half feet. So you're, what nine -- yeah. So you're one foot short of the 10 foot, so yeah. So the only way we get there is to go to they can't be in setbacks that provide less than, I would suggest, five feet to the property line would be safe, but that's something that 5.B.1 Packet Pg. 73 Attachment: 3-7-2019 CCPC Minutes (8393 : March 7, 2019 CCPC Minutes) March 7, 2019 Page 49 of 91 would -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Then we're dealing with -- again, it's not going in the side-yard setback. It's either going in the front of the house, and if you've got a side-entry garage, it's going to go on the front, or it's going in the back, the generator. Typically, many HOAs prohibit it in the front. MR. HENDERLONG: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Again, not my problem. They can deal with their HOAs. And if you put it in the front, they're going to require some kind of a, what do you call it, a wall that screens it or something that will screen the -- MR. HENDERLONG: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: But we're going to make this very difficult for people to get generators if we -- so that's the whole issue here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I don't think so. I think the difficulty's going to be they can't put it where it's going to cause their neighbor the most problem and not themselves. So if they really want a generator, they can stick it in their backyard. I mean, it works there. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: It works there. It works behind the pool. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the other thing, the City of Naples, I believe, is the principal setback, so they'd have to put an alcove into the principal structure in the city so they don't violate that setback. To me, that's -- I don't know why we're violating setbacks like we are now to the extent we are. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: My house, I think, is one of the only on my entire street that has an indent for all the pool equipment. All the rest of them are in the side-yard setback. But my house was designed that way, with an indent and a wall. MR. HENDERLONG: Keep in mind, permits have been issued under the 36 inches, 18 inches from the wall, and in zero-to-five envelopes. Those permits have been built, constructed, and are in place. So you're looking at a four-foot separation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You've got a non-conforming structure -- non-conforming -- MR. HENDERLONG: That's -- once you codify this, that's correct, they'll become non-conforming. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So they can still exist. They just can't -- MR. HENDERLONG: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Certain modifications they can't make in the future. MR. HENDERLONG: Correct. COMMISSIONER FRY: We have a lot of zero lot lines in Naples, Florida, and I guess I'm concerned that if we were to ask homeowners that live in those properties where would you like to locate your generator -- and a lot of them have pool cages that extend across the entire back of their home, and I believe that -- and I'm throwing this out for the other commissioners. I believe a lot of those, a vast majority would say, I would like to have it in my side yard, and I would like my neighbor's to be in the side yard where I don't see it. And I work in a lot of homes, and doing outside lighting, I'm down the sides of those homes. So I think that people want to hide the not-aesthetically-pleasing equipment, pool equipment, all these things we're talking about, there's a reason they're in the side yard. It's because they don't want to see them. So my opinion, just to throw it out there, is that we need to -- I think the majority of people would like us to find a way to accommodate these in the side yards where they're not visible and where it's practical to put them but in a way that doesn't offend life-safety 5.B.1 Packet Pg. 74 Attachment: 3-7-2019 CCPC Minutes (8393 : March 7, 2019 CCPC Minutes) March 7, 2019 Page 50 of 91 issues so long with that I think we've got to address the zero-to-five lot lines in a practical way but also pointing out, as far as the access for the fire and life-safety people, we have to consider both sides of the house. So if you have one side that is restricted by landscaping and equipment, to me they need one side of the house or the other. They don't need to have both. So do we need to be looking at this from a clearance perspective? If it's not available on one side of the house, do we have to -- do we at least need to maintain it on one side or the other rather than on both sides of the house? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then you're going to be getting into controlling the different properties. If one guy wants this side clear for access, a new neighbor moves in next door and he wants to do the other side, you still don't necessarily have what you need to get on the other neighbor's property. COMMISSIONER FRY: Agreed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So I think we need to set it up by requiring the right distance to the property line, and then you're always covered. COMMISSIONER FRY: So both sides under the same rules. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. And then there's -- any obstructions stay out of a certain distance apart, and then the Fire Department can get back there appropriately. And, you know, there's something else, too, and Joe's project is a typical one. Some of the stuff is so close together because of the way it's lined up, I don't know how they get machines back to cut grass, enough to save somebody's life on a stretcher. I mean, the stuff -- they're real tight. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I absolutely agree. COMMISSIONER FRY: To Joe's point, how do you regulate landscaping that's put in after the fact? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: HOA does all that now. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: HOA would have to do that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Everything's a common area. Staff, we've had a lot of discussion. Is it better for you to go back and kind of think about some of the things to make sure how practical our discussion is and then come back with some finalized language, or would you rather see it finalized today to the best we can with the language we've talked about? MR. FRANTZ: Well, we should probably come back with the finalized language, but I think that we're getting at least close to having a pretty good idea of what you're looking for. I think the outstanding things that are unclear to me are exactly how many of these setbacks are you looking at removing. I'm definitely hearing five feet or less is too small. I'm not clear on the greater than five or up to seven-and-a-half. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I mean, I was looking at a separation to the -- distance to the property line of five feet, and that was just a suggestion to throw on the table for discussion. The reason is we've always looked at a 5-foot setback as the minimum setback between buildings. Well, now we're not -- now Rich is saying some of them are structures, so that would be like a building. Some of them are just obstructions because they're on the ground, but we really always wanted to keep five foot between units so people can get back and forth between their units and water can drain. By encroaching as tight as some of these suggestions go, we're going to -- I think we're going to have drainage -- we could potentially cause drainage problems in swales that exist there, and the closeness to those units -- the farther apart they are, the better off we're going to be for noise transmission and other things, and any carbon monoxide may 5.B.1 Packet Pg. 75 Attachment: 3-7-2019 CCPC Minutes (8393 : March 7, 2019 CCPC Minutes) March 7, 2019 Page 51 of 91 be minimized. And I don't know why we would -- I just don't know why we wouldn't keep at least five feet, but that's -- I'm certainly open to suggestions from the panel as a whole. I'm not trying to say five's got to be it, but that seemed to be a starting point. Anybody else? COMMISSIONER FRY: Mark, when you say 5-foot setback, so from this -- the edge of this building to the property line -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. Five foot from the edge of the generator to the property line remaining. COMMISSIONER FRY: So with a zero lot line -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You'd have 10 foot on one side, so you could do five foot on that side, but then you don't have -- oh, that's a good point. You don't have 10 foot clear between the -- we don't have enough clearance between the -- MR. HENDERLONG: We you allow them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Zero lot line, it's not going in the side-yard setback at all. I don't even know how we would go in -- if we have 5-foot requirement for a 7-and-a-half-foot setback, it's not going in the side-yard setback there as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But, technically, a zero lot line might be a problem with how this is -- that's why I'm suggesting staff needs to come back after thinking about some of the suggestions. If you have a 10 foot to a zero and you still have to have five foot to the PL, you can put a generator on a zero lot line then -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- and that's a catch we -- that's a condition we want to catch, because now you've got a problem. You don't have clearance to the house and the windows to the home next door. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Right. MR. FRANTZ: So -- yeah, I think we can address this. I think we can, in that distance to the lot line for 5-foot setbacks or less, if the direction you're headed is to not allow it in those zero lot lines, we can write it that way. We can set it at a 5-foot distance that's set to the lot line for all the other -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: Personally, my concern is -- because we've heard about 10 feet from a neighbor's window, let's say. And I think that that -- if that's the standard of care or standard of safety for one zoned dwelling, it certainly ought to be for the -- out of respect for the neighbor's dwelling, so I would not want to see a generator closer than 10 feet from that structure, the neighboring structure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think that's what we're trying to -- that's at least where we're trying to go. MR. FRANTZ: Yeah. And so I think if the distance to the lot line, apart from all the other issues, is five feet, we can address that in the top part of this table. Then if the -- if the other consideration is 10 feet to any structure, we can make whatever modifications are necessary here to make sure that it's always 10 feet to another structure. So that -- I mean, both of those scenarios would have to be met. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. FRANTZ: Both five feet from the property line, and if that doesn't provide 10 feet to another structure, then that wouldn't work in that case. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. I think that's heading in the right direction. COMMISSIONER FRY: Notwithstanding noise and exhaust issues, are we not 5.B.1 Packet Pg. 76 Attachment: 3-7-2019 CCPC Minutes (8393 : March 7, 2019 CCPC Minutes) March 7, 2019 Page 52 of 91 trying to place these in the same ribbon of property as the air-conditioning and pool equipment goes, like along the same -- kind of like the same ribbon along the side of a property? Isn't that the intention here? The generator is in line with the pool equipment, in line with the well equipment, in line with the -- MR. FRANTZ: I don't know that that's our intention. I mean, we have this encroachment that's allowed right now. The Board asked us to make it easier to provide a little bit more flexibility. We don't have any particular concern about the alignment. As long as we're hitting the separation distances that are appropriate, then I don't know what that means. COMMISSIONER FRY: Why would a generator's placement be any more restrictive than the placement of an air-conditioning unit or pool equipment or anything like that if it's alongside the house, notwithstanding the exhaust issues and the noise issues, the placement of them? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Either one of those is enough right by itself. COMMISSIONER FRY: No, I mean, those have to be taken into account. But if those conditions are met, then wouldn't this naturally be in alignment with the pool equipment and the well equipment along the side of the house? MR. FRANTZ: Well, I mean, those are the two major issues, but there has been concern raised by this Planning Commission that we're adding yet another piece of mechanical equipment, and it's kind of like accumulative impacts, you know. COMMISSIONER FRY: Right. MR. FRANTZ: But also, those A/C units, they can go right up to the property. There's no -- there's no encroachment limitation on A/C units, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It can't go -- I thought it was three foot into the setback. MR. FRANTZ: For A/C units, no, there's no limitation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I thought there was -- I thought any of those obstructions were -- pool equipment and all that were limited to a certain extension into the setback. MR. HENDERLONG: I misspoke at the last Planning Commission about that, Commissioner. I did go back and look at it, and that's correct, we don't have a standard for the A/Cs. MR. BOSI: Part of the -- Mike Bosi, Planning and Zoning director. Part of some of the generator installers concerns were -- issues raised, they said, well, the pool equipment's all the way to the property line. Why can't the generator be on the property line? So that is the case. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else on this matter? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Staff? MR. FRANTZ: So my last question was, you had said 10 feet to any obstruction. I understand that would mean any mechanical equipment. We're talking about pool or A/C equipment. There was some discussion about landscaping. I'm not clear if you-all are still trying to capture that as well. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Were we talking about 10 feet? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the original proposal shown in the diagrams is 10 feet between generators, and I was suggesting, make it between any obstruction. Then we got into the pictures that Tony showed showing the amount of landscaping in some of these side setbacks and the fact these guys have got to carry a litter, potentially, back and forth. I don't know how they're going to do it through hedges. So I suggested that the landscaping be considered as another obstruction. Now, that's something staff needs to go back and research how practical is that to 5.B.1 Packet Pg. 77 Attachment: 3-7-2019 CCPC Minutes (8393 : March 7, 2019 CCPC Minutes) March 7, 2019 Page 53 of 91 apply and can it be applied, then when they come back, we'll probably get that information. MR. HENDERLONG: If I might step in for a minute. Some of the manufacturers require no landscaping in three feet, period. Others just don't require it. We heard from -- our fire official talk a little bit about three foot for movement. I think that's a reasonable standard, it sounds like to me, that three foot at least from the generator to -- and we tried to do that with vegetative anything around. That's that 3-foot clearance around the generator. No obstruction, at all. That's what we're trying to accomplish. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I wasn't so concerned around the generator. If you wanted to put a generator in but your neighbor's got a solid wall of landscaping there, there's got to be a certain clearance for the firefighters to get through that landscaping as well as any obstruction. Now, if landscaping doesn't need as much of a clearance as a hardened facility like an air-conditioner or something, so be it. That's what you guys need to look at and come back with a recommendation. But I want to make sure that they get the minimum passage they need to get to the back. You've got to always understand that if there's a loophole here, someone's going to find it and come in with it and try to get approval, and that's all we're trying to prevent is think of all these things and avoid any kind of loopholes. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Chairman, may I ask the fire captain to come back up? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Would you mind, sir? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And, by the way, I don't think we're going to get to the Immokalee discussion before we break for lunch, so if anybody's here for the Immokalee one, we're going to break for lunch here close to noontime, or maybe we'll take one more, the lighting one, just before noon, then we'll take a break for one hour for lunch, then come back and work on the rest of the LDC and the Immokalee language in the afternoon. So if you're here for either one of those, you might want to -- you can break anytime. We're not going to be able to get to them before lunch. So go ahead, sir. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Captain, it's my understanding that with respect to fire suppression personnel, they're pretty much going to go right through the vegetation, the hedge. And it might slow them down for a few seconds, but they'll manage to get through it. They're trained to do that. They have the equipment to do it. It might be different for EMS personnel, though, to -- who would -- might be effectively blocked by vegetation. And so what is your sense of whether we should be looking at an obstruction or a structure? And the question comes to proximity to a generator. CAPTAIN LINTZ: Well, to answer your question, yes, we would get through it and, if needed, we would make a path for EMS to get through there. COMMISSIONER FRYER: That's what I thought. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you respond to every scene, then, that EMS goes to? So you're always there to cut paths for them? CAPTAIN LINTZ: Almost; generally, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So if there's an emergency call on a heart attack, you'd be there as well as EMS, so if EMS had to pull somebody out of the back of the house and get through some heavy vegetation, you'd be able to -- CAPTAIN LINTZ: We would offer assistance, sir. COMMISSIONER FRYER: They'd probably get there first. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. 5.B.1 Packet Pg. 78 Attachment: 3-7-2019 CCPC Minutes (8393 : March 7, 2019 CCPC Minutes) March 7, 2019 Page 54 of 91 CAPTAIN LINTZ: Appreciate it. MR. FRANTZ: So I'm hearing that we can modify those setback distances to the lot lines, and then we can take a look at this obstruction language and come back to you with something on that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. If the landscaping doesn't need to be addressed as obstruction, that's fine, too, but it needs to be considered before we -- MR. FRANTZ: We'll bring back some considerations on that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That will wrap up the issue for now on this, and what I'd like to do, while Norm's here, I don't expect we'll need a lot of time on the lighting one. This is the lighting one, I think, on private properties that we had come up. I'd like to try to get that done before we break for lunch. Is that okay with the Planning Commission? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So let's move to that one, Jeremy. MR. FRANTZ: So for this amendment, what we did was we came back with just a foot candle standard that is consistent with our standards for some other commercial uses up against residential. So that's .5 foot candles. I'm waiting for this document to load now. But I do want to maybe kind of back up and just discuss this issue in general a little bit, because the last time that we met, the language included a limitation based on the strength or the lumens of the bulbs. We thought that we may be resolving the issue a little bit better by going to foot candles. After going out and visiting the property that -- of the gentleman that came and spoke before you-all last time, the standard that we have in place would not come anywhere close to actually addressing the issue. And I don't know that our language from the last time would have addressed the issue either. There's multiple things going on in a case like this. There's some instances of just direct glare that maybe shielding could address. There's other instances where -- I mean, the main problem that you see -- and I can pull up some images -- it's neither direct glare nor more bright than the standard that we had suggested for this time. So, you know, I guess I'm looking for this policy direction on exactly how far do you-all want to take this restriction on lighting. I'll pull up those images now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think we need a defensible position if we're going to take one, and if there isn't a defensible position, maybe it's not serious enough to be considered. I mean, I don't know what else to do with it. MR. FRANTZ: So some of these pictures are pretty dark. I tried to not use any flash. But, essentially, in this area here is the homeowner's -- is the actual home. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Of the complainant. MR. FRANTZ: Of the complainant. And there's -- there is another home a bit further away on the other side of their house, but it's pretty dark over here. This is the problematic lights. It appears to be very bright from a picture like this. This is the impact on the complainant's home. So standing in the backyard, and you can see how much it lights up the -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: How many foot candles is that in that picture? MR. FRANTZ: The foot candles were -- one moment. Standing here on the side of the house, near the bedroom ranged from .03 to .05. COMMISSIONER FRYER: That's worse on the second floor. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: .03? MR. FRANTZ: Correct. COMMISSIONER FRYER: What's it on the second floor? 5.B.1 Packet Pg. 79 Attachment: 3-7-2019 CCPC Minutes (8393 : March 7, 2019 CCPC Minutes) March 7, 2019 Page 55 of 91 MR. FRANTZ: I didn't go into the home. COMMISSIONER FRY: .03 or .3 to point -- 0.5? .03-foot candles? So less than a tenth of what is written in the standard? MR. FRANTZ: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What's moonlight? MR. FRANTZ: When I was standing on the other side of the home, it was .01. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, okay. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Well, that doesn't get it, then. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, the picture -- well, also, the pictures -- it seems to make it appear worse than what it is. COMMISSIONER FRY: .01 would be very close to no light at all. MR. FRANTZ: It was very dark. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Why does it look so light? Is it a time exposure or something? Who took the picture? MR. FRANTZ: I took the picture. It is just a standard cell phone image. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: And it looks bright. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But that's -- that light is from the glare from next door, right? MR. FRANTZ: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. MR. FRANTZ: And what's happening there is it's a light that's on the -- maybe on the ground. You can't actually see the bulb. It's reflecting against the house. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you know how far apart the homes are? MR. FRANTZ: I don't know how far apart they are. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: They're not homes. The one -- he has a home, but the neighbor has a guesthouse between his house and this home, and the light is on the outside of the guesthouse. I looked on Google Earth because I was curious what this all looked like. I have a question. Is -- you know those big search lights that they used to have in World War II for finding German bombers? If you had one of those on your property and you aimed it at your neighbor's house, do we have an ordinance against that? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Probably nuisance. MR. FRANTZ: Yeah. It might fall under some general nuisance issues. We don't have any lighting standard. That's the reason for this amendment. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Okay. So this guy -- from what I could tell on Google Earth, the neighbor just -- there's something going on between the neighbors. COMMISSIONER FRY: Jeremy, as part of research for this issue, struggling with what 0.5 foot candles would represent, I consulted an engineer in the outdoor lighting company that I represent, and I asked them just different ways to look at this issue. One question I have for you, Jeremy, is could you describe the fixture that was pointing at the guesthouse. Was it a large, flat LED panel of some kind, or was it a single bullet light? What kind of fixture was that? MR. FRANTZ: I'm trying to zoom in here. You can't really make it out. All the glare -- I didn't really get a sense for exactly what kind of fixture I was looking at. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: It has to be a -- well, 110 spotlight. I mean, it actually has to be -- it's not a low voltage. This has got to be a spotlight. COMMISSIONER FRY: Yeah. So just in -- it sounds like we're going back to the 5.B.1 Packet Pg. 80 Attachment: 3-7-2019 CCPC Minutes (8393 : March 7, 2019 CCPC Minutes) March 7, 2019 Page 56 of 91 drawing board on this, so I'm just going to give a little bit of possible input for your consideration. You have -- lumens is one way that you attempted to look at it initially, and, you know, I do low-voltage outdoor landscape lighting, which I think is something that is acceptable to most people. And the residential outdoor lighting is low voltage by and large. Commercial outdoor lighting is 120-volt by and large, and they employ fixtures that while -- my most powerful 9-watt bullet light is 720 lumens, and I have a fixture -- I could put three of those together for about 2,200 lumens. Some commercial lights are 10,000 lumens or more. Just looking at the impact of this, I would guess this is a commercial -- clearly a commercial fixture, and I've seen this at other homes, these LED panels that really were meant to light up worksites and they're being applied on a residential basis. So my question for the engineer was, is there a way to differentiate? Is there an official categorization of these lights as residential versus commercial? I wish I could say he said yes, but the answer was there's no clear. So you could differentiate by a maximum lumen of any fixture, as in limiting it to 2,500 lumens or something like that. It would still be a very powerful light but not -- but I believe this light is probably well exceeding that, and it might be something to measure. The other aspect is the City of Naples in their ordinance does have a clause that I think, you know, might be good to have in there, which is exterior lighting shall be designed, arranged, or shielded in such a manner that all adjacent properties in the public roadways are protected from direct glare. That's not measurable, but certainly all the fixtures that I sell are engineered with a shroud so they're aim-able, and they have the ability to be protected from direct glare from adjacent properties or roadways. MR. FRANTZ: Yeah. And we had some shielding requirements in the previous version -- COMMISSIONER FRY: You took them out. MR. FRANTZ: -- but I'm not sure that that would resolve this particular issue. You know, like I said, it's not really that I'm seeing the bulb directly on the lights that are facing -- they're facing the house, you know. COMMISSIONER FRY: The only thing I can see is maybe a lumen -- a lumen maximum per fixture and shielding to protect glare. It might be some combination, but it sounds like we're in a tough situation here. MR. KLATZKOW: Have we looked at other jurisdictions at how they approach this? There's 400 local governments -- over 40 to 50 local governments in Florida alone. God knows how many nationally. Have we looked at what other people are addressing this? MR. FRANTZ: Yes. We have a table with some other standards in other communities, and it's kind of some of the things that we're talking about today; requiring shielding, preventing glare, that kind of thing. The issues that -- MR. KLATZKOW: The shielding I understand. This looks like the problem is indirect lighting. MR. FRANTZ: Right. And I think that, you know, we're just trying to figure out exactly which of these is actually going to resolve this problem, if that's what we're trying to -- if that's the goal here. COMMISSIONER FRY: Well, from your table, Marco Island limits it to 1.0 foot candles of illumination to fall on adjoining residential single-family property. By your measurement, that would be -- that would be like an industrial flood light pointed right at the house. 5.B.1 Packet Pg. 81 Attachment: 3-7-2019 CCPC Minutes (8393 : March 7, 2019 CCPC Minutes) March 7, 2019 Page 57 of 91 MR. FRANTZ: Yeah. I did have some other pictures here of -- I stopped at a commercial shopping center after leaving that property, and that range, just walking in a line through the parking lot -- because the light changes as you move away from the lights -- it's .8 to 1.8. So, yeah, that's more like a commercial area. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In order to -- this is going to probably take longer than I thought. We probably shouldn't have started it before lunch. In anticipation, I was going to let Norm get done and get out. Norm, why don't you explain to us your position on it. We'll certainly listen, and then we'll come back after lunch, probably, and debate the issue further. That might be a way to expedite our process here. MR. TREBILCOCK: Sure, thank you. For the record, my name is Norman Trebilcock, professional engineer and certified planner. My company, we do transportation and traffic engineering, but we also do site lighting, area lighting. Don't really deal with the homes as directly but the streetlighting as such. So one of the things that I see -- and really bringing some of your ideas forth and working with Jeremy as well -- I recommend -- the Illuminating Engineering Society, IES, I'm a member of, actually has a model ordinance that they would recommend and I would recommend us considering here, and it -- because initially I was looking at the foot candles as well as a way, and it works well with larger sites that we work with, but when you get to a smaller situation such as a lot, it can be different. And so the Illuminating Engineering Society, their recommendations and their guidance really provides some very specific tables of illumination that can be allowed that I think would be helpful, and what we could do is put that together and work with staff and bring that forward to you, because I think it would address exactly what you're looking for. And also, they go as far as having a site schematic of a typical residence and provide lights that would be allowed, and exceptions, too, because, you know, it's understood that folks will want to have sconces and things like that. But what it wouldn't allow is that type of situation there where you get kind of a commercial-grade type light fixture that creates, as you said, a glare issue. So that would be the recommendation in looking at that, because what it gets into is -- you know, the goal is to reduce the light pollution, glare, and excessive light. And, also, it establishes a thing for us to consider is what we call lighting zones for different areas, such as a rural area having a different lighting standard than a downtown area, and then even wilderness areas to be different as well. And it's identified in the model ordinance that they have, so that, I think, would be helpful. And there are exemptions to that such as public road right-of-way and such as well. So with that in mind, I can show you some of the examples if that's helpful or maybe bring back to you, really, this model ordinance language that kind of brings into mind that combination of the illumination that you talked about. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I don't think this is going to go anywhere today. MR. TREBILCOCK: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I would rather that you -- if staff would be so inclined, you got together with staff, and at least that sample ordinance come into play. MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But if lacking that ability, there -- there are examples in other towns where they've addressed glare, they tried to, maybe some of that language, but I don't think this language is going to fly because it's not going to accomplish anything, 5.B.1 Packet Pg. 82 Attachment: 3-7-2019 CCPC Minutes (8393 : March 7, 2019 CCPC Minutes) March 7, 2019 Page 58 of 91 so... MR. KLATZKOW: I'd be so much more comfortable if we used somebody's existing ordinance. If that model ordinance has been enacted by numerous jurisdictions, it would be a good start. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's -- I agree. And if it isn't, look at the City of Sanibel. It seemed to address glare as well, and they had separate standards that weren't even in here, so maybe they'll be helpful. So why don't we start with that and come back. MR. FRANTZ: These types of standards might be going quite a ways beyond the type of direction that we got from the Board, though. It might be -- if we're looking at something more comprehensive like the City of Sanibel or like a model ordinance like this, we may want to just bring that issue back to the Board. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If the Board's that serious about doing this. We've only had one instance where this has been a problem in Collier County, right? MR. FRANTZ: Yeah. So that's why I kind of am hesitant to just immediately jump into adopting a model ordinance that's going to apply everywhere for -- I'm not exactly sure what their knowledge of the issue was. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, at this point, there's so much indecision about the way this is written or how it could be interpreted, I can't -- it doesn't warrant going forward, at least I don't think anybody on this panel would think so. And lacking that, is it necessarily, then, something we need to even consider? Did the Board direct this to happen; is that how it happened? MR. FRANTZ: The concept of trying to address impacts from neighbor's lighting was about the extent of the discussion at the Board level. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Well, that seems to be a direction to us to consider a model ordinance. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean, if they said to look at neighbor lighting, I mean, what are we -- how do -- we tell them we don't want to? I think we're better off -- why don't you put -- take a look and try to put something reasonable together. I'm not thinking we're going to write a whole new ordinance, but maybe something that could fit in the LDC as a paragraph or language, and let's see what happens at the next meeting. MR. FRANTZ: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER FRY: To Jeremy's point, I think it sounds like that ordinance goes way beyond, as you said, the intent of what you started with here. I would ask Norm, the term "residential outdoor lighting" is pretty broad. You have architectural lighting like sconces, down-lights that are in the soffit around a home. You have security lighting, like floodlights, which are on part of the time. Does the ordinance address the -- plus landscape lighting. Does it address all three of those types of lighting? MR. TREBILCOCK: Yeah. That's what I thought was good. That's why I did dig into this a little deeper in the IES model ordinance. What we could do is peel away the residential portion of it and bring that to you, because it really does, I think, cover the bases well, even to the extent of, you know, holiday lighting, that kind of thing. I mean, there's a lot of nuances that I didn't realize when I was first looking at it as well that this, I think, model ordinance would be helpful to us as a community. And, you know, because things have evolved a lot. You know, color temperature of light would be something that we would want to look at, again, to keep that residential feel of lighting that I think would help a lot for us to really kind of keep things in line and really addresses the very issue, because that was the key thing that Jeremy had pointed out 5.B.1 Packet Pg. 83 Attachment: 3-7-2019 CCPC Minutes (8393 : March 7, 2019 CCPC Minutes) March 7, 2019 Page 59 of 91 to me as, you know, does this really address the -- you know, the problem we've seen and really what the Board had asked to take a look at. So I believe we can with this. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's take a stab at it and at least come back. Is that good with everybody? Okay. With that, let's take a break for lunch and come back at 1:15 from our lunch break. (A luncheon recess was had.) MR. BOSI: Chair. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Mike. Before we start, something that we seem to be drifting away from doing, in order to keep everything in order and for our court reporter to adequately take care of the minutes, everybody needs to be recognized before they speak, and we should never speak over one another. And if everybody speaks as slow as I do, things will be really good. But I don't do that too often. So please keep that in mind as we go forward. That will make the recording a lot easier. And with that, Jeremy, we took care of a couple of items. We've got -- what's next that you want to hit on the LDC? MR. FRANTZ: We've got two more. The next one that we could tackle is the commercial landscaping amendment. The last time that you-all reviewed this, you asked us to make a few changes to remove the word "mature" from the purpose and intent section to reduce the 15-year limitation to 10 years to consider moving the prohibition on slash pine and bald cypress or to -- or to create a limitation on how much they could be used and to remove the reference to PUD deviations and variances. We've made all of those changes to the document. So if you-all have any questions, we can address those. The limitation on slash pine and bald cypress, we mirrored the limitation on palm trees in shop -- in vehicle-use areas. They're limited to 30 percent of the required trees, and we use that same number for slash pine and bald cypress. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody have any questions on the landscaping portion of the LDC amendments? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And, Jeremy, neither do I. Are there any members of the public here, Mike, that you have got cards from? MR. BOSI: None. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody in the audience want to speak on this item? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If we don't have any comments and, Jeremy, it doesn't look like we have, you did a good job. And everything seems to be in line with what we discussed before, so I think that one's good to go. So how does this -- you want to -- since we're sending some back, do you want to separately -- a motion from us separately on each one so you can take it forward, or how are you going to -- you going to hold them till they're all together? MR. FRANTZ: It might be kind of nice to get a separate motion, because I'm kind of wondering if maybe one or two of these might be a little more long-term revision process. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is there a motion to recommend approval for 4.06.02, buffer requirements, and 4.06.05, general landscaping requirements? COMMISSIONER FRYER: I'll make that motion. 5.B.1 Packet Pg. 84 Attachment: 3-7-2019 CCPC Minutes (8393 : March 7, 2019 CCPC Minutes) March 7, 2019 Page 60 of 91 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: By Ned. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I'll second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And seconded by Stan. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRY: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 6-0. Who came up and said something to me at break that I thought we'd be done with all these in the morning? That's because I thought they'd all go this way. MR. FRANTZ: We got one out of three. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, we're doing -- we're getting there. MR. FRANTZ: The last one is the gas station signs amendment. This one was a -- we didn't have any changes, specifically, to make, but we were supposed to come back with a little bit more information. We had hoped to bring back more justification for the need for a higher sign. I did get an image of the prototype sign that Wawa uses, but I didn't get any more information from the industry. And then I also did attach the references to Florida Statute that were made in the -- in the draft. So those are all a part of your packet. I did want to note that over the past, I think it was week or two, we -- staff has become aware of some new issues associated with corner lots. When we drafted this language, we were envisioning your typical corner lot that's got -- is located directly on the corner of two frontages meeting at the intersection; however, we're now aware of some instances of a -- something that would be defined as a corner lot maybe is broken up in that there's -- it kind of surrounds another corner lot. I don't know if I'm describing that very well. But we'd like to maybe actually take some time to revise that language and come back to you-all, but we'd be happy to take any comments you have on the remainder of the language. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So this isn't going to be done today. It's going to come back. In the meantime, are there any comments on the language that's in front of us today? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Joe. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I'm looking at the 4, Subparagraph C, and then I, and double I. So arterial and collector road right-of-way, the maximum height is limited to 15 feet, and then one fuel-pricing ground sign will be permitted on the frontage of a parcel that abuts a road right-of-way other than an arterial, and that's eight feet. So we -- are we all -- we are comfortable with the 15-foot elevation? I still think that's -- or height. I think that's probably a bit excessive. Is that something that was mandated by law, the height? MR. FRANTZ: No. This is -- this was actually some negotiation between staff and the industry. We brought 15 to you-all. You-all expressed concern last time. We don't really, unfortunately, have a lot more justification for you from the industry, but if 5.B.1 Packet Pg. 85 Attachment: 3-7-2019 CCPC Minutes (8393 : March 7, 2019 CCPC Minutes) March 7, 2019 Page 61 of 91 we're coming back to this amendment, we may be able to -- we may have more time for the industry to provide that. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Well, I just think 15 feet is more than they need. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Joe, I think we all had indicated that last time it came through, so I'm not sure why that's still here, but you didn't have anything to replace it with, so that's probably why. MR. FRANTZ: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else? Karl? COMMISSIONER FRY: Jeremy, in our -- in between meetings we received an email with a letter from Doug Lewis, attorney for Wawa. I think everybody received that letter -- email. I'm sorry, it was an email. And in the letter it seemed to be stating that they -- state statutes gave them the -- kind of overrode county ordinances in terms of their ability to put up signs. I spoke with Doug yesterday -- signs of a certain height and a certain style, and I spoke with him yesterday, and he actually told me that he thought this was being continued today; that he was notified that it would be continued. MR. FRANTZ: Yeah. We were aware -- staff was aware of the corner-lot issue, so I knew that we would not be able to -- COMMISSIONER FRY: So this was related only to the corner-lot issue, okay? MR. FRANTZ: From staff's perspective. I mean, I think it's -- the height is still an open question, so -- COMMISSIONER FRY: Well, he said their -- they -- their minimum sign, I think, was 18 feet. It was a standard for Wawa, but that they had come up with, like, an "A" version of a sign that would fit in 15 feet. So I'm just -- I'm bringing that up because I anticipate, from my conversation with him, a conflict if we try to go below 15 feet in terms of them feeling that they're entitled by state statute. MR. KLATZKOW: No, no, no. Just because Dougie wants to put a sign up for Wawa, I mean, doesn't mean there's a conflict. I mean, 25 feet, 30 feet, 50 feet? I don't care what Wawa standards are. I mean, you guys make the standards for Collier County. COMMISSIONER FRY: I didn't mean a conflict with -- MR. KLATZKOW: There's no conflict with state law. COMMISSIONER FRY: Okay. I meant a conflict from the industry, I guess, is what I was referring to, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The industry has already accepted the 8-foot and 12-foot numerous occasions throughout Collier County, so there's no -- I don't know where -- the industry is not represented by one individual or one group. COMMISSIONER FRY: I understand. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So I would take all that a little skeptically until we get into it, so... COMMISSIONER FRY: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else; any comments on this? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The only thing is, you're going to address the corner lots? MR. FRANTZ: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And the first paragraph of C on Page 2 of the language indicates there are two ground signs -- maximum of two ground signs. I think by insinuation the two is if it's a corner lot. I just would want to make sure that's clear. MR. FRANTZ: Yeah. It's a maximum of two signs, but you only get one sign per frontage. 5.B.1 Packet Pg. 86 Attachment: 3-7-2019 CCPC Minutes (8393 : March 7, 2019 CCPC Minutes) March 7, 2019 Page 62 of 91 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. But it wasn't as clear as I would have hoped it would have been, but I certainly understood the intent. I appreciate you providing the statutes. They certainly clarify that we are not restricted by statutes to looking at some of the issues we're going to be looking at, so I do thank you for that. I don't have anything else. We'll wait till it comes back with how you address the corner lots and go from there. MR. FRANTZ: Okay. So we'll bring back the corner-lot language, any changes that we have for that. In terms of the height, I don't have a specific number to go down to, so you'll probably see that same number the next time, but it will be the point that we're evaluating that justification. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Understood. Thank you. MR. FRANTZ: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody here in the audience for this item? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There is nobody, okay. Thank you, Jeremy. That wraps up the LDC issues? MR. FRANTZ: It does. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: ***Okay. Next item up for today is 9A3, which is a continuation of the review of the Immokalee Area Master Plan. This has been continued from the 31st meeting to the 21st of February -- 31st of January to the 21st of February and then until today. And as we discussed last time, there were still some outstanding questions or clarifications, and I'm assuming staff's here to put it all together. Thank you. MS. JENKINS: Good afternoon. Anita Jenkins with Community Planning. Mr. Chairman, when we left off last time, we had discussed the entire plan. We have some items of cleanup and language that has been modified to address some of your concerns and also noting some of staff's further review. We can go through those first, or we can go back into the document and discuss some of the larger items that we were discussing last time, whichever one you prefer. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why don't we start with the document and see where it leads us. MS. JENKINS: I'll go page by page. And what I have -- the changes you'll see red, double underline, double strikethrough, or just red, so -- when you look at the documents on the overhead. This first language -- thank you, Mike -- is just an introduction of the document. And I'm working off of the -- I think it's in your Attachment A in your book, or B. So it's the revised Immokalee Master Plan. This is just the introduction. And it was brought to our attention by the Airport Authority staff that -- and I highlighted their -- the U.S. port of entry. Collier County did not achieve that designation, so the Airport Authority asked us to make that change, clean that document up a little bit. Also, the runway links in the document weren't quite accurate, so we just tried to simplify that a little bit. So that's just all changes in the introduction having to do with the airport. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just while you're on that page, you changed the acreage reference. How did you come with up with the new acreage? MS. JENKINS: So at first it said that the Immokalee Area Master -- or the Immokalee airport provided access to over 2,000 acres. The PUD for the airport is only 1,400 acres. So it's not over 2,000, but it is over 1,000. So if you would like us to be more specific at 1,400, we could do that, but I just tried to keep the changes simple. 5.B.1 Packet Pg. 87 Attachment: 3-7-2019 CCPC Minutes (8393 : March 7, 2019 CCPC Minutes) March 7, 2019 Page 63 of 91 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But previously it referred to the amount of acreage that was industrial zoned, and now it is aeronautical and industrial. That's another reason it's probably not -- MS. JENKINS: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Different. MS. JENKINS: So we put aeronautical in there. You'll notice that, so... This is a change to Policy 2.1.2 where we were asked to make sure that we're including the neighborhood residence as part of the neighborhood improvement plan, so we just added that in there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're on Page 10; that means you're not making any changes to Page 8; is that correct? MS. JENKINS: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the agricultural research, development facilities, agribusiness offices, headquarters, and facilities offices, headquarters, and apparatuses associated with alternative energy use can only be utilized in the LR -- the low residential district of Immokalee? MS. JENKINS: Mr. Strain, I thought that was kind of -- a more broader issue that was up for discussion. I didn't hear that specific direction from the full board. So if that's your direction today, we'll make that change, but -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We talked about it. I just didn't know what your reaction to it was. Your reaction to it is not to change it, is that -- MS. JENKINS: Not yet. But if that's your recommendation today from the full board and it's part of your motion, yes, we will definitely do that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. JENKINS: The next change is on Page 11. And we were asked just to remove the language "owned by an absentee landlord" under the housing code enforcement policy. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. JENKINS: The next one is on Page 18, and it is in the policy for mobile homes within the Immokalee urban area, and we have added to that language, more specifically, "or within existing mobile home lot or within the mobile home overlay." So that captures every situation in Immokalee that a mobile home may be utilized. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good. Okay. MS. JENKINS: The next policy change -- bring it down just a little bit more. We added a paragraph. Thanks. This is the consistent-by-policy language. So the zoning on the property for zonings and rezonings. We cleaned that language up to match the language as it exists in the Future Land Use Element. So now the language is the same for both. And if you have any questions or want further clarification, David worked with us on that language. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So, I mean, I don't mean to interrupt the rest of you if you have something. I just -- David, so you're telling us that -- it's Section 6.1.9 of the FLUE, isn't it, that you're mirroring here; is that correct? MR. WEEKS: David Weeks, Comprehensive Planning staff. This language comes from Policy 5.3 in the Future Land Use Element. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. There are a -- I went through the two plans. I could not get -- I couldn't find a way to get the existing Immokalee FLUE overlaid on the proposed, so I did it myself with an Apple program, and I was able to find a lot of discrepancies both up and down. And I talked to you about this at one point. And some of them are broad, such as 5.B.1 Packet Pg. 88 Attachment: 3-7-2019 CCPC Minutes (8393 : March 7, 2019 CCPC Minutes) March 7, 2019 Page 64 of 91 the industrial mixed-use area where it overrides the commercial center industrial subdistrict. There's some changes of uses there that are actually downzoning. There are other sections that overlap -- the CMU overlaps some C5 zoning. There's a lot of MR and HR interaction and changes. There are some CMU that's over the top of what's currently LR, which means that's actually upzoning. Some RSF-3 places are now CMU locations. The IMU also has a section three hundred and some odd acres that overrides the LR. There's a couple points where LR's been changed to MR, and substantial sections have been added as RT up along -- not even along Lake Trafford but on both sides of Lake Trafford Road. There's quite a bit -- I mean, I've got probably 20 or 24 different up- and downzonings. Is the language you're proposing here -- how would that address all of these? MR. WEEKS: It will address one of the two scenarios that you're identifying. And let me add that we -- we, staff, will create maps to go along with this policy. What this policy captures is where we are changing the future land-use designation such that the existing zone allows a greater density or intensity of use than the Future Land Use Map designation. An example, let's say there's a property that we're going to change the designation to MR, mixed residential; it doesn't allow for commercial development other than by a text provision, yet there's a piece of property zoned C3. Well, that zoning allows an intensity of use that the Future Land Use Map designation does not allow. We will map that property to correlate with this policy. And what this policy is saying is, number one, you get to keep that zoning; number two, you can make changes to that zoning so long as you don't increase the density or intensity. So you're allowed to maintain that level of Future Land Use Map in nonconformity. You can't increase it. You wanted to rezone, in my example, from C3 to C2, that will be allowed under this policy, or if you wanted to rezone from C3 to a PUD with C3 uses but different development standards, you'd be allowed to do that under this policy. What it does not capture is the case where we have changed the Future Land Use Map -- I got stuck. The second scenario that you identified, Commissioner. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The downzoning from, like, the RT going in front of the LR or the IMU taking the place of commercial. MR. WEEKS: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. WEEKS: That's where we've changed the -- it's not a comparison of zoning to Future Land Use Map designation as the first scenario. That's where we're changing the Future Land Use Map designation to allow lesser intensity uses than the current Future Land Use Map designation. This policy does not capture that, because that's the scenario of what someone is eligible to request through a rezoning action versus the first-case scenario where the zoning already exists; that would not be consistent with the Future Land Use Map designation that we're proposing here. So we're taking away the eligibility to request a rezoning of the density or intensity that presently exists. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you're saying that if someone came in and they had a CMU -- not a CMU, a commercial industrial subdistrict that allowed major activity centers, industrial -- industrial, not light industrial; industrial -- C1 through C5, and now that's changed to industrial mixed-use, which is C4 through C5, RT parks, business parks, light manufacturing, ag uses, and targeted industry, it takes out the wholesale industrial component and the lighter C components but, of course, by C4 they may be in there just by 5.B.1 Packet Pg. 89 Attachment: 3-7-2019 CCPC Minutes (8393 : March 7, 2019 CCPC Minutes) March 7, 2019 Page 65 of 91 the hierarchy of the code. So we've actually taken out land-use rights on that property only because they weren't utilized to date. Well, they wouldn't be utilized to date if Immokalee hasn't been built out necessarily, and it hasn't been. So how does someone react to that if they don't -- not everybody's going to -- lives in the town where all this is happening. They may not seen the notices. They may be living somewhere else. So how are they protected on their property rights for this kind of situation? MR. WEEKS: That's the vested-rights policy that is provided. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's a one-year reaction. So now you're saying that folks have to know about this from one year from when it's enacted, and if they don't know about it, they lose it. I'm not sure that's an adequate protection of property rights, and that's what -- one of the concerns I have overall with the amount of changes being made in this plan. And is there a solution to that that you can suggest? MR. WEEKS: The only solution I would know of would be to not make the land-use designation change or to make some type of text change that has the same effect, and that is that if you had the ability to request this zoning today, then when we adopt this -- these plan amendments, you'll still have that right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But we've done something like that, and I can't remember which one of the other overlays, which they can opt in or opt out. If they opt in, they join the new standards. If they opt out, they can develop under the old standards. Wasn't it some other CRA -- Bayshore CRA had something like that in it? MR. WEEKS: Yes, zoning overlays. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. So why -- when could -- how do we fit in that as a possible solution? I just don't like taking away property rights without notification to the property owners, and that's basically what we're doing. MS. JENKINS: Well, if we can look at some specific properties, it might help, of what's actually on there -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you can look at that purple area that's on the current FLUE that's called commercial center industrial subdistrict, and then now you'll see it's an IMU. MS. JENKINS: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So how are we -- the IMU is a downzoning. MS. JENKINS: Well, it allows different land uses, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But does it allow industrial? MS. JENKINS: It allows lighter industrial, but not -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. So it doesn't allow all the land uses it currently has. MS. JENKINS: Right. So we have some industrial in there. And this is where all -- the majority of the packinghouses are, and we have an aerial to show you, it's pretty much built out in this area, but you can think about it either way. So the C5 still has the ability to have C5 and to go up to the lighter industrial, but that industrial also now has the ability to achieve the commercial uses that they didn't have before. So it's -- you know, it's a policy decision, but I think what the community was doing in their process is trying to make a transition from -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What commercial uses? I mean, you'll say so much in an answer; I want to catch you before I forget what you said. You said it doesn't allow them -- it allows them to do some of the commercial uses they couldn't do before. They had C1 through C5 in that area, so what commercial use 5.B.1 Packet Pg. 90 Attachment: 3-7-2019 CCPC Minutes (8393 : March 7, 2019 CCPC Minutes) March 7, 2019 Page 66 of 91 couldn't they have done? MS. JENKINS: Well, the industrial -- the commercial is related only to -- it's accessory to the industrial uses. So you could do a restaurant or a daycare, something that is providing for the employees, but it's not necessarily providing for the community. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But the whole area was zoned -- was in the GMP as commercial/industrial. So they could have come in and asked for commercial uses under that category in the FLUE. So I'm just trying to -- they can't do that now. MS. JENKINS: Well -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They can do it in C4 and C5 and light manufacturing, which is light industrial, but we lost the heavy industrial, and I'm not sure they really had a limitation based on the language for the commercial but -- okay. Go on with what you were saying. MS. JENKINS: So it is. I can see it going either way. So the community said the preference is to have a transition from the heavier commercial uses. We want to do the mixed use of industrial and commercial in this location. But if it stays industrial, we can look at the aerial and see -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: When you said the community, was this the property owners that were notified in the stakeholders meeting? MS. JENKINS: Well, when I say "the community," I think of the 10 years that the community went through this process with their own committee, Visioning and Growth Management Plan Committee, that facilitated their process out there. So that's who I mean when I say "the community" and all the workshops and neighborhood information meetings that were held. So this is the area, and it is substantially built out in that area with packinghouses. It also has an overlay in this area to describe it as the agribusiness overlay. So I think they've defined it in different terms of what the community believes is the best use for that location, but whether it goes back to industrial, just the "I" district, or if it stays industrial mixed-use is a policy decision for you-all. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. JENKINS: The other one that you had a question on about that -- and I want to put this back up for just a minute -- is this pink area that's C5, and it went to the CMU. And it was -- prior to, it was the commerce industrial, and now it's in the CMU. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, there were two other parcels on there, too, so it wasn't just that one. MS. JENKINS: And let's just -- so we're talking about all of them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You've got -- MS. JENKINS: These here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The one you pointed to has the property in the green square as CMU, and then the property above it, which is C5, went to CMU as well. Then the one below Main Street you've got the L-shaped piece that overlaps into the C5 in that location. MS. JENKINS: Right. And those are county properties on the corner there. But the other additional factors on those properties is those are within the downtown overlay, Main Street Overlay District, and so the community believes that it's more appropriate for those entry locations to be consistent with the Main Street program, and that is, in fact, part of the subdistrict, the zoning subdistrict that is on that property as well. And that zoning district was just amended in 2016. Some properties were removed in this location, but that one, again, remained. 5.B.1 Packet Pg. 91 Attachment: 3-7-2019 CCPC Minutes (8393 : March 7, 2019 CCPC Minutes) March 7, 2019 Page 67 of 91 So there's a lot of different overlapping factors on some of these properties to consider with these overlays and that they've been through the overlay, the zoning process, and participating in those as well. Now, that property is -- on the corner there is a half an acre, I believe, and so now with the C5 zoning that they have, they have that flexibility to do that. Being in the Main Street Overlay, they also have some guidance on where their entrance is and some conditional uses for that property as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They don't have C5 uses, though, anymore, right? MS. JENKINS: No. They're zoned C5. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. But I'm talking about, if they're in a CMU, will they retain those C5 uses? MS. JENKINS: Yes; yeah. You retain -- regardless of how the land use is changing, you retain the zoning that you have today. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's kind of puzzling. MS. JENKINS: Designations or zoning? MR. BOSI: Are you asking about the designation change? MS. JENKINS: Designations or zoning? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. MR. BOSI: The designation changes would definitely -- MS. JENKINS: Yeah. The designation changes from the commerce industrial to the CMU. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. And the commerce industrial allowed it up to C5 uses; the CMU does not. MS. JENKINS: But their zoning does. Their zoning is C5. So they can develop today under that C5 zoning. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Will they be nonconforming? MS. JENKINS: So they would be covered under the provisions, consistency by policy. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And, David, that's one of the properties you'll address. MR. WEEKS: Yes. So in that case, in nonconformities between the C5 zoning and the Future Land Use Map designation that is proposed, they are allowed to develop and redevelop under their existing C5 zoning. This does nothing to change those rights of the existing zoning. What it does is it precludes the ability to upzone to the industrial that today they could do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They could do now, but they can't do it under the CMU. MR. WEEKS: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. While you're there, David, there's another piece talking about the Main Street corridor. Could you put one of the maps on showing where the Main Street Overlay is? MS. JENKINS: Sure. There's a clearer one, or if you prefer the one I had. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, actually -- I'm sorry. How about the FLUE. That's just the -- that's the overlay I meant. MS. JENKINS: This FLUE? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, the old FLUE, if you could. MS. JENKINS: The old FLUE? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I might be able to find it on that one. Put that one on. I'll show it to you. Okay. See where the IMU capital letters are right below New Market Road east? To the left of that is a yellow crosshatched area that's MR. That's above the CMU. That 5.B.1 Packet Pg. 92 Attachment: 3-7-2019 CCPC Minutes (8393 : March 7, 2019 CCPC Minutes) March 7, 2019 Page 68 of 91 yellow crosshatched area was commercial center mixed-use subdistrict in the current FLUE. Now it looks like it's going to the MR, residential district. Is that another -- something else you'll be addressing? MR. WEEKS: That whole rectangle? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, at the end of your pen there. MR. WEEKS: Right. It is not addressed, but that is all owned by county government. It's -- there's -- the Immokalee High School is on the western portion of that. The eastern portion is the Immokalee community park and library and some other government facility. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Are they taking advantage of any of the uses -- any of the use changes going to affect them? Let's put it that way, their operation probably -- because they're going from PF or public facility down to MR, is that going to be a problem? MR. WEEKS: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. WEEKS: Not for the governmental uses, because those are going to be allowed in the MR as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then the other part of this whole issue is compatibility. We have a lot of uses that are going from what could be, in some cases, in the current FLUE, as HR to CMU, on the current FLUE is LR to MR, and on the -- there's quite a few MRs to HRs. So those are all higher in densities alongside existing properties. Has anybody researched how many of them are built out at the old density so that now, if they're expecting to buy in a low residential area, they're going to have a higher residential area next to them for compatibility? Has any of that been thought out? Now, that's an up -- that's a higher intensity, a higher density, so you're upgrading the property from that perspective. But if you were in the neighborhood expecting the neighborhood to be like you, you're actually hurting yourself. So I'm not sure -- I don't want to move into one project, find it developed low density, then a new project coming in under the new FLUE having a higher-density product. It might not be something I thought I'd be living next to. Has any thought gone into those instances in regards to this layout? MS. JENKINS: When the land-use designations were determined for this plan, zoning was taken into consideration. So the existing zoning or the density that was actually on the ground at the time within those neighborhoods was taken into consideration when these designations were defined. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you're referring back to the mid, what, 2010 or 2012 era when another company did this for the CRA? You weren't there, were you? MS. JENKINS: I was not there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You didn't participate in this? MS. JENKINS: I did not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So that's just the best information you have today. MS. JENKINS: Yeah. And we did go through all the zoning maps with, you know, the FLUM overlay on it, as well, and had no objections to the changes in the residential designations. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Were you aware of the population study done that that was based on? MS. JENKINS: I'm aware of it. 5.B.1 Packet Pg. 93 Attachment: 3-7-2019 CCPC Minutes (8393 : March 7, 2019 CCPC Minutes) March 7, 2019 Page 69 of 91 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Do you remember which one it was? Do you remember, was it the 2005 study according to the meeting? Do you remember what the population of Immokalee was said to be in that 2005 study? It was 104,000. MS. JENKINS: Built-out population, yeah, it was over 100,000 -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hundred and four. And based on discussions with you, we're talking about, now, 47,000. MS. JENKINS: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that brings me to another question that I guess now is a good time to ask. MR. WEEKS: Mr. Chairman, if I can interject on that population. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. MR. WEEKS: That population projection goes back to 1991 when the Immokalee Master Plan was originally adopted. During the 2012 and years prior, that last effort to update the Immokalee Master Plan, there were no new calculations made for the existing Immokalee Master Plan. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. But in 2005 the study showed 104,000. I've got a copy of the study. It's a thick book. MR. WEEKS: It just carried over from 1991 is all I'm saying. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. Now we're looking at 47,000. Do you know what the person per household is by the U.S. Census in 2015 adopted by BEBR for Collier County? MS. JENKINS: I'm sure David does. MR. WEEKS: Not off the top of my head. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 2.47. MR. WEEKS: Yeah. It's higher than the countywide average. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. That's for countywide average is 2.47, at least BEBR says it was Collier County. I've got the chart. But do you know what the 2017 -- if you go to U.S. Census government right now, do you know what the number of persons per household the Census Bureau is now using for Immokalee? It's 4.52. If you take 47,000, divide it by 2.47, you end up with about 19,000 units to meet that population. If you were to use the higher number for Immokalee, which is 4.52, you need even less. Currently, there's 24,000 bodies in Immokalee, and it will change -- it will be fluctuating a little bit, so I don't understand how we're going to get to buildout based on the -- I've previously asked for a number -- a chart I had provided based on the prior attempt at this master plan to get through the process, and it showed 137,747 units being built out with this new plan. And, Anita, you just recently confirmed that still seems to be accurate. Why do we need a plan providing 137,000 units when the buildout of Immokalee is only going to be about 19,000 units? MS. JENKINS: Well, I think it's happening all in the lower residential which is already designated but active agriculture, and, you know, if -- we're just not changed the boundaries. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you know how hard it is to take away something due to property rights once it's issued? We struggle with it every single day up here, people coming in and asking more because they have vested rights. They base their rights on an old standard that then generates certain traffic intensities, and all they have to do is match intensity with a new mix or a new development scenario, and they argue that they should be approved. 5.B.1 Packet Pg. 94 Attachment: 3-7-2019 CCPC Minutes (8393 : March 7, 2019 CCPC Minutes) March 7, 2019 Page 70 of 91 Instead of just giving the density away, why don't we incentivize it where it's needed to come in and ask for it? I know that part of that is under the zoning category, but I think we're just -- we're looking at an area in Immokalee that's much greater as far as intensities go than what we started with in flexibility. I understand Main Street. I have no problem with the CMU in Main Street having the flexibility to do mixed-use. I think that would be a good thing, but I'm very worried about all the outlying areas and having the higher intensities dropped in where they weren't expected both under the compatibility for the people already living there and then under the ability for us to control it in the future. And that's one of the big issues I have with this plan now, and it's what I had with the plan five or eight or 10 years ago. It hasn't changed. I was -- I just don't see the need to go to a style that's going to create that much more units that we would have no hope of ever seeing built, or if -- so 30 years from now they may want to be built. Why don't we put that density on the table 30 years from now when we know how it's going to be used instead of today? Because we just did this plan. We're redoing the plan for the last time -- from the last time now, so... I'm just -- this whole thing is much bigger of a change than I think is warranted for what Immokalee needs, and I'm concerned about it. I asked questions like this back in 2012. I received answers from the people there at the time. I asked them things about if the density increases like it is, what's that going to do for the comparable pricing? Well, most likely it will lower the pricing. But we're going to be lowering it across the board, and I'm not sure every component of the urban area of Immokalee benefits from lower pricing. When somebody lives in Immokalee and they work their way up and wherever they are working there and they get to a middle management or upper management and they want to go to another level of home, will their homes be available at a higher price point so they've got more economic diversity in Immokalee? I don't know how that's going to fit into this plan because the plan is so across-the-board increases in intensity. I'm concerned about it. And that -- MS. JENKINS: The overall number of units did drop about 30,000 with this plan. (Simultaneous speakers.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But, see, that whole program -- MS. JENKINS: The total number of units has dropped. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right, but the whole program was based on what -- as David had said, on 100 and -- over 100,000. Knowing we're not going to get there, or we're not supposed to now, why don't we design a master plan that's more in line with what the buildout's going to be, not so many more -- it's six times bigger than the buildout, or four -- what, it's four times, five times bigger. So I'm just -- don't know why we're rewriting a plan that's not going to take Immokalee to a newer level. It's really going to keep Immokalee in the level it's at. In fact, it may further decrease price points in Immokalee, decrease the tax base. I'm not sure how it's going to help things. MS. JENKINS: Well, it does give the landowners the ability to bring in a new housing product from what's there now and, again, a lot of these designations are based on the underlying zoning. You have zoning in these HRs that is RSF-16, for instance, and 12. So you have some very high-density areas, and I think those areas that were designated as high density, and backing off from that. Again, this is a walkable/bikeable community, and people need to live in closer proximity to one another than we do in the coastal area. So I think putting the land use in 5.B.1 Packet Pg. 95 Attachment: 3-7-2019 CCPC Minutes (8393 : March 7, 2019 CCPC Minutes) March 7, 2019 Page 71 of 91 place now gives them that opportunity to redevelop with some different product types that will work for the community and also work for the developer. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, I mean, I understand what you're saying, Anita. Thank you. Do you want to move on to the next part that you were working on? MS. JENKINS: This is just a very small change that we've added the effective date, the term "effective date" to this policy, and this goes back to -- actually, this is a continuation of the consistent-by-policy language. So we're just adding the effective date so we know when we're measuring that from. The next one was a change that was suggested on Goal 7 to add not only the exchange of information but also recognizing that we would like to always encourage cost sharing, so we did add that to the goal. And the next one we've continued -- the community has continued to work with our emergency management team, and this is a total strikethrough of the last policy, and the emergency management team has, again, worked closely with the community and the unmet needs to come up with this new policy. And if you don't mind, I think Mr. Summers would like to make a few comments to that policy, if that's okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Absolutely. He's been patiently waiting here all day, so... We're looking forward to it, Dan. MR. SUMMERS: Good afternoon. Thank you very, very much for the opportunity to be with you. And, first of all, let me applaud the Immokalee community for engaging in this. I wanted to take an opportunity to just provide a little bit of background on this discussion, because I think it was noteworthy, especially what we went through with Irma. So, again, this is a good-news item. But a couple of things just for clarity in the event after my discussion we need to tweak this just a little bit. First of all, I just want to make sure that everybody's aware that our framework that we operate under is Florida Statute 252, which is very clear about the roles and responsibilities of county emergency management. The second component of that is when the county -- when we do our Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan, that is endorsed by the Board of County Commissioners, and that, too, is the macro view of our particular operations. FEMA requires that, State Division of Emergency Management, there's a lot of references in the Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan. So anything that we do for Immokalee in this particular case, I just wanted to make sure that it was on the record that you understood that we want to put that in the framework of the Florida Statute 252 in the Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan. That plan is up for its tri-annual update. Rick Zyvoloski on our staff has been around a long time; Rick manages that update. We're going to send a letter to all of these Immokalee non-profit or quasi-governmental agencies up there, and if they'd like to provide some input, written input to the Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan, we can do that. The reason this is a little unusual is that we might have other communities that are looking for a site specific plan. My job is to address the whole community and do that in a fair and equitable manner, and I think we have certainly done that. Municipalities can act either in concert with the county Emergency Management Plan or they can do their own particular planning function. 5.B.1 Packet Pg. 96 Attachment: 3-7-2019 CCPC Minutes (8393 : March 7, 2019 CCPC Minutes) March 7, 2019 Page 72 of 91 The other component here is remember that a bulk of these unmet need organizations that are non-profit and the Unmet Needs Coalition, I believe, has formed their 501(c)3. It is important to understand that as they are a private non-profit, we, in the local government, under emergency management, can do memorandums of agreement or memorandums of understanding with them. They're typically voluntary, nonbinding agreements. We have a standard form for that. But that agreement is helpful to them, particularly as we work through public and private opportunities during disaster relief. FEMA, with an MOA for an eligible non-profit in some cases, can get reimbursed. And so that's why, for one of the other reasons -- a primary reason that we can use some of the FEMA resources that are available to them. The other concept I wanted you to be aware of in this discussion is that it is essential that you have one primary EOC, you have one primary hub of operations. We fragment command or we break off command segments all the time in our operations, whether it's for a wildfire event, a tornado event, and we can do the same thing with Immokalee. So when we talk about a satellite emergency operations center, it needs to be crystal clear that that is a component, that is a spoke in the hub, if you will, with the county's EOC. We have quite an expensive and robust EOC, so I don't think we need to go down the road of building another EOC, because these are always event dependent. We have the technology we can bring to the site, whether it's a mobile command vehicle, whether it's a utility, whether we take a Parks and Recreation building and convert it to a temporary EOC immediately following landfall for recovery. So I just wanted to make sure that you are aware with that -- aware of that concept. And in terms of Immokalee, what we want to do is, basically, we're not going to write a new plan, but what I think is relevant here is to write a checklist of activities, goals, capabilities, and limitations with the non-profit groups. This is a large undertaking with no staff and no resources, additional resources to do this. So I just kind of wanted to share those concerns with you. If you think anything needs to be tweaked to that, I realize I'm a little late getting to the party. But, again, we applaud the effort. We think this is a good thing to do, but I just wanted to make sure you understood the framework and the ramifications behind it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Ned. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Dan, with respect to a satellite or a spoke EOC -- and I understand that if there were an earthquake or something that happened, the main one, that you would want to try to move your operations there. Are there other benefits, though, for having spokes than your main place is put out of commission? MR. SUMMERS: Well, it's a good point. And we do have what we refer to as a COOP plan, a Continuity of Operations Plan. And we have several alternate sites that we can go to. And part of what we do, we have a fair amount of redundant equipment and portable equipment. So, for example, if the primary EOC was taken out, one of our secondary locations would be the large training classroom at the South Florida -- I'm sorry, at the south water plant. Very robust, generator backed up. Sufficient IT resources there. North Collier Regional Park becomes a third component for us, and as we go back and complete the rebuilding at the ag extension building even out at Immokalee Road that's listed. So we feel like we've adequate COOP sites throughout the internal portions of the county that would meet our needs sufficiently. COMMISSIONER FRYER: So having one in Immokalee would be an overall significant benefit to the entire county? 5.B.1 Packet Pg. 97 Attachment: 3-7-2019 CCPC Minutes (8393 : March 7, 2019 CCPC Minutes) March 7, 2019 Page 73 of 91 MR. SUMMERS: Well, I don't see it as making that investment is -- to let you know is that it is event dependent, okay? So if -- depending on the magnitude of the event. We used the library in Immokalee, Lee Co-Op got -- that just happened to be a site where power came up fairly quickly. We dispatched an incident management team that was our forward command element for our primary EOC. The same thing would happen with another event tomorrow is that we have identified alternate locations that we can go to very quickly and set up. So I'm not really sure that it needs to be a hardened dedicated facility, but just know that we've got the capability to stand something up on short notice. COMMISSIONER FRYER: How about the new Naples EOC, city EOC? MR. SUMMERS: Well, the city EOC could be a COOP site for us. We've not entertained that discussion. I do worry about that site still being a little bit storm-surge vulnerable in terms of average hurricane event. But our working relationship with the city is very good, and that's the same case with the 911 public-safety answering points. City of Naples and Collier County Sheriff back each other up with those redundant piece app (sic). COMMISSIONER FRYER: Mr. Chairman, just slightly off subject, but I think very important. The article in the newspaper yesterday about this terrible situation in Immokalee where, as a result of their not having a hook and ladder within their own Fire Department, a person bled to death using a chain saw up a tree; couldn't be rescued. It seems to me -- and, again, I know this is somewhat beyond the scope of a Future Land Use Element, but just from a practical standpoint, rather than looking at spending money on building an EOC spoke in Immokalee, I'd rather see the county contribute funds so that they have a hook and ladder. Just an observation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you, Dan. Anybody else? MR. SUMMERS: That's all I have. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I appreciate your time. Thanks for waiting all day, too, Dan. MR. SUMMERS: My pleasure. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anita. MS. JENKINS: Okay. The next change is one that we spoke with you about, just a change in the language to put in there the other nonresidential uses that are allowed in these different land-use designation areas and have been determined by staff to be consistent. So we just wanted to make sure that they're clearly all in there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. JENKINS: This one -- we were asked to change "ancillary" to "accessory," and I think David wants to talk to you about that a little bit more with a different suggestion potentially. MR. WEEKS: I do. I would recommend that we strike the word "ancillary" and stop there. Don't insert the word "accessory." The reason is, accessory uses are something we usually don't even talk about at the level of the Comprehensive Plan. And accessory uses are in relationship usually to an individual site or building; a house, you have an accessory swimming pool or shed, perhaps. This is speaking about a subdistrict; big, broad land-use designation. I don't think there should be any discussion about accessory uses. So just leave the word -- leave the phrase "supporting uses," and that would refer back to the page Anita just had up, all those different types of nonresidential uses that are allowed, such as churches and cemeteries and childcare centers. Those institutional and social-type uses that generally support residential development or a community. 5.B.1 Packet Pg. 98 Attachment: 3-7-2019 CCPC Minutes (8393 : March 7, 2019 CCPC Minutes) March 7, 2019 Page 74 of 91 COMMISSIONER FRYER: Is "supporting" a term of art in land use? MR. WEEKS: It certainly is in this case. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. What in your view does it mean beyond the plain dictionary meaning? MR. WEEKS: Again, it's referring to those social and institutional type uses that are part of the fabric of the community. So it's supportive of the community at large. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. MR. WEEKS: I hope that helps. And that same change is made, I think, in MR, medium residential, and HR, high residential. All three places it occurs. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, David. MS. JENKINS: David, you can stay right there, because this one is -- we were asked to clarify the density by right and the density bonus by right. MR. WEEKS: Oh, let's don't go there yet, Anita. Pull the page down some. Paragraph B, Commissioners, the discussion of accessory dwelling units and structures, dwelling units not counted as a unit for purposes of density calculation. We discussed this and then we internally -- this body discussed it, and then staff internally decided, well, let's just take the language from the Future Land Use Element and insert it there, and then we forgot to do it. So I've handwritten it here. The touch is so different. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So saying that the density rating system is not applicable to accessory dwelling or accessory structures that are not intended for rental or other commercial uses? Such as accessory dwellings and structures include guest houses, mother-in-law quarters, cabanas, guest suites and the like. So if it's rented, it's a dwelling unit? If it's not rented -- MR. WEEKS: If it's rented, it's actually going to fall into a different category. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, but it will be considered a countable unit? MR. WEEKS: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Back up from there. MR. WEEKS: Now, first, let's keep the context. This is the density rating system. It's only applicable to residential dwelling units, which we're talking about here, and it's only applicable in the LR, MM, HR, the different designations that allow residential development because I think, for example, cabanas we would associate -- typically, at least, associate maybe with a commercial development, but there are some cases where a condominium might have guests that stay there; and by their large pool, they might have some cabanas. Typically those would not, in my experience, at least not be rented out, but I don't know if there's an exception to that. What we're trying to do is just make it clear that these are the types of accessory -- particularly the case of a guesthouse. I mean, it is a house. People can live in it year-round, conceivably, subject to the limitations in the Land Development Code which prevent you from renting it out. So let's say you have a relative, maybe an elderly parent and you want to move them in close to you, they could live in your guesthouse year-round, and it's not going to count as a second dwelling unit. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. Which I -- that's how I'm understanding it, but I'm -- I didn't get that from the reading of this. So it says, accessory dwelling units or accessory structures that are not intended for rental or other commercial uses. So that means if they are intended for rental or other commercial uses, they are considered part of the density rating system; is that true? MR. WEEKS: That's not, and I can see the confusion. 5.B.1 Packet Pg. 99 Attachment: 3-7-2019 CCPC Minutes (8393 : March 7, 2019 CCPC Minutes) March 7, 2019 Page 75 of 91 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is it just me or -- MR. WEEKS: No, it's not, because similar -- same language in the Future Land Use Element. Commissioners, you see on the second line where I had a blue caret and I scribbled it out? I think we could put a period there and then pick it up in my red language, a new sentence, "Such accessory dwelling units and structures include." I think that will eliminate the confusion by making any reference to rental. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ah. Yes. Much better. Thank you. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Say that again, please. MR. WEEKS: Certainly. On the second line, the sentence -- this is Paragraph B. Second line, the sentence will stop at "structures," two words from the end of the line, and then the next sentence, the rest of that is removed, deleted, and then we pick up on the one, two, three, fourth line, my handwritten comment, "such accessory dwellings and structures include guesthouses, mother-in-laws' quarters, cabanas, guesthouse suites and the like." COMMISSIONER FRYER: I got it. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, David. Okay. MR. WEEKS: This is about as fun as the maps you were discussing this morning. I hope that I've accomplished the objective of making this more clear. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: By crossing it all out, yeah. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: It eliminates the ambiguity. MR. WEEKS: This is under the density rating system, and the context is affordable housing density bonus by right. And we have -- the version in your packet was proposing this language here. So what we did is we put two things together but in separate tables. If you're coming in for an affordable housing bonus by right, that is there's no public-hearing process, then a certain density could be awarded by right, bonus density for the affordable housing and then, coincident with that, was that you would get your base density, your eligible base density by right. Ordinarily, you have to come in for a rezoning. And the base density may be four units per acre, but it's not by right; it's discretionary, just as with the density bonus. But in this scenario the density bonus for the affordable housing is by right and then, likewise, the base density is by right. So we've eliminated this separate table that's talking about the base density and on the next page, or maybe two pages over, combined that into a single table. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Oh, yeah, it's much easier to understand. MR. WEEKS: So in the third column from the left, that is outside the low residential area. The density cap for the affordable housing is eight units per acre. We're simply walking through the math of how you get the density. So the left-hand number, which is four, all the way down, and then 5, 6, 6, 7.26, that's all the density either based on the eligible base density of four units per acre; or when you get to the RSF-5, it's the density of your underlying zoning district, and then added to it in the second number, the 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 3, 2, so on, that's the amount of bonus for the affordable housing that's added to it. So it's a combination of zoning or eligible base density by right and then density bonus by right. And then the far right column is under the low residential, which is a little more complex, because the density allowance is your 50 percent on top of your underlying zoning district density. So if your property is zoned RSF-1, your zoning district allows you one unit per acre; 50 percent of that is a half unit; therefore, one-and-a-half units is viewed as your base density or your zoning density, and then, likewise, the affordable housing density bonus is the same. It is 50 percent of your underlying zoning. 5.B.1 Packet Pg. 100 Attachment: 3-7-2019 CCPC Minutes (8393 : March 7, 2019 CCPC Minutes) March 7, 2019 Page 76 of 91 So that's why you see these small numbers of .3 and .66, so forth, all the way up to, again, with the cap of six units per acre. Once you get above RSF-3, that is RSF-4, 5, 6, RMF-6, and VR, now we've done away with the 50 percent of your zoning district density and simply award whatever is necessary to add to the density bonus to get you to eight. It's complex, but I'm hoping this is a little bit clearer to show where the density is derived from. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: David -- MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Mr. Strain, we were not provided a copy of this ahead of time to allow us sufficient time to review and digest it. I thought Scott had seen it, but not until an hour before the meeting. We'd like some opportunity to review and digest this particular section, because my understanding, from reviewing the plan, was that the maximum you could get in LR was four, and this is quite different, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's the question I was just going to ask. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're right. And I'm trying to understand, if the low density, LR, in the old plan was four development units per acre or less, how do we start out in the LR with anything -- how does the RSF-6 and the other ones equivalent have eight by right on this chart? I think that's possibly where Heidi was going. That's -- (Commissioner Schmitt left the boardroom for the remainder of the meeting.) MR. WEEKS: The proposed master plan does identify under the LR subdistrict a cap of four -- well, a base density of four and applicable density bonuses up to a cap of eight. So this reflects that. But I think your question was about the existing master plan. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. Well, under your by-right provision, how do you get above four under the existing plan? You can't. I mean, that's why I'm -- in the bottom where it has the RF-6 and RMF-6 -- well, actually RSF-3 up, it's got over four, but they could never build that much in the current plan. They can only go up to four. And I had understood from the last meeting that if they applied the affordable housing by right, they could get a little bit more depending on the zoning district, but I don't see how we could start out with more than four. Is that -- in the LR. I think that's where Heidi's coming from, too, if I'm not -- yeah, she's shaking her head yes. MR. WEEKS: Well, I'll grant that it's a lot to digest. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: David, do you need -- I -- you know, what part of this would we have to look at to figure this out as a -- what's going to dictate the answer here. MR. WEEKS: If you'll go -- let me -- this text -- let me pull the existing Immokalee Area Master Plan. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's on -- I've got the existing. It's on Page 9 of the existing plan under land-use designation description section. MR. WEEKS: Well, what I'm looking at is under the existing plan back in the resolution Exhibit A; it's Page 17 of 55. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm using a different -- MR. WEEKS: Okay. It's the -- again, existing master plan under the density rating system, density bonuses, No. 2C, affordable workforce housing bonus by right, and let me read a sentence here. It's such a long sentence: To encourage the provision of affordable workforce housing within that portion of the urban mixed-use district, properties zoned -- and it lists a bunch of districts, all of those that you see here on the visualizer -- for which an affordable workforce housing project is proposed in accordance with Section 2.06 of the LDC. A maximum of four residential units per gross acre shall be added to the base density of four 5.B.1 Packet Pg. 101 Attachment: 3-7-2019 CCPC Minutes (8393 : March 7, 2019 CCPC Minutes) March 7, 2019 Page 77 of 91 dwelling units per acre; therefore, the maximum density that may be achieved by right shall not exceed eight dwelling units per acre, and that's what we're reflecting here: The cap of eight applies in all scenarios. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. If you go up about four or five pages from where you're at and look under the low residential subdistrict, it says, the density less than or equal to four dwelling units per gross acre is permitted. So I always read that as you could have up to four units per acre, and the "by right," we previously understood was a proportionate share of the type of zoning they were applying to the property. But under the previous provision, I could never see the previous zoning getting above four units per acre, because that would limit them to below -- RSF-2 or below. Your table seems to indicate that was always allowed to do RSF-6, but you couldn't. MR. WEEKS: Right. Now, let's split the difference and go about halfway between our pages at the very beginning of the density rating system. COMMISSIONER FRYER: What page out of 55 are you on? MR. WEEKS: Sixteen. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Thank you. MR. WEEKS: And the second sentence, the density rating system is applicable to the low-residential subdistrict to the extent that the residential density cap of four dwelling units per acre is not exceeded except for the density bonus provisions for affordable workforce housings. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But it's not based on the type of zoning that's actually built on site then; a percentage of that. You get four no matter what type -- if you do an RSF-1, you get four more units instead of RSF-1 as it would -- as a percentage of the -- see, the previous table seemed to say that the different types of zoning districts that you would produce in an LR would produce a different cap for the by-right affordable housing. That's kind of what's confusing me. That doesn't seem to be applying, because you're going to higher RSF categories than would have been allowed initially in the LR; is that correct? You could only -- if you could only have four, you couldn't -- you'd be limited to RSF-2 as a maximum zoning category, wouldn't you? MR. WEEKS: Well, the LR subdistrict says your maximum is four until you get to the density rating system, and it says, here's the exception: The affordable housing, and then we jump over to the density rating -- further into the density rating for the affordable housing provision, and then that's this somewhat complicated scenario that we're reading here where it says, you can have the base density by right and then add to that some base bonus units. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. But I think what that means -- well, I shouldn't say you -- your person would be the one that knows it. I'm just trying to understand it. RSF-3 through VR would all read base at four, because you couldn't go above four in any of those categories based without a density bonus. So you'd be at four, and then you would add the other allowances based on the 50 percent of the bonus zoning density to get to your max. MR. WEEKS: But the reason that that RSF-5 and so forth down to VR don't stop at four is because your underlying zoning allows more than four. So the table in that case, once you get higher than RSF-4, which allows four units per acre, then the density identified is that which the zoning district allows. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But even if you have -- if you have a cap of four units per 5.B.1 Packet Pg. 102 Attachment: 3-7-2019 CCPC Minutes (8393 : March 7, 2019 CCPC Minutes) March 7, 2019 Page 78 of 91 acre and you -- let's forget the affordable housing density bonus. That was -- that's the only place in the county that this gets confusing. So let's just start with the four units per acre. Can you do RSF-5 at four units per acre? Five means five units per acre, right? MR. WEEKS: The answer would be yes but -- well, hold on. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. WEEKS: You could actually rezone a property to RSF-5 but the density would be limited to four units per acre. That would be that parenthetical cap of -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. WEEKS: I mean, I'm not playing games, I mean, because you rezone to VR because you want those uses, but you'd be capped at four. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And you thought mapping was complicated? So really what -- your base to start with on the right column for RSF-3 should be limited to 4.0, and all the ones below that should be 4.0, then you add the 3.5, the 2.0, and the .5 to that. You can't get to where you want to go on a per-acre basis in the column that's not highlighted in yellow on the right-hand side of this table. How do you get there? MR. WEEKS: You only get there with both numbers put together. If you're not doing -- if you're not doing an affordable housing project, we don't even look at this table. Then you'd be back under the LR subdistrict that says four units per acre is your cap, so it's RSF-1, 2, 3, 4, or higher density zoning districts with a parenthetical limit on density to four. This awarding of the base density or 50 percent of your -- an additional 50 percent of your underlying zoning district is only applicable when you're doing the affordable housing project where you're getting density awarded by right as opposed to the public-hearing process. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then, in essence, you're getting more than the four units allowed by right. You're getting the four units plus -- MR. WEEKS: Exactly. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- another mysterious up to, what, two or four, depending on how you look at the -- aye yai yai. MR. WEEKS: That's exactly it. You're getting a density bonus for the affordable housing, and then on top of that getting your base, if you want to call it that, as a bonus. If your zoning is only ag, you're only entitled to .2 units per acre, but you're being awarded the four units per acre of base density and then the affordable housing density of another four to get to your cap of eight. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You know, I was one of the people sitting here when this whole thing came up, and Commissioner Midney was here at the time. I can assure you I doubt if anybody on this panel understood it the way it's being explained today. MR. SCOTT: Mr. Chair, as Heidi alluded to, our office hasn't had a chance to review this yet. And just on looking at it on the surface, and even after all this discussion, I still have a couple questions which haven't even been addressed yet. It might be best if we discussed this internally and try to figure it out so we can prepare a more unified, coherent -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I would suggest mapping it out so we can see it better. Well, let's go on. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Do you want a map? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm looking for a map. MS. JENKINS: Alternatively, I don't think we're changing the language that's in the existing plan. We're just trying to make the chart. And if the chart is confusing 5.B.1 Packet Pg. 103 Attachment: 3-7-2019 CCPC Minutes (8393 : March 7, 2019 CCPC Minutes) March 7, 2019 Page 79 of 91 everyone, we can take the chart out and leave the language in so we don't change anything. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the only thing -- MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Yeah, but it doesn't make -- oh, I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. Go ahead, Heidi. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: It doesn't make sense. If you look at the first row and your zoned maximum is .2, so now you're saying, just because you're in the LR, you automatically get upgraded to a base density of four. How are you doing that; through a rezone? MR. WEEKS: This is all by right. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Yeah. So they don't have to come in for a public hearing, and instead of .2, they can have -- well, you have -- MR. WEEKS: Four. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: -- eight, eight units an acre without doing a thing except for filling out a letter. This doesn't make sense to me. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that part of this whole program is what's bothersome, to be honest with you. MS. JENKINS: And, again, we're not changing that. That's existing language today. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, nobody knew it to be existing language till today except David. I would doubt if anybody else understood it to this layout that we have here. I sure didn't back in whatever year it was. MR. WEEKS: Two more comments about it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You were here then. Yeah, Karen didn't either. So there's two of us. There. You're outvoted. MR. WEEKS: Back -- going all the way back to I think it was 2005, the County Commission had both an affordable housing workshop and a gap housing workshop out of which came -- just like they did about two years or so ago, out of which came direction for staff to pursue different options. Here's a menu of ways that we can try to provide more affordable housing in our community. One of those ways was to consider affordable housing density bonus by right. And when it came to the coastal urban area, it fell flat; nobody wanted anything to do with it. But the Immokalee community, to the extent that they were aware of it and involved, they were accepting of it, and so it got approved. And so it's been in the Immokalee Master Plan for several years now. It has not been implemented; that is, there has been no implementing Land Development Code change, so it's just sitting there -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: See, David -- MR. WEEKS: -- waiting. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- that's more part of the argument I tried to make earlier. All this density by right, no questions asked, has been sitting in Immokalee for how many years now since we last talked about this? And what it's been, six, eight years ago, and it hasn't been used once. MR. WEEKS: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And we're throwing all this more density at it for whatever reason. I'm -- this whole process is puzzling me, to be honest with you. MR. WEEKS: Well, I think it suggests that there's not an interest in this. If there was, I think we would be hearing from people saying, well, I want to use this provision. I'm ready. And we're saying, well, we can't. We don't have a Land Development Code to implement it yet, and they would say, well, let's do it. We haven't heard a peep. 5.B.1 Packet Pg. 104 Attachment: 3-7-2019 CCPC Minutes (8393 : March 7, 2019 CCPC Minutes) March 7, 2019 Page 80 of 91 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, I've been in the same loop you have been, and I haven't either, so... COMMISSIONER FRY: Mr. Chairman, are we in agreement that moving forward no maps and no charts enter our meeting? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Unless they have to do with LED lighting and lumens, then we'll ask for all kinds of charts. Why don't we try to move our way through this to the point we can today and see what's up. Now, as far as getting done with this today, if we eliminate the map, then the County Attorney's Office, do we still have a point of contention, or do you need time with this if the map was out of it? MR. SCOTT: You mean the chart? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I keep saying a map. It's as confusing as a map. Yes, the chart map. MR. SCOTT: Well, now that I've seen the chart, there is a seeming inconsistency in Subparagraph C where it says that a maximum of four residential units per acre shall be added to the base density of four. As you can see clearly, RSF-5, 6, RMF-6, and VR have a base density higher than four, so it seems to be an inconsistency in saying that they all have a base density of four and yet some of them have five or more. COMMISSIONER FRYER: That's what you were saying. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what I was saying, yeah. MR. SCOTT: But if you remove the chart, that inconsistency goes away, so... MS. JENKINS: And we will agree just to keep the language as it's existing in the plan today and not try to chart it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then the only person that knows really what it means is standing here in front of us. And if he ever retires, we are going to be in a lot of hot water, so... MR. WEEKS: Well, I could be a consultant for a decent fee. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Let's move on. MS. JENKINS: This is affordable housing by public hearing, and we just removed the last sentence, and that was because of some projects located within or without. And that was a confusing point, so we just struck that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I'm sorry. I thought you were waiting for me. MS. JENKINS: I thought you were reading it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, I am reading it. I was just making sure I understood it. Thank you. MS. JENKINS: The next one is we added natural resource index at the suggestion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. JENKINS: And that's to do with the density-blending provisions. And then, finally, two things: We wanted to make sure that we captured all of the uses under the Immokalee Regional Airport Subdistrict as permitted in the PUD that they currently have now. So rather than repeating all of the uses in the PUD into the Comp Plan, we reference the PUD. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That works. MS. JENKINS: And I'm just going to throw this back up here just so you-all are aware of it and we're adopting the right master plan. This master plan only changed by adding the section lines. Prior, our master plan did not have a township section, so we added the section lines for clarity on that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody have any questions on what we've gone 5.B.1 Packet Pg. 105 Attachment: 3-7-2019 CCPC Minutes (8393 : March 7, 2019 CCPC Minutes) March 7, 2019 Page 81 of 91 through so far? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What do we have left to go through, Anita? MS. JENKINS: Let me find my list, because you-all did have, you know, some of the overreaching discussions. That was all the changes that we've made to date. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. JENKINS: A couple of them -- and starting on Policy 1.2.4, there was discussion about the renewable energy and, you know, making that first step to address that in Collier County. So we'll just go from there, and -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We'll bring it up in discussion. MS. JENKINS: Yes. Let's see. The other one -- now, Mr. Schmitt was adamant about the civic center and making that more of a priority of we're going to do that but, again, that's a substantial change that we need direction from the full board on. So those were the only two outstanding items. Oh, also one in the RT district; there was a concern with the average lot size that was included. So those are the three major items that needed further discussion and consensus from the Board of how you'd like to give us direction on those. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, let's take the first one. What was the first one again? MS. JENKINS: The first one is the renewable energy policy, 1.2.4. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's the one I brought up. MS. JENKINS: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't see that as a use that's compatible in the urban area of Immokalee nor the LR district of Immokalee, but that was my concerns over it. I didn't know if anybody else had the same concern. Are you all familiar with the section that we're talking about? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Is this on Page 31? MS. JENKINS: Yeah, and it's on the overhead as well. And, Commissioners, this was added in to provide an economic opportunity for the agriculture and agribusinesses that -- if you remember going back to the beginning of this master plan, their number-one goal is to diversify the economy in Immokalee, and so that's why you're seeing changes and additions to industrial land uses. And when we talk about agribusiness and thinking about different uses that could apply in those areas that are zoned agriculture, these uses were determined to be the upcoming industry for renewable energy and taking the first step to allow this. This would not be implemented until an LDC amendment was brought before you and you can consider all the compatibility items around that. If you'd like to consider allowing only one renewable energy of solar energy, the only thing that you would like to tackle at this point, we can roll it back, change the language, direct us in the LDC, whatever -- whatever you think is appropriate. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody? COMMISSIONER FRYER: I'm just curious. I think we had a conversation or started this conversation maybe when we were in Immokalee. But what is the purpose of the county imposing these deadlines on itself? Within two years after adoption this and -- MS. JENKINS: So the state statutes in the Comprehensive Planning, Chapter 163, directs us to have measurable, active policies, so that's why the timelines are in there. Many of the timelines in the plan that was prior to this restudy had that we would adopt things within two years. We changed that to "initiate" so it gives the Board and the staff time to put these 5.B.1 Packet Pg. 106 Attachment: 3-7-2019 CCPC Minutes (8393 : March 7, 2019 CCPC Minutes) March 7, 2019 Page 82 of 91 projects, these restudies into fruition. So you can initiate it with the first workshop and then take two years with the public to get these things to bring forward. So to initiate is the active, and putting a timeline on there makes it measurable. MR. KLATZKOW: Putting a timeline is a terrible idea from the County Attorney's standpoint, because they're not going to get met. COMMISSIONER FRYER: They're not going to get met. MR. KLATZKOW: They're not going to get met, and then what do you do? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Exactly. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Remember the watershed plan? How many decades -- or months and years -- years and years and years of that fall off, so... MS. JENKINS: Well, I think they get met when you use words like "initiate." We're not adopting. We're not saying that -- MR. KLATZKOW: You're assuming they're going to be initiated. I'm telling you, you're setting us up for failure here. That's all. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anything else on the alternative? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: First of all, the Immokalee Area Master Plan was supposed to occur towards the tail end of the review of the RLSA with time for the two plans to overlap so the community of Immokalee could see how the final or the near-final policies of the RLSA might impact that community. Well, that didn't happen. The opposite's happening. Immokalee's getting done first. And what Immokalee is not seeing is the nine proposed new town locations surrounding Immokalee: Four on the north side; five on the south side. Those proposed new town locations may have a huge benefit from an alternative energy source in that area that wouldn't have to be in an urban area of Immokalee. It could be in the agricultural area where it's not currently allowed. There's probably a good reason why it's not currently allowed, and there's probably an interesting reason why, well, let's just put it in the urban area of Immokalee. I don't think that such an alternative facility for electricity or whatever it would be used for would necessarily need to be limited to Immokalee, nor would it be necessarily as profitable if it was only limited to Immokalee if it could go to other towns more centrally located between Immokalee and some of those nine proposed or located -- potentially located other towns. So to put this and allow this right now in this plan in the Immokalee urban area, to me, is a huge mistake. It actually dis-incentivizes other areas to consider it, and I don't see how it's going to improve Immokalee's abilities in their low residential area at all. So I'm real concerned about it, and that was from the beginning. Ned. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Mine is related, and it jumps back to Policy 1.2.1, which calls for streamlining of the permitting process, the permitting and approval process. And my thought is, if it would be a good idea for Immokalee, why not the whole county? MS. JENKINS: I'm sorry? COMMISSIONER FRYER: 1.2.1 on page -- MS. JENKINS: 1.2 -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: Thirty-one. MS. JENKINS: The precertified commercial areas? Is that the policy that we're looking at? Precertified -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: Precertified commercial -- MS. JENKINS: Yeah, that is a countywide initiative. 5.B.1 Packet Pg. 107 Attachment: 3-7-2019 CCPC Minutes (8393 : March 7, 2019 CCPC Minutes) March 7, 2019 Page 83 of 91 COMMISSIONER FRYER: But they're not presently streamlined in Immokalee, but they are for the rest the county? MS. JENKINS: No. The whole program is in a -- is in development right now. COMMISSIONER FRYER: But it's going to be for the entire county? MS. JENKINS: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Got it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What's the next item on your list? Civic stuff? The civic center. I don't remember what Joe's issue -- and he's not here. Does anybody know enough about it to move into it? MS. JENKINS: He just -- his comment was to state it more of a priority, and we can put that policy, it's 7.1.4, Mike, as you're going through that. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Is that what we're jumping to? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. Immokalee civic center. It's on Page 22 of the document. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Oh. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean, you're already -- you're already suggesting within one year the county will coordinate with the Immokalee CRA to explore opportunities for an Immokalee civic center. What more -- how faster do you think it needs to be done? MS. JENKINS: I don't think that Mr. Schmitt's comment was to the speed of it. I think it was more of a, let's make a commitment, Collier County, to do that. So it would be more to the effect of Collier County shall establish a civic center within Immokalee. I think the way that it's written today, to explore it, gives us more flexibility to identify the feasibility of it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. I don't see a need to change it at this point. What's your next point? MS. JENKINS: The next one was in the RT district, the concern with the average lot size. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. That was the same situation for me for the downzoning application. You're actually restricting the RT district far more than it was restricted before by those lot sizes. So I'm not sure that's a good thing to do. I don't know if David's going to cover that in his zoning reevaluation methodology that he talked about earlier or not. Is that something that would be covered, David, in the language in the RT district that would be more limiting than the language is today in regards to units -- or lot sizes and unit sizes? MR. WEEKS: It would not be, because that only deals with existing -- the consistent-by-policy provision only would deal with existing zoning that allows greater density or intensity than the Future Land Use Map designation. This doesn't change the density that is allowed -- first of all, these properties are zoned agricultural. They're going to have to go through a rezoning process to implement, to use this district but, secondly, this is not changing their density. It's not taking away the number of units they can develop. It, instead, is the design parameter. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How necessary is it to have a design parameter in the Comprehensive Plan in this particular case? Isn't that -- I mean, normally we see those kind of standards in the LDC, I think. Is this something you would typically expect in our Comp Plan? MR. WEEKS: Usually not this level of detail. If a zoning overlay or some other 5.B.1 Packet Pg. 108 Attachment: 3-7-2019 CCPC Minutes (8393 : March 7, 2019 CCPC Minutes) March 7, 2019 Page 84 of 91 implementing provision in the LDC is going to be adopted, it could be addressed there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think that might be a better idea when we see how it fits with compatibility standards and other things for the area. I mean, if it -- and does that wrap it up? MS. JENKINS: That does. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any questions before we go to public speakers? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I believe we have one member of the public here to speak. MS. JENKINS: Andrea, do you want to speak? MR. BOSI: Yes, Chair. We have Andrea Halman. MS. HALMAN: My name is Andrea Halman, and that's H-a-l-m-a-n. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MS. HALMAN: And I'm here because I'm a resident of Immokalee. I've lived there for 10 years, and I am in hopes that we are able to get this master plan through. It's my understanding that the master plan is how residents plan for land use, future land use, and Immokalee would like to do that. We don't -- we would like to be able to plan how the land in Immokalee is used with -- the residents would. People have been notified. People have participated. I just wonder why this won't happen. I think it should. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody have any questions? COMMISSIONER FRYER: I think we're on track for it to happen. MS. HALMAN: Then I appreciate it. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. And I appreciate you waiting all day. Sorry -- I know it's a long drive, and sorry it took so long. MS. HALMAN: It's important. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't know where the panel wants to go. Does anybody have any other questions of staff? Have you guys got an idea in your minds what you'd like to see on this, or where are you at? I think some of the issues we've discussed that are relevant to some of the changes -- I mean, let me read them off here in just a second. I'm trying to find it. There it is. We're going to consider dropping -- that's something we've got to talk about. What do we want to do with the ag reference in the low-residential district? That would be one of the questions we need to talk about. As far as the downzoning or the process that David has talked about, I think, we've more or less agreed that should be implemented. I don't think anybody objected to it. We're going to move the density chart that was problematic from our first discussion and based on this latest discussion, we'd remove the density -- or the development standards in the RT district that are shown in front of us on the bullet. And in addition to that, we'd accept the changes made by staff through the walk-through that we took through on the document today with the exception, of course, is that chart won't be included. Those are a summary of what I think we've gotten to as far as all those bits and pieces. I don't know if you-all have any more you want to contribute to that or thoughts, but we're open for discussion right now, so... COMMISSIONER FRY: Mr. Chairman, you expressed concern about the alternative energy uses. 5.B.1 Packet Pg. 109 Attachment: 3-7-2019 CCPC Minutes (8393 : March 7, 2019 CCPC Minutes) March 7, 2019 Page 85 of 91 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. COMMISSIONER FRY: Do any of those changes address your concerns? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I mean, that's the first thing to discuss. If this panel as a group feels that that's an acceptable use in the Immokalee urban area, that's fine. I still have a problem with it. I think it's a heavy industrial use, and I don't think it needs to be included in the Comprehensive Plan. If someone is that dead set on making that kind of an activity there, it's worthy of a more intense scrutiny. We're talking about alternative energy. That's not a light use. Whether it's a solar farm or an ethanol farm, it's still going to be a big use of -- an intense use for an urban area. Why wouldn't they want to come through and do it through a study done that would be required by our Growth Management Plan change instead of just implementing it under the Land Development Code? So I'm -- I don't really -- I'm not really thinking it's the right idea for Immokalee. So that's my position on it, but you guys make up your own minds, and we'll move into a motion eventually. And that's either going to be part of it or not, so... COMMISSIONER FRYER: I have a question that I overlooked when we went through before, so with apologies. And it's on Page 40 of 55, 40. Then Line 13 says, it says, mobile homes shall also be permitted on properties located at, and then it gives three addresses. Isn't that awfully specific for the GMP? MS. JENKINS: It is. It's very specific and out of the ordinary, but that was part of a settlement agreement for the property owner. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. Got it; got it. MS. JENKINS: So we want to make sure that we capture that so in the future when David's gone somebody can know it's there. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Got it. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Where's he going? MR. BOSI: I was going to try to get to that reference, but you guys have already passed it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. We're already done with it. COMMISSIONER FRY: Anita, you made mention, I believe, of LDC changes coming that would further clarify the alternative use, or alternative energy. Is it possible today to approve it as it is but yet be able to avoid those types of undesirable alternative energy uses down the road through the LDC or individual applications? MS. JENKINS: Sure. When you implement any policy in the Comp Plan through the LDC, that's when you get specific with it. And if this -- if this language that -- you know, the criteria and development standards shall be included in the proposed LDC -- and so it basically says that you can't implement this until you have a Land Development Code that allows that. And even though the language is broad with renewable or alternative energies, in the Land Development Code then you would decide which type of renewable energy are we comfortable with in Collier County. So if it only limits it to solar, you could only have the renewable energy of solar or wind or oranges? COMMISSIONER FRY: Okay. I mean, that would satisfy my concern, because I tend to take that concern seriously. The other concern you mentioned, Mr. Chairman, was that because this is happening before the RLSA plan is nailed down, that he felt like Immokalee might receive uses -- more undesirable uses that the RLSA would push into Immokalee. Is that -- is that addressed here? Is that a concern of staff or -- MS. JENKINS: So we see the renewable energy as a market that has been 5.B.1 Packet Pg. 110 Attachment: 3-7-2019 CCPC Minutes (8393 : March 7, 2019 CCPC Minutes) March 7, 2019 Page 86 of 91 knocking on our door and in this location as well. We see it as job creation for the people that live in Immokalee that pays -- you know, as a technician much better than some of the opportunities out there now. It doesn't preclude these types of uses from also going into the RLSA with that restudy. When that comes forward, if this is something that the Board wants to plan for in the future renewable energy, they can address it in that plan as well and implement it only through the LDC. So they could have the same process. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Karen? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Is this in their -- the community knows it's in there? MS. JENKINS: Yes, ma'am. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: And they wanted it in there? MS. JENKINS: Yes, ma'am. COMMISSIONER FRYER: But final drafting point on -- and this happens in some of the narrative, but I think it's more important to be corrected in the ordinance itself on Page 41 of 55, in Uppercase B, in Line 18, and then again at Line 24, you have -- the two nouns are not in numerical agreement. Say any property owner who believes that they have. Any owner who believes that they have. I know you're trying to get away from he or she, but it just isn't grammatically correct. MS. JENKINS: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else have any comments or questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, based on the fact we're taking out the controversial chart, and there's been a couple -- I think the bullet point in the RT issue's been resolved, it's coming out, that leaves us to the point where if someone wants to make a motion subject to the changes we've discussed, that's up to you-all. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I'll make that motion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And what motion will that be, sir? COMMISSIONER FRYER: As you just stated, Mr. Chairman, with those -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Recommended for approval subject to the items just discussed? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a second to the motion? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I'll second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Motion made and seconded. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Does that include leaving in the alternative energy? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. There was no discussion to take it out. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that, just so the record's real clear about the vote, I'm going to vote against the motion for the following six reasons: Number one, the changes in density are not warranted based on the revised downward population projections for the buildout of Immokalee urban area. No data has been provided justifying the increased intensities. Number two, allowing the LR areas for industrial uses, such as alternative energy and R&D facilities, unnecessarily consumes limited urban areas and is incompatible with not only the low-density residential areas but also the MR and the HR areas. Number three, adding industrial bands around the north and west side of Immokalee airport will exasperate the development of the existing Immokalee airport, and no data has been provided justifying this need. 5.B.1 Packet Pg. 111 Attachment: 3-7-2019 CCPC Minutes (8393 : March 7, 2019 CCPC Minutes) March 7, 2019 Page 87 of 91 Number four, the new plan downsizes some properties without due process to notify owners and adds densities next to existing properties that were not contemplated when owners originally purchased; thus creating incompatibilities. Homeowners in what they are -- that what they thought were low-residential neighborhoods could be facing substantial issues with higher-density neighbors. Number five, this plan does not take into consideration the changes that might occur during the surrounding RLSA replanning effort. The entire replanning effort was supposed to allow for a period of overlaps between the different abutting areas, so one plan could not be modified to reflect -- could be modified to reflect the needs of another. This has not happened. Number six, Immokalee needs to look at a long-term strategy for the future; however, the future with this plan continues the limitations of the past. The higher densities and intensities mixed closer with a dissimilar residential will limit economic diversity, and without the prospect of substantially improved property values, Immokalee will never be independent of Collier County. And those are my reasons for voting no on the requested motion. So with that in mind, all those in favor of -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: May we have more discussion? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure. I asked you guys first. That's why I thought you were done. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Well, I didn't know what you were coming up with. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, this is my opinions. I'm not asking anybody here to buy into it. I'm just telling you my thoughts. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Well, I'd like to have discussion over it, if we could. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure. Go ahead. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Mr. Chairman, I am personally very concerned if we don't enable Immokalee to go forward with something. But the points that you have made, I believe, the ones at least that I understood, seemed to be well taken. Is there any possibility -- does staff believe that there's any reasonable possibility that the Chairman's concerns could be effectively addressed within a reasonable time so that we could get Immokalee going on this plan in a way that met most, if not all, of his concerns? MR. BOSI: If the Planning Commission would like to modify the Immokalee Area Master Plan as suggested by the Chair, it's within -- it's within your purview to do so. The community has expressed a preference for the arrangement as it's proposed. The Planning Commission most certainty could find a different perspective in that regard. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: See, I'm not sure that -- I'm not sure how fast the Board wanted this processed. And I don't care if we slow it down or speed it up, as long as we get it done within the time frame the Board wanted it done in. I disagree with the way it's moving forward because I have -- as I expressed to, I think, Mike or Anita earlier, the CMU district in the center core of Immokalee where the Main Street is, north to south, I think that's the right approach. You've got a mixed-use incentivization there, you've got higher densities, you've got the ability to do most of the commercial for most all the areas that were there. I don't have a problem with that. It's the widespread increases in intensities throughout Immokalee that I think are going to be the downfall of that community as the future goes on, because we're giving so much away at this stage of things. And I -- you know, I didn't agree with the density by right that Commissioner Midney wanted for Immokalee back then. That's why -- I thought that was a mistake. But 5.B.1 Packet Pg. 112 Attachment: 3-7-2019 CCPC Minutes (8393 : March 7, 2019 CCPC Minutes) March 7, 2019 Page 88 of 91 I remember saying to him, well, if you're sure that's what your community wants, then we should go along with it. I just think if we're looking for a strategy for the future, this is not set up for that good -- for a good strategy. It took the old plan and just brought it forward. It's not what this replanning effort was supposed to do. And that was -- I don't believe that was ever contemplated. And I remember talking to Commissioner Nance about it. So I'm -- you know, this is coming a bit abruptly and out of the sequence. If the panel as a majority wants it to go forward, I'm not going to object to that. I'm just not going to support it. I mean, that's just the way it goes forward, so... COMMISSIONER FRYER: Is there a way either to divide this document into some parts that you could support? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't -- well, you know what, I don't even know if it would be worth the effort, because if this goes to the Board -- this is transmittal, so it's going to come back on adoption. If the Board takes this input and says, you know, we ought to look at some of these points, and they want to make a change, it will happen before adoption. If they don't take the input, then I've already got a signal from them they're happy the way it is, and that would be more of a signal to me maybe they're -- maybe I better change my outlook on it because it's not going to change the next time around. So I just wanted to be able to express my concerns over it strong enough so the Board would know them, because not -- I don't even know if the board members are watching this meeting today. But I want them to know it, so if they feel it needs to be addressed as the people who are actually voting on this, the five of them, they can see it addressed before the adoption is completed. That was the intent of my dissertation today. MS. JENKINS: And I should probably remind you all, because it's a little different process, that this is, as Mr. Strain said, the transmittal. So then your transmittal goes to the Board of County Commissioners, it goes to the State, and then it comes back to you again with any further changes directed by the Board or the State. Then it goes back to the Board for adoption. So this is the beginning of the process. COMMISSIONER FRYER: That reminder was helpful to me. And I think I see now how I want to vote, and I think I see a way that this can come out okay. MR. KLATZKOW: Okay. Well, let me just say this: We've been doing this for a while. You don't send a draft on transmittal. What you're sending up to the State is what you believe to be your final proposal. You're supposed to get comments back from the State, at least theoretically, and then when it comes back, you address the comments, and you're done. Simply saying, well, don't worry about this because it's just transmittal and we'll fix it on adoption, that's not really the process. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But we're doing that with the Golden Gate Master Plan. MR. KLATZKOW: And it's not really the process. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We didn't even see that plan that's now going to Tallahassee, so I'm not sure this is any -- this is even as serious as that. MR. KLATZKOW: What's going up to Tallahassee you did see as simply breaking down what was one into three. Supposedly it's completely ministerial. To simply be told that, guys, don't worry about it, we'll fix it on adoption, no. If you're not comfortable with anything, fix it here. I mean, if you have to bring it back at your next meeting, bring it back. But don't kick the can down the road saying, well, you know, we'll fix it when it comes back. COMMISSIONER FRY: I think Chairman Strain has issued some pretty major 5.B.1 Packet Pg. 113 Attachment: 3-7-2019 CCPC Minutes (8393 : March 7, 2019 CCPC Minutes) March 7, 2019 Page 89 of 91 objections to it in terms of the zoning approach to it. So you've been involved with this process for a long time, correct? MS. JENKINS: Uh-huh. COMMISSIONER FRY: So being new to this commission, and I'm trying to make a responsible decision, at least for my vote here, he's saying that some of the zoning -- the increased densities may not be good for Immokalee moving forward, but yet you've been through a long process, and this is what's come out of it. So am I to assume that you feel like the people of Immokalee who gave input to this understand the ramifications and they actually wanted the increased densities in areas to support the number of units that Chairman Strain's made a pretty good case, really, won't necessarily be needed, right? If you only need a percentage of the units that initially were anticipated, do you believe that everybody's eyes are wide open in terms of the ramifications of these increased densities and possible impact on property values and that they still feel this is the best for their community? MS. JENKINS: I do. This community has worked on this plan for over 10 years and, you know, through dozens of public workshops and outreach in their own committee, many, many planning consultants, and all of Collier County staff practically have reviewed and provided input on this plan. So there has not been any objections from Collier County staff on this plan. And the ones that wanted to massage language did so with new language, as Mr. Summers was here today to improve that language. And the community has supported this plan. COMMISSIONER FRY: I also sense a lot of anticipation, impatience from that community after a 10-year-plus process that we do something. I guess my concern is, I really feel his concerns sound very well founded, but it also sounds like kind of a major potential rewrite to a lot of the plan. So I'm trying to weigh voting for it so it goes to the County Commission with his concerns documented. So, yeah, I just -- I guess at this point I feel I know how I will vote at this point. So thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Stan, then Ned. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: In the words of Lloyd Bridges, I picked a hell of a week to give up barbiturates; Airplane. COMMISSIONER FRY: Wasn't it sniffing glue? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Yeah. That, too. I've been uncomfortable with being one of the people that's going to pick a direction for Immokalee to go, because I don't know anybody out in Immokalee anymore. I'm just uncomfortable about it. I think staff probably knows a lot more about this than I do. I trust what they say the people out in Immokalee want. My personal preference would be if Immokalee had their own Planning Commission. I don't want to plan for Immokalee, but I don't know how you would form a commission out there. Do you elect it? Does the Board -- there's only one board member that represents Immokalee. Does he pick five people? How do we know that they're the ones going to be the best ones to pick a future for Immokalee? I'm -- I think staff probably is the best ones to have come up with this plan, and whatever they come up with, I trust them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else? Oh, Ned, I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER FRYER: That's all right. I am very reluctant not to take some positive step on this for the people of Immokalee, but there's no easy answer here, because the Chairman has raised some very 5.B.1 Packet Pg. 114 Attachment: 3-7-2019 CCPC Minutes (8393 : March 7, 2019 CCPC Minutes) March 7, 2019 Page 90 of 91 good concerns, very important, and concerns that need to be addressed. And going back to my initial view of this and the comments that I made at the beginning about costs and the lack of an assessment of cost estimates remains of concern to me. I think we have devoted an enormous amount of hard work and thought on this to try to make this a better plan and there may, however, be more work that the County Commission wants us to do and, of course, I'm willing to do that. They could absolutely choose, after hearing the concerns that have been expressed very cogently by our chairman and others, to remand this to us with some direction what they might want us and staff to do to comply with the greater policy that they see should be pursued. So for that reason, and knowing that if the County Commission wants us to take further action on it, it knows very well how to remand it to us, I'm going to vote in favor of it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that, I'll call for the vote. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRY: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those opposed, same sign. Aye. Motion carries 4-1. Okay. That takes us to the end of our agenda. We have no new business, no old business. Any public comment? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: None. Is there a motion to adjourn? COMMISSIONER FRYER: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Made by Ned. Seconded -- COMMISSIONER FRY: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- by Karl. All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRY: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're out of here. COMMISSIONER FRYER: We're out of here. 5.B.1 Packet Pg. 115 Attachment: 3-7-2019 CCPC Minutes (8393 : March 7, 2019 CCPC Minutes) March 7, 2019 Page 91 of 91 ******* There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 3:08 p.m. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION _____________________________________ MARK STRAIN, CHAIRMAN ATTEST CRYSTAL K. KINZEL, CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT & COMPTROLLER These minutes approved by the Board on __________, as presented ______ or as corrected _______. TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT, INC., BY TERRI LEWIS, COURT REPORTER AND NOTARY PUBLIC. 5.B.1 Packet Pg. 116 Attachment: 3-7-2019 CCPC Minutes (8393 : March 7, 2019 CCPC Minutes) 04/04/2019 COLLIER COUNTY Collier County Planning Commission Item Number: 9.A.1 Item Summary: ***This item is being continued to the April 18, 2019 CCPC meeting.*** PUDR PL20180002020: An Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida amending Ordinance No. 2009-21, as amended, the Esplanade Golf & Country Club of Naples Residential Planned Unit Development, and amending Ordinance No. 2004-41, the Collier County Land Development Code, by amending the appropriate zoning atlas map or maps by changing the zoning classification of an additional 10± acres of land zoned Rural Agricultural (A) to the Esplanade Golf & Country Club of Naples RPUD; by amending the PUD document to revise a Development Standard Table footnote relating to setbacks; to increase the minimum required preserve area for the PUD; to update the Master Plan to label the additional PUD acreage as a Residential/Golf tract and show additional preserve area on that tract; to revise the PUD legal description; to add a deviation relating to environment; to modify development commitments relating to planning and environment; and by providing an effective date. The property to be added to the PUD is located just west of Collier Boulevard, approximately two - thirds of a mile north of Immokalee Road, in Section 22, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, with the entire PUD consisting of 1,668.3± acres. [James Sabo, AICP, Principal Planner] Meeting Date: 04/04/2019 Prepared by: Title: – Zoning Name: James Sabo 03/14/2019 2:39 PM Submitted by: Title: Division Director - Planning and Zoning – Zoning Name: Michael Bosi 03/14/2019 2:39 PM Approved By: Review: Growth Management Operations & Regulatory Management Judy Puig Review item Completed 03/14/2019 3:09 PM Zoning Ray Bellows Review Item Completed 03/15/2019 10:50 AM Zoning Michael Bosi Review item Completed 03/19/2019 10:03 AM Growth Management Operations & Regulatory Management Donna Guitard Review Item Completed 03/19/2019 10:45 AM Zoning Camden Smith Review Item Completed 03/19/2019 12:49 PM Growth Management Department James C French Review Item Completed 03/19/2019 5:02 PM Zoning Michael Bosi Review Item Completed 03/25/2019 1:46 PM Planning Commission Mark Strain Meeting Pending 04/04/2019 9:00 AM 9.A.1 Packet Pg. 117 AGENDA ITEM 9.A.1 This item is being continued to the April 18, 2019, CCPC meeting. You will receive materials prior to the April 18th meeting. PUDR PL20180002020: An Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida amending Ordinance No. 2009-21, as amended, the Esplanade Golf & Country Club of Naples Residential Planned Unit Development, and amending Ordinance No. 2004-41, the Collier County Land Development Code, by amending the appropriate zoning atlas map or maps by changing the zoning classification of an additional 10± acres of land zoned Rural Agricultural (A) to the Esplanade Golf & Country Club of Naples RPUD; by amending the PUD document to revise a Development Standard Table footnote relating to setbacks; to increase the minimum required preserve area for the PUD; to update the Master Plan to label the additional PUD acreage as a Residential/Golf tract and show additional preserve area on that tract; to revise the PUD legal description; to add a deviation relating to environment; to modify development commitments relating to planning and environment; and by providing an effective date. The property to be added to the PUD is located just west of Collier Boulevard, approximately two-thirds of a mile north of Immokalee Road, in Section 22, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, with the entire PUD consisting of 1,668.3± acres. [James Sabo, AICP, Principal Planner] 9.A.1.a Packet Pg. 118 Attachment: 9.A.1-PUDR-PL20180002020-Esplanade Golf & County Club of Naples RPUD-Cont'd to 4-18-2019 (8293 : PUDR PL20180002020 04/04/2019 COLLIER COUNTY Collier County Planning Commission Item Number: 9.A.2 Item Summary: ***This item was continued from the March 21, 2019, CCPC Meeting*** PL20180002552: An Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners amending Ordinance 89 -05, as amended, the Collier County Growth Management Plan for the unincorporated area of Collier County, Florida, specifically amending the Potable Water Subelement of the Public Facilities Element to amend Policy 1.7 to reference the updated Ten Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan, directing transmittal of the adoption amendment to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity, and furthermore providing for severability and providing for an effective date. (Adoption Hearing) [Coordinator: Sue Faulkner, Principal Planner] Meeting Date: 04/04/2019 Prepared by: Title: Planner, Senior – Zoning Name: Marcia R Kendall 03/18/2019 7:22 AM Submitted by: Title: Division Director - Planning and Zoning – Zoning Name: Michael Bosi 03/18/2019 7:22 AM Approved By: Review: Growth Management Operations & Regulatory Management Judy Puig Review item Completed 03/18/2019 10:01 AM Public Utilities Planning and Project Management Tom Chmelik Additional Reviewer Completed 03/18/2019 11:11 AM Growth Management Department David Weeks Additional Reviewer Completed 03/18/2019 5:25 PM Wastewater Beth Johnssen Additional Reviewer Completed 03/18/2019 10:15 PM Growth Management Operations & Regulatory Management Donna Guitard Review Item Completed 03/19/2019 10:50 AM Public Utilities Planning and Project Management Eric Fey Additional Reviewer Completed 03/19/2019 9:57 PM Public Utilities Operations Support Joseph Bellone Additional Reviewer Completed 03/20/2019 9:40 AM Water Steve Messner Additional Reviewer Completed 03/20/2019 2:12 PM Growth Management Department James C French Review Item Completed 03/26/2019 4:59 PM Zoning Michael Bosi Review Item Completed 03/26/2019 5:02 PM Planning Commission Mark Strain Meeting Pending 04/04/2019 9:00 AM 9.A.2 Packet Pg. 119 AGENDA ITEM 9.A.2 This item was continued from the March 21, 2019, CCPC meeting. PL20180002552: An Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners amending Ordinance 89-05, as amended, the Collier County Growth Management Plan for the unincorporated area of Collier County, Florida, specifically amending the Potable Water Subelement of the Public Facilities Element to amend Policy 1.7 to reference the updated Ten Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan, directing transmittal of the adoption amendment to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity, and furthermore providing for severability and providing for an effective date. [Coordinator: Sue Faulkner, Principal Planner] 9.A.2.a Packet Pg. 120 Attachment: 9.A.2-Ten Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan-4-4-2019 meeting-Cover Page-Cont'd item (8272 : Ten Year Water Facilities COLLIER COUNTY GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENTS POTABLE WATER SUB-ELEMENT OF THE PUBLIC FACILITIES ELEMENT (ADOPTION HEARING) Petitions: PL20180002552-CPSP-2018-6 CCPC: APRIL 4, 2019 [Continued from March 21, 2019] BCC: MAY 14, 2019 9.A.2.b Packet Pg. 121 Attachment: CCPC COVER (8272 : Ten Year Water Facilities Supply Plan - February 2019) TABLE OF CONTENTS CCPC – 2018/2019 GMP In-House Amendment (Adoption Hearing) PL20180002552/CPSP-2018-6 CCPC April 4, 2019 [Continued from: March 21, 2019] 1) TAB: Adoption Staff Report DOCUMENT: CCPC Staff Report w/attachment Summary of Changes 2) TAB: Adoption Ordinance DOCUMENT: Adoption Ordinance with Exhibit “A” Text changes only 3) TAB: Project/Petition DOCUMENT: Ten Year Water Supply Facilities PL20180002552/CPSP-2018-6 Work Plan Update February 2019 “strike-through and underline” & “clean” versions 4) TAB: Transmittal Executive Summary DOCUMENT: BCC Ex. Summary 5) TAB: Transmittal Staff Report DOCUMENT: CCPC Staff Report 6) TAB: Transmittal Attachment “A” DOCUMENT: CCPC inclusion 7) TAB: Transmittal Attachment “B” DOCUMENT: SFWMD Comments 8) TAB: Transmittal Resolution DOCUMENT: Transmittal Resolution w/Exhibit “A” Text changes only 9) TAB: Legal Advertisements DOCUMENT: CCPC Advertisement 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 122 Attachment: CCPC Table of Contents (8272 : Ten Year Water Facilities Supply Plan - February 2019) Agenda Item #9.A.___ PL20180002552/CPSP-2018-6 Ten-Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan – Potable Water Sub element of the Public Facilities Element 1 STAFF REPORT TO: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION (CCPC) FROM: COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING SECTION, ZONING DIVISION, GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT HEARING DATE: April 4, 2019 [Continued from March 21, 2019] RE: Petition PL20180002552/CPSP-2018-6, Ten-Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan, Growth Management Plan Amendment. (ADOPTION HEARING) NOTE: This petition also requires a recommendation by the CCPC sitting as the Environmental Advisory Council. AGENT/APPLICANT: Public Utilities Department Engineering and Project Management Division Collier County Government 3339 East Tamiami Trail, Suite 303 Naples, FL 34112 GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION: The proposed Growth Management Plan (GMP) amendment is not specific to a certain location. REQUESTED ACTION: The proposed text change seeks to amend the Potable Water Sub-Element of the Public Facilities Element to update the reference to our next Ten-Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan (Work Plan), as required of Collier County government by Section 163.3177(6)(c), Florida Statutes. Policy 1.7 is proposed to be amended as shown below. Note: Current Potable Water Sub-Element language appears below in plain text; the proposed amendment is shown in strike-through/underline format. Objective 1 of the Sub- Element is included for background/clarity purposes. Proposed Potable Water Sub-Element Text Amendment: [page 2] OBJECTIVE 1: Locate and develop potable water supply sources to meet the future needs of the County owned and operated systems, said supply sources meeting the minimum Level of Service Standards established by this Plan. The development and utilization of new potable water supply sources and the acquisition of land necessary for such development shall be based upon the information, guidelines, and 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 123 Attachment: Adoption Staff Report_rev4_FINAL (8272 : Ten Year Water Facilities Supply Plan - February 2019) Agenda Item #9.A.___ PL20180002552/CPSP-2018-6 Ten-Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan – Potable Water Sub element of the Public Facilities Element 2 procedures identified within the County’s Ten-Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan (as updated) and the Lower West Coast Water Supply Plan prepared by the South Florida Water Management District. [Note: No revisions to Policies 1.1 through 1.6 are proposed.] Policy 1.7: The County has developed the Ten-Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan, dated October 2013 February 2019, in accordance with the water supply guidelines of the most current version of the South Florida Water Management District’s Lower West Coast Water Supply Plan. The County’s Ten- Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan is attached hereto incorporated herein by reference. STAFF ANALYSIS: As indicated in Policy 1.7 of the Potable Water Sub-Element, the County has developed the Ten-Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan (Appendix A). The proposed text amendment seeks to adopt the updated version of the Work Plan, which has been prepared in accordance with the most current version of the South Florida Water Management District’s Lower West Coast Water Supply Plan. The updated version of the Ten-Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan is proposed for incorporation into the County’s GMP by reference. CCPC ACTION - TRANSMITTAL: On December 6, 2018, the CCPC held it’s advertised public hearing on this GMP Amendment. The CCPC voted unanimously (6-0) to recommend the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) approve this petition for transmittal to the Department of Economic Opportunity (DEO) subject to a number of recommendations to revise the plan. The Public Utilities Department subsequently revised the Work Plan to reflect the CCPC’s recommendations and to address informal review comments received from the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) on December 14, 2018. They prepared a list of comments and questions received from the CCPC and identified four action items at the bottom of the list, which documented the requested revisions, and provided this document to the BCC as Attachment A to Agenda Item 17A at the January 8, 2019, public hearing. They also included as Attachment B email correspondence with the SFWMD documenting the pending revisions to be made pursuant to their comments. BCC ACTION - TRANSMITTAL: On January 8, 2019, the BCC held it’s advertised public hearing on this GMP Amendment. The BCC approved this petition on Summary Agenda 5-0. The BCC agenda packet included Attachments A and B, which documented pending revisions to the Work Plan pursuant to CCPC and SFWMD comments, as described above and provided herewith. REVIEW AGENCY COMMENT LETTERS After review of the Transmitted amendment within each reviewing agency’s authorized scope of review, the DEO, as well as the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD), and Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) District 1, rendered their comment letters indicating “no comment” or “no adverse impacts found”. Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services/Florida Forest Service, Florida Department of State/Bureau of Historic Preservation, South Florida Regional Planning Council (SWFRPC) did not respond. 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 124 Attachment: Adoption Staff Report_rev4_FINAL (8272 : Ten Year Water Facilities Supply Plan - February 2019) Agenda Item #9.A.___ PL20180002552/CPSP-2018-6 Ten-Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan – Potable Water Sub element of the Public Facilities Element 3 The Comments Letters received were included within materials provided to the CCPC. LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS: This staff report has been reviewed and approved by the Office of the County Attorney. ADOPTION Within the CCPC materials provided is an Ordinance with Exhibit “A” text for the petition; this exhibit reflects the text as approved by the Board for Transmittal, with the exception of a revision to the date of the plan, which reflects the final date on the referenced Work Plan. The attached updated Work Plan has incorporated revisions requested by the CCPC at their December 6, 2018 meeting , revisions requested by the SFWMD via email on December 14, 2018; and minor edits made by staff. All of which were approved by the Board at the January 8, 2019 transmittal hearing. All changes to the original Work Plan presented to CCPC on December 6, 2018, can be viewed in the strike-through / underline version and are summarized in the “Summary of Changes” included in the CCPC packet materials. Color-coded highlights are provided in the strike-through/underline version to identify revisions made pursuant to CPC (green) and SFWMD (yellow) comments. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That the Collier County Planning Commission, sitting as the Environmental Advisory Council under Ordinances 2013-50 and 2013-51, and in its capacity as the local planning agency under Ch. 163.3174, F.S., forward Petition PL20180002552/CPSP-2018-6 to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation to approve (adopt) the GMPA and the referenced Ten Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan, and to transmit to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity. 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 125 Attachment: Adoption Staff Report_rev4_FINAL (8272 : Ten Year Water Facilities Supply Plan - February 2019) Agenda Item #9.A.___ PL20180002552/CPSP-2018-6 Ten-Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan – Potable Water Sub element of the Public Facilities Element 4 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 126 Attachment: Adoption Staff Report_rev4_FINAL (8272 : Ten Year Water Facilities Supply Plan - February 2019) Summary of Changes to 10-Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan Update; Page 1 of 2 10-YEAR WATER SUPPLY FACILITIES WORK PLAN UPDATE SUMMARY OF CHANGES – February 2019 Executive Summary • Edits made to reflect the clarifications, corrections, changes, additions, and deletions in each of the sections in the 10-Year Water Supply Facility Work Plan Update Cover • Minor changes; remove the word “Draft” and change effective date of document Table of Contents • Minor corrections to page numbers for changes to content of document • Addition of Appendix E – 2018 Collier County Annual Update and Inventory Report List of Acronyms • Minor corrections and additions Section 1 – Introduction • Minor clarifications and corrections Section 2 – Water Service Areas • Minor clarifications and corrections • Changes to the CCWSD Service Area Map to appropriately reflect potable water supply service to Marco Shores at the request of the Collier County Planning Commission and South Florida Water Management District staff Section 3 – Population and Demand Projections • Major rewrite at the request of the Collier County Planning Commission to be consistent with 2018 Annual Update and Inventory Report • Deletions, corrections, and changes made to Tables • Addition of Appendix E – 2018 Collier County Annual Update and Inventory Report Section 4 – Existing Water Supply Facilities • Minor clarifications and corrections • Corrections made to Tables containing individual well information at the request of South Florida Water Management District staff • Rewrite of the Collier County Reclaimed Water Facilities description Section 5 – Planned Water Supply Facilities • Minor clarifications and corrections 9.A.2.e Packet Pg. 127 Attachment: Staff Report Attachment_Summary of Changes PEM 20190219 (8272 : Ten Year Water Facilities Supply Plan - February 2019) Summary of Changes to 10-Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan Update; Page 2 of 2 Section 6 – Facilities Capacity Analysis • Minor clarifications and corrections • Corrections made to Tables at the request of the Collier County Planning Commission to be consistent with the 2018 Annual Update and Inventory Report Section 7 – Conservation Regulations and Practices • Minor clarifications and corrections • Water loss discussion and conservation practices rewrite at the request of the Collier County Planning Commission and South Florida Water Management District Staff Section 8 – Capital Improvements Projects • Minor clarifications and corrections • Changes to the CCWSD Capital Improvement Projects Table to reflect water supply capacity projects (only) and to be consistent with the Capital Improvement Projects listed in the 2018 Annual Update and Inventory Report 9.A.2.e Packet Pg. 128 Attachment: Staff Report Attachment_Summary of Changes PEM 20190219 (8272 : Ten Year Water Facilities Supply Plan - February 2019) 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 129 Attachment: Adoption Ordinance - 031219(1) (8272 : Ten Year Water Facilities Supply Plan - February 2019) 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 130 Attachment: Adoption Ordinance - 031219(1) (8272 : Ten Year Water Facilities Supply Plan - February 2019) 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 131 Attachment: Adoption Ordinance - 031219(1) (8272 : Ten Year Water Facilities Supply Plan - February 2019) 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 132 Attachment: Adoption Ordinance - 031219(1) (8272 : Ten Year Water Facilities Supply Plan - February 2019) DRAFT WORK PLAN Collier County 10-Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan Update NovemberFebruary 20189 9.A.2.g Packet Pg. 133 Attachment: February 2019 10-Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan Update - Underline-Strikethrough Version - 20190315 (8272 : Ten Year i PW/6295/231366/03/01 Table of Contents Executive Summary .................................................................................................. ES-1 Section 1 Introduction ................................................................................................ 1-1 1.1 Plan Background ................................................................................................................................................ 1-1 1.2 Plan Objectives .................................................................................................................................................... 1-1 1.3 Information Sources ......................................................................................................................................... 1-2 1.4 Plan Contents ....................................................................................................................................................... 1-2 Section 2 Water Service Areas .................................................................................... 2-1 2.1 Overview of Collier County ........................................................................................................................... 2-1 2.2 Individual Utilities and Systems .................................................................................................................. 2-1 2.2.1 Collier County ........................................................................................................................................ 2-1 2.2.1.1 Collier County Water-Sewer District (CCWSD) ......................................................... 2-1 2.2.1.2 Goodland Water Sub-District ............................................................................................ 2-2 2.2.2 City of Naples ......................................................................................................................................... 2-2 2.2.3 Everglades City ................................................................................................................................... 2-23 2.2.4 City of Marco Island Water and Sewer Service Areas........................................................ 2-63 2.2.5 Immokalee Water and Sewer District (IWSD) ...................................................................... 2-63 2.2.6 Ave Maria Utility Company, LLLP (AMUC) ............................................................................. 2-64 2.2.7 Independent Districts...................................................................................................................... 2-74 2.2.7.1 Lee Cypress Water and Sewer Co-op, Inc .................................................................. 2-74 2.2.7.2 Port of the Islands Community Improvement District ........................................ 2-74 2.2.8 Water Systems Regulated by FL Department of Environmental Protection .............. 2-7 Section 3 Population and Demand Projections ............................................................ 3-1 3.1 Countywide Projections .................................................................................................................................. 3-1 3.2 Individual Utilities ............................................................................................................................................. 3-1 3.2.1 Collier County Water-Sewer District (CCWSD) ................................................................................ 3-1 3.2.2 Immokalee Water and Sewer District (IWSD) .................................................................................. 3-2 3.2.3 Ave Maria Utility Company, LLLP (AMUC) ...................................................................................... 3-32 Section 4 Existing Water Supply Facilities .................................................................... 4-1 4.1 Collier County Water-Sewer District (CCWSD) .................................................................................... 4-1 4.1.1 Water Supply Permits ....................................................................................................................... 4-1 4.1.2 Potable Water Facilities .................................................................................................................... 4-2 4.1.2.1 Wellfields .................................................................................................................................. 4-2 4.1.2.2 Water Treatment Facilities ............................................................................................... 4-2 4.1.2.3 Pumping, Storage, and Transmission ........................................................................ 4-98 4.1.3 Reclaimed Water Facilities ...................................................................................................... 4-1112 4.1.3.1 Water Reclamation Facilities ................................................................................... 4-1112 4.1.3.2 Reclaimed Water Pumping, Storage, and Transmission ................................... 4-14 4.1.3.3 Supplemental Wellfields ................................................................................................. 4-14 4.2 Immokalee Water and Sewer District (IWSD) ................................................................................... 4-16 4.2.1 Water Supply Permits ..................................................................................................................... 4-16 4.2.2 Potable Water Facilities ................................................................................................................. 4-16 4.2.2.1 Wellfields ............................................................................................................................... 4-16 4.2.2.2 Water Treatment Facilities ............................................................................................ 4-18 4.2.2.3 Pumping, Storage, and Transmission ........................................................................ 4-19 9.A.2.g Packet Pg. 134 Attachment: February 2019 10-Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan Update - Underline-Strikethrough Version - 20190315 (8272 : Ten Year Table of Contents · ii PW/6295/231366/03/01 4.2.3 Reclaimed Water Facilities ....................................................................................................... 4-19 4.3 Ave Maria Utility Company, LLLP (AMUC) ...................................................................................... 4-20 4.3.1 Water Supply Permits ................................................................................................................ 4-20 4.3.2 Potable Water Facilities ............................................................................................................. 4-20 4.3.2.1 Wellfields ........................................................................................................................... 4-20 4.3.2.2 Water Treatment Facilities ........................................................................................ 4-21 4.3.2.3 Pumping, Storage, and Transmission .................................................................... 4-21 4.3.3 Reclaimed Water Facilities ....................................................................................................... 4-21 Section 5 Planned Water Supply Facilities ................................................................... 5-1 5.1 Collier County Water-Sewer District (CCWSD) ................................................................................... 5-1 5.1.1 Potable Water Facilities .................................................................................................................. 5-3 5.1.1.1 Wellfields ................................................................................................................................. 5-3 5.1.1.2 Water Treatment Facilities .............................................................................................. 5-5 5.1.1.3 Pumping, Storage, and Transmission .......................................................................... 5-7 5.1.2 Reclaimed Water Facilities ............................................................................................................ 5-11 5.1.2.1 Water Reclamation Facilities......................................................................................... 5-11 5.1.2.2 Reclaimed Water Pumping, Storage, and Transmission .................................... 5-13 5.2 Immokalee Water and Sewer District (IWSD) ................................................................................... 5-13 5.2.1 Potable Water Facilities .................................................................................................................. 5-13 5.2.1.1 Wellfields ............................................................................................................................... 5-13 5.2.1.2 Water Treatment Facilities ............................................................................................ 5-14 5.2.2 Reclaimed Water Facilities ............................................................................................................ 5-16 5.3 Ave Maria Utility Company, LLLP (AMUC) .......................................................................................... 5-16 5.3.1 Potable Water Facilities .................................................................................................................. 5-16 5.3.1.1 Wellfields ............................................................................................................................... 5-16 5.3.1.2 Water Treatment Facilities ............................................................................................ 5-16 5.3.2 Reclaimed Water Facilities ............................................................................................................ 5-17 Section 6 Facilities Capacity Analysis ........................................................................... 6-1 6.1 Collier County Water-Sewer District (CCWSD) .................................................................................... 6-1 6.1.1 Concurrency Analysis ........................................................................................................................ 6-2 6.2 Immokalee Water and Sewer District (IWSD) ...................................................................................... 6-2 6.3 Ave Maria Utility Company, LLLP (AMUC) ............................................................................................. 6-3 Section 7 Conservation Regulations and Practices ....................................................... 7-1 7.1 Collier County Water-Sewer District (CCWSD) .................................................................................... 7-1 7.2 Immokalee Water and Sewer District (IWSD) ...................................................................................... 7-4 7.3 Ave Maria Utility Company, LLLP (AMUC) ............................................................................................. 7-5 Section 8 Capital Improvement Projects ...................................................................... 8-1 8.1 Collier County Water-Sewer District (CCWSD) .................................................................................... 8-1 8.2 Immokalee Water and Sewer District (IWSD) ...................................................................................... 8-1 8.3 Ave Maria Utility Company, LLLP (AMUC) ............................................................................................. 8-1 Appendices Appendix A Interlocal Agreement between CCWSD and the City of Naples Appendix B Ordinance Integrating Goodland Water District into CCWSD Appendix C Agreement for Potable Water Service Calusa Island Village (Goodland Area) 9.A.2.g Packet Pg. 135 Attachment: February 2019 10-Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan Update - Underline-Strikethrough Version - 20190315 (8272 : Ten Year · Table of Contents iii PW/6295/231366/03/01 Appendix D Potable Water Bulk Services Agreement between CCWSD and the City of Marco Island Notice of Termination Appendix E 2018 Collier County Annual Update and Inventory Report List of Figures Figure 2-1 Water District Boundaries of Collier County ....................................................................... 2-45 Figure 2-2 CCWSD Potable/Reclaimed Water Composite Map .......................................................... 2-56 Figure 4-1 Existing CCWSD Wellfields and Raw Water Transmission Mains ................................. 4-3 Figure 4-2 Existing CCWSD Potable Water Treatment Facilities ......................................................... 4-4 Figure 4-3 Existing CCWSD Potable Water Storage Facilities ............................................................. 4-10 Figure 4-4 Existing CCWSD Potable Water Transmission Mains ................................................. 4-1211 Figure 4-5 Existing CCWSD Water Reclamation Facilities ................................................................... 4-13 Figure 4-6 Existing CCWSD Reclaimed Water Distribution System ................................................. 4-15 Figure 4-7 Existing IWSD Water Supply Facilities ................................................................................... 4-17 Figure 5-1 Existing and Planned CCWSD Wellfields and Raw Water Transmission Mains ...... 5-4 Figure 5-2 Existing and Planned CCWSD Potable Water Treatment Facilities .............................. 5-6 Figure 5-3 Existing and Planned CCWSD Potable Water Storage Facilities ..................................... 5-8 Figure 5-4 Existing and Planned CCWSD Potable Water Transmission Mains ........................... 5-10 Figure 5-5 Existing and Planned CCWSD Water Reclamation Facilities ........................................ 5-12 Figure 5-6 Existing and Planned IWSD Potable Water Facilities....................................................... 5-15 Figure 7-1 CCWSD Unaccounted-for Water Loss from FY2002 to FY 2012 ................................. 7-23 List of Tables Table ES-1 Summary of Existing and Planned CCWSD Water Treatment and Water Reclamation Facilities .......................................................................................................................................... ES-2 Table ES-2 Capacity Analysis for CCWSD ..................................................................................................... ES-3 Table ES-3 Summary of Existing and Planned IWSD Water Treatment and Water Reclamation Facilities .................................................................................................................................................................... ES-4 Table ES-4 Capacity Analysis for IWSD ........................................................................................................ ES-4 Table ES-5 Summary of Existing and Planned AMUC Water Treatment and Water Reclamation Facilities ..................................................................................................................................................................... ES-5 Table ES-6 Capacity Analysis for AMUC ....................................................................................................... ES-5 Table 2-1 Summary of Small Capacity Private Sector Water Systems Operating within Collier County ............................................................................................................................................................................ 2-7 Table 3-1 Collier County Peak Season Population Estimates and Projections ............................... 3-1 Table 3-21 Population and Demand Projections for the CCWSD Service Area ........................... 3-12 Table 3-3 Projected Population and Demand for Areas Served by CCWSD ..................................... 3-2 Table 3-42 Population and Demand Projections for the Areas Served by IWSD Service Area 3-2 Table 3-5 Project Population and Demand for Areas Served by IWSD .............................................. 3-2 Table 3-6 Population and Demand Projections for theAreas Served by AMUC Service Area 3-32 Table 3-7 Project Population and Demand for Areas Served by AMUC ............................................. 3-3 Table 4-1 Consumptive Use Permits Issued by SFWMD to CCWSD .................................................... 4-1 Table 4-2 Existing CCWSD Golden Gate Tamiami Wellfield ................................................................... 4-5 Table 4-3 Existing North Hawthorn RO Wellfield Summary .................................................................. 4-6 9.A.2.g Packet Pg. 136 Attachment: February 2019 10-Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan Update - Underline-Strikethrough Version - 20190315 (8272 : Ten Year Table of Contents · iv PW/6295/231366/03/01 Table 4-4 Existing South Hawthorn RO Wellfield Summary ................................................................. 4-7 Table 4-5 Existing Orange Tree Wellfield Summary ................................................................................. 4-8 Table 4-6 Summary of Existing CCWSD Water Treatment Facilities ............................................... 4-98 Table 4-7 Summary of Existing CCWSD Water Storage Facilities .................................................. 4-119 Table 4-8 Summary of Existing Water Reclamation Facilities ...................................................... 4-1112 Table 4-9 Summary of Existing CCWSD Supplemental Wells.............................................................. 4-16 Table 4-10 Consumptive Use Permits Issued by SFWMD to the Immokalee Water and Sewer District ......................................................................................................................................................................... 4-16 Table 4-11 Summary of Existing IWSD Potable Water Wells .............................................................. 4-18 Table 4-12 Summary of Existing IWSD Water Treatment Facilities ................................................ 4-19 Table 4-13 Summary of Existing IWSD Storage Facilities..................................................................... 4-19 Table 4-14 Summary of Existing IWSD Water Reclamation Facilities ............................................ 4-20 Table 4-15 Consumptive Use Permits Issued by SFWMD to AMUC .................................................. 4-20 Table 4-16 Summary of Wells Operated by AMUC .................................................................................. 4-20 Table 4-17 Summary of Existing AMUC Water Treatment Facility .................................................. 4-21 Table 4-18 Summary of Existing AMUC Storage Facility ....................................................................... 4-21 Table 4-19 Summary of Existing AMUC Water Reclamation Facility ............................................... 4-22 Table 5-1 Planned NERWTP Wellfield Phase 1 Summary ...................................................................... 5-3 Table 5-2 Major Tasks Required to Build Planned CCWSD NERWTP Phase 1 Wellfield ........... 5-5 Table 5-3 Summary of Existing and Planned CCWSD Water Treatment Facilities ...................... 5-7 Table 5-4 Major Tasks Required to Build Planned CCWSD NERWTP Phase 1 .............................. 5-7 Table 5-5 Summary of Existing and Planned CCWSD Water Storage Facilities ............................ 5-9 Table 5-6 Major Tasks Required to Build Planned CCWSD Water Storage Facilities ................. 5-9 Table 5-7 Summary of Existing and Planned CCWSD Water Reclamation Facilities ................ 5-11 Table 5-8 Major Tasks Required to Build Planned CCWSD Water Reclamation Facilities ..... 5-11 Table 5-9 Summary of Existing and Planned Reclaimed Water Storage Facilities .................... 5-13 Table 5-10 Major Tasks Required to Build Planned CCWSD Reclaimed Water Storage Facilities ........................................................................................................................................................................................ 5-13 Table 5-11 Summary of Planned IWSD Wells ............................................................................................ 5-14 Table 5-12 Major Tasks Required to Build Planned IWSD Wells ...................................................... 5-14 Table 5-13 Summary of Existing and Planned IWSD Water Treatment Facilities ..................... 5-16 Table 5-14 Summary of Existing and Planned AMUC Potable Water Treatment Facilities .. 5-17 Table 5-15 Major Tasks Required to Build Planned AMUC Potable Water Treatment Facilities ........................................................................................................................................................................................ 5-17 Table 5-16 Summary of Existing and Planned AMUC Water Reclamation Facilities ................ 5-17 Table 6-1 Capacity Analysis for CCWSD ......................................................................................................... 6-1 Table 6-2 Capacity Analysis for IWSD ............................................................................................................. 6-2 Table 6-3 Capacity Analysis for AMUC ............................................................................................................ 6-3 Table 8-1 CCWSD Capital Improvement Projects ....................................................................................... 8-2 Table 8-2 IWSD Capital Improvement Projects ........................................................................................... 8-7 Table 8-3 AMUC Capital Improvement Projects ......................................................................................... 8-8 9.A.2.g Packet Pg. 137 Attachment: February 2019 10-Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan Update - Underline-Strikethrough Version - 20190315 (8272 : Ten Year · Table of Contents v PW/6295/231366/03/01 List of Acronyms AADD Annual Average Daily Demand AADF Annual Average Daily Flow ADD Average Daily Demand AMUC Ave Maria Utility Company (AMUC) ASR Aquifer Storage and Recovery AUIR Annual Update and Inventory Report AWS Alternative Water Supply BCC Board of County Commissioners BEBR Bureau of Economic and Business Research BlsBLS Below Land Surface CCCPD Collier County Comprehensive Planning DepartmentDivision CCWSD Collier County Water-Sewer District CDES Community Development and Environmental Services CIP Capital Improvement Plan CR County Road CUP Consumption Use Permits DIW Deep Injection Well EAR Evaluation and Appraisal Report ERC Equivalent Residential Connection FAC Florida Administrative Code FDEP Florida Department of Environmental Protection FGUA Florida Government Utility Authority FY Fiscal Year GMD Growth Management Department GMP Growth Management Plan gpcd Gallons per Capita per Day gpd Gallons per Day HPRO High-Pressure Reverse Osmosis HZ1/HZ1A Hawthorn Zone 1 Aquifer IE Ion Exchange IWSD Immokalee Water and Sewer District IQ Irrigation Quality LDC Land Development Code LH/LHA Lower Hawthorn Aquifer LOSS Level of Service Standard LPRO Low-Pressure Reverse Osmosis LS Lime Softening LT/LTA Lower Tamiami Aquifer LWCWSP Lower West Coast Water Supply Plan 9.A.2.g Packet Pg. 138 Attachment: February 2019 10-Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan Update - Underline-Strikethrough Version - 20190315 (8272 : Ten Year Table of Contents · vi PW/6295/231366/03/01 MF Membrane Filtration MG Million Gallons MGD Million Gallons Per Day MS Membrane Softening MMDD Maximum Month Daily Demand N/A Not Available NCRWTP North County Regional Water Treatment Plant NCWRF North County Water Reclamation Facility NERWTP Northeast Regional Water Treatment Plant NEWRF Northeast Water Reclamation Facility OTUC Orange Tree Utility Company OTWTP Orange Tree Water Treatment Plant PBWRF Pelican Bay Water Reclamation Facility PCUR Per Capita Use Rate PUD Public Utilities DivisionDepartment PSC Public Service Commission RIB Rapid Infiltration Basin RO Reverse Osmosis RWA Rural Water Association SA Sandstone Aquifer SCRWTP South County Regional Water Treatment Plant SCWRF South County Water Reclamation Facility SERWTP Southeast Regional Water Treatment Plant SEWRF Southeast Water Reclamation Facility SFWMD South Florida Water Management District UFA Upper Floridan Aquifer ULDC Unified Land Development Code WRF Water Reclamation Facility WT/WTA Water-Table Aquifer WTP Water Treatment Plant 9.A.2.g Packet Pg. 139 Attachment: February 2019 10-Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan Update - Underline-Strikethrough Version - 20190315 (8272 : Ten Year ES-1 PW/6295/231366/03/01 Executive Summary In December 2017, the Governing Board of the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) approved the 2017 Lower West Coast Water Supply Plan (LWCWSP) Update. Under Florida law (section 163.3177(6)(c), Florida Statutes) Collier County must adopt amendments to its comprehensive plan within 18 months of the SFWMD approval of the update. These amendments include the development of a 10-Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan Update and amendments to the Growth Management Plan (GMP). Under the requirement of the Florida Statutes, the 10-Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan Update (Plan Update) for Collier County must include analysis of all water utilities in the County not serving a specific local government. These utilities include: Collier County Water-Sewer District (CCWSD) Immokalee Water and Sewer District (IWSD) Ave Maria Utility Company, LLLP (AMUC) Utilities not included in this Plan are the City of Naples Utility Department, Marco Island Utilities, and Everglades City, each of which is responsible to develop a 10-Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan Update to be included in its city’s comprehensive plan. This 10-Year Water Supply Facilities WorkThis Plan Update for Collier County has the following objectives: Identify population and water demands of the County and each utility for the planning period of 2019 to 2028. Present existing and planned potable and reclaimed water facilities that will be utilized to meet demand projections. Identify sources of raw water needed for potable water and irrigation water supply to meet demands through the year 2028. Identify the steps necessary to develop additional potable and reclaimed water supplies and specify when they must occur and how they will be funded. Demonstrate that the water supply plans for each utility within the County are feasible with respect to facility capacity to be developed and consumptive use permit allocations required. Describe the conservation practices and regulations utilized by each utility to meet water supply demand. The Collier County 10-Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan Update was prepared by CDM Smith Inc. (CDM Smith) for the Collier County Growth Management Division. 9.A.2.g Packet Pg. 140 Attachment: February 2019 10-Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan Update - Underline-Strikethrough Version - 20190315 (8272 : Ten Year Executive Summary · ES-2 PW/6295/231366/03/01 Information for the Plan Update was solicited from each of the utilities included. All three utilities provided some level of information for inclusion in the Plan Update. Where information gaps existed, information on the existing and planned facilities was gathered from various sources including the SFWMD LWCWSP updateUpdate, SFWMD consumptive use permits, Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) public water supply and wastewater treatment facility permits, and the previous Collier County 10-Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan Update, adopted in February 2014. After completion of the draft version of the Plan Update, copies were distributed to each of the utilities for review and comment. Comments provided by each of the utilities were incorporated into their sections of the Plan Update. The findings of the Plan Update are summarized below for each of the utilities. Collier County Water-Sewer District (CCWSD) During the 10-year planning period CCWSD has plans to develop a new potable water treatment facility to meet growing water demands. Table ES-1 summarizes the treatment capacity of the existing and planned potable water and water reclamation facilities for CCWSD. Table ES-1. Summary of Existing and Planned CCWSD Water Treatment and Water Reclamation Facilities1 Facility Name Year Online Design Treatment Capacity (MGD) Project Identified In LWCWSP Water Treatment Facilities North County Regional Water Treatment Plant (NCRWTP) MF Online 12.00 N/A NCRWTP LPRO Online 8.00 N/A South County Regional Water Treatment Plant (SCRWTP) LS Online 12.00 N/A SCRWTP LPRO Online 20.00 N/A OTUC WTPOrange Tree Water Treatment Plant (OTWTP) Online 0.75 N/A Northeast Regional Water Treatment Plant (NERWTP) Phase 1 LPRO3LPRO2 2027 1.25 Yes2 NERWTP Phase 1 Ion Exchange3Exchange2 2027 3.75 Yes2 Total - 57.75 - Water Reclamation Facilities NCWRFNorth County Water Reclamation Facility (NCWRF) Online 24.10 N/A SCWRFSouth County Water Reclamation Facility (SCWRF) Online 16.00 N/A NCWRF Expansion 2034 6.50 N/A Northeast Water Reclamation Facility (NEWRF) Phase 1 20262023 4.00 Yes Total - 50.6044.10 - 1 Information taken from the Collier County 2014 Master Plan Update and the 2018 AUIR. 2 Per the LWCWSP, the completion date for the NERWTP is 2033. 9.A.2.g Packet Pg. 141 Attachment: February 2019 10-Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan Update - Underline-Strikethrough Version - 20190315 (8272 : Ten Year Executive Summary · ES-3 PW/6295/231366/03/01 Facility Name Year Online Design Treatment Capacity (MGD) Project Identified In LWCWSP 32 Contingent on SFWMD Permitting of Raw Water Supply. In addition to the construction of the planned facilities indicated above, CCWSD intends to construct new wellfields, finished water storage, and distribution lines, which are presented in detail in the Plan Update. The information on CCWSD is reflective of the 2014 Water and Wastewater Master Plan Updates, the Collier County 2018 Draft Annual Update and Inventory Report (AUIR) on public utilitiesfor Public Utilities, and the Collier County Water-Sewer District Fiscal Year 2017-2027 Capital Improvement Plan. The 2018 AUIR and the Fiscal Year 2017-2027 Capital Improvement Plan were approved by the Collier County Board of County Commissioners on November 13, 2018. Based on population projections available for the CCWSD service area, a capacity analysis was performed looking at projected demand versus plant capacity and permitted allocation. The results of the capacity analysis are summarized below in Table ES-2. A discussion of the capacity analysis can be found in Section 6.1. As the capacity analysis illustrates, CCWSD has sufficient plant capacity existing or planned plant capacity throughout the 2028 planning horizon. Table ES-2. Water Capacity Analysis for CCWSD 2013 2018 2023 2028 Service AreaPermanent Population 195,207162,6 46 241,422203,1 28 271,671229,8 40 300,839255,8 09 Demand Per Capita (gpcd) 150 150 150 150 Required Treatment Capacity @ 150 gpcd (MGD) 29.2824.40 36.2130.47 40.7534.48 45.1338.37 Available Facility Capacity (MGD) 52.00 52.75 52.75 57.75 Raw to Finished Water Adjustment1 1.22 1.22 1.22 1.22 Facility Capacity Surplus (Deficit) (MGD)2 22.7227.60 16.5422.28 12.0018.27 12.6219.38 Raw Water Requirement (MGD)3 35.7229.76 44.1837.17 49.7242.06 55.0546.81 Permitted Amount (MGD Annual Average)4,5 55.53 56.18 56.18 56.18 Permitted Surplus (Deficit) (MGD)6 19.8125.77 12.0019.01 6.4714.12 1.139.37 1 The Raw-To-Finished Water Adjustment was taken from the 2017 LWCWSP. 2 Calculated by subtracting Required Treatment Capacity @ 150 gpcd from Available Facility Capacity. 3 Raw water requirementWater Requirement is the amount of raw water needed to make a certain amount of finished water. It is calculated by multiplying the Required Treatment Capacity @ 150 gpcd by the Raw to Finished Water Adjustment. 4 CCWSD has two potable water supply consumptive use permits. CUP 11-00249-W allocation is 55.53 MGD annual average and expires on September 22, 2036. CUP allocation 11-00419-W is 0.65 MGD and expires on March 7, 2023. 5 CCWSD is proactive in renewing its CUPs in advance of expiration and intends to maintain the necessary CUPs to meet the raw water requirement. 6 Calculated by subtracting the Raw Water Requirement from the Permitted Amount. Immokalee Water and Sewer District (IWSD) Table ES-3 summarizes the treatment capacity of the existing and planned potable water facilities for IWSD. Based on population projections available for the IWSD service area, a capacity 9.A.2.g Packet Pg. 142 Attachment: February 2019 10-Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan Update - Underline-Strikethrough Version - 20190315 (8272 : Ten Year Executive Summary · ES-4 PW/6295/231366/03/01 analysis was performed looking at projected demand versus plant capacity versus permitted allocation. The results of the capacity analysis are summarized below in Table ES-4. A discussion of the capacity analysis can be found in Section 6.2. Based on the capacity analysis, the improvements planned by the IWSD for the 10-year planning period are sufficient to meet the demands of the service area and the allocation of the underlying Consumptive Use Permit (CUP) (11-00013-W) is sufficient to cover the withdrawals required to make the finished water demand. Table ES-3 Summary of Existing and Planned IWSD Water Treatment Facilities1 Facility Name Year Online Design Treatment Capacity (MGD) Project Identified in LWCWSP Water Treatment Facilities Jerry V. Warden WTP Online 2.25 N/A Airport WTP Online 1.35 N/A Carson Road WTP Online 2.3500 N/A RO WTP 20202026 2.5850 Yes Total - 8.7110 - Water Reclamation Facilities IWSD WRF Online 2.50 Yes IWSD WRF Expansion 20232040 3.00 Yes Total - 5.50 - 1 Information on the existing and planned water treatment facilities was taken from the 2017 Immokalee Water and Sewer District Public Facilities Report and the 2017 LWCWSP. Table ES-4. Water Capacity Analysis for IWSD 2013 2018 2023 2028 Service AreaPermanent Population 22,747 25,717 27,616 29,948 Demand Per Capita (gpcd) 75 75 75 75 Annual Average Daily Demand (MGD) 1.71 1.93 2.07 2.25 Available Facility Capacity (MGD)1 5.60 5.60 5.60 8.10 Raw to Finished Water Adjustment2 1.2205 1.2205 1.2205 1.2205 Facility Capacity Surplus (Deficit) (MGD)3 3.89 3.67 3.53 5.85 Raw Water Requirement (MGD)4 2.081.79 2.3503 2.5317 2.7436 Permitted Amount (MGD Annual Average)5 4.15 4.15 4.15 4.15 Permitted Surplus (Deficit) (MGD)6 2.0736 1.802.12 1.6298 1.4179 1 Per the Lower West Coast Water Supply update, the IWSD available facility capacity is projected to go up to 8.10 by 2030. 2 The Raw-To-Finished Water Adjustment was taken from the 2017 LWCWSP. 3 Calculated by subtracting Annual Average Daily Demand from Available Facility Capacity. 4 Raw water requirementWater Requirement is the amount of raw water needed to make a certain amount of finished water. It is calculated by multiplying the Required Treatment Capacity by the Raw to Finished Water Adjustment. 5 CUP (11-00013-W) allocation is 4.15 MGD annual average and expires on May 23, 2031. 6 Calculated by subtracting the Raw Water Requirement from the Permitted Amount. 9.A.2.g Packet Pg. 143 Attachment: February 2019 10-Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan Update - Underline-Strikethrough Version - 20190315 (8272 : Ten Year Executive Summary · ES-5 PW/6295/231366/03/01 Ave Maria Utility Company, LLLP (AMUC) Table ES-5 summarizes the treatment capacity of the existing and planned potable water and water reclamation facilities for AMUC. Based on population projections available for the AMUC service area, a capacity analysis was performed looking at project demand versus plant capacity versus permitted allocation. The results of the capacity analysis are summarized below in Table ES-6. Table ES-5. Summary of Existing and Planned AMUC Water Treatment and Water Reclamation Facilities1 Facility Name Year Online Design Capacity (MGD) Project Identified In LWCWSP Water Treatment Facilities AMUC WTP (Phase 1) Online 1.0 N/A ROWTP 2025 2.5 Yes Total - 3.5 - Water Reclamation Facilities AMUC WRF (Phase 1) Online 0.9 Yes AMUC WRF (Phased expansion of Reclamation Plant) 2024 2.5 Yes Total - 3.4 - 1 Information on existing and planned water treatment facilities taken from the 2017 Lower West Coast Water Supply Plan Update. Table ES-6. Water Capacity Analysis for AMUC 2013 2018 2023 2028 Service Area PopulationPopulation6 2,924 5,803 9,065 12,713 Demand Per Capita (gpcd) 9181 9181 9181 9181 Annual Average Daily Demand (MGD) 0.2724 0.5347 0.8273 1.1603 Available Facility Capacity (MGD) 1.00 1.00 1.00 3.50 Raw to Finished Water Adjustment1 1.18 1.18 1.18 1.18 Facility Capacity Surplus (Deficit) (MGD)2 0.7376 0.4753 0.1827 2.3447 Raw Water Requirement (MGD)3 0.3128 0.6255 0.9787 1.3722 Permitted Amount (MGD Annual Average)4 1.16 1.16 1.16 1.16 Permitted Surplus (Deficit) (MGD)5 0.8588 0.5461 0.1929 (0.2106) 1 The Raw-To-Finished Water Adjustment was taken from the 2017 LWCWSP. 2 Calculated by subtracting Annual Average Daily Demand from Available Facility Capacity. 3 Raw water requirementWater Requirement is the amount of raw water needed to make a certain amount of finished water. It is calculated by multiplying the Required Treatment Capacity by the Raw to Finished Water Adjustment. 4 CUP (11-02298-W) allocation is 1.16 MGD annual average and expires on October 19, 2020. 5 Calculated by subtracting the Raw Water Requirement from the Permitted Amount. 6 Population estimates/projections provided by AMUC; 2013 population is an interpolated value 9.A.2.g Packet Pg. 144 Attachment: February 2019 10-Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan Update - Underline-Strikethrough Version - 20190315 (8272 : Ten Year Executive Summary · ES-6 PW/6295/231366/03/01 Based on the capacity analysis, AMUC does not have sufficient permitted capacity to meet the demands of its service area for the 10-year planning period. The CUP allocation (11-02298-W) only covers the withdrawals required to makemeet the finished water demand until 2025. After 2025, the Permitted Surplus (Deficit) becomes negative. AMUC will need to increase their permitted consumptive use by 2025. 9.A.2.g Packet Pg. 145 Attachment: February 2019 10-Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan Update - Underline-Strikethrough Version - 20190315 (8272 : Ten Year 1-1 PW/6295/231366/03/01 Section 1 Introduction 1.1 Plan Background In December 2017, the Governing Board of the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) approved the 2017 Lower West Coast Water Supply Plan Update (LWCWSP). Under Florida law (section 163.3177(6)(c), Florida Statutes) Collier County must adopt amendments to its comprehensive plan within 18 months of the SFWMD approval of the update. These amendments include the development of a 10-Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan Update and amendments to the Growth Management Plan (GMP). Under the requirement of the Florida Statutes, the 10-Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan Update (Plan Update) for Collier County must include analysis of all water utilities in the County not serving a specific local government. These utilities include: Collier County Water-Sewer District (CCWSD) Immokalee Water and Sewer District (IWSD) Ave Maria Utility Company, LLLP (AMUC) Utilities not included in this Plan are the City of Naples Utility Department, Marco Island Utilities, and Everglades City, each of which is responsible to develop a 10-Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan to be included in its city’s comprehensive plan. 1.2 Plan Objectives This 10-Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan Update (Plan Update) for Collier County has the following objectives: Identify population and water demands of the County and each utility for the planning period of 2019 to 2028. Present existing and planned potable and reclaimed water facilities that will be utilized to meet demand projections. Identify sources of raw water needed for potable water supply to meet demands through the year 2028. Identify the steps necessary to develop additional potable and reclaimed water supplies and specify when they must occur and how they will be funded. Demonstrate that the water supply plans for each utility within the County are feasible with respect to facility capacity to be developed and consumptive use permit allocations required. 9.A.2.g Packet Pg. 146 Attachment: February 2019 10-Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan Update - Underline-Strikethrough Version - 20190315 (8272 : Ten Year Section 1  Introduction 1-2 PW/6295/231366/03/01 Describe the conservation practices and regulations utilized by each utility to meet water supply demand. 1.3 Information Sources The following information sources were utilized in the development of the Plan Update: 2017 Lower West Coast Water Supply Plan Update approved by the Governing Board of the South Florida Water Management District in December 2017. The document is referred to as the 2017 LWCWSP Update in the Plan Update. Collier County 2018 Annual Update and Inventory Report on public utilitiesfor Public Utilities was adopted by Ordinance 12-42 by the Collier County Board of County Commissioners in December 2017on November 13, 2018 as Agenda Item 9.B. The document is referred to as the 2018 AUIR in the Plan Update. Collier County 2014 Water Master Plan Update adopted by the Collier County Board of County Commissioners on June 10, 2014. The document is referred to as the Collier County 2014 Water Master Plan Update in the Plan Update. Fiscal Year 2017-2027 Collier County Water-Sewer District Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) Update. The document is referred to as the CCWSD FY 2017-2027 CIP Update and was approved by the Collier County Board of County Commissioners on November 13, 2018 under Resolution 2018-208. SFWMD Consumptive Use Permit (CUP) numbers: CCWSD - 11-00249-W, 11-00052-W, and 11-00419-W IWSD - 11-00013-W AMUC – 11-02298-W FDEP Drinking Water Database accessed on September 17, 2018. https://floridadep.gov/water/source-drinking-water/content/basic-facility-reports Responses to data requests sent to CCWSD, IWSD and AMUC. It is important to note that other planning documents such as Water, Wastewater and Irrigation Master Plans as well as User and Impact Fee Rate Studies are ongoing. Likewise, concurrency tools such as the 2018 Annual Update and Inventory Report were not adopted by the Board of County Commissioners until after supporting data for this Plan was provided. Accordingly, planned facilities (see Chapter 5) may move up or back within the 10-year timeframe depending on these plans and studies, as adopted. The information supporting this 10-Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan reflects the most recent data available as of July 1, 2018. 1.4 Plan Contents Section 2 introduces the individual utilities and systems that serve Collier County and identifies their service areas. 9.A.2.g Packet Pg. 147 Attachment: February 2019 10-Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan Update - Underline-Strikethrough Version - 20190315 (8272 : Ten Year Section 1  Introduction 1-3 PW/6295/231366/03/01 Section 3 presents population and water demand projections for the County and individual utilities for the planning period out to 2028. Section 4 summarizes the existing potable water supply system including fresh and brackish water wellfields, raw water transmission systems, water treatment plants (WTPs) and reclaimed water systems (where applicable) for each utility. Section 5 summarizes the planned potable and reclaimed water systems for each of the utilities out to 2028. Section 6 presents an analysis of the ability of each utility to meet projected demands during the planning period. Section 7 summarizes current and planned conservation practices and regulations that will be utilized to meet demands. Section 8 summarizes the capital improvement plan for each of the utilities. Section 8 summarizes the capital improvement plan for each of the utilities. 9.A.2.g Packet Pg. 148 Attachment: February 2019 10-Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan Update - Underline-Strikethrough Version - 20190315 (8272 : Ten Year Section 1 · Introduction 1-4 PW/6295/231366/03/01 This page intentionally left blank. 9.A.2.g Packet Pg. 149 Attachment: February 2019 10-Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan Update - Underline-Strikethrough Version - 20190315 (8272 : Ten Year 2-1 PW/6295/231366/03/01 Section 2 Water Service Areas 2.1 Overview of Collier County Collier County is served by four Public Sector Water Systems, including the County, the City of Naples, Everglades City, and the City of Marco Island. The County is served by the Collier County Water-Sewer District (CCWSD) and domestic self-supply outside of the CCWSD service area. The boundaries of the CCWSD, City of Naples, Everglades City and the City of Marco Island are shown in Figure 2-1. In addition to the Public Sector Water Systems, Collier County is served by two Non- Public Sector Water Systems including the Immokalee Water and Sewer District (IWSD) and the Ave Maria Utility Company (AMUC). The boundaries of these systems are also presented in Figure 2-1. There are also two Private Sector Water Systems which include the Lee Cypress Water and Sewer Co- Op, Inc. and the Port of the Islands Community Improvement District, along with numerous small capacity water systems that are regulated by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP). 2.2 Individual Utilities and Systems 2.2.1 Collier County 2.2.1.1. Collier County Water-Sewer District (CCWSD) The CCWSD’s water service area currently encompasses approximately 199.93 square miles while its current wastewater service area encompasses 206.89 square miles. This area is bounded on the North by Lee County, on the south by the City of Marco Island service area, on the west by the City of Naples service area and the Gulf of Mexico, and on the east by the Urban Planning Boundary. The CCWSD was approved by referendum in 1969 and validated by the State Legislature in 1978 by Special Act, Chapter 78-489, Laws of Florida. In 1988, the legislature approved a supplement to the Special Act, which included revisions to the District boundaries. This action significantly increased the size of the District to approximately 210 square miles. It also specifically excluded areas of the City of Naples, Marco Shores, Marco Island, and the Florida Governmental Utility Authority (FGUA). The Orange Tree Utility Company (OTUC) was taken over by the CCWSD on March 1, 2017. The CCWSD acquired the Golden Gate City potable water and wastewater utility systems from the FGUA on March 1, 2018. The Orange Tree Utility Company (OTUC) was taken over by the CCWSD in 2014. There is one portion of the CCWSD service area that is not served by CCWSD, that being approximately 17 square miles of unincorporated area contiguous to the City of Naples, shown with the red hatch on Figure 2-1. As this area is a substantially developed part of the County, with minimal growth expected during the 10-year planning period, no plans for supplying additional water to this area are included in this Plan. The original interlocal agreement by which the City of 9.A.2.g Packet Pg. 150 Attachment: February 2019 10-Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan Update - Underline-Strikethrough Version - 20190315 (8272 : Ten Year Section 2 · Water Service Areas 2-2 PW/6295/231366/03/01 Naples serves this area was enacted on October 16, 1977. A copy of the most recent version of the interlocal agreement is provided in Appendix A. A composite map, provided as Figure 2-2, showing the existing CCWSD potable and reclaimed water distribution systems, illustrates the actual extent of the water-sewer district currently being served. In addition to interconnectionsThe CCWSD maintains an interconnection with Marco Shores by which CCWSD supplies potable water on a bulk basis, CCWSD also. The City of Marco Island has provided written notification to CCWSD that the Potable Water Bulk Services Water Agreement will be terminated on or around September 26, 2019. [Letter from City of Marco Island to the County attached as Appendix D] The CCWSD maintains emergency interconnects with the City of Naples, the City of Marco Island and Bonita Springs Utilities. As the interconnects are for emergency purposes only and are not intended for bulk transfer, CCWSD does not dedicate any portion of its water supply capacity to serving these interconnections. Should CCWSD, at a future date, enter into an agreement with any additional entity to provide finished water, it will incorporate the amount of water provided to said entity into its planning documents. 2.2.1.2 Goodland Water Sub-District Until recently, the Goodland District was a separate water district serving an island community, roughly one quarter of a square mile in area. It is located about two miles east of Marco Island. The District was established by referendum in 1975. In 2012, the County abolished the District as a separate entity, thereby making it part of the CCWSD (Ord. 2012-43) Appendix B. Service to Goodland is supplied by CCWSD in all respects; bulk water is purchased for distribution from the Marco Island Utility. Accordingly, it is often referred to as a “sub-district,” although it is entirely within the CCWSD boundary. A copy of the Interlocal Agreement for the provision of water from the City of Marco Island is found in Appendix C. CCWSD maintains pumping, distribution and storage facilities in the Goodland sub-district; CCWSD serves the community of Key Marco as well as Goodland on the same basis. 2.2.2. City of Naples The City of Naples is another public sector provider of water service in Collier County. In addition to its corporate area, the City also serves approximately 17 square miles of unincorporated area contiguous to the City limits per an interlocal agreement with Collier County. There are approximately 6,178 service connections in the unincorporated area with an average daily demand of 4.17 MGD. The City allocates 33 percent of its system capacity to serve this unincorporated area. As the unincorporated area is built-out, no additional demand on the City’s system is projected for the future. The enabling legislation, under which the City established its water service area boundary, is Chapter 180, F.S., Municipal Public Works Law. The City's existing water supply facilities are not addressed in this 10-Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan, since they will be discussed in the City's Plan. The service area for the utility is shown in Figure 2-1. 9.A.2.g Packet Pg. 151 Attachment: February 2019 10-Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan Update - Underline-Strikethrough Version - 20190315 (8272 : Ten Year Section 2 · Water Service Areas 2-3 PW/6295/231366/03/01 2.2.3 Everglades City Everglades City is also a public sector provider of water service in the County. Like Naples, Everglades City is an incorporated community that provides water service both within and beyond its corporate limits. The outlying unincorporated communities served by the City include Plantation Island and Seaboard Village in Copeland. Unlike the unincorporated area served by the City of Naples, Plantation Island and Seaboard Village are not part of the Collier County Water Sewer District. For this reason, Collier County is not responsible to provide planning efforts to supply water to these communities. These areas are analogous to the Golden Gate Estates portion of Collier County, which is served entirely by self-supply, for which the County is not responsible for providing service. Everglades City's water supply facilities are not addressed in this 10-Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan, since they will be discussed in the City's Plan. The service area for the utility is shown in Figure 2-1. 2.2.4 City of Marco Island Water and Sewer Service Areas The City of Marco Island historically had been provided service from the private sector utility company, the Florida Water Services Corporation. A small portion of Marco Island’s water and sewer infrastructure had historically been maintained by Collier County as the Marco Island Water and Sewer District. The City of Marco Island purchased the system from the Florida Water Services Corporation. The City operates the approximately 10 square mile system as a public sector utility. On February 24, 2004, the Marco Island Water and Sewer District was dissolved/abolished by Ordinance No. 2004-09. The infrastructure in that area was turned over from the CCWSD to the City. The City now owns and operates the only centralized utility services on Marco Island. The City’s existing water supply to the Marco Shores area was replaced with a bulk water supply from the CCWSD to service the area. The daily water demand (metered water) for the Potable Water Bulk Services to Marco Island is approximately 165,000 gallons per day and is accounted for in CCWSD’s population and water supply demand projections. As the Marco Shores area is built-out, no additional demand on the CCWSD system is projected for the future. Though outside of the scope date for this update, it should be noted that on September 26, 2018 the City of Marco Island provided a letter of intent to terminate the Potable Water Bulk Services Agreement on September 26, 2019 found in Appendix D. The City of Marco Island’s existing water supply facilities are not addressed in this 10-Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan, since they will be discussed in the City's Plan. The service area for the utility is shown in Figure 2-1. 2.2.5 Immokalee Water and Sewer District (IWSD) The Immokalee Water and Sewer District (IWSD), located in the northeast part of Collier County, was created by Special Act of the State Legislature following a 1978 referendum. Creation of an independent district provided the means for this unincorporated community to develop its own water/sewer system, which was necessary due to the distance from the developed coastal area of the County. The boundaries of the District were expanded following a voter referendum in 2004 and a change to the enabling act was signed by the Governor in June 2005 (Chapter 2005-298). This district has a governing board whose members are appointed by the Governor of Florida. The boundaries of this independent district are shown on Figure 2-1. 9.A.2.g Packet Pg. 152 Attachment: February 2019 10-Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan Update - Underline-Strikethrough Version - 20190315 (8272 : Ten Year Section 2 · Water Service Areas 2-4 PW/6295/231366/03/01 2.2.6 Ave Maria Utility Company, LLLP (AMUC) Ave Maria Utility Company (AMUC), established in 2005, provides potable and reclaimed water service to the Town of Ave Maria. The town is located approximately 20 miles east of Interstate 75. The AMUC service area boundary is shown in Figure 2-1. 2.2.7 Independent Districts 2.2.7.1 Lee Cypress Water and Sewer Co-op, Inc. The private sector utility providing water service to Copeland is the Lee Cypress Water and Sewer Co-op, Inc. The unincorporated community of Copeland is located on SR-29 about 3 miles north of US-41. According to the SFWMD consumptive use permit for the Co-op, the population of the service area is projected to be 445 in 2024. Based on FDEP records, the utility currently has a capacity of 80,000 gpd. Between 2004 and 2025 the population of the community is projected to grow to 445 residents, according to the consumptive use permit. Using a straight-line interpolation of the growth rate in the consumptive use permit, the population would be projected to grow to 479 residents by 2028. Assuming a per capita water demand of 150 gpcd, the required utility capacity needed in 2028 would be 71,850 gpd. Based on the projected population and assumed per capita demand, the utility should continue to meet the needs of its residents without expansion through the 10-year planning period. Therefore, no additional consideration is given to this utility in the Plan. 2.2.7.2 Port of the Islands Community Improvement District Another independent district in the County is the Port of the Islands Community Improvement District. This district encompasses approximately 1 square mile of land contiguous to and north and south of US-41, approximately 20 miles south of Naples. This district was created in 1986 by the Collier County Board of County Commissioners in response to a petition from the District’s developers and was created as a mechanism to provide water and other services to this isolated area. The District is governed by an elected board of directors. The population of the District was 588 according to the 2017 LWCWSP. Based on FDEP records, the utility currently has a capacity of 440,000 gpd. Based on the projections in the 2017 LWCWSP, between 2010 and 2040 the population of the District is projected to grow to 641 residents. Assuming a per capita water demand of 142 gpcd, the required utility capacity needed in 2028 would be 91,022 gpd. Based on the projected population and assumed per capita demand, the utility should continue to meet the needs of its residents without expansion through the 10-year planning period. Therefore, no additional consideration is given to this utility in the Plan. 9.A.2.g Packet Pg. 153 Attachment: February 2019 10-Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan Update - Underline-Strikethrough Version - 20190315 (8272 : Ten Year §¨¦75 UV93 ")858 UV82 UV951 ")92 ")865 ")850 UV876 UV84 UV29 UV90 UV864 §¨¦75 £¤41 ")846 UV45 £¤41 ")951 UV45 ")846 UV29 UV93 £¤41 05 040106020304050601030205 11 06 01 04 11 08 02 07 02 12 0601 36 03 13 06 09 35 03 07 11 04 11 01 07 32 10 31 05 01 34 08 12 03 05 14 06 10 36 06 02 11 08 1517 10 21 09 12 33 31 11 24 19 11 33 18 11 05 31 36 05 08 04 3432 25 11 11 06 11 11 04 25 11 10 07 30 01 11 14 19 11 11 10 31 18 35 30 13 08 32 33 22 15 09 11 23 22 03 11 36 05 07 11 14 09 15 12 13 27 34 27 34 04 09 34 36 08 11 08 13 11 04 11 04 04 16 03 20 26 11 25 33 05 30 26 12 32 31 16 30 22 11 04 04 33 24 09 17 31 33 19 0103 31 08 15 35 07 05 35 36 09 16 04 19 27 34 28 20 25 06 10 01 30 26 31 32 27 24 34 10 18 36 09 20 21 19 30 08 16 28 06 36 04 13 05 16 11 14 10 23 28 24 33 33 06 35 09 02 31 20 29 12 18 32 28 26 08 18 03 18 03 06 16 28 34 19 17 29 10 02 29 15 2528 06 17 12 11 09 03 35 02 26 19 32 32 14 13 21 0907 07 33 36 07 26 13 17 34 05 22 17 12 33 08 12 28 36 30 32 13 20 1614 21 33 12 13 09 14 25 21 18 06 25 07 33 34 18 15 04 31 36 01 25 09 30 20 21 31 17 07 35 25 21 18 31 31 14 09 19 33 29 32 23 09 23 17 27 15 30 36 05 04 33 32 23 25 26 24 02 18 02 16 02 35 25 18 35 1514 33 22 08 01 13 20 03 14 10 06 29 07 20 25 06 18 32 25 25 02 08 12 24 19 34 32 33 26 31 34 29 01 20 31 27 17 14 16 1416 08 35 08 13 27 15 26 33 35 05 15 19 02 18 28 23 26 13 14 14 23 12 07 02 33 25 15 30 27 06 36 02 07 18 02 17 29 05 01 22 08 29 20 09 30 08 21 22 28 29 27 04 17 21 01 03 07 35 19 08 33 23 16 24 05 10 29 28 35 10 07 25 13 30 35 08 10 12 02 20 13 18 12 04 29 12 13 13 07 16 10 14 28 20 30 16 12 15 24 30 16 01 24 16 21 07 34 32 08 34 12 13 30 20 27 34 26 17 28 13 17 19 04 36 20 14 24 32 08 01 07 36 05 17 08 21 02 14 30 28 24 16 27 23 32 19 34 05 19 16 14 32 30 07 29 14 10 14 05 32 21 12 23 15 12 24 16 21 15 06 25 24 16 22 01 24 26 10 03 01 02 19 12 23 06 26 24 33 25 13 25 12 09 04 01 31 31 02 27 17 29 10 15 29 34 21 26 26 22 32 20 29 1516 29 15 13 24 21 17 06 19 0402 11 18 18 33 09 15 07 29 27 33 30 27 34 23 32 26 13 03 25 22 20 17 29 05 08 23 09 14 20 31 15 27 25 20 20 19 25 12 13 05 32 10 13 30 19 20 01 05 19 23 17 10 01 32 18 09 19 24 23 27 06 22 28 28 19 20 21 16 36 18 03 10 08 29 17 33 19 17 26 23 05 15 12 35 05 14 33 20 18 24 24 17 32 26 21 32 29 22 07 13 28 36 2423 04 04 21 26 16 21 10 04 21 16 34 35 23 08 09 05 26 13 08 28 21 24 22 33 08 32 19 03 35 31 17 28 05 2321 18 06 01 36 24 32 18 28 21 01 25 22 19 22 33 30 04 16 32 20 26 14 35 29 35 14 16 07 12 06 2024 13 22 28 30 09 06 31 28 23 21 05 26 07 23 27 05 31 20 28 34 02 23 22 21 29 24 19 09 06 18 16 04 21 22 07 12 36 10 17 21 09 29 03 12 35 22 20 28 08 10 04 09 35 04 16 21 03 16 06 35 06 03 02 31 19 27 20 36 01 30 36 18 20 28 21 27 06 08 30 21 16 05 22 24 31 28 06 04 18 29 31 10 36 29 17 01 30 08 12 06 34 31 07 07 31 16 07 23 15 02 21 02 28 09 28 09 34 07 26 32 09 15 22 18 04 03 25 08 24 09 09 09 03 17 22 24 27 28 07 16 27 36 36 16 31 17 27 17 13 03 28 10 14 33 29 31 33 09 15 30 30 08 06 32 22 29 23 25 04 01 05 1919 20 18 18 28 29 17 36 24 20 05 07 30 07 05 10 35 23 23 22 17 19 06 15 04 09 26 27 04 13 23 03 10 18 11 25 12 20 26 03 08 14 10 27 03 26 30 29 14 34 22 28 21 15 17 09 15 09 27 1618 22 1921 15 34 01 03 28 29 28 35 10 36 14 16 15 34 27 22 08 27 05 03 10 15 12 34 03 22 27 30 33 02 01 27 20 03 3433 33 17 28 07 25 04 17 35 22 01 10 29 34 34 18 15 22 09 33 27 27 26 15 35 03 34 10 15 10 34 22 08 27 10 03 15 16 09 22 15 32 27 28 03 22 10 02 25 17 19 ¯ Service Layer Credits: Esri, HERE, Garmin, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS user community - 1/15/2019 FIGURE 2-1COLLIER COUNTY 10-YEAR WATER SUPPLY FACILITIES WORK PLANWATER SEWER DISTRICT BOUNDARIES OF COLLIER COUNTY 0 1 2 3 4 Miles Legend Ave Maria Big Cypress Everglades City Immokalee WSD City of Marco Island Marco Shores City of Naples Chokoloskee MunicipalService Taxing Unit(Everglades City) Port of the IslandsCommunity ImprovementDistrict Collier CountyWater/Sewer District NOTE: The CCWSD anticipates serving theBig Cypress Stewardship District, pendingnegotiation of an interlocal agreement. NOTE: The Marco Shores area is servedby the CCSWD as part of a bulk watersupply agreement. See Section 2.2.4. 9.A.2.g Packet Pg. 154 Attachment: February 2019 10-Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan Update - Underline-Strikethrough Version - 20190315 (8272 : Ten Year ")951 BONITA BEACH R D I M M O K A L E E R D GOODLETTE FRANK RDTAMIAMI TRAIL ")858 §¨¦75 §¨¦75 £¤41 UV45 ")92 £¤41 £¤41 ")846 UV84 ")951 UV9320"12" 24"18"16"30"36"16"16" 20" 24"12"12"12"12"12"16"24" 12" 12"18"12"16" 1 2 "1 2"12"18"24"16"12"12"16" 16"16"12"20''3 6 '' 12''16''3 0 '' 1 8 '' 42'' 1 4 '' 24'' 16'' 12''16''20''12' ' 16'' 16''12' '12''16''24 '' 1 2 '' 12''30''12''24''12''12''16''1 2 ''24''36''16''12''12''24''12''16''12''20''12'' 16''12''36''12'' 12'' 16'' 20''24''12''12''12''12''12''12''16''16' ' 16'' 12''12''Service Layer Credits: Esri, HERE, Garmin, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS user community - 9/27/2018 ¯0 1 2 3 4 Miles FIGURE 2-2COLLIER COUNTY 10-YEAR WATER SUPPLY FACILITIES WORK PLANCCWSD POTABLE/RECLAIM ED WATER SYSTEM COMPOSITE M AP Legend Po tab le Wate r Main (>= 12") IQ Water Ma in (>= 12") 9.A.2.g Packet Pg. 155 Attachment: February 2019 10-Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan Update - Underline-Strikethrough Version - 20190315 (8272 : Ten Year Section 2 · Water Service Areas 2-7 PW/6295/231366/03/01 2.2.8 Water Systems Regulated by Florida Department of Environmental Protection Table 2-1 is a summary of private sector water systems operating within Collier County, but regulated by the FDEP due to very small capacities. These systems primarily serve individual establishments, such as schools, stores, or golfing communities. The list was developed from the FDEP drinking water database and is accurate as of April 11, 2018. Table 2-1. Summary of Small Capacity Private Sector Water Systems Operating within Collier County1 PWS ID System Name 5110058 LEE CYPRESS CO-OP 5110061 CORKSCREW SWAMP SANCTUARY 5110089 EVERGLADES CITY 5110117 FLORIDA GOVERNMENTAL UTILITY AUTHORITY 5110118 GOODLAND WATER COMPANY 5110121 HAKAN SERVICES INC. 5110142 IMMOKALEE WATER 5110182 MARCO SHORES UTILITIES 5110183 MARCO ISLAND UTILITIES (CITY OF) 5110195 NAPLES BINGO PALACE GG PKWY 5110198 NAPLES WATER DEPT 5110230 PORT OF THE ISLANDS 5110288 TRAIL LAKES CAMPGROUND 5110348 SANDY RIDGE LABOR CAMP 5114069 COLLIER COUNTY REGIONAL WTP 5114074 CENTER POINT COMMUNITY CHURCH 5114077 TEMPLE BETHEL 5114083 FCA US LLC 5114085 ORANGE TREE UTILITY CO. INC. 5114111 RANDALL CENTER 5114113 S.W. FLORIDA RESEARCH ED. CTR. 5114119 SUNNILAND COUNTRY STORE 5114126 UNITY FAITH MISSIONARY BAPTIST 5114129 I-75 RESTSTOP 5114130 GOLDEN GATE LIBRARY 5114131 BONITA BAY EASTGOLF CLUB - MAINTENANCE 5114132 BONITA BAY EAST GOLF CLUB - CLUBHOUSE 5114133 AMI KIDS BIG CYPRESS WILDERNESS INSITUTE 5114136 BONITA BAY EAST GOLF CLUB REST SHELTER 1 5114137 BONITA BAY GOLF CLUB REST SHELTER 2 5114139 HIDEOUT GOLF CLUB SYSTEM 5114140 TREES CAMP WTP 5114141 GOLDEN GATE ASSEMBLY OF GOD 5114144 CALUSA PINES GOLF CLUB - MAINTENANCE 5114147 SABAL PALM ELEMEN / CYPRESS PALM MIDDLE 5114149 LA HISPANA #2 5114151 FITNESS QUEST 5114152 ESTATES ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 9.A.2.g Packet Pg. 156 Attachment: February 2019 10-Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan Update - Underline-Strikethrough Version - 20190315 (8272 : Ten Year Section 2 · Water Service Areas 2-8 PW/6295/231366/03/01 PWS ID System Name 5114154 AVE MARIA UTILITY COMPANY LLLP 5114158 PALMETTO J ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 5114159 WILSON BLVD. RETAIL CENTER 5114160 NAPLES EQUESTRIAN CHALLENGE INC. 5114161 LIVING WORD FAMILY CHURCH WTP 5114162 GOLDEN GATE WALGREENS (STORE #10742) 5114163 CENTER POINT COMMUNITY CHURCH YOUTH SANC 5114164 PEACE LUTHERAN CHURCH OF NAPLES 5114165 PEPPER RANCH 1. The list was developed from the FDEP drinking water database and is accurate as of April 11, 2018. 9.A.2.g Packet Pg. 157 Attachment: February 2019 10-Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan Update - Underline-Strikethrough Version - 20190315 (8272 : Ten Year 3-1 PW/6295/231366/03/01 Section 3 Population and Demand Projections Sources of information utilized to develop the included In the following sub-sections, population and demand projections for the 10-year planning period are historical population growth,presented in 5-year increments for each of the three major public water supply utilities serving unincorporated Collier County Comprehensive Planning Department (CCCPD) forecasts, information from water use permits, and information . Demand is provided as Annual Average Daily Demand (AADD). AADD is the projected population multiplied by the individual water supply utilities, such as Master Plans.adopted Level of Service Standard (LOSS) or the Per Capita Use Rate (PCUR) in the absence of an adopted LOSS. 3.1 Collier County Water-Sewer District (CCWSD) Table 3-1 shows population and demand projections for the CCWSD service area. Population projections through 2028 are included in the following sub-sectionsare taken from the 2018 AUIR and represent the population on October 1 of the given calendar year, which is the beginning of the subsequent fiscal year. Projections include the populations in the former service areas of the Orange Tree Utility Company and the Florida Governmental Utility Authority, which were acquired by the CCWSD in March 2017 and March 2018 respectively. 3.1 Countywide Projections Table 3-1 shows the projected population for Collier County for the 10-year planning period of this plan. The population projections are for peak season, which is one key basis for planning and sizing of facilities. Also, in September 2018, the Board of County Commissioners approved Resolution No. 2018- 152, expanding the CCWSD’s service area to include all unincorporated areas of the county not lying within service areas granted to third parties by the Water and Sewer Regulatory Authority or as otherwise excepted by the special act that created the CCWSD. The jurisdictional boundary of the CCWSD shown in Figure 2-1 encompasses an area of high growth potential within the Rural Lands Stewardship Area known as the Northeast Service Area (NESA). The population projections in Table 3-1 include anticipated growth associated with four large developments planned in the NESA. One of these, the Town of Rural Lands West, is in the Big Cypress Stewardship District, which has the right to form its own utility, but Collier County has engaged in negotiations with the developer to provide water, wastewater, and irrigation quality water services. Population projections for the town are included in anticipation of a future interlocal agreement. Refer to the 2018 AUIR in Appendix E for further information about the population projections for the CCWSD. Per Policy 1.5 of the Capital Improvement Element of the Collier County Growth Management Plan (as of Ordinance No. 2017-21 adopted June 13, 2017), the adopted Level of Service Standard (LOSS) for the County potable water system is 150 gallons per capita per day (gpcd). All concurrency planning is based on this LOSS despite the PCUR averaging about 140 gpcd 9.A.2.g Packet Pg. 158 Attachment: February 2019 10-Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan Update - Underline-Strikethrough Version - 20190315 (8272 : Ten Year Section 3 · Population and Demand Projections 3-2 PW/6295/231366/03/01 over the past 11 years, based on local water data and population estimates (129 gpcd per Table B-2 of the LWCWSP). The PCUR for the CCWSD is notably higher than those for the two other major utilities because the CCWSD service area includes a larger seasonal population, a larger commuting workforce, a higher rate of tourism, more commercial activity, and a higher proportion of customers who irrigate with potable water. The aggregate annual demand includes all these non-residential uses and is divided by the permanent population to obtain the PCUR. Note that the City of Naples has a higher PCUR than the CCWSD (281 per Table B-2 of the LWCWSP) for the same reasons. As explained in the 2018 AUIR (Appendix E), the CCWSD evaluates required treatment capacity based upon the maximum three-day average daily demand, which is calculated using a peaking factor of 1.3, as established by the Board approved 2014 Water, Wastewater, Irrigation Quality Water and Bulk Potable Water Master Plan/CIP Plan. The max. TDADD is presented in Table 3-1 along with the AADD. Table 3-1. Collier County Peak Season Population Estimates and Projections Year 2013 2018 2023 2028 Countywide1,2,3 399,096 439,656 482,088 519,120 1 The countywide population projection includes the unincorporated areas of the county covered in this 10- Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan, as well as the incorporated cities of Naples, Marco Island and Everglades City. 2 Peak season population for CCWSD is provided by the Collier County Growth Management Department; it is based on the medium BEBR population times 1.2. 3 Peak season population for the unincorporated areas of the county as well as the incorporated cities of Naples, Marco Island and Everglades City is per the information found on the Bureau of Economic and Business Research document (BEBR) published January 2018.Table 3-1. Population and Demand Projections for the CCWSD Service Area The population and demand projections for each of the three utilities serving unincorporated Collier County are presented in Section 3.2. 3.2 Individual Utilities 3.2.1 Collier County Water-Sewer District (CCWSD) Table 3-2 shows the projected populations for the existing CCWSD service area. The populations are shown in 5-year increments, through 2028. The total population projections include the populations in the Rural Fringe areas, which were incorporated into the CCWSD in 2003 as described in Section 2.2.1.1, and the Orange Tree area which was taken over by CCWSD in 2014. Table 3-2. Population Projections for CCWSD Service Area Year 2013 2018 2023 2028 Peak Served Area Population (Seasonal)1,2,3 195,207 241,422 271,671 300,839 1 Estimates and projections are taken from the 2018 AUIR. 2 Peak season population is provided by the Collier County Growth Management Department; it is based on the medium BEBR population times 1.2. 3 Starting in 2014, peak season population includes the OTUC population. 9.A.2.g Packet Pg. 159 Attachment: February 2019 10-Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan Update - Underline-Strikethrough Version - 20190315 (8272 : Ten Year Section 3 · Population and Demand Projections 3-3 PW/6295/231366/03/01 The adopted Level of Service Standard (LOSS) for the CCWSD is 150 gallons per capita per day (gpcd). Based on the LOSS of 150 gpcd and the population projections presented in Table 3-2, the demand projections for the CCWSD were developed. Table 3-3 presents the projected population and demand for the area served by CCWSD, in 5-year increments, through 2028. Demand is provided as Required Treatment Capacity at 150 gpcd in MGD. Required Treatment Capacity at 150 gpcd is a metric used by Collier County in its Annual Update and Inventory Reports (AUIR) and is used to evaluate the ability of CCWSD facilities to meet peak season demand. It is calculated as the peak season population multiplied by the LOSS of 150 gpcd. Table 3-3. Projected Population and Demand for Areas Served by CCWSD Year 2013 2018 2023 2028 Peak Service Area Population (Seasonal)1,2 195,207 241,422 271,671 300,839 Demand Per Capita (gpcd) 150 150 150 150 Required Treatment Capacity @ 150 gpcd (MGD) 29.28 36.21 40.75 45.13 1 Estimates and projections are taken from the 2018 AUIR. 2 Peak season population is provided by the Collier County Growth Management Department; it is based on the medium BEBR population times 1.2. 3.2.2 Immokalee Water and Sewer District (IWSD) Table 3-4 shows the projected populations for the areas served and to be served within the existing IWSD service area. The population is shown in 5-year increments, through 2028. Table 3-4. Population Projections for IWSD Year 2013 2018 2023 2028 Served Area Population1 22,747 25,717 27,616 29,948 1 Population projections are based on the population estimates provided by the county. Where necessary, the population was calculated by interpolating between years identified in the Plan Update. Permanent Population 162,646 203,128 229,840 255,809 Annual Average Daily Demand (MGD) 24.40 30.47 34.48 38.37 Maximum Three-Day Average Daily Demand (MGD) 31.72 39.61 44.82 49.88 The IWSD LOSS includes operational standards3.2 Immokalee Water and a per capita water demand standard of 75 gpcd. Based on the LOSS of 75 gpcd and theSewer District (IWSD) Table 3-2 shows population projections presented in Table 3-4, the and demand projections for the IWSD service area. Population projections were developed. provided by the IWSD for years 2013, 2016, 2020, 2025, and 2030, and the below population data for years 2018, 2023, and 2028 were interpolated from that data. Table B-2 of the LWCWSP indicates a PCUR of 85 gpcd, and CUP No. 11-00013-W identifies 105 gpcd as the PCUR. However, the AADD projections below assume a PCUR of 75 gpcd based on data provided by the IWSD for FY 2017. Table 3-5 presents the projected served population and demand for the IWSD, in 5-year increments, through 2028. 9.A.2.g Packet Pg. 160 Attachment: February 2019 10-Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan Update - Underline-Strikethrough Version - 20190315 (8272 : Ten Year Section 3 · Population and Demand Projections 3-4 PW/6295/231366/03/01 Table 3-52. Population and Demand Projections for the IWSD Service Area Year 2013 2018 2023 2028 Permanent Population 22,747 25,717 27,616 29,948 Annual Average Daily Demand (MGD) 1.71 1.93 2.07 2.25 3.3 Ave Maria Utility Company, LLLP (AMUC) Table 3-3 shows population and demand projections for the AMUC service area. Population projections were provided by AMUC for years 2016 to 2028, and the population for 2013 was extrapolated from that data. Table B-2 of the LWCWSP indicates a PCUR of 91 gpcd, and CUP No. 11-02298-W identifies 138 gpcd as the PCUR. However, the demand projections below were provided by AMUC and represent a PCUR of approximately 81 gpcd. Table 3-3. Population and Demand Projections for the AMUC Service Area Year 2013 2018 2023 2028 Service Area Population1Permanent Population 22,7472,924 25,7175, 803 27,6169,065 29,9481 2,713 Demand Per Capita (MGD) 75 75 75 75 Annual Average Daily Demand (MGD) 0.241.71 0.511.93 0.732.07 2.251.0 3 Maximum Month Daily Demand (MGD) 2.05 2.31 2.49 2.70 1 Population projections are based on the population estimates provided by the county. Where necessary, the population was calculated by interpolating between years identified in the Plan Update. Demand is provided as both Annual Average Daily Demand (AADD) in MGD and Maximum Month Daily Demand (MMDD) also in MGD. MMDD is determined by multiplying the AADD by a peaking factor, which in this case is 1.2. 3.2.3 Ave Maria Utility Company, LLLP (AMUC) Table 3-6 shows the projected populations for the areas served and to be served within the existing AMUC service area. The population is shown in 5-year increments, through 2028. Table 3-6. Population Projections for Areas Served by AMUC Year 2013 2018 2023 2028 Served Area Population1 2,924 5,803 9,065 12,713 1 Population projections are based on the population estimates and projections presented in the AMUC - Flow Revisions 2018. Where necessary, the population was calculated by interpolating between years identified in the Plan Update. The AMUC LOSS includes operational standards and a per capita water demand standard of 91 gpcd. Based on the LOSS of 91 gpcd and the population projections presented in Table 3-10, the demand projections for the AMUC were developed. Table 3-7 presents the projected served population and demand for the AMUC, in 5-year increments, through 2028. Demand is provided as both AADD in MGD and MMDD also in MGD. MMDD is determined by multiplying the AADD by a peaking factor, which in this case is 1.2. 9.A.2.g Packet Pg. 161 Attachment: February 2019 10-Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan Update - Underline-Strikethrough Version - 20190315 (8272 : Ten Year Section 3 · Population and Demand Projections 3-5 PW/6295/231366/03/01 Table 3-7. Project Population and Demand Projections for AMUC Year 2013 2018 2023 2028 Service Area Population 2,924 5,803 9,065 12,713 Demand Per Capita (MGD)1 91 91 91 91 Annual Average Daily Demand (MGD) 0.27 0.53 0.82 1.16 Maximum Month Daily Demand (MGD) 0.32 0.63 0.99 1.39 1 Population projections are based on the population estimates and projections presented in the AMUC - Flow Revisions 2018. Where necessary, the population was calculated by interpolating between years identified in the Plan Update. 9.A.2.g Packet Pg. 162 Attachment: February 2019 10-Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan Update - Underline-Strikethrough Version - 20190315 (8272 : Ten Year 4-1 PW/6295/231366/03/01 Section 4 Existing Water Supply Facilities 4.1 Collier County Water-Sewer District (CCWSD) 4.1.1 Water Supply Permits The SFWMD allocates withdrawals from groundwater sources in Collier County. CCWSD currently maintains three consumptive use permits (CUPs); two for potable water supply and one for supplemental supply of the reclaimed water system. Table 4-1 provides details on the CUPs CCWSD currently maintains. The CCWSD also has a permit for a 2 MGD potable water aquifer storage and recovery (ASR) well near the Manatee Pumping Station site and a 1 MGD irrigation quality water ASR system on Livingston Road. Table 4-1. Consumptive Use Permits Issued by SFWMD to CCWSD Consumptive Use Permit Aquifer Utilized Number of Permitted Wells Expiration Date Annual Allocation (MG) Average Day Allocation (MGD) Maximum Monthly Allocation (MG) 11-00249-W LT1 37 9/22/2019 9,673 26.50 805.6 9/22/2036 6,853 18.93 691.3 HZ1 46 9/22/2036 5,840 16.00 486.4 LH2 42 9/22/2036 7,125 19.50 684.3 Total 125 - 20,270 55.53 1,976.3 11-00419-W3 LT 10 3/7/2023 236 0.65 23.6 Total 10 - 236 0.65 23.6 11-00052-W4 LT 14 4/14/2034 2,091 5.73 172 WT 9 4/14/2034 1,278 3.50 105 Total 23 - 3,369 9.23 277 LT = Lower Tamiami, HZ1 = Hawthorn Zone 1, LH = Lower Hawthorn, WT = Water Table 1 CUP (11-00249-W) for 55.53 MGD annual average expires September 22, 2036. Annual allocation from the Lower Tamiami Aquifer shall not exceed 9,673 million gallons from September 30, 2014 through September 3022, 2019 and shall not exceed 6,852.66 million gallons from October 1, 2019 through September 22, 2036 (duration of the permit). Annual allocation shall not exceed 3,650 million gallons at the NERWTP. 2 Number of permitted Lower Hawthorn Aquifer wells includes 14 proposed wells for the proposed Northeast Regional Water Treatment Plant. 3 Permit under “Orange Tree Utility Company” but is now referred to as the Collier County Northeast Service Area. 4 Consumptive uUse pPermit for supplemental reclaimed water wellfield. 9.A.2.g Packet Pg. 163 Attachment: February 2019 10-Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan Update - Underline-Strikethrough Version - 20190315 (8272 : Ten Year Section 4 · Existing Water Supply Facilities 4-2 PW/6295/231366/03/01 4.1.2 Potable Water Facilities 4.1.2.1 Wellfields Currently, the CCWSD operates four wellfields: The Golden Gate Tamiami Wellfield, the North Hawthorn Reverse Osmosis (RO) Wellfield, the South Hawthorn RO Wellfield, and the Northeast Service Area Wellfield (formerly the OTUC Wellfield). The location of each of these wellfields is illustrated in Figure 4-1. The North Hawthorn RO and South Hawthorn RO wellfields contain wells that tap the Hawthorn Zone 1 (HZ1) and the Lower Hawthorn (LH) aquifers, both of which are brackish in those areas of Collier County. The wellfields provide raw water for the low- pressure reverse osmosis (LPRO) treatment trains at the North County Regional Water Treatment Plant (NCRWTP) and the South County Regional Water Treatment Plant (SCRWTP), respectively. The Golden Gate Tamiami Wellfield contains wells that tap the LT Aquifer, which contains freshwater. This wellfield provides raw water for the membrane filtration (MF) equipment at the NCRWTP and the lime softening (LS) equipment at the SCRWTP. The Orange Tree Water Treatment Plant (OTWTP) is located east of SR-846 and north of CR-858. The OTWTP was integrated into the Collier County Water-Sewer District in March of 2017 and has a constructed treatment capacity of 0.75 MGD using membrane softening (MS) and its wells also tap the fresh LT Aquifer. Tables 4-2, 4-3, 4-4, and 4-5 and summarize the existing wells in the Golden Gate Tamiami Wellfield, the Orange Tree Wellfield, the North Hawthorn RO Wellfield, and the South Hawthorn RO Wellfield, respectively. 4.1.2.2. Water Treatment Facilities The CCWSD is served by three water treatment plants (WTPs), the NCRWTP, the SCRWTP, and the OTWTP which are shown in Figure 4-2. The NCRWTP is located on the north side of Vanderbilt Beach Road Extension east of CR-951 in the northeastern quadrant of the service area. The plant utilizes groundwater withdrawn from the LT, HZ1 and LH aquifers. Water from the LT Aquifer is treated using MF, while water from the HZ1 and LH aquifers is treated by LPRO. Currently, the plant is capable of producing 20 MGD of finished water; 12 MGD from the MF process and 8 MGD from the LPRO process. The SCRWTP is located near the intersection of CR-951 and I-75 about 5.5 miles south of the NCRWTP. The plant utilizes groundwater withdrawn from the LT, HZ1 and LH aquifers. Water from the LT Aquifer is treated using LS, while water from the HZ1 and LH aquifers is treated by LPRO. Currently, the plant is capable of producing 32 MGD of finished water; 12 MGD from the LS process and 20 MGD from the LPRO process. The OTWTP is located east of SR-846 and north of CR-858. The wells maintained by OTUC tap the LT Aquifer, which is a traditional freshwater source. The WTP has a finished water capacity of 0.75 MGD using membrane softening (MS). A summary of the existing water treatment facilities is provided in Table 4-6. In addition to identifying the design capacity of each treatment train, the amount of raw water required to achieve the design capacity is also provided. 9.A.2.g Packet Pg. 164 Attachment: February 2019 10-Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan Update - Underline-Strikethrough Version - 20190315 (8272 : Ten Year GOLDEN GATE BLVD I M M O K A L E E R D COLLIER BLVDLOGAN BLVD")864 ")846 ")951 PINE RIDGE RD ")862 NORTH HAWTHORNRO WELLFIELD GOLDEN GATETAMIAMI WELLFIELD SOUTH HAWTHORNRO WELLFIELD ")858 §¨¦75 UV84 UV93 OTWTP SCRWTP NCRWTP Service Layer Credits: Esri, HERE, Garmin, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS user community - 9/26/2018 ¯0 1 2 3 4 Miles FIGURE 4-1COLLIER COUNTY 10-YEAR WATER SUPPLY FACILITIES WORK PLANEXISTING CCWSD WELLFIELD S AN D RAW WATER TRANSMISSION M AINS Legend !(Supply Well 3Q Water Treatm ent Plant Raw Water M ain 9.A.2.g Packet Pg. 165 Attachment: February 2019 10-Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan Update - Underline-Strikethrough Version - 20190315 (8272 : Ten Year 3Q 3Q 3Q ")951 I M M O K A L E E R D TAMIAMI TRAIL ")858 GOODLETTE FRANK RD§¨¦75 §¨¦75 £¤41 UV45 ")92 £¤41 £¤41 ")846 UV84 ")951 UV93 OTWTP SCRWTP NCRWTP Service Layer Credits: Esri, HERE, Garmin, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS user community - 9/26/2018 ¯0 1 2 3 4 Miles FIGURE 4-2COLLIER COUNTY 10-YEAR WATER SUPPLY FACILITIES WORK PLANEXISTING CCWSD POTABLE WATER TREATM EN T FACILITIES Legend 3Q Water Treatm ent Plant 9.A.2.g Packet Pg. 166 Attachment: February 2019 10-Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan Update - Underline-Strikethrough Version - 20190315 (8272 : Ten Year Section 4  Existing Water Supply Facilities 4‐5 PW/6295/231366/03/01 Table 4‐2. Existing CCWSD Golden Gate Tamiami Wellfield1 Well No. Aquifer Utilized Total Well Depth (ft bls) Depth of Casing (ft bls) Diameter (in) Capacity (gpm) 1 LT 96 50 16 700 2 LT 100 50 16 700 3 LT 100 51 16 700 4 LT 102 52 16 700 5 LT 108 50 16 700 6 LT 101 65 12 700 7 LT 106 65 12 700 9 LT 114 65 12 700 10 LT 112 71 12 700 11 LT 137 90 12 700 12 LT 133 90 12 700 13 LT 130 84 12 700 14 LT 131 85 12 700 15 LT 130 84 12 700 16 LT 150 92 12 700 17 LT 125 78 12 1,000 18 LT 126 80 12 1,000 19 LT 128 83 12 1,000 20 LT 131 83 12 1,000 21 LT 110 62 12 1,000 22 LT 101 62 12 1,000 23 LT 111 59 12 1,000 24 LT 109 58 12 1,000 25 LT 110 65 12 1,000 26 LT 106 65 12 1,000 27 LT 105 61 12 1,000 28 LT 120 66 12 1,000 29 LT 125 72 12 1,000 30 LT 120 58 12 1,000 31 LT 120 65 12 1,000 32 LT 120 65 12 1,000 33 LT 120 70 12 1,000 34 LT 120 80 12 1,000 35 LT 145 102 12 1,000 36 LT 125 92 12 1,000 37 LT 120 80 12 1,000 382 LT N/A N/A N/A N/A 1 Information on existing wells taken from CUP #11‐00249‐W. 2 Collier County is currently out to bid for a new well (Well 38) for the Golden Gate Tamiami Wellfield. Well 38 is scheduled for completion in 2019. 9.A.2.g Packet Pg. 167 Attachment: February 2019 10-Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan Update - Underline-Strikethrough Version - 20190315 (8272 : Ten Year Section 4  Existing Water Supply Facilities 4‐6 PW/6295/231366/03/01 Table 4‐3. Existing North Hawthorn RO Wellfield Summary1 Well No. Aquifer Utilized Total Well Depth (ft bls) Depth of Casing (ft bls) Diameter (in) Capacity (gpm) RO‐1N LH 801 705 16/12 2 1,000 RO‐2N LH 780 734 16/12 2 1,000 RO‐3N LH 800 720 16/12 2 1,000 RO‐4N LH 891 744 16/12 2 1,000 RO‐5N LH 1070 790 16/12 2 1,000 RO‐6N LH 975 740 16/12 2 1,000 RO‐7N LH 977 775 16/12 2 1,000 RO‐9N LH 952 780 16/12 2 1,000 RO‐10N LH 1011 750 16/12 2 1,000 RO‐11N LH 951 735 16/12 2 1,000 RO‐12N LH 891 730 16/12 3 1,000 RO‐13N LH 925 731 16/12 3 1,000 RO‐14N LH 950 713 16/12 4 1,000 RO‐15N LH 957 737 16/12 3 1,000 RO‐16N LH 989 751 16/12 3 1,000 RO‐17N LH 996 780 16/12 3 1,000 RO‐18N LH 1,000 700 16 1,000 RO‐19N LH 1,000 700 16 1,000 RO‐20N LH 1,000 700 16 1,000 RO‐101N HZ1 512 397 16 350 RO‐102N HZ1 500 400 16 350 RO‐109N HZ1 475 404 16 350 RO‐114N HZ1 514 412 16 350 RO‐115N HZ1 500 400 16 350 RO‐116N HZ1 500 400 16 350 RO‐117N HZ1 500 400 16 350 RO‐118N HZ1 500 400 16 350 RO‐119N HZ1 500 400 16 350 RO‐120N HZ1 500 400 16 350 1 Information on existing wells taken from CUP #11‐00249‐W. 2 16‐inch casing to 100 feet, then 12‐inch casing to production casing depth. 3 16‐inch casing to 150 feet, then 12‐inch casing to production casing depth. 4 16‐inch casing to 160 feet, then 12‐inch casing to production casing depth. 9.A.2.g Packet Pg. 168 Attachment: February 2019 10-Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan Update - Underline-Strikethrough Version - 20190315 (8272 : Ten Year Section 4  Existing Water Supply Facilities 4‐7 PW/6295/231366/03/01 Table 4‐4. Existing South Hawthorn RO Wellfield Summary1 Well No. Aquifer Utilized Total Well Depth (ft bls) Depth of Casing (ft bls) Diameter (in) Capacity (gpm) RO‐1S HZ1 420 312 16/12 2 1,000750 RO‐2S HZ1 400 292 16/12 2 1,000750 RO‐3S HZ1 403 293 16/12 2 1,000750 RO‐4S HZ1 402 331 16/12 2 1,000750 RO‐5S HZ1 402 297 16/12 2 1,000750 RO‐6S HZ1 421 317 16/12 2 1,000750 RO‐7S HZ1 442 328 16/12 2 1,000750 RO‐8S LH 982 660 16/12 2 1,000750 RO‐9S LH 682 630 16/12 2 1,000750 RO‐10S LH 842 630 16/12 2 1,000750 RO‐11S LH 963 653 16/12 2 1,000750 RO‐12S HZ1 422 299 16/12 2 1,000750 RO‐13S HZ1 400 295 16/12 2 1,000750 RO‐14S HZ1 422 298 16/12 2 1,000750 RO‐15S HZ1 402 295 16/12 2 1,000750 RO‐39S HZ1 400 300 16 1,000 RO‐40S LH 1,000 700 16 1,000 RO‐41S HZ1 400 300 16 1,000 RO‐42S LH 1,000 700 16 1,000 RO‐16S HZ1 420 300 16 750 RO‐17S HZ1 420 300 16 750 RO‐18S HZ1 420 300 16 750 RO‐19S HZ1 420 300 16 750 RO‐20S HZ1 420 300 16 750 RO‐21S HZ1 420 300 16 750 RO‐22S HZ1 420 300 16 750 RO‐23S HZ1 420 300 16 750 RO‐24S HZ1 420 300 16 750 RO‐25S HZ1 420 300 16 750 RO‐26S HZ1 420 300 16 750 RO‐27S HZ1 420 300 16 750 RO‐28S HZ1 420 300 16 750 RO‐29S HZ1 420 300 16 750 RO‐30S HZ1 420 300 16 750 RO‐31S HZ1 420 300 16 750 RO‐32S3 HZ1 420 300 16 750 RO‐33S HZ1 420 300 16 750 RO‐34S HZ1 420 300 16 750 9.A.2.g Packet Pg. 169 Attachment: February 2019 10-Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan Update - Underline-Strikethrough Version - 20190315 (8272 : Ten Year Section 4  Existing Water Supply Facilities 4‐8 PW/6295/231366/03/01 Table 4‐4. Existing South Hawthorn RO Wellfield Summary1 Well No. Aquifer Utilized Total Well Depth (ft bls) Depth of Casing (ft bls) Diameter (in) Capacity (gpm) RO‐35S HZ1 420 300 16 750 RO‐36S HZ1 420 300 16 750 RO‐37S HZ1 420 300 16 750 RO‐38S HZ1 420 300 16 750 RO‐39S HZ1 400 300 16 700 RO‐40S LH 1,000 700 16 700 RO‐41S HZ1 400 300 16 700 RO‐42S LH 1,000 700 16 700 RO‐43S3 LH 1,000 700 16 700 RO‐44S3 LH 1,000 700 16 700 RO‐45S3 LH 1,000 700 16 700 1 Information on existing wells taken from CUP #11‐00249‐W. 2 16‐inch casing to 120 feet, then 12‐inch casing to production casing depth. 3 Permitted but not in use. Table 4‐5. Existing Orange Tree Wellfield Summary1 Well No. Aquifer Utilized Total Well Depth (ft bls) Depth of Casing (ft bls) Diameter (in) Capacity (gpm) Well A LT 180 70 12 300 Well B LT 180 70 12 300 Well C LT 154 72 12 300 Well D LT 172 70 16 400 Well E LT 172 74 12 300 Well F LT 180 70 16 400 Well G LT 180 70 16 400 Well H LT 180 70 16 400 Well I LT 180 70 16 400 Well J LT 180 70 16 400 1 Information on existing wells taken from CUP #11‐00419‐W. 9.A.2.g Packet Pg. 170 Attachment: February 2019 10-Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan Update - Underline-Strikethrough Version - 20190315 (8272 : Ten Year Section 4  Existing Water Supply Facilities 4‐9 PW/6295/231366/03/01 Table 4‐6. Summary of Existing CCWSD Water Treatment Facilities1 Facility Name Design Capacity (MGD) Raw Water Requirement2 (MGD) Raw Water Source Traditional/ Alternative Water Supply NCRWTP MF 12.00 14.64 LT Traditional (Fresh) NCRWTP LPRO 8.00 9.76 LH/HZ1 Alternative (Brackish) SCRWTP LS 12.00 14.64 LT Traditional (Fresh) SCRWTP LPRO 20.00 24.40 LH/HZ1 Alternative (Brackish) OTUC WTP 0.75 0.92 LT Traditional (Fresh) Total 52.75 64.36 ‐ ‐ 1 Information taken from the Collier County 2014 Water Master Plan Update. 2 Raw water requirementWater Requirement is the amount of raw water needed to make a certain amount of finished water. It is calculated by multiplying the Required Treatment Capacity @ 150 gpcd by the Raw to Finished Water Adjustment. 4.1.2.3 Pumping, Storage, and Transmission The existing transmission facilities consist of transmission pipelines, water storage tanks, an ASR system, and pumping facilities. The storage and pumping facilities utilized by CCWSD are shown in Figure 4‐3. The pumping facilities are comprised of high service pumps located at both water treatment plants, four water booster pumping stations and an in‐line booster pump station. Ground storage tanks at the treatment facilities and at the booster pumping stations provide system storage and reserve capacity to help meet the peak hourly demands of the system. The booster pumping stations and storage tanks are located at the Isle of Capri, Manatee Road, and Carica Road. The CCWSD also maintains and operates the Goodland Water Booster Pumping Station, which is part of the Goodland Water Sub‐District. An in‐line booster station is located in the northwest portion of the system near Vanderbilt Drive. In addition to the traditional storage and pumping facilities mentioned above, CCWSD maintains a 1 MGD potable water ASR system at the Manatee Road Pumping Station. The water storage tank at the OTWTP has a capacity of 0.75 MG and the transmission pipelines range in size from 3‐inch to 12‐inch and total approximately 9 miles in length. As previously mentioned, the CCWSD acquired the Golden Gate City potable water and wastewater utility systems from FGUA on March 1, 2018 acquiring their storage and booster pump station tanks. Potable water is stored at various strategic points in the CCWSD distribution system to help meet diurnal peak system and fire flow demands. A summary of the existing storage facilities is provided in Table 4‐7. Potable water is pumped from the plants into the distribution system. The distribution system includes water mains designated as either transmission or distribution mains. The CCWSD pipelines 16 inches in diameter and larger are generally termed transmission mains. These are typically located along arterial and collector roadways and convey water to major demand areas. Pipelines that are smaller than 16 inches in diameter are generally called distribution mains, branching off to the transmission system to supply individual users. 9.A.2.g Packet Pg. 171 Attachment: February 2019 10-Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan Update - Underline-Strikethrough Version - 20190315 (8272 : Ten Year Section 4 · Existing Water Supply Facilities 4-10 PW/6295/231366/03/01 Table 4-7. Summary of Existing CCWSD Water Storage Facilities 1 Facility Name Tank Volume (MG) Usable Storage Volume (MG) NCRWTP 12.00 11.10 SCRWTP 14.00 12.40 OTWTP 0.75 0.73 Isle of Capri 0.25 0.20 Manatee Road Pumping Station 2.00 1.80 Carica Road Pumping Station 10.00 9.30 Manatee Road ASR2 N/A N/A Golden Gate WTP Tank 0.52 0.52 Green Blvd. Booster Pump Station Tank 1.00 1.00 Total 40.52 37.05 1 Information on the Collier County 2014 Water Master Plan Update. 2 Manatee Road ASR storage is not currently in use. Storage volume was not included in total. The transmission mains and major distribution mains that serve the CCWSD are illustrated in Figure 4-4. Overall, the CCWSD owns and maintains over 1,000 miles of water transmission and distribution pipelines, up to 48 inches in diameter, with over 56,000 individual service connections. 9.A.2.g Packet Pg. 172 Attachment: February 2019 10-Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan Update - Underline-Strikethrough Version - 20190315 (8272 : Ten Year + ++ + + + + + + + ")951 BONITA BEACH R D I M M O K A L E E R D GOODLETTE FRANK RDTAMIAMI TRAIL ")858 Golden Gate WTP Tank Green Blvd Booster Pump Station Tank OTWTP §¨¦75 §¨¦75 £¤41 UV45 ")92 £¤41 £¤41 ")846 UV84 ")951 UV93 NCRWTP SCRWTP MANATEE ROAD ASR CARICA BOOSTER STATION MANATEE BOOSTER STATION GOOD LAN D BOOSTER STATION ISLE OF CAPRI BOOSTER STATION Service Layer Credits: Esri, HERE, Garmin, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS user community - 9/26/2018 ¯0 1 2 3 4 Miles FIGURE 4-3COLLIER COUNTY 10-YEAR WATER SUPPLY FACILITIES WORK PLANEXISTING CCWSD POTABLE WATER STOR AGE FAC ILITIES Legend +Existing P otable Water Storage Facility Potable Water Main (>= 12") 9.A.2.g Packet Pg. 173 Attachment: February 2019 10-Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan Update - Underline-Strikethrough Version - 20190315 (8272 : Ten Year Section 4 · Existing Water Supply Facilities 4-12 PW/6295/231366/03/01 Table 4-7. Summary of Existing CCWSD Water Storage Facilities 1 Facility Name Tank Volume (MG) Usable Storage Volume (MG) NCRWTP 12.00 11.10 SCRWTP 14.00 12.40 OTWTP 0.75 0.73 Isle of Capri 0.25 0.20 Manatee Road Pumping Station 2.00 1.80 Carica Road Pumping Station 10.00 9.30 Manatee Road ASR2 N/A N/A Golden Gate WTP Tank 0.52 0.52 Green Blvd. Booster Pump Station Tank 1.00 1.00 Total 40.52 37.05 1 Information on the Collier County 2014 Water Master Plan Update. 2 Manatee Road ASR storage is not currently in use. Storage volume was not included in total. The transmission mains and major distribution mains that serve the CCWSD are illustrated in Figure 4-4. Overall, the CCWSD owns and maintains over 1,000 miles of water transmission and distribution pipelines, up to 48 inches in diameter, with over 56,000 individual service connections. 4.1.3 Reclaimed Water Facilities CCWSD operates one of the largest reclaimed water systems in the South Florida Water Management District. Currently, the system serves customersincludes 1,604 service connections with a maximum day demand with contractual commitments of 23 MGD. The majority of the existing customer base is golf courses, residential communities, environmental mitigation areas, county parks, and roadway medians. The demand for IQ water is seasonal, as is the available supply. Late April through early June is the critical supply/demand period. Combined wastewater flow during this period to both WRFs can be as low as 15 MGD, and can be supplemented with up to 6 MGD of groundwater, providing a total of approximately 21 MGD, leaving a shortfall of approximately 2 MGD of IQ water. The majority of the existing customer base is golf courses, residential communities, environmental mitigation areas, county parks, and roadway medians. There is an additional 28.5 MGD of potential demand in the service area from entities that have installed dual distribution piping. 4.1.3.1 Water Reclamation Facilities CCWSD currently operates two water reclamation facilities (WRFs). The North County Water Reclamation Facility (NCWRF) and the South County Water Reclamation Facility (SCWRF), which are shown in Figure 4-5. Table 4-8 summaries the capacities of the existing reclaimed water facilities. 9.A.2.g Packet Pg. 174 Attachment: February 2019 10-Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan Update - Underline-Strikethrough Version - 20190315 (8272 : Ten Year Section 4 · Existing Water Supply Facilities 4-13 PW/6295/231366/03/01 Table 4-8. Summary of Existing Water Reclamation Facilities1 Facility Name Design Treatment Capacity (MGD)2 NCWRF 24.1 SCWRF 16.0 Total 40.1 1 Information taken from the Collier County 2014 Wastewater Master Plan Update. 2 The design capacities do not reflect the amount of reclaimed water available from the facilities. The amount of reclaimed water available is based on influent flow and treatment efficiency. For planning purposes, CCWSD considers reclaimed water availability based on 95 percent of the lowest influent day, which is currently around 11 MGD. for each facility. 9.A.2.g Packet Pg. 175 Attachment: February 2019 10-Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan Update - Underline-Strikethrough Version - 20190315 (8272 : Ten Year ")951 BONITA BEACH R D I M M O K A L E E R D GOODLETTE FRANK RDTAMIAMI TRAIL ")858 §¨¦75 §¨¦75 £¤41 UV45 ")92 £¤41 £¤41 ")846 UV84 ")951 UV93 20''3 6 '' 12'' 16'' 30''48''1 8 '' 42'' 1 4 '' 24''12''12''24 ''12''12'' 12''12''12''24''36''16''12'' 36''12''12'' 16'' 12'' 1 2''12''16''12''12''12''24''20''12''16''16''12''30''12''16''20'' 24''16''12''30''12''12''12'' 16'' 16''16''16' '12''12''16''24''12''16''1 2'' 1 2 ''12''12''12''12' ' 16''12'' 20'' 12''16''12''Service Layer Credits: Esri, HERE, Garmin, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS user community - 9/26/2018 ¯0 1 2 3 4 Miles FIGURE 4-4COLLIER COUNTY 10-YEAR WATER SUPPLY FACILITIES WORK PLANEXISTING CCWSD POTABLE WATER TRANSMISSION MAINS Legend Potable Water Main (>= 12") 9.A.2.g Packet Pg. 176 Attachment: February 2019 10-Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan Update - Underline-Strikethrough Version - 20190315 (8272 : Ten Year Section 4 · Existing Water Supply Facilities 4-15 PW/6295/231366/03/01 4.1.3 Reclaimed Water Facilities CCWSD operates one of the largest reclaimed water systems in the South Florida Water Management District. Currently, the system includes 1,604 service connections with a maximum day demand of 23 MGD. The majority of the existing customer base is golf courses, residential communities, environmental mitigation areas, county parks, and roadway medians. The demand for IQ water is seasonal, as is the available supply. Late April through early June is the critical supply/demand period. Combined wastewater flow during this period to both WRFs can be as low as 15 MGD, and can be supplemented with up to 6 MGD of groundwater, providing a total of approximately 21 MGD, leaving a shortfall of approximately 2 MGD of IQ water. There is an additional 28.5 MGD of potential demand in the service area from entities that have installed dual distribution piping. 4.1.3.1 Water Reclamation Facilities CCWSD currently operates two water reclamation facilities (WRFs). The North County Water Reclamation Facility (NCWRF) and the South County Water Reclamation Facility (SCWRF), which are shown in Figure 4-5. Table 4-8 summaries the capacities of the existing reclaimed water facilities. Table 4-8. Summary of Existing Water Reclamation Facilities1 Facility Name Design Treatment Capacity (MGD) NCWRF 24.1 SCWRF 16.0 Total 40.1 1 Information taken from the Collier County 2014 Wastewater Master Plan Update. 9.A.2.g Packet Pg. 177 Attachment: February 2019 10-Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan Update - Underline-Strikethrough Version - 20190315 (8272 : Ten Year 37FRW 37FRW ")951 I M M O K A L E E R D TAMIAMI TRAIL ")858 GOODLETTE FRANK RD§¨¦75 §¨¦75 £¤41 UV45 ")92 £¤41 £¤41 ")846 UV84 ")951 UV93 SCWRF NCWRF Service Layer Credits: Esri, HERE, Garmin, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS user community - 9/26/2018 ¯0 1 2 3 4 Miles FIGURE 4-5COLLIER COUNTY 10-YEAR WATER SUPPLY FACILITIES WORK PLANEXISTING CCWSD WATER RECLAMATION FACILITIES Legend 37FRW Existing Water Reclamation Facility 9.A.2.g Packet Pg. 178 Attachment: February 2019 10-Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan Update - Underline-Strikethrough Version - 20190315 (8272 : Ten Year Section 4 · Existing Water Supply Facilities 4-17 PW/6295/231366/03/01 4.1.3.2 Reclaimed Water Pumping, Storage, and Transmission The reclaimed water distribution system, which consists of approximately 124 miles of transmission and distribution pipeline, is currently divided into two services areas; one in the north and one in the south, that are supplied by the respective water reclamation facilities (WRFs). There are a few small interconnects between the two service areas, but the system is hydraulically limited from passing large volumes of water from one service area to the other. A design has been completed for pump station improvements that will enhance the County’s ability to transfer flows between the north and south service areas. Reclaimed water produced at the two WRFs can be temporarily stored in on-site ponds. Storage of up to 1 million gallons (MG) is also available at the former Pelican Bay WRF, which was decommissioned in 2006 and converted to a reclaimed water storage and pumping facility. Additional storage is achieved in the distribution system which provides 130 MG of wet weather storage. Excess water is pumped into deep injection wells (DIWs) for disposal. Figure 4-6 presents the reclaimed water distribution system. The County owns and maintains a hydraulic model of its Irrigation Quality (IQ) water distribution system that enables it to plan for orderly expansion and development of its system. One of the significant challenges that the reclaimed water system faces is wet weather storage. During the wet season, demand for reclaimed water drops off sharply and CCWSD is forced to discharge the reclaimed water into its deep injection wells (DIW) for disposal. The County has identified this scenario as a waste of a valuable resource and is making efforts to reduce the amount of reclaimed water that is discharged into DIWs during the wet season. To this end, a reclaimed water/supplemental groundwater aquifer storage and recovery (ASR) system has been developed. The system currently includes two constructed ASR wells, the latter of which was completed in 2015 and is currently undergoing cycle testing. Following the cycle testing, the ASR well will be put into regular service, where it is expected to provide between 0.5 and 1 MGD of IQ water as needed to meet peak season demands. With both wells operational, they are expected to provide between 1 and 2 MGD of storage and recovery capacity to assist with meeting peak season demands.. The plan for ultimate buildout at this ASR site in the north part of the County is to have five ASR wells with a total withdrawal capacity of up to 5 MGD. The County has also explored the feasibility of an additional ASR site in the southern portion of its IQ water distribution system. 4.1.3.3 Supplemental Wellfields In addition to the two existing WRFs pumping and storage facilities, CCWSD utilizes two supplemental wellfields to meet its contractual requirements. The locations of the two wellfields, known as the Pelican Bay (Livingston Road) Wellfield and the Immokalee (Mule Pen Quarry) Wellfield, are shown in Figure 4-6. The wellfields are permitted under CUP 11-00052-W, described in Section 4.1.1, which allows CCWSD to withdraw water from the LT Aquifer in the Pelican Bay Wellfield and the WT Aquifer at the Immokalee Wellfield, to meet peak demands within the reclaimed water distribution system. A summary of the wells that make up these wellfields is provided in Table 4-9. 9.A.2.g Packet Pg. 179 Attachment: February 2019 10-Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan Update - Underline-Strikethrough Version - 20190315 (8272 : Ten Year 37FRW 37FRW ") ") ")951 I M M O K A L E E R D TAMIAMI TRAIL ")858 GOODLETTE FRANK RD§¨¦75 §¨¦75 £¤41 UV45 ")92 £¤41 £¤41 ")846 UV84 ")951 UV93 SCWRF NCWRF 20"1 2 " 24"18"16"3 0 "36"16"16" 20" 24"12"12"12"12"12"16"24" 12" 12"18"12"16" 1 2 "1 2"12"18"36"24"12"12"16"16" 16"16"12" Service Layer Credits: Esri, HERE, Garmin, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS user community - 9/27/2018 ¯0 1 2 3 4 Miles FIGURE 4-6COLLIER COUNTY 10-YEAR WATER SUPPLY FACILITIES WORK PLANEXISTING CCWSD RECLAIMED WATER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM Legend 37FRW Existing Water Reclamation Facility ")Supplem ental Wellfield IQ Water Main (>= 12") 9.A.2.g Packet Pg. 180 Attachment: February 2019 10-Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan Update - Underline-Strikethrough Version - 20190315 (8272 : Ten Year Section 4 · Existing Water Supply Facilities 4-19 PW/6295/231366/03/01 Table 4-9. Summary of Existing CCWSD Supplemental Wells1 Well No. Aquifer Utilized Total Well Depth (ft bls) Depth of Casing (ft bls) Diameter (in) Capacity (gpm) 1 LT 100 50 10 300 2 LT 100 50 10 300 3 LT 100 50 10 300 4 LT 100 50 10 300 5 LT 100 50 10 300 6 LT 100 50 10 300 7 LT 100 50 10 300 8 WT 35 20 10 500 9 WT 35 20 10 500 10 WT 35 20 10 500 11 WT 35 20 10 500 12 WT 35 20 10 500 13 WT 35 20 10 500 LT = Lower Tamiami Aquifer WT = Water Table Aquifer 1 Information on existing wells taken from CUP #11-00052-W 4.2 Immokalee Water and Sewer District (IWSD) 4.2.1 Water Supply Permits The IWSD maintains one CUP for potable water supply. The details of the CUP are presented in Table 4-10. Table 4-10. Consumptive Use Permits Issued by SFWMD to the Immokalee Water and Sewer District Consumptive Use Permit Aquifer Utilized Number of Permitted Wells Expiration Date Annual Allocation (MG) Maximum Monthly Allocation (MGD) 11-00013-W Lower Tamiami 21 5/23/2031 1,261 147.2 Upper Floridan2 4 - - Totals: 1,515 148.9 1 Information on existing wells taken from CUP #11-00013-W. 2 Annual allocation and Monthly allocation volume for the Upper Florida Aquifer not specified in the permit. 4.2.2 Potable Water Facilities 4.2.2.1 Wellfields Currently, the IWSD operates three wellfields; one adjacent to each of its WTPs. The locations of each of these wellfields and WTPs are illustrated in Figure 4-7. 9.A.2.g Packet Pg. 181 Attachment: February 2019 10-Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan Update - Underline-Strikethrough Version - 20190315 (8272 : Ten Year 9/4/2018 ¯FIGURE 4-7COLLIER COUNTY 10-YEAR WATER SUPPLY FACILITIES W OR K PLANEXISTING IWSD WATER SUPPLY FACILITIES 9.A.2.g Packet Pg. 182 Attachment: February 2019 10-Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan Update - Underline-Strikethrough Section 4 · Existing Water Supply Facilities 4-21 PW/6295/231366/03/01 The wells maintained by the IWSD tap the LT Aquifer, which is a traditional freshwater source. Table 4-11 summarizes the existing wells operated by the IWSD. Table 4-11. Summary of Existing IWSD Potable Water Wells1 Well No. Aquifer Utilized Total Well Depth (ft bls) Depth of Casing (ft bls) Diameter (in) Capacity (gpm) 7 LT 275225 236140 46 110400 8 LT 225315 140230 68 400200 9 LT 315275 230250 8 200225 10B LT 275 250236 8 225 11 LT 275278 236234 8 225250 12 LT 175200 95140 8 250350 13 LT 278200 234140 8 250350 14 LT 200 140 8 350 102 LT 200 140154 86 350400 103 LT 200210 125140 8 350200 104 LT 200210 154128 68 250350 105 LT 210200 140 8 200350 106 LT 210200 128140 8 350 107 LT 200 140 8 350 201 LT 180 100 8 350 202 LT 180 100 8 350 204 LT 187195 107105 68 350 FA-1 UFA n/a 788 16 695 FA-2 UFA n/a 788 16 695 FA-3 UFA n/a 788 16 695 FA-4 UFA n/a 788 16 695 LT = Lower Tamiami Aquifer UFA = Upper Floridan Aquifer 1 Information on existing wells taken from CUP #11-00013-W. 4.2.2.2 Water Treatment Facilities The IWSD is served by three interconnected water treatment facilities; the Jerry V. Warden WTP, the Airport WTP and the Carson Road WTP, which are shown in Figure 4-7. The Jerry V. Warden WTP is located on the west side of Sanitation Road, south of CR-29. Freshwater from the LT Aquifer is treated at the plant using lime softening (LS). The plant has a finished water capacity of 2.25 MGD. The Airport WTP is located east of New Market Road East, north of CR-846. LS is utilized at the plant to treat freshwater from the LT Aquifer. The finished water capacity of the plant is 1.35 MGD. 9.A.2.g Packet Pg. 183 Attachment: February 2019 10-Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan Update - Underline-Strikethrough Version - 20190315 (8272 : Ten Year Section 4 · Existing Water Supply Facilities 4-22 PW/6295/231366/03/01 The Carson Road WTP is located on the west side of Carson Road, north of Lake Trafford Road. The plant utilizes LS to treat the freshwater from the LT Aquifer and has a finished water capacity of 2.3500 MGD. A summary of the existing water treatment facilities is provided in Table 4-12. In addition to identifying the design capacity of each treatment train, the amount of raw water required to make the design capacity is also provided. Table 4-12. Summary of Existing IWSD Water Treatment Facilities1 Facility Name Design Capacity (MGD) Raw Water Requirement2 (MGD) Raw Water Source Traditional/ Alternative Water Supply Jerry V. Warden WTP 2.25 2.7536 LT Traditional (Fresh) Airport WTP 1.35 1.6542 LT Traditional (Fresh) Carson Road WTP 2.3500 2.8710 LT Traditional (Fresh) Total 5.9560 7.265.88 - - 1 Information on existing water treatment facilities taken from the 2017 IWSD Public Facilities Report and the 2017 LWC Water Supply Plan Update. 2 Raw water requirement is the amount of raw water needed to make a certain amount of finished water. It is calculated by dividing the annual Average Daily Demand by the efficiency of the treatment process. 4.2.2.3 Pumping, Storage and Transmission The existing transmission facilities consist of transmission pipelines, water storage tanks, and pumping facilities. The transmission facilities utilized by IWSD are shown in Figure 4-7. Water from the Jerry V. Warden WTP is pumped to one ground storage tanks, with a total capacity of 1.80 MG, located on the plant site. Water from the Carson Road WTP is pumped to two 1.0 MG ground storage tank with a total storage capacity of 1.5 MG. Water from the Airport WTP is pumped to an on-site 0.75 MG ground storage tank. From the storage tanks water enters the distribution system which consists of mains ranging in size from 2-inch to 12-inch. The distribution system contains approximately 100 miles of mains. Table 4-13 summarizes the existing water storage facilities utilized by IWSD. Table 4-13. Summary of Existing IWSD Water Storage Facilities1 Facility Name Tank Volume (MG) Usable Storage Volume (MG) Jerry V. Warden WTP 1.80 1.80 Carson Road WTP 1.502.00 01.50 Airport WTP 0.75 0.75 Total 4.0555 34.05 1 Information on existing water reclamation facilities taken from the 2017 IWSD Public Facilities Report. 4.2.3 Reclaimed Water Facilities Currently, IWSD disposes of all effluent wastewater via an on-site spray irrigation field, percolation ponds, or deep well injection. IWSD is served by one WRF, which is located on White 9.A.2.g Packet Pg. 184 Attachment: February 2019 10-Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan Update - Underline-Strikethrough Version - 20190315 (8272 : Ten Year Section 4 · Existing Water Supply Facilities 4-23 PW/6295/231366/03/01 Way. The IWSD WWTPWRF is rated at 4.02.5 MGD out of which the WRF can produce 2.36 MGD of reclaimed water. Table 4-14 summarizes the capacity of the existing reclaimed water facility. Table 4-14. Summary of Existing IWSD Water Reclamation Facility1 Facility Name Design Treatment Capacity (MGD) IWSD WRF 2.3650 Total 2.3650 1 Information on existing water reclamation facilities taken from the 2017 IWSD Public Facilities Report. 4.3 Ave Maria Utility Company, LLLP (AMUC) 4.3.1 Water Supply Permits AMUC maintains one CUP for potable water supply. The details of the CUP are presented in Table 4-15. Table 4-15. Consumptive Use Permits Issued by SFWMD to AMUC Consumptive Use Permit Aquifer Utilized Number of Permitted Wells Expiration Date Annual Allocation (MG) Average Day Allocation (MGD) Maximum Monthly Allocation (MG) 11-02298-W LT 3 10/19/2020 296.21 0.81 31.57 SA 1 10/19/2020 296.21 0.81 31.57 Total 423.16 1.16 45.11 LT = Lower Tamiami SA = Sandstone Aquifer 1 CUP (11-02298-W) allocation is 1.16 MGD annual average and expires on October 19, 2020. 4.3.2 Potable Water Facilities 4.3.2.1 Wellfields Currently, AMUC operates one wellfield in the vicinity of its WTP. The wells maintained by AMUC tap the LT and SA Aquifer, which is a traditional freshwater source. Table 4-16 summarizes the existing wells operated by the utility. Table 4-16. Summary of Wells Operated by AMUC Well No. Aquifer Utilized Total Well Depth (ft bls) Depth of Casing (ft bls) Diameter (in) Capacity (gpm) PWS-1 LT 83 61 12 700 PWS-2 LT 80 59 12 700 PWS-3 LT 71 50 12 700 PWS-4 SA 325 250 12 750 1 Information on existing wells taken from CUP #11-02298-W. 9.A.2.g Packet Pg. 185 Attachment: February 2019 10-Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan Update - Underline-Strikethrough Version - 20190315 (8272 : Ten Year Section 4 · Existing Water Supply Facilities 4-24 PW/6295/231366/03/01 4.3.2.2 Water Treatment Facilities AMUC operates one WTP, which is located west of Camp Keais Road, north of CR-858. The WTP has a finished water capacity of 1.0 MGD using MS. A summary of the existing water treatment facility is provided in Table 4-17. In addition to identifying the design capacity of each treatment train, the amount of raw water required to make the design capacity is also provided. Table 4-17. Summary of Existing AMUC Water Treatment Facility1 Facility Name Design Capacity (MGD) Raw Water Requirement2 (MGD) Raw Water Source Traditional/ Alternative Water Supply AMUC WTP (Phase 1) 1.00 1.18 LT Traditional (Fresh) Total 1.00 1.18 - - 1 Information on the water treatment facilities was taken from the 2017 Lower West Coast Water Supply Plan Update (LWCWSP). 2 Raw water requirement is the amount of raw water needed to make a certain amount of finished water. It is calculated by multiplying the Required Treatment Capacity with the Raw to Finished Water Adjustment taken from the 2017 LWCWSP. 4.3.2.3 Pumping, Storage, and Transmission The existing transmission facilities consist of a water storage tank at the WTP and transmission pipelines. The water storage tank at the WTP has a capacity of 1.5 MG. Table 4-18 summarizes the water storage available in the Ave Maria Utility Company’s System. Table 4-18. Summary of Existing AMUC Storage Facility1 Facility Name Tank Volume (MG) Usable Storage Volume (MG) AMUC WTP 1.5 1.5 Total 1.5 1.5 1 Information on existing and planned water treatment facilities was taken from the Preliminary Design Report for Ave Maria Utility Company, LLLP and Florida Department of Environmental Protection as prepared by CH2M Hill, Inc., June 2004 and supplemented with comments received from AMUC in a letter dated September 20, 2007. 4.3.3. Reclaimed Water Facilities AMUC is served by one WRF, which is located within the development. The WRF is capable of producing 0.90 MGD of reclaimed water. Reclaimed water is pumped from the WRF to three reclaimed water storage ponds, which serve as the source for the Town and University’s irrigation system and have a combined capacity of 23.0 MG. Reclaimed water is the most important element of the AMUC Conservation Plan, presented in detail in Section 7, and will be utilized to the fullest extent possible for irrigation of the Town and University. AMUC utilizes 100 percent of the reclaimed water generated. Table 4-19 summarizes the capacity of the existing reclaimed water facility. 9.A.2.g Packet Pg. 186 Attachment: February 2019 10-Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan Update - Underline-Strikethrough Version - 20190315 (8272 : Ten Year Section 4 · Existing Water Supply Facilities 4-25 PW/6295/231366/03/01 Table 4-19. Summary of Existing AMUC Water Reclamation Facility1 Facility Name Design Treatment Capacity (MGD) AMUC WRF (Phase 1) 0.9 Total 0.9 1 Information on existing water reclamation facilities taken from the 2017 LWCWSP. 9.A.2.g Packet Pg. 187 Attachment: February 2019 10-Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan Update - Underline-Strikethrough Version - 20190315 (8272 : Ten Year 5-1 PW/6295/231366/03/01 Section 5 Planned Water Supply Facilities 5.1 Collier County Water-Sewer District (CCWSD) CCWSD has been and continues to be a leader in the development of alternative water supplies and integrated water resource management in Florida. Starting in the mid-1980s CCWSD realized that it could not meet the future demands of its customers solely with traditional water supplies. CCWSD committed to a program of alternative water supplies that included the use of brackish groundwater and ASR for potable supply, and reclaimed water, supplemental water wellfields and ASR for storage and increased use of irrigation quality water for irrigation purposes. Given the success that CCWSD has had in meeting its demands with alternative water supplies, CCWSD embarked to identify better ways to meet future water supply demands within its service area. The result of this effort is a paradigm shift, from thinking of potable water and irrigation water demand as two separate needs to seeing the demands as inextricably intertwined. To better serve the needs of both potable water and irrigation water demand at the best value cost for the customer, CCWSD has begun development of a new business model which will shift the focus from development of additional potable water supplies to meeting a large portion of the overall water demand with irrigation quality water supplies. CCWSD currently has an annual average daily potable demand of 28.6930.47 MGD and an annual average daily irrigation quality demand of 23.0 MGD. The ratio of irrigation quality demand to potable demand is approximately 45:55. As stated in Section 4.1.3 there is an additional 28.5 MGD of irrigation quality demand in the service area from entities that have installed dual distribution piping. The vision for CCWSD is optimizing water resource usage by substituting IQ water for non-potable uses such as irrigation, which will provide both economic and environmental benefits. Through implementation of the vision, it is anticipated that within the next 20 years the source of water can shift from 45 percent IQ water and 55 percent potable water to 60 percent IQ water and 40 percent potable water. Since the 2014 10-Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan Update, the CCWSD has shifted the ratio from 40:60 to 45:55. This shift will occur as supplemental water supplies, and ASR storage components are added to the IQ water system and utilized to supply IQ water to customers, reserving higher quality water supplies for true potable use. It is anticipated that a portion of future potable water demand will be offset by substituting IQ water for potable water currently being used for irrigation. As a result of meeting irrigation demands with IQ water, 90 percent instead of 70 percent of potable water delivered to customers will be returned to the water reclamation facilities to be reused. In addition to meeting irrigation demands, the focus on additional IQ water supplies instead of only potable water supplies provides significant benefits to the environment. By supplying IQ water to more customers, the use of potable water for irrigation and private irrigation systems will decrease. Further, the CCWSD IQ water distribution system often provides for a better temporal distribution of water to the natural system in that IQ water is provided at low rates over longer periods than typical rainfall events and is supplied during low rain periods when the 9.A.2.g Packet Pg. 188 Attachment: February 2019 10-Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan Update - Underline-Strikethrough Version - 20190315 (8272 : Ten Year Section 5 · Planned Water Supply Facilities 5-2 PW/6295/231366/03/01 aquifer system is most able to accommodate recharge thereby reducing runoff. Additionally, CCWSD’s IQ water distribution system provides a net addition of freshwater to the surficial aquifer system through irrigation with treated water from the brackish Hawthorn aquifer system, which is otherwise trapped in very long-term and deep hydrologic cycles, bringing it into the daily water cycle. In order to supply additional irrigation water more efficiently, CCWSD will pursue additional allocations of fresh water. This strategy is supported by recently identified groundwater trends. Through its rigorous groundwater monitoring program, CCWSD identified trends in water level data from both the Lower Tamiami (LT) Aquifer and the Water Table (WT) Aquifer (connected to surface water flows, i.e., wetlands) in and around the CCWSD’s Golden Gate Tamiami Wellfield. The data indicate that despite extended drought conditions and increased pumping from the LT Aquifer, water levels in key indicator wells are remaining steady and in some cases increasing. These trends provide evidence that the total water management approach taken by the CCWSD is yielding environmental benefits and suggest that additional pumping of the LT Aquifer is possible without impacting the WT Aquifer or wetlands, which is the main concern that directed CCWSD away from traditional sources more than twenty years ago. CCWSD’s intent to pursue additional freshwater withdrawals from the LT Aquifer within the integrated total water management approach is consistent with the 2017 Lower West Coast Water Supply Plan Update (LWCWSP) published by the SFWMD, which states on page 89, “While the development of fresh groundwater in many areas of the LWC Planning Area has been maximized, it may be available in some places. As urban growth occurs, some agricultural land is expected to transition to urban community uses. Many existing agricultural areas have water use permits to use fresh groundwater for crop irrigation. While water use permits cannot be directly transferred from one land use type to another, conversion of agricultural lands to another use may result in available fresh ground water” Likewise, on page 90, “Additional limited supplies may be developed and permitted from the Surficial Aquifer System (SAS) and Intermediate Aquifer System (IAS) depending on local resource conditions, changing land use, and the viability of other supply options.” In addition to the water level trends observed in its monitoring wells, CCWSD has performed and is performing multiple studies to determine the viability of the LT Aquifer for additional allocations. To date, CCWSD has developed a calibrated groundwater model and utilized the MIKESHE model developed by the Army Corp of Engineers for the Picayune Strand Restoration Project to determine the potential impact of additional freshwater withdrawals on wetlands. The modeling efforts performed to date indicate that there would be no measurable impact on wetlands from moderate additional withdrawals. CCWSD has also constructed freshwater monitoring well clusters around the County that will provide longer term water level data for areas of the County away from its wellfields and developed four wetland monitoring sites within the Golden Gate Estates to verify that no wetland impacts are being caused by withdrawals from the Golden Gate Tamiami Wellfield. CCWSD is confident that the modeling efforts performed to date, and its on-going water level monitoring program, will provide the required assurances to allow the SFWMD to increase its permitted allocation of freshwater from the LT Aquifer. CCWSD will develop documentation demonstrating how existing and planned IQ water supplies give rise to additional potable water supplies. This analysis will consider the potential availability of impact offsets and substitution 9.A.2.g Packet Pg. 189 Attachment: February 2019 10-Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan Update - Underline-Strikethrough Version - 20190315 (8272 : Ten Year Section 5 · Planned Water Supply Facilities 5-3 PW/6295/231366/03/01 credits in accordance with new Florida Department of Environmental Protection and SFWMD rules. CCWSD anticipates that its planned IQ water infrastructure development will garner significant impact offsets and/or substitution credits in further support of its request to the SFWMD for additional allocations of freshwater to meet projected customer demand. These water resource benefits and associated availability of withdrawals will be in addition to the benefits already provided by CCWSD’s existing IQ water system. For these reasons, CCWSD has initiated the shift in its business model based on an ability to obtain a reasonable amount of freshwater to maximize the efficiency of existing infrastructure and planned AWS projects. 5.1.1 Potable Water Facilities 5.1.1.1 Wellfields As part of the CCWSD plan to meet future water supply needs it intends to build the NERWTP Wellfield Phase 1. The NERWTP Wellfield Phase 1 will be made up of wells tapping the LT Aquifer, the HZ1 Aquifer and the LH Aquifer. The wells will serve the NERWTP Phase 1, which will treat the water using ion exchange (IE) for fresh water and LPRO for brackish water. The wellfield is scheduled to come online in 2027 to serve the first phase of the NERWTP. Table 5-1 summarizes the planned wells in the NERWTP Wellfield Phase 1. Table 5-1. Planned NERWTP Wellfield Phase 1 Summary1,2 Well No. Aquifer Utilized Total Well Depth (ft bls) Depth of Casing (ft bls) Diameter (in) Capacity (gpm) LH-1 LH 1,000 700 16/122 1,000 LH-2 LH 1,000 700 16/122 1,000 LH-3 LH 1,000 700 16/122 1,000 LH-4 LH 1,000 700 16/122 1,000 LH-5 LH 1,000 700 16/122 1,000 LH-8 LH 1,000 700 16/122 1,000 LH-9 LH 1,000 700 16/122 1,000 LH-10 LH 1,000 700 16/122 1,000 LH-11 LH 1,000 700 16/122 1,000 LH-12 LH 1,000 700 16/122 1,000 LH-13 LH 1,000 700 16/122 1,000 LH-14 LH 1,000 700 16/122 1,000 LH-15 LH 1,000 700 16/122 1,000 LH-16 LH 1,000 700 16/122 1,000 1 Information on planned wells taken from CUP #11-00249-W. 2 The number of wells, design, location, and source water for the planned wellfield will be determined through the design and permitting process. Some well sites may likely be located in the Big Cypress Stewardship District to take advantage of existing permitted water for agricultural use. 3 16-inch casing to 100 feet, then 12-inch casing to production casing depth. The location of the NERWTP Wellfield Phase 1 is illustrated in Figure 5-1. CCWSD also intends to construct additional LTA reliability wells. The potential location of these wells is illustrated in Figure 5-1 as well. As mentioned in footnote 2 above, the final location of the NERWTP wells will be determined through the design and permitting process. 9.A.2.g Packet Pg. 190 Attachment: February 2019 10-Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan Update - Underline-Strikethrough Version - 20190315 (8272 : Ten Year 3Q 3Q 3Q 3Q !(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!( !(!( !(!(!( !( !( !( !(!( !(!(!( !( !(!( !(!( !( !(!(!( !( !( !( !( !(!(!( !( !( !(!(!(!( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !(!( !(!(!(!(!(!(!( !( !( !( !( !(!(!(!(!( !(!( !(!( !( !(!(!(!( !(!(!(!( !( !( !(!( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !(!(!(!( !(!( !(!( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !(!(!(!(!(!(!( !(!( !(!(!( !( !(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!( !(!(!(!(!( ")951 BONITA BEACH R D I M M O K A L E E R D GOODLETTE FRANK RDTAMIAMI TRAIL ")858 §¨¦75 §¨¦75 £¤41 UV45 ")92 £¤41 £¤41 ")846 UV84 ")951 UV93 OTWTP SCRWTP NCRWTP NERWTP Service Layer Credits: Esri, HERE, Garmin, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS user community - 9/27/2018 ¯0 1 2 3 4 Miles FIGURE 5-1COLLIER COUNTY 10-YEAR WATER SUPPLY FACILITIES WORK PLANEXISTING AND PLANNED CCW SD WELLFIELDSAND RAW WATER TRANSMISSION LINES Legend !(Existing Well !(Planned Well 3Q Existing Water Treatment Plant 3Q Planned Water Treatment Plant Existing Ra w Water Transmission Main Planned Ra w Water Transmission Main 9.A.2.g Packet Pg. 191 Attachment: February 2019 10-Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan Update - Underline-Strikethrough Version - 20190315 (8272 : Ten Year Section 5 · Planned Water Supply Facilities 5-5 PW/6295/231366/03/01 Table 5-2 identifies the major tasks required to build the wellfield, along with the funding source that will be utilized and scheduled dates for studies, property acquisition, design, permitting, and construction. Table 5-2. Major Tasks Required to Build Planned CCWSD NERWTP Phase 1 Wellfield Year(s) of Execution Facility Name Funding Source Feasibility Study Property Acquisition Design1 Permitting Construction NERWTP Phase 1 Wellfield Impact Fees Complete Complete 2019 2023-2025 2025-2027 1 Design is complete. Portions to be re-designed in 2019. 5.1.1.2 Water Treatment Facilities The CCWSD is currently served by three WTPs; the NCRWTP, the SCRWTP, and the OTWTP. As mentioned in the previous subsection, the CCWSD intends to construct an additional treatment facility, the NERWTP to meet future demands. The locations of the existing and planned facilities are shown in Figure 5-2. The location of the planned NERWTP is approximately one mile north of CR-858 (Oil Well Road) and one mile east of SR-846 (Immokalee Road) in the northeastern quadrant of the service area. The plant will utilize IE to treat fresh groundwater withdrawn from the LT and HZ1 aquifers. Water from the LH Aquifer will be treated using LPRO. The first phase of the plant is currently scheduled to come online in 2027 and will have a capacity of 5 MGD. The plant will be capable of expansion to an ultimate capacity of 15 MGD. As stated in Section 4.1.2.2, the NCRWTP is located on the north side of Vanderbilt Beach Road Extension east of CR-951 in the northeastern quadrant of the service area and the SCRWTP is located near the intersection of CR-951 and I-75 about 5.5 miles south of the NCRWTP. A summary of the existing and planned water treatment facilities is provided in Table 5-3. In addition to identifying the design capacity of each treatment train, the amount raw water required to make the design capacity is also provided. 9.A.2.g Packet Pg. 192 Attachment: February 2019 10-Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan Update - Underline-Strikethrough Version - 20190315 (8272 : Ten Year 3Q 3Q 3Q3Q ")951 BONITA BEACH R D I M M O K A L E E R D GOODLETTE FRANK RDTAMIAMI TRAIL ")858 §¨¦75 §¨¦75 £¤41 UV45 ")92 £¤41 £¤41 ")846 UV84 ")951 UV93 OTW TP SC RWTP NCRW TP NERWTP Service Layer Credits: Esri, HERE, Garmin, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS user community - 9/26/2018 ¯0 1 2 3 4 Miles FIGURE 5-2COLLIER COUNTY 10-YEAR WATER SUPPLY FACILITIES WORK PLANEXISTING AND PLANNED CCWSD POTABLE WATER TREATMENT FACILITIES Legend 3Q Existing Water Treatment Plant 3Q Planned Water Treatment Plant 9.A.2.g Packet Pg. 193 Attachment: February 2019 10-Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan Update - Underline-Strikethrough Version - 20190315 (8272 : Ten Year Section 5 · Planned Water Supply Facilities 5-7 PW/6295/231366/03/01 Table 5-3. Summary of Existing and Planned CCWSD Water Treatment Facilities1 Facility Name Year Online Design Capacity (MGD) Raw Water Requirement2 (MGD) Raw Water Source Traditional/ Alternative Water Supply Project Identified In LWCWSP NCRWTP MF Online 12 14.64 LHLTA Traditional (Fresh) N/A NCRWTP LPRO Online 8 9.76 LH/HZ1 Alternative (Brackish) N/A SCRWTP LS Online 12 14.64 LTA Traditional (Fresh) N/A SCRWTP LPRO Online 20 24.40 LH/HZ1 Alternative (Brackish) N/A OTUC Online 0.75 0.92 LTLTA Traditional (Fresh) N/A NERWTP Phase 1 LPRO 2027 1.25 1.534.58 LH Alternative (Brackish) Yes NERWTP Phase 1 Ion Exchange 2027 3.75 4.581.53 LTA/HZ1 Traditional (Fresh) Yes Total - 57.75 70.46 - - - 1 Information taken from the Collier County 2014 Water Master Plan Update. 2 Raw water requirementWater Requirement is the amount of raw water need to make a certain amount of finished water. It is calculated by multiplying the design capacity by the Raw-to- Finished-Water Adjustment. Table 5-4 identifies the major tasks required to build each of the planned water treatment facilities, along with the funding source that will be utilized and the scheduled dates for studies, property acquisition, design, permitting, and construction. Table 5-4. Major Tasks Required to Build Planned CCWSD NERWTP Phase 1 Facility Name Funding Source Feasibility Study Property Acquisition Design Permitting Construction Year(s) of Execution NERWTP Phase 1 Impact Fees Complete Complete Complete 2023-2025 2025-2027 5.1.1.3 Pumping, Storage, and Transmission The planned transmission facilities consist of transmission pipelines, water storage tanks, aquifer storage and recovery (ASR) systems, and pumping facilities. The pumping and storage facilities utilized by CCWSD are shown in Figure 5-3. The planned pumping facilities will include high service pumps at the new NERWTP. Additional booster pumping stations and an in-line booster pump station may be required to meet demands but are not planned for construction during the planning period out to 2028. Ground storage tanks at the proposed treatment facility will provide system storage and reserve capacity to help meet peak hourly demands of the system. Additionally, potable water will be stored at various strategic points in the CCWSD distribution system to help meet diurnal peak system and fire flow demands. 9.A.2.g Packet Pg. 194 Attachment: February 2019 10-Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan Update - Underline-Strikethrough Version - 20190315 (8272 : Ten Year + + ++ + + + + + + + ")951 BONITA BEACH R D I M M O K A L E E R D GOODLETTE FRANK RDTAMIAMI TRAIL ")858 Golden Gate WTP Tank Green Blvd Booster Pump Station Tank OTWTP NERWTP §¨¦75 §¨¦75 £¤41 UV45 ")92 £¤41 £¤41 ")846 UV84 ")951 UV93 NCRWTP SCRWTP MANATEE ROAD ASR CARICA BOOSTER STATION MANATEE BOOSTER STATION GOOD LAN D BOOSTER STATION ISLE OF CAPRI BOOSTER STATION Service Layer Credits: Esri, HERE, Garmin, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS user community - 9/26/2018 ¯0 1 2 3 4 Miles FIGURE 5-3COLLIER COUNTY 10-YEAR WATER SUPPLY FACILITIES WORK PLANEXISTING AND PLANNED CCW SD POTABL E WAT ER STORAGE FACILITIES Legend +Existing P otable Water Storage Facility +Planned Potable Water Storage Facility Potable Water Main (>= 12") 9.A.2.g Packet Pg. 195 Attachment: February 2019 10-Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan Update - Underline-Strikethrough Version - 20190315 (8272 : Ten Year Section 5 · Planned Water Supply Facilities 5-9 PW/6295/231366/03/01 A summary of the existing and planned storage facilities is provided in Table 5-5. Table 5-5. Summary of Existing and Planned CCWSD Water Storage Facilities1 Facility Name Year Online Tank Volume (MG) Usable Storage Volume (MG) NCRWTP online 12 11.1 SCRWTP online 14 12.4 Isle of Capri online 0.25 0.2 Manatee Road Pumping Station online 2 1.8 Carica Road Pumping Station online 10 9.3 NERWTP Phase 1 2027 15 13.5 Manatee Road ASR Phase 12 online N/A N/A Total - 53.25 48.3 1 Information taken from the Collier County FY 2017 CIP Update. 2 Storage volume for Manatee Road ASR not included in total, not currently in operation. Table 5-6 identifies the major tasks required to build each of the planned pumping and storage improvements, along with the funding source that will be utilized and the scheduled dates for studies, property acquisition, design, permitting, and construction. Table 5-6. Major Tasks Required to Build Planned CCWSD Water Storage Facilities Facility Name Funding Source Feasibility Study Property Acquisition Design Permitting Construction Year(s) of Execution NERWTP Phase 1 Storage Tanks Impact Fees Complete Complete Complete 2023-2025 2025-2027 Potable water is pumped from the plants into the distribution system. The distribution system includes water mains designated as either transmission or distribution mains. The CCWSD pipelines 16 inches in diameter and larger are generally termed transmission mains. These are typically located along arterial and collector roadways and convey water to major demand areas. Pipelines smaller than 16 inches in diameter are generally called distribution mains, branching off the transmission system to supply individual users. Overall, the CCWSD owns and maintains over 1,000 miles of water transmission and distribution pipelines, up to 48 inches in diameter, with over 56,000 individual service connections. With the construction of 5 MGD of additional finished water capacity, CCWSD will be installing a substantial number of transmission mains and major distribution mains over the next 10 years. The existing and planned transmission mains and major distribution mains that will serve CCWSD in 2028 are illustrated in Figure 5-4. 9.A.2.g Packet Pg. 196 Attachment: February 2019 10-Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan Update - Underline-Strikethrough Version - 20190315 (8272 : Ten Year ")951 BONITA BEACH R D I M M O K A L E E R D GOODLETTE FRANK RDTAMIAMI TRAIL ")858 §¨¦75 §¨¦75 £¤41 UV45 ")92 £¤41 £¤41 ")846 UV84 ")951 UV93 36''20''3 6 '' 12'' 16'' 30''48''1 8 '' 42'' 1 4 '' 24''12''12''24 ''12''12'' 12''12''12''24''36''16''12'' 36''12''12'' 16'' 12'' 1 2''12''16''12''12''12''24''20''12''16''16''12''30''12''16''20'' 24''16''12''30''12''12''12'' 16'' 16''16''16' '12''12''16''24''12''16''1 2'' 1 2 ''12''12''12''12' ' 16''12'' 20'' 12''16''12''Service Layer Credits: Esri, HERE, Garmin, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS user community - 9/27/2018 ¯0 1 2 3 4 Miles FIGURE 5-4COLLIER COUNTY 10-YEAR WATER SUPPLY FACILITIES WORK PLANEXISTING AND PLANNED CCW SD POTABL E WAT ER TRAN SM ISSION MAINS Legend Transmission Main Potable Water Main (>= 12") 9.A.2.g Packet Pg. 197 Attachment: February 2019 10-Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan Update - Underline-Strikethrough Version - 20190315 (8272 : Ten Year Section 5 · Planned Water Supply Facilities 5-11 PW/6295/231366/03/01 5.1.2 Reclaimed Water Facilities CCWSD currently operates one of the largest reclaimed water systems in South Florida, which serves customers with contractual commitments of 23.0 MGD. The majority of the existing customer base includes golf courses, residential communities, environmental mitigation areas, county parks, and roadway medians. There is an additional demand of 28.5 MGD in the service area from entities that have installed dual distribution piping. The following subsections describe the measures CCWSD is taking to meet future wastewater demands and supply reclaimed water to its customers. 5.1.2.1 Water Reclamation Facilities The locations of the existing NCWRF and SCWRF are shown in Figure 5-5. There are plans to proceed with NEWRF Phase 1. Table 5-7 summarizes the capacities of the existing and planned WRFs. Table 5-7. Summary of Existing and Planned CCWSD Water Reclamation Facilities1 Facility Name Year Online Design Capacity (MGD)2 Project Identified In LWCWSP NCWRF Online 24.1 N/A SCWRF Online 16.0 N/A NEWRF Phase 1 2026 4.0 Yes Total - 44.1 - 1 Information taken from the Collier County 2014 Master Plan Update. 2 The design capacities do not reflect the amount of reclaimed water available from the facilities. The amount of reclaimed water available is based on influent flow and treatment efficiency. For planning purposes, CCWSD considers reclaimed water availability based on 95 percent of the minimum monthly effluent flow. As stated in the footnotes to Table 5-7, the amount of reclaimed water distributed is not directly related to the design capacity of each water reclamation facility. In addition to the limitations identified, the ability of CCWSD to utilize available reclaimed water for distribution is impacted by seasonal fluctuations in demand, with very high demands during the dry season and low demands during the wet season. Table 5-8 identifies the major tasks required to build the NEWRF, along with the funding source that will be utilized and the scheduled dates for studies, property acquisition, design, permitting, and construction. Table 5-8. Major Tasks Required to Build Planned CCWSD Water Reclamation Facilities Facility Name Funding Source Feasibility Study Property Acquisition Design Permitting Construction Year(s) of Execution NEWRF Wastewater Impact Fees Complete Complete 2021- 2022 2021-2022 2023-2026 9.A.2.g Packet Pg. 198 Attachment: February 2019 10-Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan Update - Underline-Strikethrough Version - 20190315 (8272 : Ten Year 37FRW 37FRW 37FRW ")951 I M M O K A L E E R D TAMIAMI TRAIL ")858 GOODLETTE FRANK RD§¨¦75 §¨¦75 £¤41 UV45 ")92 £¤41 £¤41 ")846 UV84 ")951 UV93 NEWRF SCWRF NCWRF Service Layer Credits: Esri, HERE, Garmin, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS user community - 9/27/2018 ¯0 1 2 3 4 Miles FIGURE 5-5COLLIER COUNTY 10-YEAR WATER SUPPLY FACILITIES WORK PLANEXISTING AND PLANNED CCW SD WATER RECLA MATION FA CILITIES Legend 37FRW Planned Water Reclamation Facility 37FRW Existing Water Reclamation Facility 9.A.2.g Packet Pg. 199 Attachment: February 2019 10-Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan Update - Underline-Strikethrough Version - 20190315 (8272 : Ten Year Section 5 · Planned Water Supply Facilities 5-13 PW/6295/231366/03/01 5.1.2.2 Reclaimed Water Pumping, Storage, and Transmission The current reclaimed water distribution system consists of over 130 miles of transmission and distribution pipeline and is currently divided into two services areas, one in the north and one in the south, each supplied by the respective WRF. There are a few small interconnects between the two service areas, but the system is hydraulically limited from passing large volumes of water from one service area to the other. As additional reclaimed water becomes available through population growth and increased wastewater flows, and once existing demand is met, CCWSD will need to expand the reclaimed water distribution system to serve more customers. At this time, specific distribution and transmission main projects have not been determined. Temporary reclaimed water storage is available on-site at the WRFs. Additional storage will be provided through the expansion of the existing reclaimed water ASR from a capacity of 2 MGD to 5 MGD. A summary of the reclaimed water storage that will be available with the expansion of the reclaimed water ASR is provided in Table 5-9. Table 5-9. Summary of Existing and Planned Reclaimed Water Storage Facilities1 Facility Name Year Online Usable Storage Volume (MG) NCWRF online 18.95 SCWRF online 3.00 NEWRF 2026 2.00 Total - 23.95 Reclaimed Water ASR 2015 ~2.00 MGD Reclaimed Water ASR Expansion TBD ~3.00 MGD Total - ~5.00 MGD 1 Information taken from the Collier County 2008 Wastewater Master Plan Update. Table 5-10 identifies the major tasks required to build each of the planned reclaimed water storage facilities, along with the funding source that will be utilized and the scheduled dates for studies, property acquisition, design, permitting, and construction. Table 5-10. Major Tasks Required to Build Planned CCWSD Reclaimed Water Storage Facilities Facility Name Funding Source Feasibility Study Property Acquisition Design Permitting Construction Year(s) of Execution NEWRF Storage Tanks Wastewater Impact Fees Complete Complete 2021-2022 2021-2022 2023-2026 Reclaimed Water ASR Wells 3-5 User Fees Complete Complete TBD TBD TBD Upsize Transmission Piping from ASR Site User Fees TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD 5.2 Immokalee Water and Sewer District (IWSD) 5.2.1 Potable Water Facilities 5.2.1.1. Wellfields Currently, the IWSD operates three wellfields; one adjacent to each of its WTPs. The locations of each of these wellfields and WTPs are illustrated in Figure 5-6. The 16 wells maintained by the 9.A.2.g Packet Pg. 200 Attachment: February 2019 10-Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan Update - Underline-Strikethrough Version - 20190315 (8272 : Ten Year Section 5 · Planned Water Supply Facilities 5-14 PW/6295/231366/03/01 IWSD tap the LT Aquifer, which is a traditional freshwater source. IWSD plans to bring four additional wells online by 2020 to address future demands. The wells will tap the Floridan Aquifer, which is a brackish water source. Table 5-11 summarizes the wells IWSD plans to construct. Table 5-11. Summary of Planned IWSD Wells1 Well No. Aquifer Utilized Total Well Depth2 (ft bls) Depth of Casing (ft bls) Diameter (in) Capacity (gpm) FA-1 Floridan NA 788 16 695 FA-2 Floridan NA 788 16 695 FA-3 Floridan NA 788 16 695 FA-4 Floridan NA 788 16 695 1 Information on planned wells taken from CUP #11-00013-W. 2 NA – information not available on CUP #11-00013-W. Table 5-12 identifies the major tasks required to build the four wells, along with the funding source that will be utilized and the scheduled dates for studies, property acquisition, design, permitting, and construction. Table 5-12. Major Tasks Required to Build Planned IWSD Wells Year(s) of Execution Facility Name Funding Source Feasibility Study Property Acquisition Design Permitting Construction FA-1 to FA-4 USDA 2015 2018 2019 2019 2020 5.2.1.2 Water Treatment Facilities The IWSD is currently served by three interconnected water treatment facilities; the Jerry V. Warden WTP, the Airport WTP and the Carson Road WTP. During the 10- year planning period IWSD plans to construct a RO WTP. The proposed plant will have a design capacity of 2.5 MGD. Table 5-13 summarizes the treatment capacity of the existing and planned potable water facilities for IWSD. 9.A.2.g Packet Pg. 201 Attachment: February 2019 10-Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan Update - Underline-Strikethrough Version - 20190315 (8272 : Ten Year 9/27/2018 ¯FIGURE 5-6COLLIER COUNTY 10-YEAR WATER SUPPLY FACILITIES W OR K PLANIWSD WATER SUPPLY FACILITIES 9.A.2.g Packet Pg. 202 Attachment: February 2019 10-Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan Update - Underline-Strikethrough Section 5 · Planned Water Supply Facilities 5-16 PW/6295/231366/03/01 Table 5-13 Summary of Existing and Planned IWSD Water Treatment Facilities1 Facility Name Year Online Design Capacity (MGD) Raw Water Requirement2 (MGD) Raw Water Source Traditional/ Alternative Water Supply Project Identified In LWCWSP Jerry V. Warden WTP Online 2.25 2.7536 LT Traditional (Fresh) N/A Airport WTP Online 1.35 1.6542 LT Traditional (Fresh) N/A Carson Road WTP Online 2.3500 2.8710 LT Traditional (Fresh) N/A RO WTP 20222026 2.50 3.052.63 FA Alternative (Brackish) Yes Total - 8.45 10.318.51 - - - 1 Information on the existing and planned IWSD water treatment facilities was taken from the CUP #11-00013- W and the 2017 IWSD Public Facilities Report. 2 Raw water requirement is the amount of raw water needed to make a certain amount of finished water. It is calculated by multiplying the capacity by the Raw-To-Finished -Water Adjustment. 5.2.2 Reclaimed Water Facilities Currently, IWSD disposes of all effluent wastewater via an on-site spray irrigation field or deep well injection. The IWSD currently has a WRF with a capacity of 2.3650 MGD. Two planned future expansions of the facility will increase the capacity to 5.5 MGD. 5.3 Ave Maria Utility Company, LLP (AMUC) 5.3.1 Potable Water Facilities 5.3.1.1 Wellfields AMUC currently operates three wells located in close proximity to the WTP. Per the AMUC CUP and information in the 2017 Lower West Coast Water Supply Plan Update, AMUC plans on a new Sandstone Aquifer well by 2025. 5.3.1.2 Water Treatment Facilities Ave Maria Utilities operates one WTP, which is located west of Camp Keais Road, north of CR-858. The current capacity of the AMUC WTP is 1.0 MGD using MS. Per the AMUC CUP and information in the 2017 Lower West Coast Water Supply Plan Update, AMUC plans on a 2.5 MGD Sandstone Aquifer RO WTP expansion scheduled for completion by 2025. A summary of the existing and planned water treatment facilities is provided in Table 5-14. In addition to identifying the design capacity of each treatment train, the amount raw water required to achieve the design capacity is also provided. 9.A.2.g Packet Pg. 203 Attachment: February 2019 10-Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan Update - Underline-Strikethrough Version - 20190315 (8272 : Ten Year Section 5 · Planned Water Supply Facilities 5-17 PW/6295/231366/03/01 Table 5-14. Summary of Existing and Planned AMUC Potable Water Treatment Facilities1 Facility Name Year Online Design Capacity (MGD) Raw Water Requirement2 (MGD) Raw Water Source Traditional/ Alternative Water Supply Project Identified In LWCWSP AMUC WTP Online 1.0 1.18 LT Traditional (Fresh) Yes AMUC RO WTP Expansion 2025 2.5 2.95 SA Alternative (Fresh) Yes Total - 3.5 4.13 - - - 1 Information on existing and planned water treatment facilities taken from the 2017 Lower West Coast Water Supply Plan Update. 2 Raw water requirement is the amount of raw water needed to make a certain amount of finished water. It is calculated by multiplying the Required Treatment Capacity by the Raw to Finished Water Adjustment. Table 5-15 identifies the major tasks required to build each of the planned expansion phases, along with the funding source that will be utilized and the scheduled dates for studies, property acquisition, design, permitting, and construction. Table 5-15. Major Tasks Required to Build Planned AMUC Potable Water Treatment Facilities Year(s) of Execution Facility Name Funding Source Feasibility Study Property Acquisition Design Permitting Construction AMUC RO WTP Expansion TBD Complete Complete TBD TBD TBD 5.3.2 Reclaimed Water Facilities AMUC is served by one WRF, which is located within the development. The WRF is capable of producing 0.9 MGD of reclaimed water. AMUC plans to expand the WRF to a total capacity of 3.4 MGD. Table 5-16 summarizes the capacities of the existing and planned phases of the WRF. Table 5-16. Summary of Existing and Planned AMUC Water Reclamation Facilities1 Facility Name Year Online Design Capacity (MGD) Project Identified In LWCWSP AMUC WRF (Phase 1) Online 0.9 N/A AMUC WRF (Phased expansion) 2024 2.5 Yes Total - 3.4 - 1 Information on existing water treatment facilities taken from the 2017 Lower West Coast Water Supply Plan Update. Reclaimed water is pumped from the WRF to three reclaimed water storage ponds, which serve as the source for the Town and University’s irrigation system. AMUC plans to add an additional reclaimed water storage ponds within the development in the future. Expansion of the facility’s capacity is planned in several phases. The utility plans to add reclaimed water storage ponds and a deep injection well system for disposal during wet weather. The new ponds will increase the 9.A.2.g Packet Pg. 204 Attachment: February 2019 10-Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan Update - Underline-Strikethrough Version - 20190315 (8272 : Ten Year Section 5 · Planned Water Supply Facilities 5-18 PW/6295/231366/03/01 storage capacity from 23.0 MG to 44.0 MG. Additionally, AMUC is currently permitting a 289 MG wetlands storage system which will be used for wet weather storage. Reclaimed water is the most important element of the AMUC Conservation Plan, presented in detail in Section 7, and will be utilized to the fullest extent possible for irrigation of the Town and University. AMUC believes it will be able to utilize 100 percent of the reclaim water generated. 9.A.2.g Packet Pg. 205 Attachment: February 2019 10-Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan Update - Underline-Strikethrough Version - 20190315 (8272 : Ten Year 6-1 PW/6295/231366/03/01 Section 6 Facilities Capacity Analysis Sections 3, 4, and 5 of this plan presented the population and associated water demand of the service areaareas served and to be served by each utility, the existing water supply facilities in place to meet current demands, and the facilities planned to meet future water supply needs, respectively. The purpose of this section of the plan is to conveniently present a comparison of the population, water demand, facilities capacity, and permit limitations that identifies surpluses and deficits in facility and permit capacities. 6.1 Collier County Water-Sewer District (CCWSD) As described in Section 5.1, CCWSD plans to bring online a new potable water treatment facility and associated wellfield during the 10-year planning period ending in 2028. Table 6-1 illustrates how these additions to the existing system will allow CCWSD to stay ahead of the demand curve during the 10-year planning period. Table 6-1. Water Capacity Analysis for CCWSD 2013 2018 2023 2028 Service Area Population 195,207162,64 6 241,422203,12 8 271,671229,84 0 300,839255,80 9 Demand Per CapitaLevel of Service Standard (gpcd)150 150 150 150 Required Treatment Capacity @ 150 gpcdLOSS (MGD)29.2824.40 36.2130.47 40.7534.48 45.1338.37 Available FacilityTotal Permitted Treatment Capacity (MGD)52.00 52.75 52.75 57.75 Raw to Finished Water Adjustment1 1.22 1.22 1.22 1.22 Facility Capacity Surplus (Deficit) (MGD)2 22.7227.60 16.5422.28 12.0018.27 12.6219.38 Raw Water Requirement (MGD)3 35.7229.76 44.1837.17 49.7242.06 55.0546.81 Permitted Amount (MGD Annual Average)4, 5 55.53 56.18 56.18 56.18 Permitted Surplus (Deficit) (MGD)6 19.8125.77 12.0019.01 6.4714.12 1.139.37 1 The Raw-To-Finished Water Adjustment was taken from the 2017 LWCWSP. 2 Calculated by subtracting Required Treatment Capacity @ 150 gpcd from Available Facility Capacity. 3 Raw water requirement is the amount of raw water needed to make a certain amount of finished water. It is calculated by multiplying the Required Treatment Capacity @ 150 gpcd by the Raw to Finished Water Adjustment. 4 CCWSD has two potable water supply consumptive use permits. CUP 11-00249-W allocation is for 55.53 MGD annual average and expires on September 22, 2036. CUP allocation 11-00419-W is for 0.65 MGD and expires on March 7, 2023. 5 CCWSD is proactive in renewing its CUPs in advance of expiration and intends to maintain the necessary CUPs to meet the raw water requirement. 6 Calculated by subtracting the Raw Water Requirement from the Permitted Amount. 9.A.2.g Packet Pg. 206 Attachment: February 2019 10-Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan Update - Underline-Strikethrough Version - 20190315 (8272 : Ten Year Section 6  Facilities Capacity Analysis 6-2 PW/6295/231366/03/01 As will be noted from Table 6-1, the allocation under CCWSD’s current CUP (11-00249-W) is sufficient to meet the raw water requirement needed to make the Required Treatment Capacity at 150 gpcd through 2028. 6.1.1 Concurrency Analysis Each year, the Public Utilities Division completes a concurrency review of its “Category A” facilities, including potable water. The analysis becomes a part of the Countywide Annual Update and Inventory Report (AUIR). Although concurrency is mandated through state and local law for a two year period, the AUIR analysis goes well beyond 10 years. Like the AUIR, the CCWSD uses an additional tool to assure concurrency. Known as “Checkbook Concurrency,” the tool is used quarterly to update capacity projections. While the AUIR relies on BEBR population estimates for future growth, the Checkbook tracks approved development (Planned Unit Developments and Developments of Regional Impact) as an additional measure of future capacity. It also measures 3-day peak demand rather than seasonal demand. The CCWSD Water and Wastewater Master Plans are the primary planning tools for capital planning. Nevertheless, the AUIR and Checkbook concurrency measurements serve as additional safeguards to assure future capacity. 6.2 Immokalee Water and Sewer District (IWSD) Table 6-2 shows the capacity analysis for IWSD for the 10-year planning period. The improvements planned by the IWSD for the 10-year planning period are sufficient to meet the demands of the service area and the allocation of the underlying CUP (11-00013-W) is sufficient to cover the withdrawals required to make the finished water demand. Table 6-2. Water Capacity Analysis for IWSD 2013 2018 2023 2028 Service Area Population 22,747 25,717 27,616 29,948 Demand Per Capita (gpcd)75 75 75 75 Annual Average Daily Demand (MGD)1.71 1.93 2.07 2.25 Available Facility Capacity (MGD)1 5.60 5.60 5.60 8.10 Raw to Finished Water Adjustment2 1.2205 1.2205 1.2205 1.2205 Facility Capacity Surplus (Deficit) (MGD)3 3.89 3.67 3.53 5.85 Raw Water Requirement (MGD)4 2.081.79 2.3503 2.5317 2.7436 Permitted Amount (MGD Annual Average)5 4.15 4.15 4.15 4.15 Permitted Surplus (Deficit) (MGD)6 2.0736 1.802.12 1.6298 1.4179 1 Per the Lower West Coast Water Supply update, the IWSD available facility capacity is projected to go up to 8.10 by 2030. 2 The Raw-To-Finished Water Adjustment was taken from the 2017 LWCWSP. 3 Calculated by subtracting Annual Average Daily Demand from Available Facility Capacity. 4 Raw water requirement is the amount of raw water needed to make a certain amount of finished water. It is calculated by multiplying the Annual Average Daily Demand by the Raw-To-Finished -Water Adjustment. 5 CUP (11-00013-W) allocation is 4.15 MGD annual average and expires on May 23, 2031. 6 Calculated by subtracting the Raw Water Requirement from the Permitted Amount. 9.A.2.g Packet Pg. 207 Attachment: February 2019 10-Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan Update - Underline-Strikethrough Version - 20190315 (8272 : Ten Year Section 6  Facilities Capacity Analysis 6-3 PW/6295/231366/03/01 6.3 Ave Maria Utility Company, LLLP (AMUC) Table 6-3 shows the capacity analysis for AMUC for the 10-year planning period. Based on the capacity analysis, AMUC does not have sufficient permitted capacity to meet the demands of its service area for the 10-year planning period. The allocation of the underlying CUP (11-02298-W) only convers the withdrawals required to make the finished water demand until 2025. After 2025, the Permitted Surplus (Deficit) becomes negative. AMUC will need to increase their permitted consumptive use by 2025. Table 6-3. Water Capacity Analysis for AMUC 2013 2018 2023 2028 Service Area Population 2,924 5,803 9,065 12,713 Demand Per Capita (gpcd)9181 9181 9181 9181 Annual Average Daily Demand (MGD)0.2724 0.5347 0.8273 1.1603 Available Facility Capacity (MGD)1.00 1.00 1.00 3.50 Raw to Finished Water Adjustment1 1.18 1.18 1.18 1.18 Facility Capacity Surplus (Deficit) (MGD)2 0.7376 0.4753 0.1827 2.3447 Raw Water Requirement (MGD)3 0.3128 0.6255 0.9787 1.3722 Permitted Amount (MGD Annual Average)4 1.16 1.16 1.16 1.16 Permitted Surplus (Deficit) (MGD)5 0.8588 0.5461 0.1929 (0.2106) 1 The Raw-To-Finished Water Adjustment was taken from the 2017 LWCWSP. 2 Calculated by subtracting Annual Average Daily Demand from Available Facility Capacity. 3 Raw water requirement is the amount of raw water needed to make a certain amount of finished water. It is calculated by multiplying the annual Average Daily Demand by the Raw-To-Finished -Water Adjustment. 4 CUP (11-02298-W) allocation is 1.16 MGD annual average and expires on October 19, 2020. 5 Calculated by subtracting the Raw Water Requirement from the Permitted Amount. 9.A.2.g Packet Pg. 208 Attachment: February 2019 10-Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan Update - Underline-Strikethrough Version - 20190315 (8272 : Ten Year Section 6 · Facilities Capacity Analysis 6-4 PW/6295/231366/03/01 This page intentionally left blank. 9.A.2.g Packet Pg. 209 Attachment: February 2019 10-Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan Update - Underline-Strikethrough Version - 20190315 (8272 : Ten Year 7‐1 PW/6295/231366/03/01 Section 7 Conservation Regulations and Practices As the water supply in Florida becomes more taxed over time, the need to more efficiently utilize water resources will increase. The following subsections outline the conservation regulations and practices utilized by each of the utilities covered under this plan. The information provided has been taken directly from the water conservation plans approved by the SFWMD and included in each utility’s consumptive use permit. 7.1 Collier County Water‐Sewer District (CCWSD) The conservation plan implemented by CCWSD is described in the utility’s consumptive use permit as follows: The In an effort to conserve water resources, the Collier County Board of Commissioners enacted the first water irrigation ordinance on September 26, 2000 with the adoption of Ordinance No. 2000‐61. Ordinance No. 2002‐17, adopted on April 9, 2002, supplemented Ordinance No. 2000‐ 61 with more restrictive irrigation hours and operational requirements. Ordinance No. 2015‐27, adopted on April 28, 2015 and titled “Water Conservation Ordinance for Landscape Irrigation,” repealed and replaced the first two ordinances and provided for local implementation of the SFWMD’s mandatory year‐round landscape irrigation conservation measures pursuant to Chapter 40E‐24, F.A.C. The provisions of the County’s ordinance mirror the rules of the SFWMD but apply to all water resources, including IQ (reclaimed) water, which reduced watering to three days per week (three times each for odd and even numbered addresses), in an effort to reduce water consumption. This ordinance also requires that rain sensor devices be installed on automatic irrigation systems. Theis exempt from the restricted hours of irrigation under the SFWMD’s rules. Collier County seeks to conserve their valuable IQ water supply as they do with their potable water supply. As such, the Board initiated an ASR program to allow for the storage of excess IQ water that can later be withdrawn to offset peak usage. Other water conservation measures designatedimplemented by the SFWMD, which Collier County has enacted include:  Requiring Enforcing the use of low‐flow plumbing fixtures as part of the pursuant to section 604.4 of the Florida Building Code, Plumbing, 6th Edition (2017);  Landscaping standards in the County’s Land Development Code (LDC);  Encouraging 4.06.00) that encourage the use of Florida Friendly landscapesnative and other drought‐tolerant vegetation in portions of the LDCand properly zoned irrigation systems through xeriscape;  Implementing water conservation rates that increase per‐thousand‐gallon charges as usage increases; 9.A.2.g Packet Pg. 210 Attachment: February 2019 10-Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan Update - Underline-Strikethrough Version - 20190315 (8272 : Ten Year Section 7  Conservation Regulations and Practices 7‐2 PW/6295/231366/03/01  Monthly reading of all customers’ meters to minimize losses from unaccounted‐for water;  An active reuse program, which delivers over 4.5 billion gallons a year of reclaimed wastewaterwater, to reduce irrigation withdrawals;  Filter backwashing at the SCRWTP to eliminate water lost in cleaning filters; and  Enacted in 2003 to further promote water conservation, the Board approved a mandatory water high‐consumption surcharge, which is applied when the SFWMD implements water restrictions and impacts on only high‐use consumers.  Requiring subdivisions to have separate potable and reuse water lines and prohibiting the use of County potable water for irrigation where other sources of supplemental water are permitted and available (LDC 4.03.08 C). In addition to these water conservation measures, the CCWSD and other County agencies endeavor to educate the public regarding water conservation through educational and outreach programs. Staff members routinely conduct presentations for schools, civic groups, homeowner associations, and other receptive groups. Division staff participates in events, such as “Senior Expo” and “Government Days,” to take the water conservation campaign to the public. Utility bill inserts and advertising have further helped to spread the message. The County has actively been promoting the “Fridays are Dry Days” campaign, which has become the tag line on commercials airing on radio stations throughout Collier County. These stationsStations were selected to target a large number of consumers, including those who do not speak English. The tag line has also been utilized in several productions airing on the Collier County Government Channel. Public service announcements and specially produced videos promoting water conservation also air on the County’s government access television station, Channel 11/16. CCWSD has made significant strides towards improving and enhancing the efficiency of the Water Distribution Systemits water distribution system and aims to continue to do so over the next 10 years. Maintaining an efficient system with upgraded and preventive maintenance efforts keeps unplanned water losses to a minimum. CCWSD’s average unaccounted‐for water is currently below 10 percent, according to the unaccounted water loss report submitted to the SFWMD. Traditionally, water loss in Collier County Water District has remained low due to aggressive water loss management practices. Figure 7‐1 shows the unaccounted‐for water loss over the past 15 fiscal years. As indicated in Figure 7‐1, the CCWSD unaccounted‐for water loss has lowered during the recent 10had been maintained below five percent for eight years (period betweenstarting with 2008 to 2017) when compared to its, markedly lower than preceding periodyears, but peaked again in 2017 for reasons outlined below. Four noteworthy events during the 2017 fiscal year significantly impacted the amount of unaccounted‐for water loss in the CCWSD’s water distribution system. The cumulative effect of the following four events was an anomalous loss of water compared with the previous nine years:  Catastrophic impact of Hurricane Irma, which caused more than 100 water main breaks, over 400 water service breaks, and damage to numerous fire hydrants, resulting in a total loss of system pressure and nearly a complete dewatering of the distribution network, 9.A.2.g Packet Pg. 211 Attachment: February 2019 10-Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan Update - Underline-Strikethrough Version - 20190315 (8272 : Ten Year Section 7  Conservation and Practices 7‐3 PW/6295/231366/03/01  Repeated flushing of an inactive 6‐mile long 36” water transmission main, constructed in 2005, to bring it into service,  An unusually active wildfire season that required water for combatting blazes that threatened homes in the Rural Estates and along Collier Boulevard  Two large‐diameter water transmission main breaks near the intersection of I‐75 and Collier Boulevard Figure 7‐1 CCWSD Unaccounted‐for Water Loss from FY2002 to FY20171FY20181 1 The CCWSD Unaccounted‐for Water Loss from FY2002 FY2004 to FY2013 was taken from the previous 2013 10‐Year Water Supply Plan Update. 9.7% 8.4%8.5% 11.5% 10.0% 12.2% 4.5% 3.3%4.0%4.9% 3.1% 4.6%3.8%4.0% 5.4% 9.3% 0.0% 2.5% 5.0% 7.5% 10.0% 12.5% 15.0%2002200320042005200620072008200920102011201220132014201520162017Percentage of Unaccounted‐for Water LossFiscal Year 8.5% 11.5% 10.0% 12.2% 4.5% 3.3%4.0%4.9% 3.1% 4.6%3.8%4.0% 5.4% 9.3% 6.6% 0.0% 2.5% 5.0% 7.5% 10.0% 12.5% 15.0%200420052006200720082009201020112012201320142015201620172018Percentage of Unaccounted‐for Water LossFiscal Year 9.A.2.g Packet Pg. 212 Attachment: February 2019 10-Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan Update - Underline-Strikethrough Version - 20190315 (8272 : Ten Year Section 7  Conservation Regulations and Practices 7‐4 PW/6295/231366/03/01 Specific projects the CCWSD has completed or will undertake to further water conservation include:  Ongoing effort to replace valves that are reaching the end of their useful life and to install andan additional (20) valves per year to assist with increase responsiveness to system eventsfacilitate positive and timely isolation and reduce water loss in the event of a water main break .  Mapping new areas incorporated into the district, including Golden Gate City, and North East Service Area (i.e. Orange Tree Utility).) to locate and record valves (and other appurtenances) in the GIS database so that water loss can be reduced by timely isolation in the event of a water main break.  On‐going effort to replace lead service lines that are traditionally a major portion of the water loss for the CCWSD. Considering the age of the service lines, CCWSD’s goal is to replace up to 75 service lines per year.  Continue with the meter change‐out program for the replacement of all ¾” to 2” potable meters. to ensure the accurate measurement of authorized water usage accounting and billing. Of the over 56,000 meters originally identified by CCWSD, approximately 7,500 meters are left to replace. The meter change‐out program is scheduled for completion by September 30,in FY 2019.  On‐going activityContinue utilizing a GIS‐centric enterprise asset management system (Cityworks) to record the frequency of replacingwater main breaks by location and identify areas where water mains utilizing a “just in time” method methodology of replacement. Mains areneed to be programmatically replaced after several failures versus waiting until they become an operational issue. This improves service reliability and fire protection capacity and reduces, reducing the potential for water loss.  Changes made to the Utility Standards Ordinance nowManual require developers of new areas to provide automatic flushing stations for areas that may have concerns with maintaining sufficient residual. This results in the reduction of overall water loss due to required flushing devices (AFD) at dead ends and mid‐points of certain looped water mains to maintain disinfectant residuals. AFDs discharge less water over time in comparison to manual flushing through fire hydrants.  Collier County is actively completing water main looping projects. Looping is promoted by imposing and tracking PUD commitments and through enforcement of design criteria which requirerequires all new potable water distribution systems to be looped. Looping conserves water by eliminating dead ends, which must be flushed to maintain minimum chloraminedisinfectant residuals.  Collier County’s water main looping projects that have been completed over the past five years are: o Wilshire Lakes, 9.A.2.g Packet Pg. 213 Attachment: February 2019 10-Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan Update - Underline-Strikethrough Version - 20190315 (8272 : Ten Year Section 7  Conservation and Practices 7‐5 PW/6295/231366/03/01 o TreefarmTree Farm Road, o Twin Eagles, o Heritage Bay, o Waterways Boulevard, and o Orange Tree Boulevard.  The water looping projects planned over the next five years include: o Wildflower Way, o Warren Street, o Quarry/Esplanade, o Saturnia Lakes, and o Bergamot Lane.  Collier County Water District is proactively acquiring older utilities, such as Golden Gate City. This allows for sharing of water resources among a larger number of customers and enhanced maintenance, which will decrease unaccounted for water levels in these areas.  Employing other contractual resources to performUtilizing leak detection for contractual services to identify leaks in older areas of the Water Districtwater distribution system and programmatically making repairs to reduce water loss. 7.2 Immokalee Water and Sewer District (IWSD) The conservation plan implemented by IWSD is described in the utility’s consumptive use permit as follows: Pursuant to the SFWMD Applicants Handbook for Water Use Permit Applications (September 2015), Section 2.3.2 F. 1. Water Conservation Requirements, all public water supply utilities are required to develop and implement a water conservation plan. Each of the mandatory water conservation elements must exist or have a proposed time frame for implementation. As mentioned earlier, the IWSD was established under Florida law and has specific duties and quasi‐ governmental rights. However, the authority to enact ordinances does not reside with that District. The applicant has stated they will request that Immokalee enact any required ordinances within a year of permit issuance. The applicant has provided the following water conservation plan elements: A. Permanent Irrigation Ordinance: An ordinance which restricts landscape irrigation to the hours of 4:00 p.m. to 10:00 a.m., 7 days per week, is currently not in effect for the service area. The utility will request that Immokalee adopt an ordinance for the service area within 1 year of permit issuance. 9.A.2.g Packet Pg. 214 Attachment: February 2019 10-Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan Update - Underline-Strikethrough Version - 20190315 (8272 : Ten Year Section 7  Conservation Regulations and Practices 7‐6 PW/6295/231366/03/01 B. Xeriscape Ordinance: An ordinance which requires the use of xeriscape landscape principles is currently not in effect. The utility will request that Immokalee adopt an ordinance for the service area within 1 year of permit issuance. C. Ultra‐Low Volume Plumbing Fixture Ordinance: An ordinance which requires ultra‐ low volume plumbing fixtures on all new construction is in effect for the service area. D. Water Conservation Rate Structure: The applicant has a conservation‐based rate structure, which includes increasing block rates as a means of reducing demands. E. Leak Detection Program: The applicant does not have an unaccounted‐for water and leak detection program because the unaccounted‐for water losses are less than 10 percent. F. Rain Sensor Device Ordinance: An ordinance which requires any person who purchases and installs an automatic lawn sprinkler system to install, operate, and maintain a rain sensor device or automatic switch which will override the irrigation system with the occurrence of adequate rainfall is currently not in effect for the service area. The utility will request that Immokalee adopt an ordinance within 1 year of the permit issuance. G. Water Conservation Education Program: The applicant distributes pamphlets, makes school visits, and provides information booths for employees and customers. Information signs, press releases, and messages about water conservation on the bills are also utilized. H. Reclaimed Water: Currently, all wastewater effluent is disposed of via a spray irrigation field and percolation ponds. 7.3 Ave Maria Utility Company, LLLP (AMUC) The conservation plan implemented by AMUC is described in the utility’s consumptive use permit as follows: Per Section 2.3.2 F of the SFWMD Applicants Handbook for Water Use Permit Applications, public water supply in excess of 500,000 gpd requires a water conservation plan addressing the following conservation elements: Permanent Irrigation Ordinance, Xeriscape Ordinance, Ultra‐ Low Volume Plumbing Fixture Ordinance, Water Conservation Rate Structure, Leak Detection Program, Rain Sensor Device Ordinance, Water Conservation Education Program, and Reclaimed Water Use. The following information is provided. A. Permanent Irrigation Ordinance: One of the water conservation efforts the Ave Maria University and Town will pursue is adoption of an irrigation ordinance to limit irrigation water usage during the dry season. The planned ordinance would follow watering restrictions adopted by Collier County, including limiting daytime watering times and limiting the number of days that lawns could be watered. The irrigation ordinance would also likely follow an even/odd address watering system. 9.A.2.g Packet Pg. 215 Attachment: February 2019 10-Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan Update - Underline-Strikethrough Version - 20190315 (8272 : Ten Year Section 7  Conservation and Practices 7‐7 PW/6295/231366/03/01 B. Xeriscape Landscape Ordinance: The University and Town of Ave Maria will pursue adoption of an ordinance which recommends the use of xeriscape principles in landscape planning for all new construction. The ordinance would encourage implementation of xeriscape landscaping practices including use of mulches, native and drought tolerant plants, and limited turf areas. C. Ultra‐Low Volume Plumbing Standards: The university and town of Ave Maria will pursue adopting an ordinance requiring ultra‐low volume plumbing fixtures in all new construction. The standards proposed in the planned Ave Maria Plumbing Code would, in most cases, be as stringent as the ultra‐low plumbing standards stipulated in the SFWMD Water Conservation Plan Development Guidelines. D. Water Conservation Rate Structure: The Town of Ave Maria plans to utilize an inclining block rate structure in order to promote water conservation. Residential and commercial water rates will consist of a monthly capacity cost charge (base rate) and a monthly commodity costs charge (volume charge). The commodity costs charges will increase with increased volume use. For example, residential costs increase from $1.75 per thousand gallons for under 5,000 gallons, to $4.00 per thousand gallons for quantities over 30,000 gallons. The details and the planned water rate schedule have not been specifically determined yet. E. Leak Detection & Distribution System Losses Program: A leak detection program will be implemented by the AMUC if system losses exceed 10 percent. The leak detection program will likely utilize the Rural Water Association (RWA) sonic type leak detection equipment. System losses may be attributable to known line breaks. The Ave Maria Utilities Department will repair water main and service line breaks as soon as possible to minimize and prevent distribution system losses. F. Sprinkler System Rain Sensor: The Town of Ave Maria will recommend installation of rain sensor devices on automatic lawn sprinkler systems for all new construction. G. Public Education Programs: The AMUC will pursue public education programs on water conservation and community responsibility. The programs could include presentations by Utility staff, such as water conservation topics discussed during tours conducted at its facilities. H. Water Treatment Plant and Waste Water Reclamation Facility. Educational brochures on water conservation, landscaping and xeriscape can be distributed by the Utility offices. The AMUC could also include water conservation information to all customers along with monthly billing statements. I. Reclaimed Water: The most important element of Ave Maria’s Water Conservation Plan is utilization of a reclaimed water system for irrigation. The Town and University will pursue the use of as much reclaimed water as possible and will likely be able to utilize 100 percent of the reclaimed water generated. 9.A.2.g Packet Pg. 216 Attachment: February 2019 10-Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan Update - Underline-Strikethrough Version - 20190315 (8272 : Ten Year Section 7 · Conservation Regulations and Practices 7-8 PW/6295/231366/03/01 I. This page intentionally left blank. 9.A.2.g Packet Pg. 217 Attachment: February 2019 10-Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan Update - Underline-Strikethrough Version - 20190315 (8272 : Ten Year 8-1 PW/6295/231366/03/01 Section 8 Capital Improvement Projects Section 5 of this plan focused on the projects that each of the utilities have planned for the 10- year planning period. Attention was paid to the amount of water made available and when it would be made available. The following subsections present the capital improvement projects planned by each utility, including the funding source, project number, project name, and cost estimate for each project. 8.1 Collier County Water-Sewer District (CCWSD) The most recent lists of CCWSDCCWSD’s water and wastewater capital improvementsupply development projects were developed as part ofidentified in the Fiscal Year 2017 Water and Wastewater User Rate StudyWork Plan are per the update done for the 2018 AUIR. The capital improvement projects pertinent to future water supply are summarized in Table 8-1. CCWSD funds its water and wastewater projects from four funds: 411 – Water Impact Fees, 412 – Water User Fees, 413 – Wastewater Impact Fees, and 414-Wastewater User Fees. Impact fees are utilized to pay for expanded supply projects, while user fees are used to fund operations, maintenance, and replacement of existing facilities. 8.2 Immokalee Water and Sewer District (IWSD) The most recent lists of IWSD water and wastewater capital improvement projects were developed as part of the Fiscal Year 2018 Water and Wastewater Utility Rate Study. The capital improvement projects pertinent to future water supply are summarized in Table 8-2. IWSD funds its water and wastewater projects from Seven funds: USDA Water Grant Funds, USDA Water Loan Funds, USDA Wastewater Grant to be obtained, USDA Wastewater Loan to be obtained, Rate Revenue – Sewer (RRS), Rate Revenue – Water (RRW), and funds to be determined at a later date (TBD). 8.3 Ave Maria Utility Company (AMUC) AMUC is currently in the process of updating their CIP and is unable to provide reliable information at the time of writing this report (October 2018). The capital improvement projects for AMUC future water supply that were provided in the 2018 LWCWSP are summarized in Table 8-3. 9.A.2.g Packet Pg. 218 Attachment: February 2019 10-Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan Update - Underline-Strikethrough Version - 20190315 (8272 : Ten Year PW/6295/231366/03/01 8-2 Table 8-1. CCWSD Capital Improvement Projects1 Funding Source Project No.Project Name FY 2019-20232 FY 2024-2028 2 411 - Water 70194 NERWTP First Phase online 2023 $-$ 82,500,000 411 - Water WTBD1 Sub-Regional Transitional Capacity online 2020 $-$- 412 - Water 70196 Tamiami Wellfield-Two Wells $ 3,100 ,000 $- 412 - Water 71057 Membrane Treatment $ 1,100 ,000 $- 412 - Water 70104 Variable TDS Treatment Bridge-the-Gap $ 3,000 ,000 $- 412 - Water WNEW9 Equip NRO Well 118 $-$- 412 - Water WNEW10 Equip NRO Well 120 $ 750 ,000 $- 413 - Wastewater 70194 NEWRF Expansion online 2023 $ 116,000 ,000 $ 15,000,000 413 - Wastewater 74030 IQ Aquifer Storage and Recovery $ 1,080 ,000 $ 1,050,0001 Cost estimates taken from the 10-year CIP update prepared for the 2018 AUIR.2 All costs are in 2017 dollars. 9.A.2.g Packet Pg. 219 Attachment: February 2019 10-Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan Update - Underline-Strikethrough Version - 20190315 (8272 : Ten Year PW/6295/231366/03/01 8-3 Table 8-2. IWSD Capital Improvement Projects Funding Source Project No.Project Name FY2019 - 2024 FY 2024 - 2028 TBD WW-09 New 3.0 MGD Public Access Re-Use Water System $2,185,000 - TBD W-04 New 2.5 MGD Reverse Osmosis Water Treatment Plant $400,000 $11,000,0001. Taken from IWSD CIP 2018-2023 9.A.2.g Packet Pg. 220 Attachment: February 2019 10-Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan Update - Underline-Strikethrough Version - 20190315 (8272 : Ten Year PW/6295/231366/03/01 8-4 Table 8-3. AMUC Capital Improvement Projects Funding Source Project No.Project Name FY2019 - 2024 FY 2024 - 2028 n/a n/a Sandstone Aquifer 2.5 mgd RO treatment plant -$6,300,000 n/a n/a Phased Expansion of Recalmation Plant -$2,040,0001. Cost estimates found in the 2017 LWCWSP. 9.A.2.g Packet Pg. 221 Attachment: February 2019 10-Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan Update - Underline-Strikethrough Version - 20190315 (8272 : Ten Year WORK PLAN Collier County 10-Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan Update February 2019 9.A.2.h Packet Pg. 222 Attachment: February 2019 10-Yr Water Supply Facilities Work Plan-CleanVersion-190315 (8272 : Ten Year Water Facilities Supply Plan - i PW/6295/231366/03/01 Table of Contents Executive Summary .................................................................................................. ES-1 Section 1 Introduction ................................................................................................ 1-1 1.1 Plan Background ................................................................................................................................................ 1-1 1.2 Plan Objectives .................................................................................................................................................... 1-1 1.3 Information Sources ......................................................................................................................................... 1-2 1.4 Plan Contents ....................................................................................................................................................... 1-2 Section 2 Water Service Areas .................................................................................... 2-1 2.1 Overview of Collier County ........................................................................................................................... 2-1 2.2 Individual Utilities and Systems .................................................................................................................. 2-1 2.2.1 Collier County ........................................................................................................................................ 2-1 2.2.1.1 Collier County Water-Sewer District (CCWSD) ......................................................... 2-1 2.2.1.2 Goodland Water Sub-District ............................................................................................ 2-2 2.2.2 City of Naples ......................................................................................................................................... 2-2 2.2.3 Everglades City ...................................................................................................................................... 2-3 2.2.4 City of Marco Island Water and Sewer Service Areas........................................................... 2-3 2.2.5 Immokalee Water and Sewer District (IWSD) ......................................................................... 2-3 2.2.6 Ave Maria Utility Company, LLLP (AMUC) ................................................................................ 2-4 2.2.7 Independent Districts......................................................................................................................... 2-4 2.2.7.1 Lee Cypress Water and Sewer Co-op, Inc ..................................................................... 2-4 2.2.7.2 Port of the Islands Community Improvement District ........................................... 2-4 2.2.8 Water Systems Regulated by FL Department of Environmental Protection .............. 2-7 Section 3 Population and Demand Projections ............................................................ 3-1 3.1 Collier County Water-Sewer District (CCWSD) .................................................................................... 3-1 3.2 Immokalee Water and Sewer District (IWSD) ...................................................................................... 3-2 3.3 Ave Maria Utility Company, LLLP (AMUC) ............................................................................................. 3-2 Section 4 Existing Water Supply Facilities .................................................................... 4-1 4.1 Collier County Water-Sewer District (CCWSD) .................................................................................... 4-1 4.1.1 Water Supply Permits ....................................................................................................................... 4-1 4.1.2 Potable Water Facilities .................................................................................................................... 4-2 4.1.2.1 Wellfields .................................................................................................................................. 4-2 4.1.2.2 Water Treatment Facilities ............................................................................................... 4-2 4.1.2.3 Pumping, Storage, and Transmission ........................................................................... 4-8 4.1.3 Reclaimed Water Facilities ........................................................................................................... 4-12 4.1.3.1 Water Reclamation Facilities ........................................................................................ 4-12 4.1.3.2 Reclaimed Water Pumping, Storage, and Transmission ................................... 4-14 4.1.3.3 Supplemental Wellfields ................................................................................................. 4-14 4.2 Immokalee Water and Sewer District (IWSD) ................................................................................... 4-16 4.2.1 Water Supply Permits ..................................................................................................................... 4-16 4.2.2 Potable Water Facilities ................................................................................................................. 4-16 4.2.2.1 Wellfields ............................................................................................................................... 4-16 4.2.2.2 Water Treatment Facilities ............................................................................................ 4-18 4.2.2.3 Pumping, Storage, and Transmission ........................................................................ 4-19 4.2.3 Reclaimed Water Facilities ...................................................................................................... 4-19 4.3 Ave Maria Utility Company, LLLP (AMUC) ...................................................................................... 4-20 9.A.2.h Packet Pg. 223 Attachment: February 2019 10-Yr Water Supply Facilities Work Plan-CleanVersion-190315 (8272 : Ten Year Water Facilities Supply Plan - Table of Contents · ii PW/6295/231366/03/01 4.3.1 Water Supply Permits ................................................................................................................ 4-20 4.3.2 Potable Water Facilities ............................................................................................................. 4-20 4.3.2.1 Wellfields ........................................................................................................................... 4-20 4.3.2.2 Water Treatment Facilities ........................................................................................ 4-21 4.3.2.3 Pumping, Storage, and Transmission .................................................................... 4-21 4.3.3 Reclaimed Water Facilities ....................................................................................................... 4-21 Section 5 Planned Water Supply Facilities ................................................................... 5-1 5.1 Collier County Water-Sewer District (CCWSD) ................................................................................... 5-1 5.1.1 Potable Water Facilities .................................................................................................................. 5-3 5.1.1.1 Wellfields ................................................................................................................................. 5-3 5.1.1.2 Water Treatment Facilities .............................................................................................. 5-5 5.1.1.3 Pumping, Storage, and Transmission .......................................................................... 5-7 5.1.2 Reclaimed Water Facilities ............................................................................................................ 5-11 5.1.2.1 Water Reclamation Facilities......................................................................................... 5-11 5.1.2.2 Reclaimed Water Pumping, Storage, and Transmission .................................... 5-13 5.2 Immokalee Water and Sewer District (IWSD) ................................................................................... 5-13 5.2.1 Potable Water Facilities .................................................................................................................. 5-13 5.2.1.1 Wellfields ............................................................................................................................... 5-13 5.2.1.2 Water Treatment Facilities ............................................................................................ 5-14 5.2.2 Reclaimed Water Facilities ............................................................................................................ 5-16 5.3 Ave Maria Utility Company, LLLP (AMUC) .......................................................................................... 5-16 5.3.1 Potable Water Facilities .................................................................................................................. 5-16 5.3.1.1 Wellfields ............................................................................................................................... 5-16 5.3.1.2 Water Treatment Facilities ............................................................................................ 5-16 5.3.2 Reclaimed Water Facilities ............................................................................................................ 5-17 Section 6 Facilities Capacity Analysis ........................................................................... 6-1 6.1 Collier County Water-Sewer District (CCWSD) .................................................................................... 6-1 6.1.1 Concurrency Analysis ........................................................................................................................ 6-2 6.2 Immokalee Water and Sewer District (IWSD) ...................................................................................... 6-2 6.3 Ave Maria Utility Company, LLLP (AMUC) ............................................................................................. 6-3 Section 7 Conservation Regulations and Practices ....................................................... 7-1 7.1 Collier County Water-Sewer District (CCWSD) .................................................................................... 7-1 7.2 Immokalee Water and Sewer District (IWSD) ...................................................................................... 7-4 7.3 Ave Maria Utility Company, LLLP (AMUC) ............................................................................................. 7-5 Section 8 Capital Improvement Projects ...................................................................... 8-1 8.1 Collier County Water-Sewer District (CCWSD) .................................................................................... 8-1 8.2 Immokalee Water and Sewer District (IWSD) ...................................................................................... 8-1 8.3 Ave Maria Utility Company, LLLP (AMUC) ............................................................................................. 8-1 Appendices Appendix A Interlocal Agreement between CCWSD and the City of Naples Appendix B Ordinance Integrating Goodland Water District into CCWSD Appendix C Agreement for Potable Water Service Calusa Island Village (Goodland Area) Appendix D Potable Water Bulk Services Agreement between CCWSD and the City of Marco Island Notice of Termination 9.A.2.h Packet Pg. 224 Attachment: February 2019 10-Yr Water Supply Facilities Work Plan-CleanVersion-190315 (8272 : Ten Year Water Facilities Supply Plan - · Table of Contents iii PW/6295/231366/03/01 Appendix E 2018 Collier County Annual Update and Inventory Report List of Figures Figure 2-1 Water District Boundaries of Collier County .......................................................................... 2-5 Figure 2-2 CCWSD Potable/Reclaimed Water Composite Map ............................................................. 2-6 Figure 4-1 Existing CCWSD Wellfields and Raw Water Transmission Mains ................................. 4-3 Figure 4-2 Existing CCWSD Potable Water Treatment Facilities ......................................................... 4-4 Figure 4-3 Existing CCWSD Potable Water Storage Facilities ............................................................. 4-10 Figure 4-4 Existing CCWSD Potable Water Transmission Mains ...................................................... 4-11 Figure 4-5 Existing CCWSD Water Reclamation Facilities ................................................................... 4-13 Figure 4-6 Existing CCWSD Reclaimed Water Distribution System ................................................. 4-15 Figure 4-7 Existing IWSD Water Supply Facilities ................................................................................... 4-17 Figure 5-1 Existing and Planned CCWSD Wellfields and Raw Water Transmission Mains ...... 5-4 Figure 5-2 Existing and Planned CCWSD Potable Water Treatment Facilities .............................. 5-6 Figure 5-3 Existing and Planned CCWSD Potable Water Storage Facilities ..................................... 5-8 Figure 5-4 Existing and Planned CCWSD Potable Water Transmission Mains ........................... 5-10 Figure 5-5 Existing and Planned CCWSD Water Reclamation Facilities ........................................ 5-12 Figure 5-6 Existing and Planned IWSD Potable Water Facilities....................................................... 5-15 Figure 7-1 CCWSD Unaccounted-for Water Loss from FY2002 to FY 2012 .................................... 7-3 List of Tables Table ES-1 Summary of Existing and Planned CCWSD Water Treatment and Water Reclamation Facilities .......................................................................................................................................... ES-2 Table ES-2 Capacity Analysis for CCWSD ..................................................................................................... ES-3 Table ES-3 Summary of Existing and Planned IWSD Water Treatment and Water Reclamation Facilities .................................................................................................................................................................... ES-4 Table ES-4 Capacity Analysis for IWSD ........................................................................................................ ES-4 Table ES-5 Summary of Existing and Planned AMUC Water Treatment and Water Reclamation Facilities ..................................................................................................................................................................... ES-5 Table ES-6 Capacity Analysis for AMUC ....................................................................................................... ES-5 Table 2-1 Summary of Small Capacity Private Sector Water Systems Operating within Collier County ............................................................................................................................................................................ 2-7 Table 3-1 Population and Demand Projections for the CCWSD Service Area ................................. 3-2 Table 3-2 Population and Demand Projections for the IWSD Service Area ..................................... 3-2 Table 3-6 Population and Demand Projections for the AMUC Service Area .................................... 3-2 Table 4-1 Consumptive Use Permits Issued by SFWMD to CCWSD .................................................... 4-1 Table 4-2 Existing CCWSD Golden Gate Tamiami Wellfield ................................................................... 4-5 Table 4-3 Existing North Hawthorn RO Wellfield Summary .................................................................. 4-6 Table 4-4 Existing South Hawthorn RO Wellfield Summary .................................................................. 4-7 Table 4-5 Existing Orange Tree Wellfield Summary .................................................................................. 4-8 Table 4-6 Summary of Existing CCWSD Water Treatment Facilities .................................................. 4-8 Table 4-7 Summary of Existing CCWSD Water Storage Facilities ........................................................ 4-9 Table 4-8 Summary of Existing Water Reclamation Facilities ............................................................ 4-12 Table 4-9 Summary of Existing CCWSD Supplemental Wells ............................................................. 4-16 9.A.2.h Packet Pg. 225 Attachment: February 2019 10-Yr Water Supply Facilities Work Plan-CleanVersion-190315 (8272 : Ten Year Water Facilities Supply Plan - Table of Contents · iv PW/6295/231366/03/01 Table 4-10 Consumptive Use Permits Issued by SFWMD to the Immokalee Water and Sewer District ......................................................................................................................................................................... 4-16 Table 4-11 Summary of Existing IWSD Potable Water Wells .............................................................. 4-18 Table 4-12 Summary of Existing IWSD Water Treatment Facilities ................................................ 4-19 Table 4-13 Summary of Existing IWSD Storage Facilities..................................................................... 4-19 Table 4-14 Summary of Existing IWSD Water Reclamation Facilities ............................................ 4-20 Table 4-15 Consumptive Use Permits Issued by SFWMD to AMUC .................................................. 4-20 Table 4-16 Summary of Wells Operated by AMUC .................................................................................. 4-20 Table 4-17 Summary of Existing AMUC Water Treatment Facility .................................................. 4-21 Table 4-18 Summary of Existing AMUC Storage Facility ....................................................................... 4-21 Table 4-19 Summary of Existing AMUC Water Reclamation Facility ............................................... 4-22 Table 5-1 Planned NERWTP Wellfield Phase 1 Summary ...................................................................... 5-3 Table 5-2 Major Tasks Required to Build Planned CCWSD NERWTP Phase 1 Wellfield ........... 5-5 Table 5-3 Summary of Existing and Planned CCWSD Water Treatment Facilities ...................... 5-7 Table 5-4 Major Tasks Required to Build Planned CCWSD NERWTP Phase 1 .............................. 5-7 Table 5-5 Summary of Existing and Planned CCWSD Water Storage Facilities ............................ 5-9 Table 5-6 Major Tasks Required to Build Planned CCWSD Water Storage Facilities ................. 5-9 Table 5-7 Summary of Existing and Planned CCWSD Water Reclamation Facilities ................ 5-11 Table 5-8 Major Tasks Required to Build Planned CCWSD Water Reclamation Facilities ..... 5-11 Table 5-9 Summary of Existing and Planned Reclaimed Water Storage Facilities .................... 5-13 Table 5-10 Major Tasks Required to Build Planned CCWSD Reclaimed Water Storage Facilities ........................................................................................................................................................................................ 5-13 Table 5-11 Summary of Planned IWSD Wells ............................................................................................ 5-14 Table 5-12 Major Tasks Required to Build Planned IWSD Wells ...................................................... 5-14 Table 5-13 Summary of Existing and Planned IWSD Water Treatment Facilities ..................... 5-16 Table 5-14 Summary of Existing and Planned AMUC Potable Water Treatment Facilities .. 5-17 Table 5-15 Major Tasks Required to Build Planned AMUC Potable Water Treatment Facilities ........................................................................................................................................................................................ 5-17 Table 5-16 Summary of Existing and Planned AMUC Water Reclamation Facilities ................ 5-17 Table 6-1 Capacity Analysis for CCWSD ......................................................................................................... 6-1 Table 6-2 Capacity Analysis for IWSD ............................................................................................................. 6-2 Table 6-3 Capacity Analysis for AMUC ............................................................................................................ 6-3 Table 8-1 CCWSD Capital Improvement Projects ....................................................................................... 8-2 Table 8-2 IWSD Capital Improvement Projects ........................................................................................... 8-7 Table 8-3 AMUC Capital Improvement Projects ......................................................................................... 8-8 9.A.2.h Packet Pg. 226 Attachment: February 2019 10-Yr Water Supply Facilities Work Plan-CleanVersion-190315 (8272 : Ten Year Water Facilities Supply Plan - · Table of Contents v PW/6295/231366/03/01 List of Acronyms AADD Annual Average Daily Demand AADF Annual Average Daily Flow ADD Average Daily Demand AMUC Ave Maria Utility Company (AMUC) ASR Aquifer Storage and Recovery AUIR Annual Update and Inventory Report AWS Alternative Water Supply BCC Board of County Commissioners BEBR Bureau of Economic and Business Research BLS Below Land Surface CCCPD Collier County Comprehensive Planning Division CCWSD Collier County Water-Sewer District CIP Capital Improvement Plan CR County Road CUP Consumption Use Permits DIW Deep Injection Well EAR Evaluation and Appraisal Report ERC Equivalent Residential Connection FAC Florida Administrative Code FDEP Florida Department of Environmental Protection FGUA Florida Government Utility Authority FY Fiscal Year GMD Growth Management Department GMP Growth Management Plan gpcd Gallons per Capita per Day gpd Gallons per Day HPRO High-Pressure Reverse Osmosis HZ1/HZ1A Hawthorn Zone 1 Aquifer IE Ion Exchange IWSD Immokalee Water and Sewer District IQ Irrigation Quality LDC Land Development Code LH/LHA Lower Hawthorn Aquifer LOSS Level of Service Standard LPRO Low-Pressure Reverse Osmosis LS Lime Softening LT/LTA Lower Tamiami Aquifer LWCWSP Lower West Coast Water Supply Plan MF Membrane Filtration MG Million Gallons 9.A.2.h Packet Pg. 227 Attachment: February 2019 10-Yr Water Supply Facilities Work Plan-CleanVersion-190315 (8272 : Ten Year Water Facilities Supply Plan - Table of Contents · vi PW/6295/231366/03/01 MGD Million Gallons Per Day MS Membrane Softening MMDD Maximum Month Daily Demand N/A Not Available NCRWTP North County Regional Water Treatment Plant NCWRF North County Water Reclamation Facility NERWTP Northeast Regional Water Treatment Plant NEWRF Northeast Water Reclamation Facility OTUC Orange Tree Utility Company OTWTP Orange Tree Water Treatment Plant PBWRF Pelican Bay Water Reclamation Facility PCUR Per Capita Use Rate PUD Public Utilities Department PSC Public Service Commission RIB Rapid Infiltration Basin RO Reverse Osmosis RWA Rural Water Association SA Sandstone Aquifer SCRWTP South County Regional Water Treatment Plant SCWRF South County Water Reclamation Facility SERWTP Southeast Regional Water Treatment Plant SEWRF Southeast Water Reclamation Facility SFWMD South Florida Water Management District UFA Upper Floridan Aquifer ULDC Unified Land Development Code WRF Water Reclamation Facility WT/WTA Water-Table Aquifer WTP Water Treatment Plant 9.A.2.h Packet Pg. 228 Attachment: February 2019 10-Yr Water Supply Facilities Work Plan-CleanVersion-190315 (8272 : Ten Year Water Facilities Supply Plan - ES-1 PW/6295/231366/03/01 Executive Summary In December 2017, the Governing Board of the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) approved the 2017 Lower West Coast Water Supply Plan (LWCWSP) Update. Under Florida law (section 163.3177(6)(c), Florida Statutes) Collier County must adopt amendments to its comprehensive plan within 18 months of the SFWMD approval of the update. These amendments include the development of a 10-Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan Update and amendments to the Growth Management Plan (GMP). Under the requirement of the Florida Statutes, the 10-Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan Update (Plan Update) for Collier County must include analysis of all water utilities in the County not serving a specific local government. These utilities include: Collier County Water-Sewer District (CCWSD) Immokalee Water and Sewer District (IWSD) Ave Maria Utility Company, LLLP (AMUC) Utilities not included in this Plan are the City of Naples Utility Department, Marco Island Utilities, and Everglades City, each of which is responsible to develop a 10-Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan Update to be included in its city’s comprehensive plan. This Plan Update for Collier County has the following objectives: Identify population and water demands of the County and each utility for the planning period of 2019 to 2028. Present existing and planned potable and reclaimed water facilities that will be utilized to meet demand projections. Identify sources of raw water needed for potable water and irrigation water supply to meet demands through the year 2028. Identify the steps necessary to develop additional potable and reclaimed water supplies and specify when they must occur and how they will be funded. Demonstrate that the water supply plans for each utility within the County are feasible with respect to facility capacity to be developed and consumptive use permit allocations required. Describe the conservation practices and regulations utilized by each utility to meet water supply demand. The Collier County 10-Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan Update was prepared by CDM Smith Inc. (CDM Smith) for the Collier County Growth Management Division. 9.A.2.h Packet Pg. 229 Attachment: February 2019 10-Yr Water Supply Facilities Work Plan-CleanVersion-190315 (8272 : Ten Year Water Facilities Supply Plan - Executive Summary · ES-2 PW/6295/231366/03/01 Information for the Plan Update was solicited from each of the utilities included. All three utilities provided some level of information for inclusion in the Plan Update. Where information gaps existed, information on the existing and planned facilities was gathered from various sources including the SFWMD LWCWSP Update, SFWMD consumptive use permits, Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) public water supply and wastewater treatment facility permits, and the previous Collier County 10-Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan Update, adopted in February 2014. After completion of the draft version of the Plan Update, copies were distributed to each of the utilities for review and comment. Comments provided by each of the utilities were incorporated into their sections of the Plan Update. The findings of the Plan Update are summarized below for each of the utilities. Collier County Water-Sewer District (CCWSD) During the 10-year planning period CCWSD has plans to develop a new potable water treatment facility to meet growing water demands. Table ES-1 summarizes the treatment capacity of the existing and planned potable water and water reclamation facilities for CCWSD. Table ES-1. Summary of Existing and Planned CCWSD Water Treatment and Water Reclamation Facilities1 Facility Name Year Online Design Treatment Capacity (MGD) Project Identified In LWCWSP Water Treatment Facilities North County Regional Water Treatment Plant (NCRWTP) MF Online 12.00 N/A NCRWTP LPRO Online 8.00 N/A South County Regional Water Treatment Plant (SCRWTP) LS Online 12.00 N/A SCRWTP LPRO Online 20.00 N/A Orange Tree Water Treatment Plant (OTWTP) Online 0.75 N/A Northeast Regional Water Treatment Plant (NERWTP) Phase 1 LPRO2 2027 1.25 Yes2 NERWTP Phase 1 Ion Exchange2 2027 3.75 Yes2 Total - 57.75 - Water Reclamation Facilities North County Water Reclamation Facility (NCWRF) Online 24.10 N/A South County Water Reclamation Facility (SCWRF) Online 16.00 N/A Northeast Water Reclamation Facility (NEWRF) Phase 1 2026 4.00 Yes Total - 44.10 - 1 Information taken from the Collier County 2014 Master Plan Update and the 2018 AUIR. 2 Contingent on SFWMD Permitting of Raw Water Supply. 9.A.2.h Packet Pg. 230 Attachment: February 2019 10-Yr Water Supply Facilities Work Plan-CleanVersion-190315 (8272 : Ten Year Water Facilities Supply Plan - Executive Summary · ES-3 PW/6295/231366/03/01 In addition to the construction of the planned facilities indicated above, CCWSD intends to construct new wellfields, finished water storage, and distribution lines, which are presented in detail in the Plan Update. The information on CCWSD is reflective of the 2014 Water and Wastewater Master Plan Updates, the Collier County 2018 Annual Update and Inventory Report (AUIR) for Public Utilities, and the Collier County Water-Sewer District Fiscal Year 2017-2027 Capital Improvement Plan. The 2018 AUIR and the Fiscal Year 2017-2027 Capital Improvement Plan were approved by the Collier County Board of County Commissioners on November 13, 2018. Based on population projections available for the CCWSD service area, a capacity analysis was performed looking at projected demand versus plant capacity and permitted allocation. The results of the capacity analysis are summarized below in Table ES-2. A discussion of the capacity analysis can be found in Section 6.1. As the capacity analysis illustrates, CCWSD has sufficient existing or planned plant capacity throughout the 2028 planning horizon. Table ES-2. Water Capacity Analysis for CCWSD 2013 2018 2023 2028 Permanent Population 162,646 203,128 229,840 255,809 Demand Per Capita (gpcd) 150 150 150 150 Required Treatment Capacity @ 150 gpcd (MGD) 24.40 30.47 34.48 38.37 Available Facility Capacity (MGD) 52.00 52.75 52.75 57.75 Raw to Finished Water Adjustment1 1.22 1.22 1.22 1.22 Facility Capacity Surplus (Deficit) (MGD)2 27.60 22.28 18.27 19.38 Raw Water Requirement (MGD)3 29.76 37.17 42.06 46.81 Permitted Amount (MGD Annual Average)4,5 55.53 56.18 56.18 56.18 Permitted Surplus (Deficit) (MGD)6 25.77 19.01 14.12 9.37 1 The Raw-To-Finished Water Adjustment was taken from the 2017 LWCWSP. 2 Calculated by subtracting Required Treatment Capacity @ 150 gpcd from Available Facility Capacity. 3 Raw Water Requirement is the amount of raw water needed to make a certain amount of finished water. It is calculated by multiplying the Required Treatment Capacity @ 150 gpcd by the Raw to Finished Water Adjustment. 4 CCWSD has two potable water supply consumptive use permits. CUP 11-00249-W allocation is 55.53 MGD annual average and expires on September 22, 2036. CUP allocation 11-00419-W is 0.65 MGD and expires on March 7, 2023. 5 CCWSD is proactive in renewing its CUPs in advance of expiration and intends to maintain the necessary CUPs to meet the raw water requirement. 6 Calculated by subtracting the Raw Water Requirement from the Permitted Amount. Immokalee Water and Sewer District (IWSD) Table ES-3 summarizes the treatment capacity of the existing and planned potable water facilities for IWSD. Based on population projections available for the IWSD service area, a capacity analysis was performed looking at projected demand versus plant capacity versus permitted allocation. The results of the capacity analysis are summarized below in Table ES-4. A discussion of the capacity analysis can be found in Section 6.2. Based on the capacity analysis, the improvements planned by the IWSD for the 10-year planning period are sufficient to meet the 9.A.2.h Packet Pg. 231 Attachment: February 2019 10-Yr Water Supply Facilities Work Plan-CleanVersion-190315 (8272 : Ten Year Water Facilities Supply Plan - Executive Summary · ES-4 PW/6295/231366/03/01 demands of the service area and the allocation of the underlying Consumptive Use Permit (CUP) (11-00013-W) is sufficient to cover the withdrawals required to make the finished water demand. Table ES-3 Summary of Existing and Planned IWSD Water Treatment Facilities1 Facility Name Year Online Design Treatment Capacity (MGD) Project Identified in LWCWSP Water Treatment Facilities Jerry V. Warden WTP Online 2.25 N/A Airport WTP Online 1.35 N/A Carson Road WTP Online 2.00 N/A RO WTP 2026 2.50 Yes Total - 8.10 - Water Reclamation Facilities IWSD WRF Online 2.50 Yes IWSD WRF Expansion 2023 3.00 Yes Total - 5.50 - 1 Information on the existing and planned water treatment facilities was taken from the 2017 Immokalee Water and Sewer District Public Facilities Report and the 2017 LWCWSP. Table ES-4. Water Capacity Analysis for IWSD 2013 2018 2023 2028 Permanent Population 22,747 25,717 27,616 29,948 Demand Per Capita (gpcd) 75 75 75 75 Annual Average Daily Demand (MGD) 1.71 1.93 2.07 2.25 Available Facility Capacity (MGD)1 5.60 5.60 5.60 8.10 Raw to Finished Water Adjustment2 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.05 Facility Capacity Surplus (Deficit) (MGD)3 3.89 3.67 3.53 5.85 Raw Water Requirement (MGD)4 1.79 2.03 2.17 2.36 Permitted Amount (MGD Annual Average)5 4.15 4.15 4.15 4.15 Permitted Surplus (Deficit) (MGD)6 2.36 2.12 1.98 1.79 1 Per the Lower West Coast Water Supply update, the IWSD available facility capacity is projected to go up to 8.10 by 2030. 2 The Raw-To-Finished Water Adjustment was taken from the 2017 LWCWSP. 3 Calculated by subtracting Annual Average Daily Demand from Available Facility Capacity. 4 Raw Water Requirement is the amount of raw water needed to make a certain amount of finished water. It is calculated by multiplying the Required Treatment Capacity by the Raw to Finished Water Adjustment. 5 CUP (11-00013-W) allocation is 4.15 MGD annual average and expires on May 23, 2031. 6 Calculated by subtracting the Raw Water Requirement from the Permitted Amount. Ave Maria Utility Company, LLLP (AMUC) Table ES-5 summarizes the treatment capacity of the existing and planned potable water and water reclamation facilities for AMUC. Based on population projections available for the AMUC 9.A.2.h Packet Pg. 232 Attachment: February 2019 10-Yr Water Supply Facilities Work Plan-CleanVersion-190315 (8272 : Ten Year Water Facilities Supply Plan - Executive Summary · ES-5 PW/6295/231366/03/01 service area, a capacity analysis was performed looking at project demand versus plant capacity versus permitted allocation. The results of the capacity analysis are summarized below in Table ES-6. Table ES-5. Summary of Existing and Planned AMUC Water Treatment and Water Reclamation Facilities1 Facility Name Year Online Design Capacity (MGD) Project Identified In LWCWSP Water Treatment Facilities AMUC WTP (Phase 1) Online 1.0 N/A ROWTP 2025 2.5 Yes Total - 3.5 - Water Reclamation Facilities AMUC WRF (Phase 1) Online 0.9 Yes AMUC WRF (Phased expansion of Reclamation Plant) 2024 2.5 Yes Total - 3.4 - 1 Information on existing and planned water treatment facilities taken from the 2017 Lower West Coast Water Supply Plan Update. Table ES-6. Water Capacity Analysis for AMUC 2013 2018 2023 2028 Service Area Population6 2,924 5,803 9,065 12,713 Demand Per Capita (gpcd) 81 81 81 81 Annual Average Daily Demand (MGD) 0.24 0.47 0.73 1.03 Available Facility Capacity (MGD) 1.00 1.00 1.00 3.50 Raw to Finished Water Adjustment1 1.18 1.18 1.18 1.18 Facility Capacity Surplus (Deficit) (MGD)2 0.76 0.53 0.27 2.47 Raw Water Requirement (MGD)3 0.28 0.55 0.87 1.22 Permitted Amount (MGD Annual Average)4 1.16 1.16 1.16 1.16 Permitted Surplus (Deficit) (MGD)5 0.88 0.61 0.29 (0.06) 1 The Raw-To-Finished Water Adjustment was taken from the 2017 LWCWSP. 2 Calculated by subtracting Annual Average Daily Demand from Available Facility Capacity. 3 Raw Water Requirement is the amount of raw water needed to make a certain amount of finished water. It is calculated by multiplying the Required Treatment Capacity by the Raw to Finished Water Adjustment. 4 CUP (11-02298-W) allocation is 1.16 MGD annual average and expires on October 19, 2020. 5 Calculated by subtracting the Raw Water Requirement from the Permitted Amount. 6 Population estimates/projections provided by AMUC; 2013 population is an interpolated value Based on the capacity analysis, AMUC does not have sufficient permitted capacity to meet the demands of its service area for the 10-year planning period. The CUP allocation (11-02298-W) only covers the withdrawals required to meet the finished water demand until 2025. After 2025, the Permitted Surplus (Deficit) becomes negative. AMUC will need to increase their permitted consumptive use by 2025. 9.A.2.h Packet Pg. 233 Attachment: February 2019 10-Yr Water Supply Facilities Work Plan-CleanVersion-190315 (8272 : Ten Year Water Facilities Supply Plan - Executive Summary · ES-6 PW/6295/231366/03/01 This page intentionally left blank. 9.A.2.h Packet Pg. 234 Attachment: February 2019 10-Yr Water Supply Facilities Work Plan-CleanVersion-190315 (8272 : Ten Year Water Facilities Supply Plan - 1-1 PW/6295/231366/03/01 Section 1 Introduction 1.1 Plan Background In December 2017, the Governing Board of the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) approved the 2017 Lower West Coast Water Supply Plan Update (LWCWSP). Under Florida law (section 163.3177(6)(c), Florida Statutes) Collier County must adopt amendments to its comprehensive plan within 18 months of the SFWMD approval of the update. These amendments include the development of a 10-Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan Update and amendments to the Growth Management Plan (GMP). Under the requirement of the Florida Statutes, the 10-Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan Update (Plan Update) for Collier County must include analysis of all water utilities in the County not serving a specific local government. These utilities include: Collier County Water-Sewer District (CCWSD) Immokalee Water and Sewer District (IWSD) Ave Maria Utility Company, LLLP (AMUC) Utilities not included in this Plan are the City of Naples Utility Department, Marco Island Utilities, and Everglades City, each of which is responsible to develop a 10-Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan to be included in its city’s comprehensive plan. 1.2 Plan Objectives This Plan Update for Collier County has the following objectives: Identify population and water demands of the County and each utility for the planning period of 2019 to 2028. Present existing and planned potable and reclaimed water facilities that will be utilized to meet demand projections. Identify sources of raw water needed for potable water supply to meet demands through the year 2028. Identify the steps necessary to develop additional potable and reclaimed water supplies and specify when they must occur and how they will be funded. Demonstrate that the water supply plans for each utility within the County are feasible with respect to facility capacity to be developed and consumptive use permit allocations required. 9.A.2.h Packet Pg. 235 Attachment: February 2019 10-Yr Water Supply Facilities Work Plan-CleanVersion-190315 (8272 : Ten Year Water Facilities Supply Plan - Section 1 · Introduction 1-2 PW/6295/231366/03/01 Describe the conservation practices and regulations utilized by each utility to meet water supply demand. 1.3 Information Sources The following information sources were utilized in the development of the Plan Update: 2017 Lower West Coast Water Supply Plan Update approved by the Governing Board of the South Florida Water Management District in December 2017. The document is referred to as the 2017 LWCWSP Update in the Plan Update. Collier County 2018 Annual Update and Inventory Report for Public Utilities was adopted by the Collier County Board of County Commissioners on November 13, 2018 as Agenda Item 9.B. The document is referred to as the 2018 AUIR in the Plan Update. Collier County 2014 Water Master Plan Update adopted by the Collier County Board of County Commissioners on June 10, 2014. The document is referred to as the Collier County 2014 Water Master Plan Update in the Plan Update. Fiscal Year 2017-2027 Collier County Water-Sewer District Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) Update. The document is referred to as the CCWSD FY 2017-2027 CIP Update and was approved by the Collier County Board of County Commissioners on November 13, 2018 under Resolution 2018-208. SFWMD Consumptive Use Permit (CUP) numbers: · CCWSD - 11-00249-W, 11-00052-W, and 11-00419-W · IWSD - 11-00013-W · AMUC – 11-02298-W FDEP Drinking Water Database accessed on September 17, 2018. https://floridadep.gov/water/source-drinking-water/content/basic-facility-reports Responses to data requests sent to CCWSD, IWSD and AMUC. It is important to note that other planning documents such as Water, Wastewater and Irrigation Master Plans as well as User and Impact Fee Rate Studies are ongoing. Likewise, concurrency tools such as the 2018 Annual Update and Inventory Report were not adopted by the Board of County Commissioners until after supporting data for this Plan was provided. Accordingly, planned facilities (see Chapter 5) may move up or back within the 10-year timeframe depending on these plans and studies, as adopted. The information supporting this 10-Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan reflects the most recent data available as of July 1, 2018. 1.4 Plan Contents Section 2 introduces the individual utilities and systems that serve Collier County and identifies their service areas. 9.A.2.h Packet Pg. 236 Attachment: February 2019 10-Yr Water Supply Facilities Work Plan-CleanVersion-190315 (8272 : Ten Year Water Facilities Supply Plan - Section 1 · Introduction 1-3 PW/6295/231366/03/01 Section 3 presents population and water demand projections for the County and individual utilities for the planning period out to 2028. Section 4 summarizes the existing potable water supply system including fresh and brackish water wellfields, raw water transmission systems, water treatment plants (WTPs) and reclaimed water systems (where applicable) for each utility. Section 5 summarizes the planned potable and reclaimed water systems for each of the utilities out to 2028. Section 6 presents an analysis of the ability of each utility to meet projected demands during the planning period. Section 7 summarizes current and planned conservation practices and regulations that will be utilized to meet demands. Section 8 summarizes the capital improvement plan for each of the utilities. 9.A.2.h Packet Pg. 237 Attachment: February 2019 10-Yr Water Supply Facilities Work Plan-CleanVersion-190315 (8272 : Ten Year Water Facilities Supply Plan - Section 1 · Introduction 1-4 PW/6295/231366/03/01 This page intentionally left blank. 9.A.2.h Packet Pg. 238 Attachment: February 2019 10-Yr Water Supply Facilities Work Plan-CleanVersion-190315 (8272 : Ten Year Water Facilities Supply Plan - 2-1 PW/6295/231366/03/01 Section 2 Water Service Areas 2.1 Overview of Collier County Collier County is served by four Public Sector Water Systems, including the County, the City of Naples, Everglades City, and the City of Marco Island. The County is served by the Collier County Water-Sewer District (CCWSD) and domestic self-supply outside of the CCWSD service area. The boundaries of the CCWSD, City of Naples, Everglades City and the City of Marco Island are shown in Figure 2-1. In addition to the Public Sector Water Systems, Collier County is served by two Non- Public Sector Water Systems including the Immokalee Water and Sewer District (IWSD) and the Ave Maria Utility Company (AMUC). The boundaries of these systems are also presented in Figure 2-1. There are also two Private Sector Water Systems which include the Lee Cypress Water and Sewer Co- Op, Inc. and the Port of the Islands Community Improvement District, along with numerous small capacity water systems that are regulated by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP). 2.2 Individual Utilities and Systems 2.2.1 Collier County 2.2.1.1. Collier County Water-Sewer District (CCWSD) The CCWSD’s water service area currently encompasses approximately 199.93 square miles while its current wastewater service area encompasses 206.89 square miles. This area is bounded on the North by Lee County, on the south by the City of Marco Island service area, on the west by the City of Naples service area and the Gulf of Mexico, and on the east by the Urban Planning Boundary. The CCWSD was approved by referendum in 1969 and validated by the State Legislature in 1978 by Special Act, Chapter 78-489, Laws of Florida. In 1988, the legislature approved a supplement to the Special Act, which included revisions to the District boundaries. This action significantly increased the size of the District to approximately 210 square miles. It also specifically excluded areas of the City of Naples, Marco Shores, Marco Island, and the Florida Governmental Utility Authority (FGUA). The Orange Tree Utility Company (OTUC) was taken over by the CCWSD on March 1, 2017. The CCWSD acquired the Golden Gate City potable water and wastewater utility systems from FGUA on March 1, 2018. There is one portion of the CCWSD service area that is not served by CCWSD, that being approximately 17 square miles of unincorporated area contiguous to the City of Naples, shown with the red hatch on Figure 2-1. As this area is a substantially developed part of the County, with minimal growth expected during the 10-year planning period, no plans for supplying additional water to this area are included in this Plan. The original interlocal 9.A.2.h Packet Pg. 239 Attachment: February 2019 10-Yr Water Supply Facilities Work Plan-CleanVersion-190315 (8272 : Ten Year Water Facilities Supply Plan - Section 2 · Water Service Areas 2-2 PW/6295/231366/03/01 agreement by which the City of Naples serves this area was enacted on October 16, 1977. A copy of the most recent version of the interlocal agreement is provided in Appendix A. A composite map, provided as Figure 2-2, showing the existing CCWSD potable and reclaimed water distribution systems, illustrates the actual extent of the water-sewer district currently being served. The CCWSD maintains an interconnection with Marco Shores by which CCWSD supplies potable water on a bulk basis. The City of Marco Island has provided written notification to CCWSD that the Potable Water Bulk Services Water Agreement will be terminated on or around September 26, 2019. [Letter from City of Marco Island to the County attached as Appendix D] The CCWSD maintains emergency interconnects with the City of Naples, the City of Marco Island and Bonita Springs Utilities. As the interconnects are for emergency purposes only and are not intended for bulk transfer, CCWSD does not dedicate any portion of its water supply capacity to serving these interconnections. Should CCWSD, at a future date, enter into an agreement with any additional entity to provide finished water, it will incorporate the amount of water provided to said entity into its planning documents. 2.2.1.2 Goodland Water Sub-District Until recently, the Goodland District was a separate water district serving an island community, roughly one quarter of a square mile in area. It is located about two miles east of Marco Island. The District was established by referendum in 1975. In 2012, the County abolished the District as a separate entity, thereby making it part of the CCWSD (Ord. 2012-43) Appendix B. Service to Goodland is supplied by CCWSD in all respects; bulk water is purchased for distribution from the Marco Island Utility. Accordingly, it is often referred to as a “sub-district,” although it is entirely within the CCWSD boundary. A copy of the Interlocal Agreement for the provision of water from the City of Marco Island is found in Appendix C. CCWSD maintains pumping, distribution and storage facilities in the Goodland sub-district; CCWSD serves the community of Key Marco as well as Goodland on the same basis. 2.2.2. City of Naples The City of Naples is another public sector provider of water service in Collier County. In addition to its corporate area, the City also serves approximately 17 square miles of unincorporated area contiguous to the City limits per an interlocal agreement with Collier County. There are approximately 6,178 service connections in the unincorporated area with an average daily demand of 4.17 MGD. The City allocates 33 percent of its system capacity to serve this unincorporated area. As the unincorporated area is built-out, no additional demand on the City’s system is projected for the future. The enabling legislation, under which the City established its water service area boundary, is Chapter 180, F.S., Municipal Public Works Law. The City's existing water supply facilities are not addressed in this 10-Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan, since they will be discussed in the City's Plan. The service area for the utility is shown in Figure 2-1. 9.A.2.h Packet Pg. 240 Attachment: February 2019 10-Yr Water Supply Facilities Work Plan-CleanVersion-190315 (8272 : Ten Year Water Facilities Supply Plan - Section 2 · Water Service Areas 2-3 PW/6295/231366/03/01 2.2.3 Everglades City Everglades City is also a public sector provider of water service in the County. Like Naples, Everglades City is an incorporated community that provides water service both within and beyond its corporate limits. The outlying unincorporated communities served by the City include Plantation Island and Seaboard Village in Copeland. Unlike the unincorporated area served by the City of Naples, Plantation Island and Seaboard Village are not part of the Collier County Water Sewer District. For this reason, Collier County is not responsible to provide planning efforts to supply water to these communities. These areas are analogous to the Golden Gate Estates portion of Collier County, which is served entirely by self-supply, for which the County is not responsible for providing service. Everglades City's water supply facilities are not addressed in this 10-Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan, since they will be discussed in the City's Plan. The service area for the utility is shown in Figure 2-1. 2.2.4 City of Marco Island Water and Sewer Service Areas The City of Marco Island historically had been provided service from the private sector utility company, the Florida Water Services Corporation. A small portion of Marco Island’s water and sewer infrastructure had historically been maintained by Collier County as the Marco Island Water and Sewer District. The City of Marco Island purchased the system from the Florida Water Services Corporation. The City operates the approximately 10 square mile system as a public sector utility. On February 24, 2004, the Marco Island Water and Sewer District was dissolved/abolished by Ordinance No. 2004-09. The infrastructure in that area was turned over from the CCWSD to the City. The City now owns and operates the only centralized utility services on Marco Island. The City’s existing water supply to the Marco Shores area was replaced with a bulk water supply from the CCWSD to service the area. The daily water demand (metered water) for the Potable Water Bulk Services to Marco Island is approximately 165,000 gallons per day and is accounted for in CCWSD’s population and water supply demand projections. As the Marco Shores area is built-out, no additional demand on the CCWSD system is projected for the future. Though outside of the scope date for this update, it should be noted that on September 26, 2018 the City of Marco Island provided a letter of intent to terminate the Potable Water Bulk Services Agreement on September 26, 2019 found in Appendix D. The City of Marco Island’s existing water supply facilities are not addressed in this 10-Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan, since they will be discussed in the City's Plan. The service area for the utility is shown in Figure 2-1. 2.2.5 Immokalee Water and Sewer District (IWSD) The Immokalee Water and Sewer District (IWSD), located in the northeast part of Collier County, was created by Special Act of the State Legislature following a 1978 referendum. Creation of an independent district provided the means for this unincorporated community to develop its own water/sewer system, which was necessary due to the distance from the developed coastal area of the County. The boundaries of the District were expanded following a voter referendum in 2004 and a change to the enabling act was signed by the Governor in June 2005 (Chapter 2005-298). This district has a governing board whose members are appointed by the Governor of Florida. The boundaries of this independent district are shown on Figure 2-1. 9.A.2.h Packet Pg. 241 Attachment: February 2019 10-Yr Water Supply Facilities Work Plan-CleanVersion-190315 (8272 : Ten Year Water Facilities Supply Plan - Section 2 · Water Service Areas 2-4 PW/6295/231366/03/01 2.2.6 Ave Maria Utility Company, LLLP (AMUC) Ave Maria Utility Company (AMUC), established in 2005, provides potable and reclaimed water service to the Town of Ave Maria. The town is located approximately 20 miles east of Interstate 75. The AMUC service area boundary is shown in Figure 2-1. 2.2.7 Independent Districts 2.2.7.1 Lee Cypress Water and Sewer Co-op, Inc. The private sector utility providing water service to Copeland is the Lee Cypress Water and Sewer Co-op, Inc. The unincorporated community of Copeland is located on SR-29 about 3 miles north of US-41. According to the SFWMD consumptive use permit for the Co-op, the population of the service area is projected to be 445 in 2024. Based on FDEP records, the utility currently has a capacity of 80,000 gpd. Between 2004 and 2025 the population of the community is projected to grow to 445 residents, according to the consumptive use permit. Using a straight-line interpolation of the growth rate in the consumptive use permit, the population would be projected to grow to 479 residents by 2028. Assuming a per capita water demand of 150 gpcd, the required utility capacity needed in 2028 would be 71,850 gpd. Based on the projected population and assumed per capita demand, the utility should continue to meet the needs of its residents without expansion through the 10-year planning period. Therefore, no additional consideration is given to this utility in the Plan. 2.2.7.2 Port of the Islands Community Improvement District Another independent district in the County is the Port of the Islands Community Improvement District. This district encompasses approximately 1 square mile of land contiguous to and north and south of US-41, approximately 20 miles south of Naples. This district was created in 1986 by the Collier County Board of County Commissioners in response to a petition from the District’s developers and was created as a mechanism to provide water and other services to this isolated area. The District is governed by an elected board of directors. The population of the District was 588 according to the 2017 LWCWSP. Based on FDEP records, the utility currently has a capacity of 440,000 gpd. Based on the projections in the 2017 LWCWSP, between 2010 and 2040 the population of the District is projected to grow to 641 residents. Assuming a per capita water demand of 142 gpcd, the required utility capacity needed in 2028 would be 91,022 gpd. Based on the projected population and assumed per capita demand, the utility should continue to meet the needs of its residents without expansion through the 10-year planning period. Therefore, no additional consideration is given to this utility in the Plan. 9.A.2.h Packet Pg. 242 Attachment: February 2019 10-Yr Water Supply Facilities Work Plan-CleanVersion-190315 (8272 : Ten Year Water Facilities Supply Plan - §¨¦75 UV93 ")858 UV82 UV951 ")92 ")865 ")850 UV876 UV84 UV29 UV90 UV864 §¨¦75 £¤41 ")846 UV45 £¤41 ")951 UV45 ")846 UV29 UV93 £¤41 05 040106020304050601030205 11 06 01 04 11 08 02 07 02 12 0601 36 03 13 06 09 35 03 07 11 04 11 01 07 32 10 31 05 01 34 08 12 03 05 14 06 10 36 06 02 11 08 1517 10 21 09 12 33 31 11 24 19 11 33 18 11 05 31 36 05 08 04 3432 25 11 11 06 11 11 04 25 11 10 07 30 01 11 14 19 11 11 10 31 18 35 30 13 08 32 33 22 15 09 11 23 22 03 11 36 05 07 11 14 09 15 12 13 27 34 27 34 04 09 34 36 08 11 08 13 11 04 11 04 04 16 03 20 26 11 25 33 05 30 26 12 32 31 16 30 22 11 04 04 33 24 09 17 31 33 19 0103 31 08 15 35 07 05 35 36 09 16 04 19 27 34 28 20 25 06 10 01 30 26 31 32 27 24 34 10 18 36 09 20 21 19 30 08 16 28 06 36 04 13 05 16 11 14 10 23 28 24 33 33 06 35 09 02 31 20 29 12 18 32 28 26 08 18 03 18 03 06 16 28 34 19 17 29 10 02 29 15 2528 06 17 12 11 09 03 35 02 26 19 32 32 14 13 21 0907 07 33 36 07 26 13 17 34 05 22 17 12 33 08 12 28 36 30 32 13 20 1614 21 33 12 13 09 14 25 21 18 06 25 07 33 34 18 15 04 31 36 01 25 09 30 20 21 31 17 07 35 25 21 18 31 31 14 09 19 33 29 32 23 09 23 17 27 15 30 36 05 04 33 32 23 25 26 24 02 18 02 16 02 35 25 18 35 1514 33 22 08 01 13 20 03 14 10 06 29 07 20 25 06 18 32 25 25 02 08 12 24 19 34 32 33 26 31 34 29 01 20 31 27 17 14 16 1416 08 35 08 13 27 15 26 33 35 05 15 19 02 18 28 23 26 13 14 14 23 12 07 02 33 25 15 30 27 06 36 02 07 18 02 17 29 05 01 22 08 29 20 09 30 08 21 22 28 29 27 04 17 21 01 03 07 35 19 08 33 23 16 24 05 10 29 28 35 10 07 25 13 30 35 08 10 12 02 20 13 18 12 04 29 12 13 13 07 16 10 14 28 20 30 16 12 15 24 30 16 01 24 16 21 07 34 32 08 34 12 13 30 20 27 34 26 17 28 13 17 19 04 36 20 14 24 32 08 01 07 36 05 17 08 21 02 14 30 28 24 16 27 23 32 19 34 05 19 16 14 32 30 07 29 14 10 14 05 32 21 12 23 15 12 24 16 21 15 06 25 24 16 22 01 24 26 10 03 01 02 19 12 23 06 26 24 33 25 13 25 12 09 04 01 31 31 02 27 17 29 10 15 29 34 21 26 26 22 32 20 29 1516 29 15 13 24 21 17 06 19 0402 11 18 18 33 09 15 07 29 27 33 30 27 34 23 32 26 13 03 25 22 20 17 29 05 08 23 09 14 20 31 15 27 25 20 20 19 25 12 13 05 32 10 13 30 19 20 01 05 19 23 17 10 01 32 18 09 19 24 23 27 06 22 28 28 19 20 21 16 36 18 03 10 08 29 17 33 19 17 26 23 05 15 12 35 05 14 33 20 18 24 24 17 32 26 21 32 29 22 07 13 28 36 2423 04 04 21 26 16 21 10 04 21 16 34 35 23 08 09 05 26 13 08 28 21 24 22 33 08 32 19 03 35 31 17 28 05 2321 18 06 01 36 24 32 18 28 21 01 25 22 19 22 33 30 04 16 32 20 26 14 35 29 35 14 16 07 12 06 2024 13 22 28 30 09 06 31 28 23 21 05 26 07 23 27 05 31 20 28 34 02 23 22 21 29 24 19 09 06 18 16 04 21 22 07 12 36 10 17 21 09 29 03 12 35 22 20 28 08 10 04 09 35 04 16 21 03 16 06 35 06 03 02 31 19 27 20 36 01 30 36 18 20 28 21 27 06 08 30 21 16 05 22 24 31 28 06 04 18 29 31 10 36 29 17 01 30 08 12 06 34 31 07 07 31 16 07 23 15 02 21 02 28 09 28 09 34 07 26 32 09 15 22 18 04 03 25 08 24 09 09 09 03 17 22 24 27 28 07 16 27 36 36 16 31 17 27 17 13 03 28 10 14 33 29 31 33 09 15 30 30 08 06 32 22 29 23 25 04 01 05 1919 20 18 18 28 29 17 36 24 20 05 07 30 07 05 10 35 23 23 22 17 19 06 15 04 09 26 27 04 13 23 03 10 18 11 25 12 20 26 03 08 14 10 27 03 26 30 29 14 34 22 28 21 15 17 09 15 09 27 1618 22 1921 15 34 01 03 28 29 28 35 10 36 14 16 15 34 27 22 08 27 05 03 10 15 12 34 03 22 27 30 33 02 01 27 20 03 3433 33 17 28 07 25 04 17 35 22 01 10 29 34 34 18 15 22 09 33 27 27 26 15 35 03 34 10 15 10 34 22 08 27 10 03 15 16 09 22 15 32 27 28 03 22 10 02 25 17 19 ¯ Service Layer Credits: Esri, HERE, Garmin, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS user community - 1/15/2019 FIGURE 2-1COLLIER COUNTY 10-YEAR WATER SUPPLY FACILITIES WORK PLANWATER SEWER DISTRICT BOUNDARIES OF COLLIER COUNTY 0 1 2 3 4 Miles Legend Ave Maria Big Cypress Everglades City Immokalee WSD City of Marco Island Marco Shores City of Naples Chokoloskee MunicipalService Taxing Unit(Everglades City) Port of the IslandsCommunity ImprovementDistrict Collier CountyWater/Sewer District NOTE: The CCWSD anticipates serving theBig Cypress Stewardship District, pendingnegotiation of an interlocal agreement. NOTE: The Marco Shores area is servedby the CCSWD as part of a bulk watersupply agreement. See Section 2.2.4. 9.A.2.h Packet Pg. 243 Attachment: February 2019 10-Yr Water Supply Facilities Work Plan-CleanVersion-190315 (8272 : Ten Year Water Facilities Supply Plan - ")951 BONITA BEACH R D I M M O K A L E E R D GOODLETTE FRANK RDTAMIAMI TRAIL ")858 §¨¦75 §¨¦75 £¤41 UV45 ")92 £¤41 £¤41 ")846 UV84 ")951 UV9320"12" 24"18"16"30"36"16"16" 20" 24"12"12"12"12"12"16"24" 12" 12"18"12"16" 1 2 "1 2"12"18"24"16"12"12"16" 16"16"12"20''3 6 '' 12''16''3 0 '' 1 8 '' 42'' 1 4 '' 24'' 16'' 12''16''20''12' ' 16'' 16''12' '12''16''24 '' 1 2 '' 12''30''12''24''12''12''16''1 2 ''24''36''16''12''12''24''12''16''12''20''12'' 16''12''36''12'' 12'' 16'' 20''24''12''12''12''12''12''12''16''16' ' 16'' 12''12''Service Layer Credits: Esri, HERE, Garmin, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS user community - 9/27/2018 ¯0 1 2 3 4 Miles FIGURE 2-2COLLIER COUNTY 10-YEAR WATER SUPPLY FACILITIES WORK PLANCCWSD POTABLE/RECLAIM ED WATER SYSTEM COMPOSITE M AP Legend Po tab le Wate r Main (>= 12") IQ Water Ma in (>= 12") 9.A.2.h Packet Pg. 244 Attachment: February 2019 10-Yr Water Supply Facilities Work Plan-CleanVersion-190315 (8272 : Ten Year Water Facilities Supply Plan - Section 2 · Water Service Areas 2-7 PW/6295/231366/03/01 2.2.8 Water Systems Regulated by Florida Department of Environmental Protection Table 2-1 is a summary of private sector water systems operating within Collier County, but regulated by the FDEP due to very small capacities. These systems primarily serve individual establishments, such as schools, stores, or golfing communities. The list was developed from the FDEP drinking water database and is accurate as of April 11, 2018. Table 2-1. Summary of Small Capacity Private Sector Water Systems Operating within Collier County1 PWS ID System Name 5110058 LEE CYPRESS CO-OP 5110061 CORKSCREW SWAMP SANCTUARY 5110089 EVERGLADES CITY 5110117 FLORIDA GOVERNMENTAL UTILITY AUTHORITY 5110118 GOODLAND WATER COMPANY 5110121 HAKAN SERVICES INC. 5110142 IMMOKALEE WATER 5110182 MARCO SHORES UTILITIES 5110183 MARCO ISLAND UTILITIES (CITY OF) 5110195 NAPLES BINGO PALACE GG PKWY 5110198 NAPLES WATER DEPT 5110230 PORT OF THE ISLANDS 5110288 TRAIL LAKES CAMPGROUND 5110348 SANDY RIDGE LABOR CAMP 5114069 COLLIER COUNTY REGIONAL WTP 5114074 CENTER POINT COMMUNITY CHURCH 5114077 TEMPLE BETHEL 5114083 FCA US LLC 5114085 ORANGE TREE UTILITY CO. INC. 5114111 RANDALL CENTER 5114113 S.W. FLORIDA RESEARCH ED. CTR. 5114119 SUNNILAND COUNTRY STORE 5114126 UNITY FAITH MISSIONARY BAPTIST 5114129 I-75 RESTSTOP 5114130 GOLDEN GATE LIBRARY 5114131 BONITA BAY EASTGOLF CLUB - MAINTENANCE 5114132 BONITA BAY EAST GOLF CLUB - CLUBHOUSE 5114133 AMI KIDS BIG CYPRESS WILDERNESS INSITUTE 5114136 BONITA BAY EAST GOLF CLUB REST SHELTER 1 5114137 BONITA BAY GOLF CLUB REST SHELTER 2 5114139 HIDEOUT GOLF CLUB SYSTEM 5114140 TREES CAMP WTP 5114141 GOLDEN GATE ASSEMBLY OF GOD 5114144 CALUSA PINES GOLF CLUB - MAINTENANCE 5114147 SABAL PALM ELEMEN / CYPRESS PALM MIDDLE 5114149 LA HISPANA #2 5114151 FITNESS QUEST 5114152 ESTATES ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 9.A.2.h Packet Pg. 245 Attachment: February 2019 10-Yr Water Supply Facilities Work Plan-CleanVersion-190315 (8272 : Ten Year Water Facilities Supply Plan - Section 2 · Water Service Areas 2-8 PW/6295/231366/03/01 PWS ID System Name 5114154 AVE MARIA UTILITY COMPANY LLLP 5114158 PALMETTO J ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 5114159 WILSON BLVD. RETAIL CENTER 5114160 NAPLES EQUESTRIAN CHALLENGE INC. 5114161 LIVING WORD FAMILY CHURCH WTP 5114162 GOLDEN GATE WALGREENS (STORE #10742) 5114163 CENTER POINT COMMUNITY CHURCH YOUTH SANC 5114164 PEACE LUTHERAN CHURCH OF NAPLES 5114165 PEPPER RANCH 1. The list was developed from the FDEP drinking water database and is accurate as of April 11, 2018. 9.A.2.h Packet Pg. 246 Attachment: February 2019 10-Yr Water Supply Facilities Work Plan-CleanVersion-190315 (8272 : Ten Year Water Facilities Supply Plan - 3-1 PW/6295/231366/03/01 Section 3 Population and Demand Projections In the following sub-sections, population and demand projections for the 10-year planning period are presented in 5-year increments for each of the three major public water supply utilities serving unincorporated Collier County. Demand is provided as Annual Average Daily Demand (AADD). AADD is the projected population multiplied by the adopted Level of Service Standard (LOSS) or the Per Capita Use Rate (PCUR) in the absence of an adopted LOSS. 3.1 Collier County Water-Sewer District (CCWSD) Table 3-1 shows population and demand projections for the CCWSD service area. Population projections are taken from the 2018 AUIR and represent the population on October 1 of the given calendar year, which is the beginning of the subsequent fiscal year. Projections include the populations in the former service areas of the Orange Tree Utility Company and the Florida Governmental Utility Authority, which were acquired by the CCWSD in March 2017 and March 2018 respectively. Also, in September 2018, the Board of County Commissioners approved Resolution No. 2018- 152, expanding the CCWSD’s service area to include all unincorporated areas of the county not lying within service areas granted to third parties by the Water and Sewer Regulatory Authority or as otherwise excepted by the special act that created the CCWSD. The jurisdictional boundary of the CCWSD shown in Figure 2-1 encompasses an area of high growth potential within the Rural Lands Stewardship Area known as the Northeast Service Area (NESA). The population projections in Table 3-1 include anticipated growth associated with four large developments planned in the NESA. One of these, the Town of Rural Lands West, is in the Big Cypress Stewardship District, which has the right to form its own utility, but Collier County has engaged in negotiations with the developer to provide water, wastewater, and irrigation quality water services. Population projections for the town are included in anticipation of a future interlocal agreement. Refer to the 2018 AUIR in Appendix E for further information about the population projections for the CCWSD. Per Policy 1.5 of the Capital Improvement Element of the Collier County Growth Management Plan (as of Ordinance No. 2017-21 adopted June 13, 2017), the adopted Level of Service Standard (LOSS) for the County potable water system is 150 gallons per capita per day (gpcd). All concurrency planning is based on this LOSS despite the PCUR averaging about 140 gpcd over the past 11 years, based on local water data and population estimates (129 gpcd per Table B-2 of the LWCWSP). The PCUR for the CCWSD is notably higher than those for the two other major utilities because the CCWSD service area includes a larger seasonal population, a larger commuting workforce, a higher rate of tourism, more commercial activity, and a higher proportion of customers who irrigate with potable water. The aggregate annual demand includes all these non-residential uses and is divided by the permanent population to obtain the PCUR. Note that the City of Naples has a higher PCUR than the CCWSD (281 per Table B-2 of the LWCWSP) for the same reasons. 9.A.2.h Packet Pg. 247 Attachment: February 2019 10-Yr Water Supply Facilities Work Plan-CleanVersion-190315 (8272 : Ten Year Water Facilities Supply Plan - Section 3 · Population and Demand Projections 3-2 PW/6295/231366/03/01 As explained in the 2018 AUIR (Appendix E), the CCWSD evaluates required treatment capacity based upon the maximum three-day average daily demand, which is calculated using a peaking factor of 1.3, as established by the Board approved 2014 Water, Wastewater, Irrigation Quality Water and Bulk Potable Water Master Plan/CIP Plan. The max. TDADD is presented in Table 3-1 along with the AADD. Table 3-1. Population and Demand Projections for the CCWSD Service Area Year 2013 2018 2023 2028 Permanent Population 162,646 203,128 229,840 255,809 Annual Average Daily Demand (MGD) 24.40 30.47 34.48 38.37 Maximum Three-Day Average Daily Demand (MGD) 31.72 39.61 44.82 49.88 3.2 Immokalee Water and Sewer District (IWSD) Table 3-2 shows population and demand projections for the IWSD service area. Population projections were provided by the IWSD for years 2013, 2016, 2020, 2025, and 2030, and the below population data for years 2018, 2023, and 2028 were interpolated from that data. Table B-2 of the LWCWSP indicates a PCUR of 85 gpcd, and CUP No. 11-00013-W identifies 105 gpcd as the PCUR. However, the AADD projections below assume a PCUR of 75 gpcd based on data provided by the IWSD for FY 2017. Table 3-2. Population and Demand Projections for the IWSD Service Area Year 2013 2018 2023 2028 Permanent Population 22,747 25,717 27,616 29,948 Annual Average Daily Demand (MGD) 1.71 1.93 2.07 2.25 3.3 Ave Maria Utility Company, LLLP (AMUC) Table 3-3 shows population and demand projections for the AMUC service area. Population projections were provided by AMUC for years 2016 to 2028, and the population for 2013 was extrapolated from that data. Table B-2 of the LWCWSP indicates a PCUR of 91 gpcd, and CUP No. 11-02298-W identifies 138 gpcd as the PCUR. However, the demand projections below were provided by AMUC and represent a PCUR of approximately 81 gpcd. Table 3-3. Population and Demand Projections for the AMUC Service Area Year 2013 2018 2023 2028 Permanent Population 2,924 5,803 9,065 12,713 Annual Average Daily Demand (MGD) 0.24 0.51 0.73 1.03 9.A.2.h Packet Pg. 248 Attachment: February 2019 10-Yr Water Supply Facilities Work Plan-CleanVersion-190315 (8272 : Ten Year Water Facilities Supply Plan - 4-1 PW/6295/231366/03/01 Section 4 Existing Water Supply Facilities 4.1 Collier County Water-Sewer District (CCWSD) 4.1.1 Water Supply Permits The SFWMD allocates withdrawals from groundwater sources in Collier County. CCWSD currently maintains three consumptive use permits (CUPs); two for potable water supply and one for supplemental supply of the reclaimed water system. Table 4-1 provides details on the CUPs CCWSD currently maintains. The CCWSD also has a permit for a 2 MGD potable water aquifer storage and recovery (ASR) well near the Manatee Pumping Station site and a 1 MGD irrigation quality water ASR system on Livingston Road. Table 4-1. Consumptive Use Permits Issued by SFWMD to CCWSD Consumptive Use Permit Aquifer Utilized Number of Permitted Wells Expiration Date Annual Allocation (MG) Average Day Allocation (MGD) Maximum Monthly Allocation (MG) 11-00249-W LT1 37 9/22/2019 9,673 26.50 805.6 9/22/2036 6,853 18.93 691.3 HZ1 46 9/22/2036 5,840 16.00 486.4 LH2 42 9/22/2036 7,125 19.50 684.3 Total 125 - 20,270 55.53 1,976.3 11-00419-W3 LT 10 3/7/2023 236 0.65 23.6 Total 10 - 236 0.65 23.6 11-00052-W4 LT 14 4/14/2034 2,091 5.73 172 WT 9 4/14/2034 1,278 3.50 105 Total 23 - 3,369 9.23 277 LT = Lower Tamiami, HZ1 = Hawthorn Zone 1, LH = Lower Hawthorn, WT = Water Table 1 CUP (11-00249-W) for 55.53 MGD annual average expires September 22, 2036. Annual allocation from the Lower Tamiami Aquifer shall not exceed 9,673 million gallons from September 30, 2014 through September 22, 2019 and shall not exceed 6,852.66 million gallons from October 1, 2019 through September 22, 2036 (duration of the permit). Annual allocation shall not exceed 3,650 million gallons at the NERWTP. 2 Number of permitted Lower Hawthorn Aquifer wells includes 14 proposed wells for the proposed Northeast Regional Water Treatment Plant. 3 Permit under “Orange Tree Utility Company” but is now referred to as the Collier County Northeast Service Area. 4 Consumptive Use Permit for supplemental reclaimed water wellfield. 9.A.2.h Packet Pg. 249 Attachment: February 2019 10-Yr Water Supply Facilities Work Plan-CleanVersion-190315 (8272 : Ten Year Water Facilities Supply Plan - Section 4 · Existing Water Supply Facilities 4-2 PW/6295/231366/03/01 4.1.2 Potable Water Facilities 4.1.2.1 Wellfields Currently, the CCWSD operates four wellfields: The Golden Gate Tamiami Wellfield, the North Hawthorn Reverse Osmosis (RO) Wellfield, the South Hawthorn RO Wellfield, and the Northeast Service Area Wellfield (formerly the OTUC Wellfield). The location of each of these wellfields is illustrated in Figure 4-1. The North Hawthorn RO and South Hawthorn RO wellfields contain wells that tap the Hawthorn Zone 1 (HZ1) and the Lower Hawthorn (LH) aquifers, both of which are brackish in those areas of Collier County. The wellfields provide raw water for the low- pressure reverse osmosis (LPRO) treatment trains at the North County Regional Water Treatment Plant (NCRWTP) and the South County Regional Water Treatment Plant (SCRWTP), respectively. The Golden Gate Tamiami Wellfield contains wells that tap the LT Aquifer, which contains freshwater. This wellfield provides raw water for the membrane filtration (MF) equipment at the NCRWTP and the lime softening (LS) equipment at the SCRWTP. The Orange Tree Water Treatment Plant (OTWTP) is located east of SR-846 and north of CR-858. The OTWTP was integrated into the Collier County Water-Sewer District in March of 2017 and has a constructed treatment capacity of 0.75 MGD using membrane softening (MS) and its wells also tap the fresh LT Aquifer. Tables 4-2, 4-3, 4-4, and 4-5 and summarize the existing wells in the Golden Gate Tamiami Wellfield, the Orange Tree Wellfield, the North Hawthorn RO Wellfield, and the South Hawthorn RO Wellfield, respectively. 4.1.2.2. Water Treatment Facilities The CCWSD is served by three water treatment plants (WTPs), the NCRWTP, the SCRWTP, and the OTWTP which are shown in Figure 4-2. The NCRWTP is located on the north side of Vanderbilt Beach Road Extension east of CR-951 in the northeastern quadrant of the service area. The plant utilizes groundwater withdrawn from the LT, HZ1 and LH aquifers. Water from the LT Aquifer is treated using MF, while water from the HZ1 and LH aquifers is treated by LPRO. Currently, the plant is capable of producing 20 MGD of finished water; 12 MGD from the MF process and 8 MGD from the LPRO process. The SCRWTP is located near the intersection of CR-951 and I-75 about 5.5 miles south of the NCRWTP. The plant utilizes groundwater withdrawn from the LT, HZ1 and LH aquifers. Water from the LT Aquifer is treated using LS, while water from the HZ1 and LH aquifers is treated by LPRO. Currently, the plant is capable of producing 32 MGD of finished water; 12 MGD from the LS process and 20 MGD from the LPRO process. The OTWTP is located east of SR-846 and north of CR-858. The wells maintained by OTUC tap the LT Aquifer, which is a traditional freshwater source. The WTP has a finished water capacity of 0.75 MGD using membrane softening (MS). A summary of the existing water treatment facilities is provided in Table 4-6. In addition to identifying the design capacity of each treatment train, the amount of raw water required to achieve the design capacity is also provided. 9.A.2.h Packet Pg. 250 Attachment: February 2019 10-Yr Water Supply Facilities Work Plan-CleanVersion-190315 (8272 : Ten Year Water Facilities Supply Plan - GOLDEN GATE BLVD I M M O K A L E E R D COLLIER BLVDLOGAN BLVD")864 ")846 ")951 PINE RIDGE RD ")862 NORTH HAWTHORNRO WELLFIELD GOLDEN GATETAMIAMI WELLFIELD SOUTH HAWTHORNRO WELLFIELD ")858 §¨¦75 UV84 UV93 OTWTP SCRWTP NCRWTP Service Layer Credits: Esri, HERE, Garmin, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS user community - 9/26/2018 ¯0 1 2 3 4 Miles FIGURE 4-1COLLIER COUNTY 10-YEAR WATER SUPPLY FACILITIES WORK PLANEXISTING CCWSD WELLFIELD S AN D RAW WATER TRANSMISSION M AINS Legend !(Supply Well 3Q Water Treatm ent Plant Raw Water M ain 9.A.2.h Packet Pg. 251 Attachment: February 2019 10-Yr Water Supply Facilities Work Plan-CleanVersion-190315 (8272 : Ten Year Water Facilities Supply Plan - 3Q 3Q 3Q ")951 I M M O K A L E E R D TAMIAMI TRAIL ")858 GOODLETTE FRANK RD§¨¦75 §¨¦75 £¤41 UV45 ")92 £¤41 £¤41 ")846 UV84 ")951 UV93 OTWTP SCRWTP NCRWTP Service Layer Credits: Esri, HERE, Garmin, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS user community - 9/26/2018 ¯0 1 2 3 4 Miles FIGURE 4-2COLLIER COUNTY 10-YEAR WATER SUPPLY FACILITIES WORK PLANEXISTING CCWSD POTABLE WATER TREATM EN T FACILITIES Legend 3Q Water Treatm ent Plant 9.A.2.h Packet Pg. 252 Attachment: February 2019 10-Yr Water Supply Facilities Work Plan-CleanVersion-190315 (8272 : Ten Year Water Facilities Supply Plan - Section 4 · Existing Water Supply Facilities 4-5 PW/6295/231366/03/01 Table 4-2. Existing CCWSD Golden Gate Tamiami Wellfield1 Well No. Aquifer Utilized Total Well Depth (ft bls) Depth of Casing (ft bls) Diameter (in) Capacity (gpm) 1 LT 96 50 16 700 2 LT 100 50 16 700 3 LT 100 51 16 700 4 LT 102 52 16 700 5 LT 108 50 16 700 6 LT 101 65 12 700 7 LT 106 65 12 700 9 LT 114 65 12 700 10 LT 112 71 12 700 11 LT 137 90 12 700 12 LT 133 90 12 700 13 LT 130 84 12 700 14 LT 131 85 12 700 15 LT 130 84 12 700 16 LT 150 92 12 700 17 LT 125 78 12 1,000 18 LT 126 80 12 1,000 19 LT 128 83 12 1,000 20 LT 131 83 12 1,000 21 LT 110 62 12 1,000 22 LT 101 62 12 1,000 23 LT 111 59 12 1,000 24 LT 109 58 12 1,000 25 LT 110 65 12 1,000 26 LT 106 65 12 1,000 27 LT 105 61 12 1,000 28 LT 120 66 12 1,000 29 LT 125 72 12 1,000 30 LT 120 58 12 1,000 31 LT 120 65 12 1,000 32 LT 120 65 12 1,000 33 LT 120 70 12 1,000 34 LT 120 80 12 1,000 35 LT 145 102 12 1,000 36 LT 125 92 12 1,000 37 LT 120 80 12 1,000 382 LT N/A N/A N/A N/A 1 Information on existing wells taken from CUP #11-00249-W. 2 Collier County is currently out to bid for a new well (Well 38) for the Golden Gate Tamiami Wellfield. Well 38 is scheduled for completion in 2019. 9.A.2.h Packet Pg. 253 Attachment: February 2019 10-Yr Water Supply Facilities Work Plan-CleanVersion-190315 (8272 : Ten Year Water Facilities Supply Plan - Section 4 · Existing Water Supply Facilities 4-6 PW/6295/231366/03/01 Table 4-3. Existing North Hawthorn RO Wellfield Summary1 Well No. Aquifer Utilized Total Well Depth (ft bls) Depth of Casing (ft bls) Diameter (in) Capacity (gpm) RO-1N LH 801 705 16/122 1,000 RO-2N LH 780 734 16/122 1,000 RO-3N LH 800 720 16/122 1,000 RO-4N LH 891 744 16/122 1,000 RO-5N LH 1070 790 16/122 1,000 RO-6N LH 975 740 16/122 1,000 RO-7N LH 977 775 16/122 1,000 RO-9N LH 952 780 16/122 1,000 RO-10N LH 1011 750 16/122 1,000 RO-11N LH 951 735 16/122 1,000 RO-12N LH 891 730 16/123 1,000 RO-13N LH 925 731 16/123 1,000 RO-14N LH 950 713 16/124 1,000 RO-15N LH 957 737 16/123 1,000 RO-16N LH 989 751 16/123 1,000 RO-17N LH 996 780 16/123 1,000 RO-18N LH 1,000 700 16 1,000 RO-19N LH 1,000 700 16 1,000 RO-20N LH 1,000 700 16 1,000 RO-101N HZ1 512 397 16 350 RO-102N HZ1 500 400 16 350 RO-109N HZ1 475 404 16 350 RO-114N HZ1 514 412 16 350 RO-115N HZ1 500 400 16 350 RO-116N HZ1 500 400 16 350 RO-117N HZ1 500 400 16 350 RO-118N HZ1 500 400 16 350 RO-119N HZ1 500 400 16 350 RO-120N HZ1 500 400 16 350 1 Information on existing wells taken from CUP #11-00249-W. 2 16-inch casing to 100 feet, then 12-inch casing to production casing depth. 3 16-inch casing to 150 feet, then 12-inch casing to production casing depth. 4 16-inch casing to 160 feet, then 12-inch casing to production casing depth. 9.A.2.h Packet Pg. 254 Attachment: February 2019 10-Yr Water Supply Facilities Work Plan-CleanVersion-190315 (8272 : Ten Year Water Facilities Supply Plan - Section 4 · Existing Water Supply Facilities 4-7 PW/6295/231366/03/01 Table 4-4. Existing South Hawthorn RO Wellfield Summary1 Well No. Aquifer Utilized Total Well Depth (ft bls) Depth of Casing (ft bls) Diameter (in) Capacity (gpm) RO-1S HZ1 420 312 16/122 750 RO-2S HZ1 400 292 16/122 750 RO-3S HZ1 403 293 16/122 750 RO-4S HZ1 402 331 16/122 750 RO-5S HZ1 402 297 16/122 750 RO-6S HZ1 421 317 16/122 750 RO-7S HZ1 442 328 16/122 750 RO-8S LH 982 660 16/122 750 RO-9S LH 682 630 16/122 750 RO-10S LH 842 630 16/122 750 RO-11S LH 963 653 16/122 750 RO-12S HZ1 422 299 16/122 750 RO-13S HZ1 400 295 16/122 750 RO-14S HZ1 422 298 16/122 750 RO-15S HZ1 402 295 16/122 750 RO-16S HZ1 420 300 16 750 RO-17S HZ1 420 300 16 750 RO-18S HZ1 420 300 16 750 RO-19S HZ1 420 300 16 750 RO-20S HZ1 420 300 16 750 RO-21S HZ1 420 300 16 750 RO-22S HZ1 420 300 16 750 RO-23S HZ1 420 300 16 750 RO-24S HZ1 420 300 16 750 RO-25S HZ1 420 300 16 750 RO-26S HZ1 420 300 16 750 RO-27S HZ1 420 300 16 750 RO-28S HZ1 420 300 16 750 RO-29S HZ1 420 300 16 750 RO-30S HZ1 420 300 16 750 RO-31S HZ1 420 300 16 750 RO-32S3 HZ1 420 300 16 750 RO-33S HZ1 420 300 16 750 RO-34S HZ1 420 300 16 750 RO-35S HZ1 420 300 16 750 RO-36S HZ1 420 300 16 750 RO-37S HZ1 420 300 16 750 RO-38S HZ1 420 300 16 750 9.A.2.h Packet Pg. 255 Attachment: February 2019 10-Yr Water Supply Facilities Work Plan-CleanVersion-190315 (8272 : Ten Year Water Facilities Supply Plan - Section 4 · Existing Water Supply Facilities 4-8 PW/6295/231366/03/01 Table 4-4. Existing South Hawthorn RO Wellfield Summary1 Well No. Aquifer Utilized Total Well Depth (ft bls) Depth of Casing (ft bls) Diameter (in) Capacity (gpm) RO-39S HZ1 400 300 16 700 RO-40S LH 1,000 700 16 700 RO-41S HZ1 400 300 16 700 RO-42S LH 1,000 700 16 700 RO-43S3 LH 1,000 700 16 700 RO-44S3 LH 1,000 700 16 700 RO-45S3 LH 1,000 700 16 700 1 Information on existing wells taken from CUP #11-00249-W. 2 16-inch casing to 120 feet, then 12-inch casing to production casing depth. 3 Permitted but not in use. Table 4-5. Existing Orange Tree Wellfield Summary1 Well No. Aquifer Utilized Total Well Depth (ft bls) Depth of Casing (ft bls) Diameter (in) Capacity (gpm) Well A LT 180 70 12 300 Well B LT 180 70 12 300 Well C LT 154 72 12 300 Well E LT 172 74 12 300 1 Information on existing wells taken from CUP #11-00419-W. Table 4-6. Summary of Existing CCWSD Water Treatment Facilities1 Facility Name Design Capacity (MGD) Raw Water Requirement2 (MGD) Raw Water Source Traditional/ Alternative Water Supply NCRWTP MF 12.00 14.64 LT Traditional (Fresh) NCRWTP LPRO 8.00 9.76 LH/HZ1 Alternative (Brackish) SCRWTP LS 12.00 14.64 LT Traditional (Fresh) SCRWTP LPRO 20.00 24.40 LH/HZ1 Alternative (Brackish) OTUC WTP 0.75 0.92 LT Traditional (Fresh) Total 52.75 64.36 - - 1 Information taken from the Collier County 2014 Water Master Plan Update. 2 Raw Water Requirement is the amount of raw water needed to make a certain amount of finished water. It is calculated by multiplying the Required Treatment Capacity @ 150 gpcd by the Raw to Finished Water Adjustment. 4.1.2.3 Pumping, Storage, and Transmission The existing transmission facilities consist of transmission pipelines, water storage tanks, an ASR system, and pumping facilities. The storage and pumping facilities utilized by CCWSD are shown in Figure 4-3. The pumping facilities are comprised of high service pumps located at both water treatment plants, four water booster pumping stations and an in-line booster pump station. 9.A.2.h Packet Pg. 256 Attachment: February 2019 10-Yr Water Supply Facilities Work Plan-CleanVersion-190315 (8272 : Ten Year Water Facilities Supply Plan - Section 4 · Existing Water Supply Facilities 4-9 PW/6295/231366/03/01 Ground storage tanks at the treatment facilities and at the booster pumping stations provide system storage and reserve capacity to help meet the peak hourly demands of the system. The booster pumping stations and storage tanks are located at the Isle of Capri, Manatee Road, and Carica Road. The CCWSD also maintains and operates the Goodland Water Booster Pumping Station, which is part of the Goodland Water Sub-District. An in-line booster station is located in the northwest portion of the system near Vanderbilt Drive. In addition to the traditional storage and pumping facilities mentioned above, CCWSD maintains a 1 MGD potable water ASR system at the Manatee Road Pumping Station. The water storage tank at the OTWTP has a capacity of 0.75 MG and the transmission pipelines range in size from 3-inch to 12-inch and total approximately 9 miles in length. As previously mentioned, the CCWSD acquired the Golden Gate City potable water and wastewater utility systems from FGUA on March 1, 2018 acquiring their storage and booster pump station tanks. Potable water is stored at various strategic points in the CCWSD distribution system to help meet diurnal peak system and fire flow demands. A summary of the existing storage facilities is provided in Table 4-7. Potable water is pumped from the plants into the distribution system. The distribution system includes water mains designated as either transmission or distribution mains. The CCWSD pipelines 16 inches in diameter and larger are generally termed transmission mains. These are typically located along arterial and collector roadways and convey water to major demand areas. Pipelines that are smaller than 16 inches in diameter are generally called distribution mains, branching off to the transmission system to supply individual users. Table 4-7. Summary of Existing CCWSD Water Storage Facilities 1 Facility Name Tank Volume (MG) Usable Storage Volume (MG) NCRWTP 12.00 11.10 SCRWTP 14.00 12.40 OTWTP 0.75 0.73 Isle of Capri 0.25 0.20 Manatee Road Pumping Station 2.00 1.80 Carica Road Pumping Station 10.00 9.30 Manatee Road ASR2 N/A N/A Golden Gate WTP Tank 0.52 0.52 Green Blvd. Booster Pump Station Tank 1.00 1.00 Total 40.52 37.05 1 Information on the Collier County 2014 Water Master Plan Update. 2 Manatee Road ASR storage is not currently in use. Storage volume was not included in total. The transmission mains and major distribution mains that serve the CCWSD are illustrated in Figure 4-4. Overall, the CCWSD owns and maintains over 1,000 miles of water transmission and distribution pipelines, up to 48 inches in diameter, with over 56,000 individual service connections. 9.A.2.h Packet Pg. 257 Attachment: February 2019 10-Yr Water Supply Facilities Work Plan-CleanVersion-190315 (8272 : Ten Year Water Facilities Supply Plan - + ++ + + + + + + + ")951 BONITA BEACH R D I M M O K A L E E R D GOODLETTE FRANK RDTAMIAMI TRAIL ")858 Golden Gate WTP Tank Green Blvd Booster Pump Station Tank OTWTP §¨¦75 §¨¦75 £¤41 UV45 ")92 £¤41 £¤41 ")846 UV84 ")951 UV93 NCRWTP SCRWTP MANATEE ROAD ASR CARICA BOOSTER STATION MANATEE BOOSTER STATION GOOD LAN D BOOSTER STATION ISLE OF CAPRI BOOSTER STATION Service Layer Credits: Esri, HERE, Garmin, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS user community - 9/26/2018 ¯0 1 2 3 4 Miles FIGURE 4-3COLLIER COUNTY 10-YEAR WATER SUPPLY FACILITIES WORK PLANEXISTING CCWSD POTABLE WATER STOR AGE FAC ILITIES Legend +Existing P otable Water Storage Facility Potable Water Main (>= 12") 9.A.2.h Packet Pg. 258 Attachment: February 2019 10-Yr Water Supply Facilities Work Plan-CleanVersion-190315 (8272 : Ten Year Water Facilities Supply Plan - ")951 BONITA BEACH R D I M M O K A L E E R D GOODLETTE FRANK RDTAMIAMI TRAIL ")858 §¨¦75 §¨¦75 £¤41 UV45 ")92 £¤41 £¤41 ")846 UV84 ")951 UV93 20''3 6 '' 12'' 16'' 30''48''1 8 '' 42'' 1 4 '' 24''12''12''24 ''12''12'' 12''12''12''24''36''16''12'' 36''12''12'' 16'' 12'' 1 2''12''16''12''12''12''24''20''12''16''16''12''30''12''16''20'' 24''16''12''30''12''12''12'' 16'' 16''16''16' '12''12''16''24''12''16''1 2'' 1 2 ''12''12''12''12' ' 16''12'' 20'' 12''16''12''Service Layer Credits: Esri, HERE, Garmin, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS user community - 9/26/2018 ¯0 1 2 3 4 Miles FIGURE 4-4COLLIER COUNTY 10-YEAR WATER SUPPLY FACILITIES WORK PLANEXISTING CCWSD POTABLE WATER TRANSMISSION MAINS Legend Potable Water Main (>= 12") 9.A.2.h Packet Pg. 259 Attachment: February 2019 10-Yr Water Supply Facilities Work Plan-CleanVersion-190315 (8272 : Ten Year Water Facilities Supply Plan - Section 4 · Existing Water Supply Facilities 4-12 PW/6295/231366/03/01 4.1.3 Reclaimed Water Facilities CCWSD operates one of the largest reclaimed water systems in the South Florida Water Management District. Currently, the system includes 1,604 service connections with a maximum day demand of 23 MGD. The majority of the existing customer base is golf courses, residential communities, environmental mitigation areas, county parks, and roadway medians. The demand for IQ water is seasonal, as is the available supply. Late April through early June is the critical supply/demand period. Combined wastewater flow during this period to both WRFs can be as low as 15 MGD, and can be supplemented with up to 6 MGD of groundwater, providing a total of approximately 21 MGD, leaving a shortfall of approximately 2 MGD of IQ water. There is an additional 28.5 MGD of potential demand in the service area from entities that have installed dual distribution piping. 4.1.3.1 Water Reclamation Facilities CCWSD currently operates two water reclamation facilities (WRFs). The North County Water Reclamation Facility (NCWRF) and the South County Water Reclamation Facility (SCWRF), which are shown in Figure 4-5. Table 4-8 summaries the capacities of the existing reclaimed water facilities. Table 4-8. Summary of Existing Water Reclamation Facilities1 Facility Name Design Treatment Capacity (MGD) NCWRF 24.1 SCWRF 16.0 Total 40.1 1 Information taken from the Collier County 2014 Wastewater Master Plan Update. 9.A.2.h Packet Pg. 260 Attachment: February 2019 10-Yr Water Supply Facilities Work Plan-CleanVersion-190315 (8272 : Ten Year Water Facilities Supply Plan - 37FRW 37FRW ")951 I M M O K A L E E R D TAMIAMI TRAIL ")858 GOODLETTE FRANK RD§¨¦75 §¨¦75 £¤41 UV45 ")92 £¤41 £¤41 ")846 UV84 ")951 UV93 SCWRF NCWRF Service Layer Credits: Esri, HERE, Garmin, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS user community - 9/26/2018 ¯0 1 2 3 4 Miles FIGURE 4-5COLLIER COUNTY 10-YEAR WATER SUPPLY FACILITIES WORK PLANEXISTING CCWSD WATER RECLAMATION FACILITIES Legend 37FRW Existing Water Reclamation Facility 9.A.2.h Packet Pg. 261 Attachment: February 2019 10-Yr Water Supply Facilities Work Plan-CleanVersion-190315 (8272 : Ten Year Water Facilities Supply Plan - Section 4 · Existing Water Supply Facilities 4-14 PW/6295/231366/03/01 4.1.3.2 Reclaimed Water Pumping, Storage, and Transmission The reclaimed water distribution system, which consists of approximately 124 miles of transmission and distribution pipeline, is currently divided into two services areas; one in the north and one in the south, that are supplied by the respective water reclamation facilities (WRFs). There are a few small interconnects between the two service areas, but the system is hydraulically limited from passing large volumes of water from one service area to the other. A design has been completed for pump station improvements that will enhance the County’s ability to transfer flows between the north and south service areas. Reclaimed water produced at the two WRFs can be temporarily stored in on-site ponds. Storage of up to 1 million gallons (MG) is also available at the former Pelican Bay WRF, which was decommissioned in 2006 and converted to a reclaimed water storage and pumping facility. Additional storage is achieved in the distribution system which provides 130 MG of wet weather storage. Excess water is pumped into deep injection wells (DIWs) for disposal. Figure 4-6 presents the reclaimed water distribution system. The County owns and maintains a hydraulic model of its Irrigation Quality (IQ) water distribution system that enables it to plan for orderly expansion and development of its system. One of the significant challenges that the reclaimed water system faces is wet weather storage. During the wet season, demand for reclaimed water drops off sharply and CCWSD is forced to discharge the reclaimed water into its deep injection wells (DIW) for disposal. The County has identified this scenario as a waste of a valuable resource and is making efforts to reduce the amount of reclaimed water that is discharged into DIWs during the wet season. To this end, a reclaimed water/supplemental groundwater aquifer storage and recovery (ASR) system has been developed. The system currently includes two constructed ASR wells, the latter of which was completed in 2015 and is currently undergoing cycle testing. Following the cycle testing, the ASR well will be put into regular service, where it is expected to provide between 0.5 and 1 MGD of IQ water as needed to meet peak demands. With both wells operational, they are expected to provide between 1 and 2 MGD of storage and recovery capacity. The plan for ultimate buildout at this ASR site in the north part of the County is to have five ASR wells with a total withdrawal capacity of up to 5 MGD. The County has also explored the feasibility of an additional ASR site in the southern portion of its IQ water distribution system. 4.1.3.3 Supplemental Wellfields In addition to the two existing WRFs pumping and storage facilities, CCWSD utilizes two supplemental wellfields to meet its contractual requirements. The locations of the two wellfields, known as the Pelican Bay (Livingston Road) Wellfield and the Immokalee (Mule Pen Quarry) Wellfield, are shown in Figure 4-6. The wellfields are permitted under CUP 11-00052-W, described in Section 4.1.1, which allows CCWSD to withdraw water from the LT Aquifer in the Pelican Bay Wellfield and the WT Aquifer at the Immokalee Wellfield, to meet peak demands within the reclaimed water distribution system. A summary of the wells that make up these wellfields is provided in Table 4-9. 9.A.2.h Packet Pg. 262 Attachment: February 2019 10-Yr Water Supply Facilities Work Plan-CleanVersion-190315 (8272 : Ten Year Water Facilities Supply Plan - 37FRW 37FRW ") ") ")951 I M M O K A L E E R D TAMIAMI TRAIL ")858 GOODLETTE FRANK RD§¨¦75 §¨¦75 £¤41 UV45 ")92 £¤41 £¤41 ")846 UV84 ")951 UV93 SCWRF NCWRF 20"1 2 " 24"18"16"3 0 "36"16"16" 20" 24"12"12"12"12"12"16"24" 12" 12"18"12"16" 1 2 "1 2"12"18"36"24"12"12"16"16" 16"16"12" Service Layer Credits: Esri, HERE, Garmin, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS user community - 9/27/2018 ¯0 1 2 3 4 Miles FIGURE 4-6COLLIER COUNTY 10-YEAR WATER SUPPLY FACILITIES WORK PLANEXISTING CCWSD RECLAIMED WATER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM Legend 37FRW Existing Water Reclamation Facility ")Supplem ental Wellfield IQ Water Main (>= 12") 9.A.2.h Packet Pg. 263 Attachment: February 2019 10-Yr Water Supply Facilities Work Plan-CleanVersion-190315 (8272 : Ten Year Water Facilities Supply Plan - Section 4 · Existing Water Supply Facilities 4-16 PW/6295/231366/03/01 Table 4-9. Summary of Existing CCWSD Supplemental Wells1 Well No. Aquifer Utilized Total Well Depth (ft bls) Depth of Casing (ft bls) Diameter (in) Capacity (gpm) 1 LT 100 50 10 300 2 LT 100 50 10 300 3 LT 100 50 10 300 4 LT 100 50 10 300 5 LT 100 50 10 300 6 LT 100 50 10 300 7 LT 100 50 10 300 8 WT 35 20 10 500 9 WT 35 20 10 500 10 WT 35 20 10 500 11 WT 35 20 10 500 12 WT 35 20 10 500 13 WT 35 20 10 500 LT = Lower Tamiami Aquifer WT = Water Table Aquifer 1 Information on existing wells taken from CUP #11-00052-W 4.2 Immokalee Water and Sewer District (IWSD) 4.2.1 Water Supply Permits The IWSD maintains one CUP for potable water supply. The details of the CUP are presented in Table 4-10. Table 4-10. Consumptive Use Permits Issued by SFWMD to the Immokalee Water and Sewer District Consumptive Use Permit Aquifer Utilized Number of Permitted Wells Expiration Date Annual Allocation (MG) Maximum Monthly Allocation (MGD) 11-00013-W Lower Tamiami 21 5/23/2031 1,261 147.2 Upper Floridan2 4 - - Totals: 1,515 148.9 1 Information on existing wells taken from CUP #11-00013-W. 2 Annual allocation and Monthly allocation volume for the Upper Florida Aquifer not specified in the permit. 4.2.2 Potable Water Facilities 4.2.2.1 Wellfields Currently, the IWSD operates three wellfields; one adjacent to each of its WTPs. The locations of each of these wellfields and WTPs are illustrated in Figure 4-7. 9.A.2.h Packet Pg. 264 Attachment: February 2019 10-Yr Water Supply Facilities Work Plan-CleanVersion-190315 (8272 : Ten Year Water Facilities Supply Plan - 9/4/2018 ¯FIGURE 4-7COLLIER COUNTY 10-YEAR WATER SUPPLY FACILITIES W OR K PLANEXISTING IWSD WATER SUPPLY FACILITIES 9.A.2.h Packet Pg. 265 Attachment: February 2019 10-Yr Water Supply Facilities Work Plan-CleanVersion-190315 (8272 : Ten Section 4 · Existing Water Supply Facilities 4-18 PW/6295/231366/03/01 The wells maintained by the IWSD tap the LT Aquifer, which is a traditional freshwater source. Table 4-11 summarizes the existing wells operated by the IWSD. Table 4-11. Summary of Existing IWSD Potable Water Wells1 Well No. Aquifer Utilized Total Well Depth (ft bls) Depth of Casing (ft bls) Diameter (in) Capacity (gpm) 7 LT 225 140 6 400 8 LT 315 230 8 200 9 LT 275 250 8 225 10B LT 275 236 8 225 11 LT 278 234 8 250 12 LT 200 140 8 350 13 LT 200 140 8 350 14 LT 200 140 8 350 102 LT 200 154 6 400 103 LT 210 140 8 200 104 LT 210 128 8 350 105 LT 200 140 8 350 106 LT 200 140 8 350 107 LT 200 140 8 350 201 LT 180 100 8 350 202 LT 180 100 8 350 204 LT 195 105 8 350 FA-1 UFA n/a 788 16 695 FA-2 UFA n/a 788 16 695 FA-3 UFA n/a 788 16 695 FA-4 UFA n/a 788 16 695 LT = Lower Tamiami Aquifer UFA = Upper Floridan Aquifer 1 Information on existing wells taken from CUP #11-00013-W. 4.2.2.2 Water Treatment Facilities The IWSD is served by three interconnected water treatment facilities; the Jerry V. Warden WTP, the Airport WTP and the Carson Road WTP, which are shown in Figure 4-7. The Jerry V. Warden WTP is located on the west side of Sanitation Road, south of CR-29. Freshwater from the LT Aquifer is treated at the plant using lime softening (LS). The plant has a finished water capacity of 2.25 MGD. The Airport WTP is located east of New Market Road East, north of CR-846. LS is utilized at the plant to treat freshwater from the LT Aquifer. The finished water capacity of the plant is 1.35 MGD. 9.A.2.h Packet Pg. 266 Attachment: February 2019 10-Yr Water Supply Facilities Work Plan-CleanVersion-190315 (8272 : Ten Year Water Facilities Supply Plan - Section 4 · Existing Water Supply Facilities 4-19 PW/6295/231366/03/01 The Carson Road WTP is located on the west side of Carson Road, north of Lake Trafford Road. The plant utilizes LS to treat the freshwater from the LT Aquifer and has a finished water capacity of 2.00 MGD. A summary of the existing water treatment facilities is provided in Table 4-12. In addition to identifying the design capacity of each treatment train, the amount of raw water required to make the design capacity is also provided. Table 4-12. Summary of Existing IWSD Water Treatment Facilities1 Facility Name Design Capacity (MGD) Raw Water Requirement2 (MGD) Raw Water Source Traditional/ Alternative Water Supply Jerry V. Warden WTP 2.25 2.36 LT Traditional (Fresh) Airport WTP 1.35 1.42 LT Traditional (Fresh) Carson Road WTP 2.00 2.10 LT Traditional (Fresh) Total 5.60 5.88 - - 1 Information on existing water treatment facilities taken from the 2017 IWSD Public Facilities Report and the 2017 LWC Water Supply Plan Update. 2 Raw Water Requirement is the amount of raw water needed to make a certain amount of finished water. It is calculated by dividing the annual Average Daily Demand by the efficiency of the treatment process. 4.2.2.3 Pumping, Storage and Transmission The existing transmission facilities consist of transmission pipelines, water storage tanks, and pumping facilities. The transmission facilities utilized by IWSD are shown in Figure 4-7. Water from the Jerry V. Warden WTP is pumped to one ground storage tanks, with a total capacity of 1.80 MG, located on the plant site. Water from the Carson Road WTP is pumped to two 1.0 MG ground storage tank with a total storage capacity of 1.5 MG. Water from the Airport WTP is pumped to an on-site 0.75 MG ground storage tank. From the storage tanks water enters the distribution system which consists of mains ranging in size from 2-inch to 12-inch. The distribution system contains approximately 100 miles of mains. Table 4-13 summarizes the existing water storage facilities utilized by IWSD. Table 4-13. Summary of Existing IWSD Water Storage Facilities1 Facility Name Tank Volume (MG) Usable Storage Volume (MG) Jerry V. Warden WTP 1.80 1.80 Carson Road WTP 2.00 1.50 Airport WTP 0.75 0.75 Total 4.55 4.05 1 Information on existing water reclamation facilities taken from the 2017 IWSD Public Facilities Report. 4.2.3 Reclaimed Water Facilities Currently, IWSD disposes of all effluent wastewater via an on-site spray irrigation field, percolation ponds, or deep well injection. IWSD is served by one WRF, which is located on White 9.A.2.h Packet Pg. 267 Attachment: February 2019 10-Yr Water Supply Facilities Work Plan-CleanVersion-190315 (8272 : Ten Year Water Facilities Supply Plan - Section 4 · Existing Water Supply Facilities 4-20 PW/6295/231366/03/01 Way. The IWSD WRF is rated at 2.5 MGD out of which the WRF can produce 2.36 MGD of reclaimed water. Table 4-14 summarizes the capacity of the existing reclaimed water facility. Table 4-14. Summary of Existing IWSD Water Reclamation Facility1 Facility Name Design Treatment Capacity (MGD) IWSD WRF 2.50 Total 2.50 1 Information on existing water reclamation facilities taken from the 2017 IWSD Public Facilities Report. 4.3 Ave Maria Utility Company, LLLP (AMUC) 4.3.1 Water Supply Permits AMUC maintains one CUP for potable water supply. The details of the CUP are presented in Table 4-15. Table 4-15. Consumptive Use Permits Issued by SFWMD to AMUC Consumptive Use Permit Aquifer Utilized Number of Permitted Wells Expiration Date Annual Allocation (MG) Average Day Allocation (MGD) Maximum Monthly Allocation (MG) 11-02298-W LT 3 10/19/2020 296.21 0.81 31.57 SA 1 10/19/2020 296.21 0.81 31.57 Total 423.16 1.16 45.11 LT = Lower Tamiami SA = Sandstone Aquifer 1 CUP (11-02298-W) allocation is 1.16 MGD annual average and expires on October 19, 2020. 4.3.2 Potable Water Facilities 4.3.2.1 Wellfields Currently, AMUC operates one wellfield in the vicinity of its WTP. The wells maintained by AMUC tap the LT and SA Aquifer, which is a traditional freshwater source. Table 4-16 summarizes the existing wells operated by the utility. Table 4-16. Summary of Wells Operated by AMUC Well No. Aquifer Utilized Total Well Depth (ft bls) Depth of Casing (ft bls) Diameter (in) Capacity (gpm) PWS-1 LT 83 61 12 700 PWS-2 LT 80 59 12 700 PWS-3 LT 71 50 12 700 PWS-4 SA 325 250 12 750 1 Information on existing wells taken from CUP #11-02298-W. 9.A.2.h Packet Pg. 268 Attachment: February 2019 10-Yr Water Supply Facilities Work Plan-CleanVersion-190315 (8272 : Ten Year Water Facilities Supply Plan - Section 4 · Existing Water Supply Facilities 4-21 PW/6295/231366/03/01 4.3.2.2 Water Treatment Facilities AMUC operates one WTP, which is located west of Camp Keais Road, north of CR-858. The WTP has a finished water capacity of 1.0 MGD using MS. A summary of the existing water treatment facility is provided in Table 4-17. In addition to identifying the design capacity of each treatment train, the amount of raw water required to make the design capacity is also provided. Table 4-17. Summary of Existing AMUC Water Treatment Facility1 Facility Name Design Capacity (MGD) Raw Water Requirement2 (MGD) Raw Water Source Traditional/ Alternative Water Supply AMUC WTP (Phase 1) 1.00 1.18 LT Traditional (Fresh) Total 1.00 1.18 - - 1 Information on the water treatment facilities was taken from the 2017 Lower West Coast Water Supply Plan Update (LWCWSP). 2 Raw water requirement is the amount of raw water needed to make a certain amount of finished water. It is calculated by multiplying the Required Treatment Capacity with the Raw to Finished Water Adjustment taken from the 2017 LWCWSP. 4.3.2.3 Pumping, Storage, and Transmission The existing transmission facilities consist of a water storage tank at the WTP and transmission pipelines. The water storage tank at the WTP has a capacity of 1.5 MG. Table 4-18 summarizes the water storage available in the Ave Maria Utility Company’s System. Table 4-18. Summary of Existing AMUC Storage Facility1 Facility Name Tank Volume (MG) Usable Storage Volume (MG) AMUC WTP 1.5 1.5 Total 1.5 1.5 1 Information on existing and planned water treatment facilities was taken from the Preliminary Design Report for Ave Maria Utility Company, LLLP and Florida Department of Environmental Protection as prepared by CH2M Hill, Inc., June 2004 and supplemented with comments received from AMUC in a letter dated September 20, 2007. 4.3.3. Reclaimed Water Facilities AMUC is served by one WRF, which is located within the development. The WRF is capable of producing 0.90 MGD of reclaimed water. Reclaimed water is pumped from the WRF to three reclaimed water storage ponds, which serve as the source for the Town and University’s irrigation system and have a combined capacity of 23.0 MG. Reclaimed water is the most important element of the AMUC Conservation Plan, presented in detail in Section 7, and will be utilized to the fullest extent possible for irrigation of the Town and University. AMUC utilizes 100 percent of the reclaimed water generated. Table 4-19 summarizes the capacity of the existing reclaimed water facility. 9.A.2.h Packet Pg. 269 Attachment: February 2019 10-Yr Water Supply Facilities Work Plan-CleanVersion-190315 (8272 : Ten Year Water Facilities Supply Plan - Section 4 · Existing Water Supply Facilities 4-22 PW/6295/231366/03/01 Table 4-19. Summary of Existing AMUC Water Reclamation Facility1 Facility Name Design Treatment Capacity (MGD) AMUC WRF (Phase 1) 0.9 Total 0.9 1 Information on existing water reclamation facilities taken from the 2017 LWCWSP. 9.A.2.h Packet Pg. 270 Attachment: February 2019 10-Yr Water Supply Facilities Work Plan-CleanVersion-190315 (8272 : Ten Year Water Facilities Supply Plan - 5-1 PW/6295/231366/03/01 Section 5 Planned Water Supply Facilities 5.1 Collier County Water-Sewer District (CCWSD) CCWSD has been and continues to be a leader in the development of alternative water supplies and integrated water resource management in Florida. Starting in the mid-1980s CCWSD realized that it could not meet the future demands of its customers solely with traditional water supplies. CCWSD committed to a program of alternative water supplies that included the use of brackish groundwater and ASR for potable supply, and reclaimed water, supplemental water wellfields and ASR for storage and increased use of irrigation quality water for irrigation purposes. Given the success that CCWSD has had in meeting its demands with alternative water supplies, CCWSD embarked to identify better ways to meet future water supply demands within its service area. The result of this effort is a paradigm shift, from thinking of potable water and irrigation water demand as two separate needs to seeing the demands as inextricably intertwined. To better serve the needs of both potable water and irrigation water demand at the best value cost for the customer, CCWSD has begun development of a new business model which will shift the focus from development of additional potable water supplies to meeting a large portion of the overall water demand with irrigation quality water supplies. CCWSD currently has an annual average daily potable demand of 30.47 MGD and an annual average daily irrigation quality demand of 23.0 MGD. The ratio of irrigation quality demand to potable demand is approximately 45:55. As stated in Section 4.1.3 there is an additional 28.5 MGD of irrigation quality demand in the service area from entities that have installed dual distribution piping. The vision for CCWSD is optimizing water resource usage by substituting IQ water for non-potable uses such as irrigation, which will provide both economic and environmental benefits. Through implementation of the vision, it is anticipated that within the next 20 years the source of water can shift from 45 percent IQ water and 55 percent potable water to 60 percent IQ water and 40 percent potable water. Since the 2014 10-Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan Update, the CCWSD has shifted the ratio from 40:60 to 45:55. This shift will occur as supplemental water supplies, and ASR storage components are added to the IQ water system and utilized to supply IQ water to customers, reserving higher quality water supplies for true potable use. It is anticipated that a portion of future potable water demand will be offset by substituting IQ water for potable water currently being used for irrigation. As a result of meeting irrigation demands with IQ water, 90 percent instead of 70 percent of potable water delivered to customers will be returned to the water reclamation facilities to be reused. In addition to meeting irrigation demands, the focus on additional IQ water supplies instead of only potable water supplies provides significant benefits to the environment. By supplying IQ water to more customers, the use of potable water for irrigation and private irrigation systems will decrease. Further, the CCWSD IQ water distribution system often provides for a better temporal distribution of water to the natural system in that IQ water is provided at low rates over longer periods than typical rainfall events and is supplied during low rain periods when the 9.A.2.h Packet Pg. 271 Attachment: February 2019 10-Yr Water Supply Facilities Work Plan-CleanVersion-190315 (8272 : Ten Year Water Facilities Supply Plan - Section 5 · Planned Water Supply Facilities 5-2 PW/6295/231366/03/01 aquifer system is most able to accommodate recharge thereby reducing runoff. Additionally, CCWSD’s IQ water distribution system provides a net addition of freshwater to the surficial aquifer system through irrigation with treated water from the brackish Hawthorn aquifer system, which is otherwise trapped in very long-term and deep hydrologic cycles, bringing it into the daily water cycle. In order to supply additional irrigation water more efficiently, CCWSD will pursue additional allocations of fresh water. This strategy is supported by recently identified groundwater trends. Through its rigorous groundwater monitoring program, CCWSD identified trends in water level data from both the Lower Tamiami (LT) Aquifer and the Water Table (WT) Aquifer (connected to surface water flows, i.e., wetlands) in and around the CCWSD’s Golden Gate Tamiami Wellfield. The data indicate that despite extended drought conditions and increased pumping from the LT Aquifer, water levels in key indicator wells are remaining steady and in some cases increasing. These trends provide evidence that the total water management approach taken by the CCWSD is yielding environmental benefits and suggest that additional pumping of the LT Aquifer is possible without impacting the WT Aquifer or wetlands, which is the main concern that directed CCWSD away from traditional sources more than twenty years ago. CCWSD’s intent to pursue additional freshwater withdrawals from the LT Aquifer within the integrated total water management approach is consistent with the 2017 Lower West Coast Water Supply Plan Update (LWCWSP) published by the SFWMD, which states on page 89, “While the development of fresh groundwater in many areas of the LWC Planning Area has been maximized, it may be available in some places. As urban growth occurs, some agricultural land is expected to transition to urban community uses. Many existing agricultural areas have water use permits to use fresh groundwater for crop irrigation. While water use permits cannot be directly transferred from one land use type to another, conversion of agricultural lands to another use may result in available fresh ground water” Likewise, on page 90, “Additional limited supplies may be developed and permitted from the Surficial Aquifer System (SAS) and Intermediate Aquifer System (IAS) depending on local resource conditions, changing land use, and the viability of other supply options.” In addition to the water level trends observed in its monitoring wells, CCWSD has performed and is performing multiple studies to determine the viability of the LT Aquifer for additional allocations. To date, CCWSD has developed a calibrated groundwater model and utilized the MIKESHE model developed by the Army Corp of Engineers for the Picayune Strand Restoration Project to determine the potential impact of additional freshwater withdrawals on wetlands. The modeling efforts performed to date indicate that there would be no measurable impact on wetlands from moderate additional withdrawals. CCWSD has also constructed freshwater monitoring well clusters around the County that will provide longer term water level data for areas of the County away from its wellfields and developed four wetland monitoring sites within the Golden Gate Estates to verify that no wetland impacts are being caused by withdrawals from the Golden Gate Tamiami Wellfield. CCWSD is confident that the modeling efforts performed to date, and its on-going water level monitoring program, will provide the required assurances to allow the SFWMD to increase its permitted allocation of freshwater from the LT Aquifer. CCWSD will develop documentation demonstrating how existing and planned IQ water supplies give rise to additional potable water supplies. This analysis will consider the potential availability of impact offsets and substitution 9.A.2.h Packet Pg. 272 Attachment: February 2019 10-Yr Water Supply Facilities Work Plan-CleanVersion-190315 (8272 : Ten Year Water Facilities Supply Plan - Section 5 · Planned Water Supply Facilities 5-3 PW/6295/231366/03/01 credits in accordance with new Florida Department of Environmental Protection and SFWMD rules. CCWSD anticipates that its planned IQ water infrastructure development will garner significant impact offsets and/or substitution credits in further support of its request to the SFWMD for additional allocations of freshwater to meet projected customer demand. These water resource benefits and associated availability of withdrawals will be in addition to the benefits already provided by CCWSD’s existing IQ water system. For these reasons, CCWSD has initiated the shift in its business model based on an ability to obtain a reasonable amount of freshwater to maximize the efficiency of existing infrastructure and planned AWS projects. 5.1.1 Potable Water Facilities 5.1.1.1 Wellfields As part of the CCWSD plan to meet future water supply needs it intends to build the NERWTP Wellfield Phase 1. The NERWTP Wellfield Phase 1 will be made up of wells tapping the LT Aquifer, the HZ1 Aquifer and the LH Aquifer. The wells will serve the NERWTP Phase 1, which will treat the water using ion exchange (IE) for fresh water and LPRO for brackish water. The wellfield is scheduled to come online in 2027 to serve the first phase of the NERWTP. Table 5-1 summarizes the planned wells in the NERWTP Wellfield Phase 1. Table 5-1. Planned NERWTP Wellfield Phase 1 Summary1,2 Well No. Aquifer Utilized Total Well Depth (ft bls) Depth of Casing (ft bls) Diameter (in) Capacity (gpm) LH-1 LH 1,000 700 16/122 1,000 LH-2 LH 1,000 700 16/122 1,000 LH-3 LH 1,000 700 16/122 1,000 LH-4 LH 1,000 700 16/122 1,000 LH-5 LH 1,000 700 16/122 1,000 LH-8 LH 1,000 700 16/122 1,000 LH-9 LH 1,000 700 16/122 1,000 LH-10 LH 1,000 700 16/122 1,000 LH-11 LH 1,000 700 16/122 1,000 LH-12 LH 1,000 700 16/122 1,000 LH-13 LH 1,000 700 16/122 1,000 LH-14 LH 1,000 700 16/122 1,000 LH-15 LH 1,000 700 16/122 1,000 LH-16 LH 1,000 700 16/122 1,000 1 Information on planned wells taken from CUP #11-00249-W. 2 The number of wells, design, location, and source water for the planned wellfield will be determined through the design and permitting process. Some well sites may likely be located in the Big Cypress Stewardship District to take advantage of existing permitted water for agricultural use. 3 16-inch casing to 100 feet, then 12-inch casing to production casing depth. The location of the NERWTP Wellfield Phase 1 is illustrated in Figure 5-1. CCWSD also intends to construct additional LTA reliability wells. The potential location of these wells is illustrated in Figure 5-1 as well. As mentioned in footnote 2 above, the final location of the NERWTP wells will be determined through the design and permitting process. 9.A.2.h Packet Pg. 273 Attachment: February 2019 10-Yr Water Supply Facilities Work Plan-CleanVersion-190315 (8272 : Ten Year Water Facilities Supply Plan - 3Q 3Q 3Q 3Q !(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!( !(!( !(!(!( !( !( !( !(!( !(!(!( !( !(!( !(!( !( !(!(!( !( !( !( !( !(!(!( !( !( !(!(!(!( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !(!( !(!(!(!(!(!(!( !( !( !( !( !(!(!(!(!( !(!( !(!( !( !(!(!(!( !(!(!(!( !( !( !(!( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !(!(!(!( !(!( !(!( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !(!(!(!(!(!(!( !(!( !(!(!( !( !(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!( !(!(!(!(!( ")951 BONITA BEACH R D I M M O K A L E E R D GOODLETTE FRANK RDTAMIAMI TRAIL ")858 §¨¦75 §¨¦75 £¤41 UV45 ")92 £¤41 £¤41 ")846 UV84 ")951 UV93 OTWTP SCRWTP NCRWTP NERWTP Service Layer Credits: Esri, HERE, Garmin, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS user community - 9/27/2018 ¯0 1 2 3 4 Miles FIGURE 5-1COLLIER COUNTY 10-YEAR WATER SUPPLY FACILITIES WORK PLANEXISTING AND PLANNED CCW SD WELLFIELDSAND RAW WATER TRANSMISSION LINES Legend !(Existing Well !(Planned Well 3Q Existing Water Treatment Plant 3Q Planned Water Treatment Plant Existing Ra w Water Transmission Main Planned Ra w Water Transmission Main 9.A.2.h Packet Pg. 274 Attachment: February 2019 10-Yr Water Supply Facilities Work Plan-CleanVersion-190315 (8272 : Ten Year Water Facilities Supply Plan - Section 5 · Planned Water Supply Facilities 5-5 PW/6295/231366/03/01 Table 5-2 identifies the major tasks required to build the wellfield, along with the funding source that will be utilized and scheduled dates for studies, property acquisition, design, permitting, and construction. Table 5-2. Major Tasks Required to Build Planned CCWSD NERWTP Phase 1 Wellfield Year(s) of Execution Facility Name Funding Source Feasibility Study Property Acquisition Design1 Permitting Construction NERWTP Phase 1 Wellfield Impact Fees Complete Complete 2019 2023-2025 2025-2027 1 Design is complete. Portions to be re-designed in 2019. 5.1.1.2 Water Treatment Facilities The CCWSD is currently served by three WTPs; the NCRWTP, the SCRWTP, and the OTWTP. As mentioned in the previous subsection, the CCWSD intends to construct an additional treatment facility, the NERWTP to meet future demands. The locations of the existing and planned facilities are shown in Figure 5-2. The location of the planned NERWTP is approximately one mile north of CR-858 (Oil Well Road) and one mile east of SR-846 (Immokalee Road) in the northeastern quadrant of the service area. The plant will utilize IE to treat fresh groundwater withdrawn from the LT and HZ1 aquifers. Water from the LH Aquifer will be treated using LPRO. The first phase of the plant is currently scheduled to come online in 2027 and will have a capacity of 5 MGD. The plant will be capable of expansion to an ultimate capacity of 15 MGD. As stated in Section 4.1.2.2, the NCRWTP is located on the north side of Vanderbilt Beach Road Extension east of CR-951 in the northeastern quadrant of the service area and the SCRWTP is located near the intersection of CR-951 and I-75 about 5.5 miles south of the NCRWTP. A summary of the existing and planned water treatment facilities is provided in Table 5-3. In addition to identifying the design capacity of each treatment train, the amount raw water required to make the design capacity is also provided. 9.A.2.h Packet Pg. 275 Attachment: February 2019 10-Yr Water Supply Facilities Work Plan-CleanVersion-190315 (8272 : Ten Year Water Facilities Supply Plan - 3Q 3Q 3Q3Q ")951 BONITA BEACH R D I M M O K A L E E R D GOODLETTE FRANK RDTAMIAMI TRAIL ")858 §¨¦75 §¨¦75 £¤41 UV45 ")92 £¤41 £¤41 ")846 UV84 ")951 UV93 OTW TP SC RWTP NCRW TP NERWTP Service Layer Credits: Esri, HERE, Garmin, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS user community - 9/26/2018 ¯0 1 2 3 4 Miles FIGURE 5-2COLLIER COUNTY 10-YEAR WATER SUPPLY FACILITIES WORK PLANEXISTING AND PLANNED CCWSD POTABLE WATER TREATMENT FACILITIES Legend 3Q Existing Water Treatment Plant 3Q Planned Water Treatment Plant 9.A.2.h Packet Pg. 276 Attachment: February 2019 10-Yr Water Supply Facilities Work Plan-CleanVersion-190315 (8272 : Ten Year Water Facilities Supply Plan - Section 5 · Planned Water Supply Facilities 5-7 PW/6295/231366/03/01 Table 5-3. Summary of Existing and Planned CCWSD Water Treatment Facilities1 Facility Name Year Online Design Capacity (MGD) Raw Water Requirement2 (MGD) Raw Water Source Traditional/ Alternative Water Supply Project Identified In LWCWSP NCRWTP MF Online 12 14.64 LTA Traditional (Fresh) N/A NCRWTP LPRO Online 8 9.76 LH/HZ1 Alternative (Brackish) N/A SCRWTP LS Online 12 14.64 LTA Traditional (Fresh) N/A SCRWTP LPRO Online 20 24.40 LH/HZ1 Alternative (Brackish) N/A OTUC Online 0.75 0.92 LTA Traditional (Fresh) N/A NERWTP Phase 1 LPRO 2027 1.25 1.53 LH Alternative (Brackish) Yes NERWTP Phase 1 Ion Exchange 2027 3.75 4.58 LTA/HZ1 Traditional (Fresh) Yes Total - 57.75 70.46 - - - 1 Information taken from the Collier County 2014 Water Master Plan Update. 2 Raw Water Requirement is the amount of raw water need to make a certain amount of finished water. It is calculated by multiplying the design capacity by the Raw-to- Finished-Water Adjustment. Table 5-4 identifies the major tasks required to build each of the planned water treatment facilities, along with the funding source that will be utilized and the scheduled dates for studies, property acquisition, design, permitting, and construction. Table 5-4. Major Tasks Required to Build Planned CCWSD NERWTP Phase 1 Facility Name Funding Source Feasibility Study Property Acquisition Design Permitting Construction Year(s) of Execution NERWTP Phase 1 Impact Fees Complete Complete Complete 2023-2025 2025-2027 5.1.1.3 Pumping, Storage, and Transmission The planned transmission facilities consist of transmission pipelines, water storage tanks, aquifer storage and recovery (ASR) systems, and pumping facilities. The pumping and storage facilities utilized by CCWSD are shown in Figure 5-3. The planned pumping facilities will include high service pumps at the new NERWTP. Additional booster pumping stations and an in-line booster pump station may be required to meet demands but are not planned for construction during the planning period out to 2028. Ground storage tanks at the proposed treatment facility will provide system storage and reserve capacity to help meet peak hourly demands of the system. Additionally, potable water will be stored at various strategic points in the CCWSD distribution system to help meet diurnal peak system and fire flow demands. 9.A.2.h Packet Pg. 277 Attachment: February 2019 10-Yr Water Supply Facilities Work Plan-CleanVersion-190315 (8272 : Ten Year Water Facilities Supply Plan - + + ++ + + + + + + + ")951 BONITA BEACH R D I M M O K A L E E R D GOODLETTE FRANK RDTAMIAMI TRAIL ")858 Golden Gate WTP Tank Green Blvd Booster Pump Station Tank OTWTP NERWTP §¨¦75 §¨¦75 £¤41 UV45 ")92 £¤41 £¤41 ")846 UV84 ")951 UV93 NCRWTP SCRWTP MANATEE ROAD ASR CARICA BOOSTER STATION MANATEE BOOSTER STATION GOOD LAN D BOOSTER STATION ISLE OF CAPRI BOOSTER STATION Service Layer Credits: Esri, HERE, Garmin, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS user community - 9/26/2018 ¯0 1 2 3 4 Miles FIGURE 5-3COLLIER COUNTY 10-YEAR WATER SUPPLY FACILITIES WORK PLANEXISTING AND PLANNED CCW SD POTABL E WAT ER STORAGE FACILITIES Legend +Existing P otable Water Storage Facility +Planned Potable Water Storage Facility Potable Water Main (>= 12") 9.A.2.h Packet Pg. 278 Attachment: February 2019 10-Yr Water Supply Facilities Work Plan-CleanVersion-190315 (8272 : Ten Year Water Facilities Supply Plan - Section 5 · Planned Water Supply Facilities 5-9 PW/6295/231366/03/01 A summary of the existing and planned storage facilities is provided in Table 5-5. Table 5-5. Summary of Existing and Planned CCWSD Water Storage Facilities1 Facility Name Year Online Tank Volume (MG) Usable Storage Volume (MG) NCRWTP online 12 11.1 SCRWTP online 14 12.4 Isle of Capri online 0.25 0.2 Manatee Road Pumping Station online 2 1.8 Carica Road Pumping Station online 10 9.3 NERWTP Phase 1 2027 15 13.5 Manatee Road ASR Phase 12 online N/A N/A Total - 53.25 48.3 1 Information taken from the Collier County FY 2017 CIP Update. 2 Storage volume for Manatee Road ASR not included in total, not currently in operation. Table 5-6 identifies the major tasks required to build each of the planned pumping and storage improvements, along with the funding source that will be utilized and the scheduled dates for studies, property acquisition, design, permitting, and construction. Table 5-6. Major Tasks Required to Build Planned CCWSD Water Storage Facilities Facility Name Funding Source Feasibility Study Property Acquisition Design Permitting Construction Year(s) of Execution NERWTP Phase 1 Storage Tanks Impact Fees Complete Complete Complete 2023-2025 2025-2027 Potable water is pumped from the plants into the distribution system. The distribution system includes water mains designated as either transmission or distribution mains. The CCWSD pipelines 16 inches in diameter and larger are generally termed transmission mains. These are typically located along arterial and collector roadways and convey water to major demand areas. Pipelines smaller than 16 inches in diameter are generally called distribution mains, branching off the transmission system to supply individual users. Overall, the CCWSD owns and maintains over 1,000 miles of water transmission and distribution pipelines, up to 48 inches in diameter, with over 56,000 individual service connections. With the construction of 5 MGD of additional finished water capacity, CCWSD will be installing a substantial number of transmission mains and major distribution mains over the next 10 years. The existing and planned transmission mains and major distribution mains that will serve CCWSD in 2028 are illustrated in Figure 5-4. 9.A.2.h Packet Pg. 279 Attachment: February 2019 10-Yr Water Supply Facilities Work Plan-CleanVersion-190315 (8272 : Ten Year Water Facilities Supply Plan - ")951 BONITA BEACH R D I M M O K A L E E R D GOODLETTE FRANK RDTAMIAMI TRAIL ")858 §¨¦75 §¨¦75 £¤41 UV45 ")92 £¤41 £¤41 ")846 UV84 ")951 UV93 36''20''3 6 '' 12'' 16'' 30''48''1 8 '' 42'' 1 4 '' 24''12''12''24 ''12''12'' 12''12''12''24''36''16''12'' 36''12''12'' 16'' 12'' 1 2''12''16''12''12''12''24''20''12''16''16''12''30''12''16''20'' 24''16''12''30''12''12''12'' 16'' 16''16''16' '12''12''16''24''12''16''1 2'' 1 2 ''12''12''12''12' ' 16''12'' 20'' 12''16''12''Service Layer Credits: Esri, HERE, Garmin, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS user community - 9/27/2018 ¯0 1 2 3 4 Miles FIGURE 5-4COLLIER COUNTY 10-YEAR WATER SUPPLY FACILITIES WORK PLANEXISTING AND PLANNED CCW SD POTABL E WAT ER TRAN SM ISSION MAINS Legend Transmission Main Potable Water Main (>= 12") 9.A.2.h Packet Pg. 280 Attachment: February 2019 10-Yr Water Supply Facilities Work Plan-CleanVersion-190315 (8272 : Ten Year Water Facilities Supply Plan - Section 5 · Planned Water Supply Facilities 5-11 PW/6295/231366/03/01 5.1.2 Reclaimed Water Facilities CCWSD currently operates one of the largest reclaimed water systems in South Florida, which serves customers with contractual commitments of 23.0 MGD. The majority of the existing customer base includes golf courses, residential communities, environmental mitigation areas, county parks, and roadway medians. There is an additional demand of 28.5 MGD in the service area from entities that have installed dual distribution piping. The following subsections describe the measures CCWSD is taking to meet future wastewater demands and supply reclaimed water to its customers. 5.1.2.1 Water Reclamation Facilities The locations of the existing NCWRF and SCWRF are shown in Figure 5-5. There are plans to proceed with NEWRF Phase 1. Table 5-7 summarizes the capacities of the existing and planned WRFs. Table 5-7. Summary of Existing and Planned CCWSD Water Reclamation Facilities1 Facility Name Year Online Design Capacity (MGD)2 Project Identified In LWCWSP NCWRF Online 24.1 N/A SCWRF Online 16.0 N/A NEWRF Phase 1 2026 4.0 Yes Total - 44.1 - 1 Information taken from the Collier County 2014 Master Plan Update. 2 The design capacities do not reflect the amount of reclaimed water available from the facilities. The amount of reclaimed water available is based on influent flow and treatment efficiency. For planning purposes, CCWSD considers reclaimed water availability based on 95 percent of the minimum monthly effluent flow. As stated in the footnotes to Table 5-7, the amount of reclaimed water distributed is not directly related to the design capacity of each water reclamation facility. In addition to the limitations identified, the ability of CCWSD to utilize available reclaimed water for distribution is impacted by seasonal fluctuations in demand, with very high demands during the dry season and low demands during the wet season. Table 5-8 identifies the major tasks required to build the NEWRF, along with the funding source that will be utilized and the scheduled dates for studies, property acquisition, design, permitting, and construction. Table 5-8. Major Tasks Required to Build Planned CCWSD Water Reclamation Facilities Facility Name Funding Source Feasibility Study Property Acquisition Design Permitting Construction Year(s) of Execution NEWRF Wastewater Impact Fees Complete Complete 2021-2022 2021-2022 2023-2026 9.A.2.h Packet Pg. 281 Attachment: February 2019 10-Yr Water Supply Facilities Work Plan-CleanVersion-190315 (8272 : Ten Year Water Facilities Supply Plan - 37FRW 37FRW 37FRW ")951 I M M O K A L E E R D TAMIAMI TRAIL ")858 GOODLETTE FRANK RD§¨¦75 §¨¦75 £¤41 UV45 ")92 £¤41 £¤41 ")846 UV84 ")951 UV93 NEWRF SCWRF NCWRF Service Layer Credits: Esri, HERE, Garmin, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS user community - 9/27/2018 ¯0 1 2 3 4 Miles FIGURE 5-5COLLIER COUNTY 10-YEAR WATER SUPPLY FACILITIES WORK PLANEXISTING AND PLANNED CCW SD WATER RECLA MATION FA CILITIES Legend 37FRW Planned Water Reclamation Facility 37FRW Existing Water Reclamation Facility 9.A.2.h Packet Pg. 282 Attachment: February 2019 10-Yr Water Supply Facilities Work Plan-CleanVersion-190315 (8272 : Ten Year Water Facilities Supply Plan - Section 5 · Planned Water Supply Facilities 5-13 PW/6295/231366/03/01 5.1.2.2 Reclaimed Water Pumping, Storage, and Transmission The current reclaimed water distribution system consists of over 130 miles of transmission and distribution pipeline and is currently divided into two services areas, one in the north and one in the south, each supplied by the respective WRF. There are a few small interconnects between the two service areas, but the system is hydraulically limited from passing large volumes of water from one service area to the other. As additional reclaimed water becomes available through population growth and increased wastewater flows, and once existing demand is met, CCWSD will need to expand the reclaimed water distribution system to serve more customers. At this time, specific distribution and transmission main projects have not been determined. Temporary reclaimed water storage is available on-site at the WRFs. Additional storage will be provided through the expansion of the existing reclaimed water ASR from a capacity of 2 MGD to 5 MGD. A summary of the reclaimed water storage that will be available with the expansion of the reclaimed water ASR is provided in Table 5-9. Table 5-9. Summary of Existing and Planned Reclaimed Water Storage Facilities1 Facility Name Year Online Usable Storage Volume (MG) NCWRF online 18.95 SCWRF online 3.00 NEWRF 2026 2.00 Total - 23.95 Reclaimed Water ASR 2015 ~2.00 MGD Reclaimed Water ASR Expansion TBD ~3.00 MGD Total - ~5.00 MGD 1 Information taken from the Collier County 2008 Wastewater Master Plan Update. Table 5-10 identifies the major tasks required to build each of the planned reclaimed water storage facilities, along with the funding source that will be utilized and the scheduled dates for studies, property acquisition, design, permitting, and construction. Table 5-10. Major Tasks Required to Build Planned CCWSD Reclaimed Water Storage Facilities Facility Name Funding Source Feasibility Study Property Acquisition Design Permitting Construction Year(s) of Execution NEWRF Storage Tanks Wastewater Impact Fees Complete Complete 2021-2022 2021-2022 2023-2026 Reclaimed Water ASR Wells 3-5 User Fees Complete Complete TBD TBD TBD Upsize Transmission Piping from ASR Site User Fees TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD 5.2 Immokalee Water and Sewer District (IWSD) 5.2.1 Potable Water Facilities 5.2.1.1. Wellfields Currently, the IWSD operates three wellfields; one adjacent to each of its WTPs. The locations of each of these wellfields and WTPs are illustrated in Figure 5-6. The 16 wells maintained by the 9.A.2.h Packet Pg. 283 Attachment: February 2019 10-Yr Water Supply Facilities Work Plan-CleanVersion-190315 (8272 : Ten Year Water Facilities Supply Plan - Section 5 · Planned Water Supply Facilities 5-14 PW/6295/231366/03/01 IWSD tap the LT Aquifer, which is a traditional freshwater source. IWSD plans to bring four additional wells online by 2020 to address future demands. The wells will tap the Floridan Aquifer, which is a brackish water source. Table 5-11 summarizes the wells IWSD plans to construct. Table 5-11. Summary of Planned IWSD Wells1 Well No. Aquifer Utilized Total Well Depth2 (ft bls) Depth of Casing (ft bls) Diameter (in) Capacity (gpm) FA-1 Floridan NA 788 16 695 FA-2 Floridan NA 788 16 695 FA-3 Floridan NA 788 16 695 FA-4 Floridan NA 788 16 695 1 Information on planned wells taken from CUP #11-00013-W. 2 NA – information not available on CUP #11-00013-W. Table 5-12 identifies the major tasks required to build the four wells, along with the funding source that will be utilized and the scheduled dates for studies, property acquisition, design, permitting, and construction. Table 5-12. Major Tasks Required to Build Planned IWSD Wells Year(s) of Execution Facility Name Funding Source Feasibility Study Property Acquisition Design Permitting Construction FA-1 to FA-4 USDA 2015 2018 2019 2019 2020 5.2.1.2 Water Treatment Facilities The IWSD is currently served by three interconnected water treatment facilities; the Jerry V. Warden WTP, the Airport WTP and the Carson Road WTP. During the 10- year planning period IWSD plans to construct a RO WTP. The proposed plant will have a design capacity of 2.5 MGD. Table 5-13 summarizes the treatment capacity of the existing and planned potable water facilities for IWSD. 9.A.2.h Packet Pg. 284 Attachment: February 2019 10-Yr Water Supply Facilities Work Plan-CleanVersion-190315 (8272 : Ten Year Water Facilities Supply Plan - 9/27/2018 ¯FIGURE 5-6COLLIER COUNTY 10-YEAR WATER SUPPLY FACILITIES W OR K PLANIWSD WATER SUPPLY FACILITIES 9.A.2.h Packet Pg. 285 Attachment: February 2019 10-Yr Water Supply Facilities Work Plan-CleanVersion-190315 (8272 : Ten Section 5 · Planned Water Supply Facilities 5-16 PW/6295/231366/03/01 Table 5-13 Summary of Existing and Planned IWSD Water Treatment Facilities1 Facility Name Year Online Design Capacity (MGD) Raw Water Requirement2 (MGD) Raw Water Source Traditional/ Alternative Water Supply Project Identified In LWCWSP Jerry V. Warden WTP Online 2.25 2.36 LT Traditional (Fresh) N/A Airport WTP Online 1.35 1.42 LT Traditional (Fresh) N/A Carson Road WTP Online 2.00 2.10 LT Traditional (Fresh) N/A RO WTP 2026 2.50 2.63 FA Alternative (Brackish) Yes Total - 8.45 8.51 - - - 1 Information on the existing and planned IWSD water treatment facilities was taken from the CUP #11- 00013-W and the 2017 IWSD Public Facilities Report. 2 Raw Water Requirement is the amount of raw water needed to make a certain amount of finished water. It is calculated by multiplying the capacity by the Raw-To-Finished -Water Adjustment. 5.2.2 Reclaimed Water Facilities Currently, IWSD disposes of all effluent wastewater via an on-site spray irrigation field or deep well injection. The IWSD currently has a WRF with a capacity of 2.50 MGD. Two planned future expansions of the facility will increase the capacity to 5.5 MGD. 5.3 Ave Maria Utility Company, LLP (AMUC) 5.3.1 Potable Water Facilities 5.3.1.1 Wellfields AMUC currently operates three wells located in close proximity to the WTP. Per the AMUC CUP and information in the 2017 Lower West Coast Water Supply Plan Update, AMUC plans on a new Sandstone Aquifer well by 2025. 5.3.1.2 Water Treatment Facilities Ave Maria Utilities operates one WTP, which is located west of Camp Keais Road, north of CR-858. The current capacity of the AMUC WTP is 1.0 MGD using MS. Per the AMUC CUP and information in the 2017 Lower West Coast Water Supply Plan Update, AMUC plans on a 2.5 MGD Sandstone Aquifer RO WTP expansion scheduled for completion by 2025. A summary of the existing and planned water treatment facilities is provided in Table 5-14. In addition to identifying the design capacity of each treatment train, the amount raw water required to achieve the design capacity is also provided. 9.A.2.h Packet Pg. 286 Attachment: February 2019 10-Yr Water Supply Facilities Work Plan-CleanVersion-190315 (8272 : Ten Year Water Facilities Supply Plan - Section 5 · Planned Water Supply Facilities 5-17 PW/6295/231366/03/01 Table 5-14. Summary of Existing and Planned AMUC Potable Water Treatment Facilities1 Facility Name Year Online Design Capacity (MGD) Raw Water Requirement2 (MGD) Raw Water Source Traditional/ Alternative Water Supply Project Identified In LWCWSP AMUC WTP Online 1.0 1.18 LT Traditional (Fresh) Yes AMUC RO WTP Expansion 2025 2.5 2.95 SA Alternative (Fresh) Yes Total - 3.5 4.13 - - - 1 Information on existing and planned water treatment facilities taken from the 2017 Lower West Coast Water Supply Plan Update. 2 Raw water requirement is the amount of raw water needed to make a certain amount of finished water. It is calculated by multiplying the Required Treatment Capacity by the Raw to Finished Water Adjustment. Table 5-15 identifies the major tasks required to build each of the planned expansion phases, along with the funding source that will be utilized and the scheduled dates for studies, property acquisition, design, permitting, and construction. Table 5-15. Major Tasks Required to Build Planned AMUC Potable Water Treatment Facilities Year(s) of Execution Facility Name Funding Source Feasibility Study Property Acquisition Design Permitting Construction AMUC RO WTP Expansion TBD Complete Complete TBD TBD TBD 5.3.2 Reclaimed Water Facilities AMUC is served by one WRF, which is located within the development. The WRF is capable of producing 0.9 MGD of reclaimed water. AMUC plans to expand the WRF to a total capacity of 3.4 MGD. Table 5-16 summarizes the capacities of the existing and planned phases of the WRF. Table 5-16. Summary of Existing and Planned AMUC Water Reclamation Facilities1 Facility Name Year Online Design Capacity (MGD) Project Identified In LWCWSP AMUC WRF (Phase 1) Online 0.9 N/A AMUC WRF (Phased expansion) 2024 2.5 Yes Total - 3.4 - 1 Information on existing water treatment facilities taken from the 2017 Lower West Coast Water Supply Plan Update. Reclaimed water is pumped from the WRF to three reclaimed water storage ponds, which serve as the source for the Town and University’s irrigation system. AMUC plans to add an additional reclaimed water storage ponds within the development in the future. Expansion of the facility’s capacity is planned in several phases. The utility plans to add reclaimed water storage ponds and a deep injection well system for disposal during wet weather. The new ponds will increase the 9.A.2.h Packet Pg. 287 Attachment: February 2019 10-Yr Water Supply Facilities Work Plan-CleanVersion-190315 (8272 : Ten Year Water Facilities Supply Plan - Section 5 · Planned Water Supply Facilities 5-18 PW/6295/231366/03/01 storage capacity from 23.0 MG to 44.0 MG. Additionally, AMUC is currently permitting a 289 MG wetlands storage system which will be used for wet weather storage. Reclaimed water is the most important element of the AMUC Conservation Plan, presented in detail in Section 7, and will be utilized to the fullest extent possible for irrigation of the Town and University. AMUC believes it will be able to utilize 100 percent of the reclaim water generated. 9.A.2.h Packet Pg. 288 Attachment: February 2019 10-Yr Water Supply Facilities Work Plan-CleanVersion-190315 (8272 : Ten Year Water Facilities Supply Plan - 6-1 PW/6295/231366/03/01 Section 6 Facilities Capacity Analysis Sections 3, 4, and 5 of this plan presented the population and associated water demand of the areas served and to be served by each utility, the existing water supply facilities in place to meet current demands, and the facilities planned to meet future water supply needs, respectively. The purpose of this section of the plan is to present a comparison of the population, water demand, facilities capacity, and permit limitations that identifies surpluses and deficits in facility and permit capacities. 6.1 Collier County Water-Sewer District (CCWSD) As described in Section 5.1, CCWSD plans to bring online a new potable water treatment facility and associated wellfield during the 10-year planning period ending in 2028. Table 6-1 illustrates how these additions to the existing system will allow CCWSD to stay ahead of the demand curve during the 10-year planning period. Table 6-1. Water Capacity Analysis for CCWSD 2013 2018 2023 2028 Service Area Population 162,646 203,128 229,840 255,809 Level of Service Standard (gpcd) 150 150 150 150 Required Treatment Capacity @ LOSS (MGD) 24.40 30.47 34.48 38.37 Total Permitted Treatment Capacity (MGD) 52.00 52.75 52.75 57.75 Raw to Finished Water Adjustment1 1.22 1.22 1.22 1.22 Facility Capacity Surplus (Deficit) (MGD)2 27.60 22.28 18.27 19.38 Raw Water Requirement (MGD)3 29.76 37.17 42.06 46.81 Permitted Amount (MGD Annual Average)4, 5 55.53 56.18 56.18 56.18 Permitted Surplus (Deficit) (MGD)6 25.77 19.01 14.12 9.37 1 The Raw-To-Finished Water Adjustment was taken from the 2017 LWCWSP. 2 Calculated by subtracting Required Treatment Capacity @ 150 gpcd from Available Facility Capacity. 3 Raw Water Requirement is the amount of raw water needed to make a certain amount of finished water. It is calculated by multiplying the Required Treatment Capacity @ 150 gpcd by the Raw to Finished Water Adjustment. 4 CCWSD has two potable water supply consumptive use permits. CUP 11-00249-W allocation is for 55.53 MGD annual average and expires on September 22, 2036. CUP allocation 11-00419-W is for 0.65 MGD and expires on March 7, 2023. 5 CCWSD is proactive in renewing its CUPs in advance of expiration and intends to maintain the necessary CUPs to meet the raw water requirement. 6 Calculated by subtracting the Raw Water Requirement from the Permitted Amount. 9.A.2.h Packet Pg. 289 Attachment: February 2019 10-Yr Water Supply Facilities Work Plan-CleanVersion-190315 (8272 : Ten Year Water Facilities Supply Plan - Section 6 · Facilities Capacity Analysis 6-2 PW/6295/231366/03/01 As will be noted from Table 6-1, the allocation under CCWSD’s current CUP (11-00249-W) is sufficient to meet the raw water requirement needed to make the Required Treatment Capacity at 150 gpcd through 2028. 6.1.1 Concurrency Analysis Each year, the Public Utilities Division completes a concurrency review of its “Category A” facilities, including potable water. The analysis becomes a part of the Countywide Annual Update and Inventory Report (AUIR). Although concurrency is mandated through state and local law for a two year period, the AUIR analysis goes well beyond 10 years. Like the AUIR, the CCWSD uses an additional tool to assure concurrency. Known as “Checkbook Concurrency,” the tool is used quarterly to update capacity projections. While the AUIR relies on BEBR population estimates for future growth, the Checkbook tracks approved development (Planned Unit Developments and Developments of Regional Impact) as an additional measure of future capacity. It also measures 3-day peak demand rather than seasonal demand. The CCWSD Water and Wastewater Master Plans are the primary planning tools for capital planning. Nevertheless, the AUIR and Checkbook concurrency measurements serve as additional safeguards to assure future capacity. 6.2 Immokalee Water and Sewer District (IWSD) Table 6-2 shows the capacity analysis for IWSD for the 10-year planning period. The improvements planned by the IWSD for the 10-year planning period are sufficient to meet the demands of the service area and the allocation of the underlying CUP (11-00013-W) is sufficient to cover the withdrawals required to make the finished water demand. Table 6-2. Water Capacity Analysis for IWSD 2013 2018 2023 2028 Service Area Population 22,747 25,717 27,616 29,948 Demand Per Capita (gpcd) 75 75 75 75 Annual Average Daily Demand (MGD) 1.71 1.93 2.07 2.25 Available Facility Capacity (MGD)1 5.60 5.60 5.60 8.10 Raw to Finished Water Adjustment2 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.05 Facility Capacity Surplus (Deficit) (MGD)3 3.89 3.67 3.53 5.85 Raw Water Requirement (MGD)4 1.79 2.03 2.17 2.36 Permitted Amount (MGD Annual Average)5 4.15 4.15 4.15 4.15 Permitted Surplus (Deficit) (MGD)6 2.36 2.12 1.98 1.79 1 Per the Lower West Coast Water Supply update, the IWSD available facility capacity is projected to go up to 8.10 by 2030. 2 The Raw-To-Finished Water Adjustment was taken from the 2017 LWCWSP. 3 Calculated by subtracting Annual Average Daily Demand from Available Facility Capacity. 4 Raw Water Requirement is the amount of raw water needed to make a certain amount of finished water. It is calculated by multiplying the Annual Average Daily Demand by the Raw-To-Finished -Water Adjustment. 5 CUP (11-00013-W) allocation is 4.15 MGD annual average and expires on May 23, 2031. 6 Calculated by subtracting the Raw Water Requirement from the Permitted Amount. 9.A.2.h Packet Pg. 290 Attachment: February 2019 10-Yr Water Supply Facilities Work Plan-CleanVersion-190315 (8272 : Ten Year Water Facilities Supply Plan - Section 6 · Facilities Capacity Analysis 6-3 PW/6295/231366/03/01 6.3 Ave Maria Utility Company, LLLP (AMUC) Table 6-3 shows the capacity analysis for AMUC for the 10-year planning period. Based on the capacity analysis, AMUC does not have sufficient permitted capacity to meet the demands of its service area for the 10-year planning period. The allocation of the underlying CUP (11-02298-W) only convers the withdrawals required to make the finished water demand until 2025. After 2025, the Permitted Surplus (Deficit) becomes negative. AMUC will need to increase their permitted consumptive use by 2025. Table 6-3. Water Capacity Analysis for AMUC 2013 2018 2023 2028 Service Area Population 2,924 5,803 9,065 12,713 Demand Per Capita (gpcd) 81 81 81 81 Annual Average Daily Demand (MGD) 0.24 0.47 0.73 1.03 Available Facility Capacity (MGD) 1.00 1.00 1.00 3.50 Raw to Finished Water Adjustment1 1.18 1.18 1.18 1.18 Facility Capacity Surplus (Deficit) (MGD)2 0.76 0.53 0.27 2.47 Raw Water Requirement (MGD)3 0.28 0.55 0.87 1.22 Permitted Amount (MGD Annual Average)4 1.16 1.16 1.16 1.16 Permitted Surplus (Deficit) (MGD)5 0.88 0.61 0.29 (0.06) 1 The Raw-To-Finished Water Adjustment was taken from the 2017 LWCWSP. 2 Calculated by subtracting Annual Average Daily Demand from Available Facility Capacity. 3 Raw Water Requirement is the amount of raw water needed to make a certain amount of finished water. It is calculated by multiplying the annual Average Daily Demand by the Raw-To-Finished -Water Adjustment. 4 CUP (11-02298-W) allocation is 1.16 MGD annual average and expires on October 19, 2020. 5 Calculated by subtracting the Raw Water Requirement from the Permitted Amount. 9.A.2.h Packet Pg. 291 Attachment: February 2019 10-Yr Water Supply Facilities Work Plan-CleanVersion-190315 (8272 : Ten Year Water Facilities Supply Plan - Section 6 · Facilities Capacity Analysis 6-4 PW/6295/231366/03/01 This page intentionally left blank. 9.A.2.h Packet Pg. 292 Attachment: February 2019 10-Yr Water Supply Facilities Work Plan-CleanVersion-190315 (8272 : Ten Year Water Facilities Supply Plan - 7-1 PW/6295/231366/03/01 Section 7 Conservation Regulations and Practices As the water supply in Florida becomes more taxed over time, the need to more efficiently utilize water resources will increase. The following subsections outline the conservation regulations and practices utilized by each of the utilities covered under this plan. The information provided has been taken directly from the water conservation plans approved by the SFWMD and included in each utility’s consumptive use permit. 7.1 Collier County Water-Sewer District (CCWSD) The conservation plan implemented by CCWSD is described in the utility’s consumptive use permit as follows: In an effort to conserve water resources, the Collier County Board of Commissioners enacted the first water irrigation ordinance on September 26, 2000 with the adoption of Ordinance No. 2000- 61. Ordinance No. 2002-17, adopted on April 9, 2002, supplemented Ordinance No. 2000-61 with more restrictive irrigation hours and operational requirements. Ordinance No. 2015-27, adopted on April 28, 2015 and titled “Water Conservation Ordinance for Landscape Irrigation,” repealed and replaced the first two ordinances and provided for local implementation of the SFWMD’s mandatory year-round landscape irrigation conservation measures pursuant to Chapter 40E-24, F.A.C. The provisions of the County’s ordinance mirror the rules of the SFWMD but apply to all water resources, including IQ (reclaimed) water, which is exempt from the restricted hours of irrigation under the SFWMD’s rules. Collier County seeks to conserve their valuable IQ water supply as they do with their potable water supply. As such, the Board initiated an ASR program to allow for the storage of excess IQ water that can later be withdrawn to offset peak usage. Other water conservation measures implemented by Collier County include: Enforcing the use of low-flow plumbing fixtures pursuant to section 604.4 of the Florida Building Code, Plumbing, 6th Edition (2017); Landscaping standards in the County’s Land Development Code (LDC 4.06.00) that encourage the use of native and drought-tolerant vegetation and properly zoned irrigation systems through xeriscape; Implementing water conservation rates that increase per-thousand-gallon charges as usage increases; Monthly reading of all customers’ meters to minimize losses from unaccounted-for water; An active reuse program, which delivers over 4.5 billion gallons a year of reclaimed water, to reduce irrigation withdrawals; Filter backwashing at the SCRWTP to eliminate water lost in cleaning filters; 9.A.2.h Packet Pg. 293 Attachment: February 2019 10-Yr Water Supply Facilities Work Plan-CleanVersion-190315 (8272 : Ten Year Water Facilities Supply Plan - Section 7 · Conservation Regulations and Practices 7-2 PW/6295/231366/03/01 Enacted in 2003 to further promote water conservation, the Board approved a mandatory water high-consumption surcharge, which is applied when the SFWMD implements water restrictions and impacts only high-use consumers. Requiring subdivisions to have separate potable and reuse water lines and prohibiting the use of County potable water for irrigation where other sources of supplemental water are permitted and available (LDC 4.03.08 C). In addition to these water conservation measures, the CCWSD and other County agencies endeavor to educate the public regarding water conservation through educational and outreach programs. Staff members routinely conduct presentations for schools, civic groups, homeowner associations, and other receptive groups. Utility bill inserts and advertising have further helped to spread the message. The County has actively been promoting the “Fridays are Dry Days” campaign, which has become the tag line on commercials airing on radio stations throughout Collier County. Stations were selected to target a large number of consumers, including those who do not speak English. The tag line has also been utilized in several productions airing on the Collier County Government Channel. Public service announcements and specially produced videos promoting water conservation also air on the County’s government access television station. CCWSD has made significant strides towards improving and enhancing the efficiency of its water distribution system and aims to continue to do so over the next 10 years. Maintaining an efficient system with upgraded and preventive maintenance efforts keeps unplanned water losses to a minimum. CCWSD’s average unaccounted-for water is currently below 10 percent, according to the unaccounted water loss report submitted to the SFWMD. Traditionally, water loss in Collier County Water District has remained low due to aggressive water loss management practices. Figure 7-1 shows the unaccounted-for water loss over the past 15 fiscal years. As indicated in Figure 7-1, the CCWSD unaccounted-for water loss had been maintained below five percent for eight years starting with 2008, markedly lower than preceding years, but peaked again in 2017 for reasons outlined below. Four noteworthy events during the 2017 fiscal year significantly impacted the amount of unaccounted-for water loss in the CCWSD’s water distribution system. The cumulative effect of the following four events was an anomalous loss of water compared with the previous nine years: · Catastrophic impact of Hurricane Irma, which caused more than 100 water main breaks, over 400 water service breaks, and damage to numerous fire hydrants, resulting in a total loss of system pressure and nearly a complete dewatering of the distribution network, · Repeated flushing of an inactive 6-mile long 36” water transmission main, constructed in 2005, to bring it into service, · An unusually active wildfire season that required water for combatting blazes that threatened homes in the Rural Estates and along Collier Boulevard · Two large-diameter water transmission main breaks near the intersection of I-75 and Collier Boulevard 9.A.2.h Packet Pg. 294 Attachment: February 2019 10-Yr Water Supply Facilities Work Plan-CleanVersion-190315 (8272 : Ten Year Water Facilities Supply Plan - Section 7 · Conservation and Practices 7-3 PW/6295/231366/03/01 Figure 7-1 CCWSD Unaccounted-for Water Loss from FY2004 to FY20181 1 The CCWSD Unaccounted-for Water Loss from FY2004 to FY2013 was taken from the 2013 Plan Update. Specific projects the CCWSD has completed or will undertake to further water conservation include: Ongoing effort to replace valves that are reaching the end of their useful life and to install an additional 20 valves per year to facilitate positive and timely isolation and reduce water loss in the event of a water main break . Mapping new areas incorporated into the district, including Golden Gate City, and North East Service Area (i.e. Orange Tree Utility) to locate and record valves (and other appurtenances) in the GIS database so that water loss can be reduced by timely isolation in the event of a water main break. On-going effort to replace lead service lines that are traditionally a major portion of the water loss for the CCWSD. Considering the age of the service lines, CCWSD’s goal is to replace up to 75 service lines per year. Continue with the meter change-out program for the replacement of all ¾” to 2” potable meters to ensure the accurate measurement of authorized water usage accounting and billing. Of the over 56,000 meters originally identified by CCWSD, approximately 7,500 meters are left to replace. The meter change-out program is scheduled for completion in FY 2019. Continue utilizing a GIS-centric enterprise asset management system (Cityworks) to record the frequency of water main breaks by location and identify areas where water mains need to be programmatically replaced, reducing the potential for water loss. 8.5% 11.5% 10.0% 12.2% 4.5% 3.3% 4.0% 4.9% 3.1% 4.6% 3.8%4.0% 5.4% 9.3% 6.6% 0.0% 2.5% 5.0% 7.5% 10.0% 12.5% 15.0%200420052006200720082009201020112012201320142015201620172018Percentage of Unaccounted-for Water LossFiscal Year 9.A.2.h Packet Pg. 295 Attachment: February 2019 10-Yr Water Supply Facilities Work Plan-CleanVersion-190315 (8272 : Ten Year Water Facilities Supply Plan - Section 7 · Conservation Regulations and Practices 7-4 PW/6295/231366/03/01 Changes made to the Utility Standards Manual require developers to provide automatic flushing devices (AFD) at dead ends and mid-points of certain looped water mains to maintain disinfectant residuals. AFDs discharge less water over time in comparison to manual flushing through fire hydrants. Collier County is actively completing water main looping projects and requires all new potable water distribution systems to be looped. Looping conserves water by eliminating dead ends which must be flushed to maintain minimum disinfectant residuals. · Collier County’s water main looping projects that have been completed over the past five years are: o Wilshire Lakes, o Tree Farm Road, o Twin Eagles, o Heritage Bay, o Waterways Boulevard, and o Orange Tree Boulevard. · The water looping projects planned over the next five years include: o Wildflower Way, o Warren Street, o Quarry/Esplanade, o Saturnia Lakes, and o Bergamot Lane. Utilizing leak detection contractual services to identify leaks in older areas of the water distribution system and programmatically making repairs to reduce water loss. 7.2 Immokalee Water and Sewer District (IWSD) The conservation plan implemented by IWSD is described in the utility’s consumptive use permit as follows: Pursuant to the SFWMD Applicants Handbook for Water Use Permit Applications (September 2015), Section 2.3.2 F. 1. Water Conservation Requirements, all public water supply utilities are required to develop and implement a water conservation plan. Each of the mandatory water conservation elements must exist or have a proposed time frame for implementation. As mentioned earlier, the IWSD was established under Florida law and has specific duties and quasi- governmental rights. However, the authority to enact ordinances does not reside with that District. The applicant has stated they will request that Immokalee enact any required ordinances 9.A.2.h Packet Pg. 296 Attachment: February 2019 10-Yr Water Supply Facilities Work Plan-CleanVersion-190315 (8272 : Ten Year Water Facilities Supply Plan - Section 7 · Conservation and Practices 7-5 PW/6295/231366/03/01 within a year of permit issuance. The applicant has provided the following water conservation plan elements: A. Permanent Irrigation Ordinance: An ordinance which restricts landscape irrigation to the hours of 4:00 p.m. to 10:00 a.m., 7 days per week, is currently not in effect for the service area. The utility will request that Immokalee adopt an ordinance for the service area within 1 year of permit issuance. B. Xeriscape Ordinance: An ordinance which requires the use of xeriscape landscape principles is currently not in effect. The utility will request that Immokalee adopt an ordinance for the service area within 1 year of permit issuance. C. Ultra-Low Volume Plumbing Fixture Ordinance: An ordinance which requires ultra- low volume plumbing fixtures on all new construction is in effect for the service area. D. Water Conservation Rate Structure: The applicant has a conservation-based rate structure, which includes increasing block rates as a means of reducing demands. E. Leak Detection Program: The applicant does not have an unaccounted-for water and leak detection program because the unaccounted-for water losses are less than 10 percent. F. Rain Sensor Device Ordinance: An ordinance which requires any person who purchases and installs an automatic lawn sprinkler system to install, operate, and maintain a rain sensor device or automatic switch which will override the irrigation system with the occurrence of adequate rainfall is currently not in effect for the service area. The utility will request that Immokalee adopt an ordinance within 1 year of the permit issuance. G. Water Conservation Education Program: The applicant distributes pamphlets, makes school visits, and provides information booths for employees and customers. Information signs, press releases, and messages about water conservation on the bills are also utilized. H. Reclaimed Water: Currently, all wastewater effluent is disposed of via a spray irrigation field and percolation ponds. 7.3 Ave Maria Utility Company, LLLP (AMUC) The conservation plan implemented by AMUC is described in the utility’s consumptive use permit as follows: Per Section 2.3.2 F of the SFWMD Applicants Handbook for Water Use Permit Applications, public water supply in excess of 500,000 gpd requires a water conservation plan addressing the following conservation elements: Permanent Irrigation Ordinance, Xeriscape Ordinance, Ultra- Low Volume Plumbing Fixture Ordinance, Water Conservation Rate Structure, Leak Detection Program, Rain Sensor Device Ordinance, Water Conservation Education Program, and Reclaimed Water Use. The following information is provided. 9.A.2.h Packet Pg. 297 Attachment: February 2019 10-Yr Water Supply Facilities Work Plan-CleanVersion-190315 (8272 : Ten Year Water Facilities Supply Plan - Section 7 · Conservation Regulations and Practices 7-6 PW/6295/231366/03/01 A. Permanent Irrigation Ordinance: One of the water conservation efforts the Ave Maria University and Town will pursue is adoption of an irrigation ordinance to limit irrigation water usage during the dry season. The planned ordinance would follow watering restrictions adopted by Collier County, including limiting daytime watering times and limiting the number of days that lawns could be watered. The irrigation ordinance would also likely follow an even/odd address watering system. B. Xeriscape Landscape Ordinance: The University and Town of Ave Maria will pursue adoption of an ordinance which recommends the use of xeriscape principles in landscape planning for all new construction. The ordinance would encourage implementation of xeriscape landscaping practices including use of mulches, native and drought tolerant plants, and limited turf areas. C. Ultra-Low Volume Plumbing Standards: The university and town of Ave Maria will pursue adopting an ordinance requiring ultra-low volume plumbing fixtures in all new construction. The standards proposed in the planned Ave Maria Plumbing Code would, in most cases, be as stringent as the ultra-low plumbing standards stipulated in the SFWMD Water Conservation Plan Development Guidelines. D. Water Conservation Rate Structure: The Town of Ave Maria plans to utilize an inclining block rate structure in order to promote water conservation. Residential and commercial water rates will consist of a monthly capacity cost charge (base rate) and a monthly commodity costs charge (volume charge). The commodity costs charges will increase with increased volume use. For example, residential costs increase from $1.75 per thousand gallons for under 5,000 gallons, to $4.00 per thousand gallons for quantities over 30,000 gallons. The details and the planned water rate schedule have not been specifically determined yet. E. Leak Detection & Distribution System Losses Program: A leak detection program will be implemented by the AMUC if system losses exceed 10 percent. The leak detection program will likely utilize the Rural Water Association (RWA) sonic type leak detection equipment. System losses may be attributable to known line breaks. The Ave Maria Utilities Department will repair water main and service line breaks as soon as possible to minimize and prevent distribution system losses. F. Sprinkler System Rain Sensor: The Town of Ave Maria will recommend installation of rain sensor devices on automatic lawn sprinkler systems for all new construction. G. Public Education Programs: The AMUC will pursue public education programs on water conservation and community responsibility. The programs could include presentations by Utility staff, such as water conservation topics discussed during tours conducted at its facilities. H. Water Treatment Plant and Waste Water Reclamation Facility. Educational brochures on water conservation, landscaping and xeriscape can be distributed by the Utility 9.A.2.h Packet Pg. 298 Attachment: February 2019 10-Yr Water Supply Facilities Work Plan-CleanVersion-190315 (8272 : Ten Year Water Facilities Supply Plan - Section 7 · Conservation and Practices 7-7 PW/6295/231366/03/01 offices. The AMUC could also include water conservation information to all customers along with monthly billing statements. I. Reclaimed Water: The most important element of Ave Maria’s Water Conservation Plan is utilization of a reclaimed water system for irrigation. The Town and University will pursue the use of as much reclaimed water as possible and will likely be able to utilize 100 percent of the reclaimed water generated. 9.A.2.h Packet Pg. 299 Attachment: February 2019 10-Yr Water Supply Facilities Work Plan-CleanVersion-190315 (8272 : Ten Year Water Facilities Supply Plan - Section 7 · Conservation Regulations and Practices 7-8 PW/6295/231366/03/01 This page intentionally left blank. 9.A.2.h Packet Pg. 300 Attachment: February 2019 10-Yr Water Supply Facilities Work Plan-CleanVersion-190315 (8272 : Ten Year Water Facilities Supply Plan - 8-1 PW/6295/231366/03/01 Section 8 Capital Improvement Projects Section 5 of this plan focused on the projects that each of the utilities have planned for the 10- year planning period. Attention was paid to the amount of water made available and when it would be made available. The following subsections present the capital improvement projects planned by each utility, including the funding source, project number, project name, and cost estimate for each project. 8.1 Collier County Water-Sewer District (CCWSD) The CCWSD’s water supply development projects identified in the Work Plan are per the update done for the 2018 AUIR. The capital improvement projects pertinent to future water supply are summarized in Table 8-1. CCWSD funds its water and wastewater projects from four funds: 411 – Water Impact Fees, 412 – Water User Fees, 413 – Wastewater Impact Fees, and 414- Wastewater User Fees. Impact fees are utilized to pay for expanded supply projects, while user fees are used to fund operations, maintenance, and replacement of existing facilities. 8.2 Immokalee Water and Sewer District (IWSD) The most recent lists of IWSD water and wastewater capital improvement projects were developed as part of the Fiscal Year 2018 Water and Wastewater Utility Rate Study. The capital improvement projects pertinent to future water supply are summarized in Table 8-2. IWSD funds its water and wastewater projects from Seven funds: USDA Water Grant Funds, USDA Water Loan Funds, USDA Wastewater Grant to be obtained, USDA Wastewater Loan to be obtained, Rate Revenue – Sewer (RRS), Rate Revenue – Water (RRW), and funds to be determined at a later date (TBD). 8.3 Ave Maria Utility Company (AMUC) AMUC is currently in the process of updating their CIP and is unable to provide reliable information at the time of writing this report (October 2018). The capital improvement projects for AMUC future water supply that were provided in the 2018 LWCWSP are summarized in Table 8-3. 9.A.2.h Packet Pg. 301 Attachment: February 2019 10-Yr Water Supply Facilities Work Plan-CleanVersion-190315 (8272 : Ten Year Water Facilities Supply Plan - PW/6295/231366/03/01 8-2 Table 8-1. CCWSD Capital Improvement Projects1 Funding Source Project No.Project Name FY 2019-20232 FY 2024-2028 2 411 - Water 70194 NERWTP First Phase online 2023 $-$ 82,500,000 411 - Water WTBD1 Sub-Regional Transitional Capacity online 2020 $-$- 412 - Water 70196 Tamiami Wellfield-Two Wells $ 3,100 ,000 $- 412 - Water 71057 Membrane Treatment $ 1,100 ,000 $- 412 - Water 70104 Variable TDS Treatment Bridge-the-Gap $ 3,000 ,000 $- 412 - Water WNEW9 Equip NRO Well 118 $-$- 412 - Water WNEW10 Equip NRO Well 120 $ 750 ,000 $- 413 - Wastewater 70194 NEWRF Expansion online 2023 $ 116,000 ,000 $ 15,000,000 413 - Wastewater 74030 IQ Aquifer Storage and Recovery $ 1,080 ,000 $ 1,050,0001 Cost estimates taken from the 10-year CIP update prepared for the 2018 AUIR.2 All costs are in 2017 dollars. 9.A.2.h Packet Pg. 302 Attachment: February 2019 10-Yr Water Supply Facilities Work Plan-CleanVersion-190315 (8272 : Ten Year Water Facilities Supply Plan - PW/6295/231366/03/01 8-3 Table 8-2. IWSD Capital Improvement Projects Funding Source Project No.Project Name FY2019 - 2024 FY 2024 - 2028 TBD WW-09 New 3.0 MGD Public Access Re-Use Water System $2,185,000 - TBD W-04 New 2.5 MGD Reverse Osmosis Water Treatment Plant $400,000 $11,000,0001. Taken from IWSD CIP 2018-2023 9.A.2.h Packet Pg. 303 Attachment: February 2019 10-Yr Water Supply Facilities Work Plan-CleanVersion-190315 (8272 : Ten Year Water Facilities Supply Plan - PW/6295/231366/03/01 8-4 Table 8-3. AMUC Capital Improvement Projects Funding Source Project No.Project Name FY2019 - 2024 FY 2024 - 2028 n/a n/a Sandstone Aquifer 2.5 mgd RO treatment plant -$6,300,000 n/a n/a Phased Expansion of Recalmation Plant -$2,040,0001. Cost estimates found in the 2017 LWCWSP. 9.A.2.h Packet Pg. 304 Attachment: February 2019 10-Yr Water Supply Facilities Work Plan-CleanVersion-190315 (8272 : Ten Year Water Facilities Supply Plan - Collier County 10-Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan Interlocal Agreement between CCWSD and the City of Naples Appendix A 9.A.2.h Packet Pg. 305 Attachment: February 2019 10-Yr Water Supply Facilities Work Plan-CleanVersion-190315 (8272 : Ten Year Water Facilities Supply Plan - 9.A.2.h Packet Pg. 306 Attachment: February 2019 10-Yr Water Supply Facilities Work Plan-CleanVersion-190315 (8272 : Ten Year Water Facilities Supply Plan - 9.A.2.h Packet Pg. 307 Attachment: February 2019 10-Yr Water Supply Facilities Work Plan-CleanVersion-190315 (8272 : Ten Year Water Facilities Supply Plan - 9.A.2.h Packet Pg. 308 Attachment: February 2019 10-Yr Water Supply Facilities Work Plan-CleanVersion-190315 (8272 : Ten Year Water Facilities Supply Plan - 9.A.2.h Packet Pg. 309 Attachment: February 2019 10-Yr Water Supply Facilities Work Plan-CleanVersion-190315 (8272 : Ten Year Water Facilities Supply Plan - 9.A.2.h Packet Pg. 310 Attachment: February 2019 10-Yr Water Supply Facilities Work Plan-CleanVersion-190315 (8272 : Ten Year Water Facilities Supply Plan - 9.A.2.h Packet Pg. 311 Attachment: February 2019 10-Yr Water Supply Facilities Work Plan-CleanVersion-190315 (8272 : Ten Year Water Facilities Supply Plan - 9.A.2.h Packet Pg. 312 Attachment: February 2019 10-Yr Water Supply Facilities Work Plan-CleanVersion-190315 (8272 : Ten Year Water Facilities Supply Plan - 9.A.2.h Packet Pg. 313 Attachment: February 2019 10-Yr Water Supply Facilities Work Plan-CleanVersion-190315 (8272 : Ten Year Water Facilities Supply Plan - 9.A.2.h Packet Pg. 314 Attachment: February 2019 10-Yr Water Supply Facilities Work Plan-CleanVersion-190315 (8272 : Ten Year Water Facilities Supply Plan - 9.A.2.h Packet Pg. 315 Attachment: February 2019 10-Yr Water Supply Facilities Work Plan-CleanVersion-190315 (8272 : Ten Year Water Facilities Supply Plan - 9.A.2.h Packet Pg. 316 Attachment: February 2019 10-Yr Water Supply Facilities Work Plan-CleanVersion-190315 (8272 : Ten Year Water Facilities Supply Plan - 9.A.2.hPacket Pg. 317Attachment: February 2019 10-Yr Water Supply Facilities Work Plan-CleanVersion-190315 (8272 : Ten Year 9.A.2.hPacket Pg. 318Attachment: February 2019 10-Yr Water Supply Facilities Work Plan-CleanVersion-190315 (8272 : Ten Year 9.A.2.hPacket Pg. 319Attachment: February 2019 10-Yr Water Supply Facilities Work Plan-CleanVersion-190315 (8272 : Ten Year 9.A.2.h Packet Pg. 320 Attachment: February 2019 10-Yr Water Supply Facilities Work Plan-CleanVersion-190315 (8272 : Ten Year Water Facilities Supply Plan - Collier County 10-Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan Ordinance Integrating Goodland Water District into CCWSD Appendix B 9.A.2.h Packet Pg. 321 Attachment: February 2019 10-Yr Water Supply Facilities Work Plan-CleanVersion-190315 (8272 : Ten Year Water Facilities Supply Plan - 9.A.2.h Packet Pg. 322 Attachment: February 2019 10-Yr Water Supply Facilities Work Plan-CleanVersion-190315 (8272 : Ten Year Water Facilities Supply Plan - 9.A.2.h Packet Pg. 323 Attachment: February 2019 10-Yr Water Supply Facilities Work Plan-CleanVersion-190315 (8272 : Ten Year Water Facilities Supply Plan - 9.A.2.h Packet Pg. 324 Attachment: February 2019 10-Yr Water Supply Facilities Work Plan-CleanVersion-190315 (8272 : Ten Year Water Facilities Supply Plan - Collier County 10-Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan Agreement for Potable Water Service Calusa Island Village (Goodland Area) Appendix C 9.A.2.h Packet Pg. 325 Attachment: February 2019 10-Yr Water Supply Facilities Work Plan-CleanVersion-190315 (8272 : Ten Year Water Facilities Supply Plan - 9.A.2.h Packet Pg. 326 Attachment: February 2019 10-Yr Water Supply Facilities Work Plan-CleanVersion-190315 (8272 : Ten Year Water Facilities Supply Plan - 9.A.2.h Packet Pg. 327 Attachment: February 2019 10-Yr Water Supply Facilities Work Plan-CleanVersion-190315 (8272 : Ten Year Water Facilities Supply Plan - 9.A.2.h Packet Pg. 328 Attachment: February 2019 10-Yr Water Supply Facilities Work Plan-CleanVersion-190315 (8272 : Ten Year Water Facilities Supply Plan - 9.A.2.h Packet Pg. 329 Attachment: February 2019 10-Yr Water Supply Facilities Work Plan-CleanVersion-190315 (8272 : Ten Year Water Facilities Supply Plan - 9.A.2.h Packet Pg. 330 Attachment: February 2019 10-Yr Water Supply Facilities Work Plan-CleanVersion-190315 (8272 : Ten Year Water Facilities Supply Plan - 9.A.2.h Packet Pg. 331 Attachment: February 2019 10-Yr Water Supply Facilities Work Plan-CleanVersion-190315 (8272 : Ten Year Water Facilities Supply Plan - 9.A.2.h Packet Pg. 332 Attachment: February 2019 10-Yr Water Supply Facilities Work Plan-CleanVersion-190315 (8272 : Ten Year Water Facilities Supply Plan - 9.A.2.h Packet Pg. 333 Attachment: February 2019 10-Yr Water Supply Facilities Work Plan-CleanVersion-190315 (8272 : Ten Year Water Facilities Supply Plan - 9.A.2.h Packet Pg. 334 Attachment: February 2019 10-Yr Water Supply Facilities Work Plan-CleanVersion-190315 (8272 : Ten Year Water Facilities Supply Plan - 9.A.2.h Packet Pg. 335 Attachment: February 2019 10-Yr Water Supply Facilities Work Plan-CleanVersion-190315 (8272 : Ten Year Water Facilities Supply Plan - 9.A.2.hPacket Pg. 336Attachment: February 2019 10-Yr Water Supply Facilities Work Plan-CleanVersion-190315 (8272 : Ten Year 9.A.2.hPacket Pg. 337Attachment: February 2019 10-Yr Water Supply Facilities Work Plan-CleanVersion-190315 (8272 : Ten Year 9.A.2.h Packet Pg. 338 Attachment: February 2019 10-Yr Water Supply Facilities Work Plan-CleanVersion-190315 (8272 : Ten Year Water Facilities Supply Plan - 9.A.2.h Packet Pg. 339 Attachment: February 2019 10-Yr Water Supply Facilities Work Plan-CleanVersion-190315 (8272 : Ten Year Water Facilities Supply Plan - 9.A.2.h Packet Pg. 340 Attachment: February 2019 10-Yr Water Supply Facilities Work Plan-CleanVersion-190315 (8272 : Ten Year Water Facilities Supply Plan - 9.A.2.h Packet Pg. 341 Attachment: February 2019 10-Yr Water Supply Facilities Work Plan-CleanVersion-190315 (8272 : Ten Year Water Facilities Supply Plan - 9.A.2.h Packet Pg. 342 Attachment: February 2019 10-Yr Water Supply Facilities Work Plan-CleanVersion-190315 (8272 : Ten Year Water Facilities Supply Plan - 9.A.2.h Packet Pg. 343 Attachment: February 2019 10-Yr Water Supply Facilities Work Plan-CleanVersion-190315 (8272 : Ten Year Water Facilities Supply Plan - 9.A.2.h Packet Pg. 344 Attachment: February 2019 10-Yr Water Supply Facilities Work Plan-CleanVersion-190315 (8272 : Ten Year Water Facilities Supply Plan - 9.A.2.h Packet Pg. 345 Attachment: February 2019 10-Yr Water Supply Facilities Work Plan-CleanVersion-190315 (8272 : Ten Year Water Facilities Supply Plan - 9.A.2.h Packet Pg. 346 Attachment: February 2019 10-Yr Water Supply Facilities Work Plan-CleanVersion-190315 (8272 : Ten Year Water Facilities Supply Plan - 9.A.2.h Packet Pg. 347 Attachment: February 2019 10-Yr Water Supply Facilities Work Plan-CleanVersion-190315 (8272 : Ten Year Water Facilities Supply Plan - 9.A.2.h Packet Pg. 348 Attachment: February 2019 10-Yr Water Supply Facilities Work Plan-CleanVersion-190315 (8272 : Ten Year Water Facilities Supply Plan - 9.A.2.h Packet Pg. 349 Attachment: February 2019 10-Yr Water Supply Facilities Work Plan-CleanVersion-190315 (8272 : Ten Year Water Facilities Supply Plan - 9.A.2.h Packet Pg. 350 Attachment: February 2019 10-Yr Water Supply Facilities Work Plan-CleanVersion-190315 (8272 : Ten Year Water Facilities Supply Plan - 9.A.2.h Packet Pg. 351 Attachment: February 2019 10-Yr Water Supply Facilities Work Plan-CleanVersion-190315 (8272 : Ten Year Water Facilities Supply Plan - Collier County 10-Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan Potable Water Bulk Services Agreement between CCWSD and the City of Marco Island Notice of Termination Appendix D 9.A.2.h Packet Pg. 352 Attachment: February 2019 10-Yr Water Supply Facilities Work Plan-CleanVersion-190315 (8272 : Ten Year Water Facilities Supply Plan - 9.A.2.h Packet Pg. 353 Attachment: February 2019 10-Yr Water Supply Facilities Work Plan-CleanVersion-190315 (8272 : Ten Year Water Facilities Supply Plan - Collier County 10-Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan 2018 Collier County Annual Update and Inventory Report Appendix E 9.A.2.h Packet Pg. 354 Attachment: February 2019 10-Yr Water Supply Facilities Work Plan-CleanVersion-190315 (8272 : Ten Year Water Facilities Supply Plan - COUNTY WATER - SEWER DISTRICT − POTABLE WATER SYSTEM CONTENTS • POTABLE WATER SYSTEM 2018 AUIR FACILITY SUMMARY INTRODUCTION • LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOSS) STANDARD ASSESSMENT FOR SERVICE AREA (TABLE, NOTES • COLLIER COUNTY WATER-SEWER DISTRICT - CURRENT AND FUTURE POTABLE WATER SERVICE AREAS (MAP) • COLLIER COUNTY WATER-SEWER DISTRICT - WATER SERVICE JURISDICTION (MAP) • FUTURE DEVELOPMENT IN NORTHEAST COLLIER COUNTY (MAP) • COLLIER COUNTY WATER-SEWER DISTRICT - SYSTEM UTILIZATION AND DIMINISHING CAPACITY REPORT (“CHECKBOOK”) • EXHIBIT ‘A’ - SCHEDULE OF CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS • APPPENDIX “H” - FUTURE COSTS AND REVENUES BY TYPE OF PUBLIC FACILITY Collier County 2018 Annual Update and Inventory Report on Public Facilities 9.A.2.h Packet Pg. 355 Attachment: February 2019 10-Yr Water Supply Facilities Work Plan-CleanVersion-190315 (8272 : Ten Year Water Facilities Supply Plan - Facility Type: Collier County Water-Sewer District – Potable Water System Facilities Level of Service Standard:150 gallons per capita day (gpcd)(1) Capacity: Total Permitted Treatment Capacity, FY 19 52.75 MGD Total Operational Treatment Capacity, FY 19 48.75 MGD Required Treatment Capacity, FY 19 39.63 MGD Total Permitted Treatment Capacity, FY 28 57.75 MGD Total Operational Treatment Capacity, FY 28 53.75 MGD Required Treatment Capacity, FY 28 48.87 MGD Expenditures FY19-FY23 (2) Debt Service $65,182,500 Expansion Related Projects - Other $10,050,000 Replacement & Rehabilitation Projects - Other $116,770,000 Departmental Capital $5,908,000 Reserve for Contingencies - Replacement & Rehabilitation Projects $11,670,000 TOTAL $209,580,500 Existing Revenue Sources FY19-FY23 Water System Development Fees / Impact Fees $32,500,000 Bonds $0 State Revolving Fund Loans $0 Water Capital Account $5,908,000 Rate Revenue $171,172,500 TOTAL $209,580,500 Surplus or (Deficit) for Five Year Program $0 Recommended Action: Conclusion: (1) (2) (3)As per Florida Statutes Section 129.01(c), contingency reserves are up to 10% of expenses Per the 2014 Water, Wastewater, Irrigation Quality Water and Bulk Potable Water Master/CIP Plan (reference 2015 AUIR, Appendix III). To ensure adequate treatment capacity for growth within the jurisdictional boundary of the Collier County Water- Sewer District, expansion related projects should commence in FY 2020 based on the Level of Service Standard, population projections and capacity as shown in the AUIR. That the BCC find the Collier County Water-Sewer District Potable Water System in compliance with concurrency requirements found in FS Section 163, the Collier County Comprehensive Plan and the Land Development Code; and that it approve the proposed 2018 CCWSD Potable Water System Facilities AUIR and adopt the CIE update for FY 2018/19 - FY 2022/23. 2018 AUIR FACILITY SUMMARY POTABLE WATER SYSTEM FACILITIES CIE consistent with Board approved: FY19 budget Page 49 of 262 9.A.2.h Packet Pg. 356 Attachment: February 2019 10-Yr Water Supply Facilities Work Plan-CleanVersion-190315 (8272 : Ten Year Water Facilities Supply Plan - A. B. C. D. E. Recommendation The Public Utilities Department’s staff recommends that the Collier County Board of County Commissioners approve the 2018 CCWSD Potable Water System Treatment Facilities AUIR. Collier County Government The 2018 Potable Water System AUIR is presented as a snapshot of concurrency conditions. The CCWSD is in compliance with concurrency requirements for FY 2019 and FY 2020, as required by FS Section 163, the Collier County Comprehensive Plan, and the Land Development Code. POTABLE WATER SYSTEM - TREATMENT FACILITIES 2018 ANNUAL UPDATE AND INVENTORY REPORT (AUIR) Public Utilities Department The Public Utilities Department’s proposed 2018 Potable Water System Treatment Facilities AUIR is based on permanent population estimates and projections for the potable water service area prepared by the Collier County Comprehensive Planning Section on June 15, 2018. Populations are based on using the Bureau of Economic and Business Research (BEBR) Medium Range growth rate through 2028. Concurrency is shown for 10 years for the current service area. This conforms with the State mandated CIE, concurrency regulations, and other Collier County Departments' AUIR submittals. The Collier County Water-Sewer District (CCWSD) acquired the Golden Gate City potable water and wastewater utility systems from the Florida Governmental Utility Authority on March 1, 2018. The Public Utilities Department has solicited new master plans for water, wastewater, and irrigation quality water under RPS 18-7370, with an anticipated completion in FY 2020. To serve the current potable water service area, shown in blue in the "Current and Future Water Service Areas" map, and to support forecasted growth in the northeast region of the county, 5 MGD of new treatment capacity will be needed by FY 2028. This will be achieved through phased construction of a new regional water treatment plant at the Northeast Utility Facilities (NEUF) site. The NEUF are sited on 147 acres of County owned land at the east end of 39th Ave NE. 100% design documents were completed in 2010. The NEUF program has been reactivated, starting with updating the design criteria (FY 2018) and modifying the design plans to conform with current technologies (FY 2018-2019). To facilitate reactivation, site work is planned to begin in FY 2019. Project reactivation is in anticipation of the quantity of large developments going through different stages of the Growth Management Department review process. The need for readiness is also supported by the “Collier County Water- Sewer District System Utilization and Diminishing Capacity Report” (the “Checkbook”) which compares available treatment capacity to the quantity of Board-approved planned unit developments (PUDs). Currently, the Checkbook reports that if all active Board-approved PUDs within the current service area were to be constructed, there would be a 1% surplus in potable water treatment capacity in the regional system. INTRODUCTION On September 11, 2018, as Agenda Item 17.F, the Board adopted a resolution expanding the CCWSD's service area to coincide with the unincorporated area permitted by Chapter 2003-353, Laws of Florida. This "jurisdictional boundary"is depicted on the subsequent map entitled, "Collier County Water-Sewer District Water Service Jurisdiction," and encompasses the planned developments known as "Rural Lands West," "Winchester Lakes," and "Hogan Island Village," as depicted on the subsequent map entitled, "Future Development in Northeast Collier County." Notes The BEBR population numbers are supplemented by estimates per the implementation plan for the Golden Gate City service area, as reported in the "Technical Feasibility Study for Acquisition of FGUA Water and Wastewater Assets in Golden Gate" prepared by Stantec Consulting Services Inc., and by preliminary model results provided by Metro Forecasting Models, LLC from the Collier Interactive Growth Model for the planned developments in the expanded Northeast Service Area (i.e. Rural Lands West, Winchester Lakes, and Hogan Island Village). Page 50 of 262 9.A.2.h Packet Pg. 357 Attachment: February 2019 10-Yr Water Supply Facilities Work Plan-CleanVersion-190315 (8272 : Ten Year Water Facilities Supply Plan - 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Required Percent Permanent Treatment Total Total Retained of Total Fiscal Population Capacity New Permitted Operational Operational Permitted Year Served at Max. Treatment Treatment Treatment Treatment Capacity on Oct. 1 TDADD Capacity Capacity Capacity Capacity (Max. Day) MGD MGD MGD MGD MGD MGD 2014 162,646 31.7 52.00 48.00 16.3 63% 2015 166,567 32.5 52.00 48.00 15.5 65% 2016 171,461 33.4 52.00 48.00 14.6 67% 2017 175,849 34.3 52.00 48.00 13.7 68% 2018 186,362 36.3 52.75 48.75 12.4 72% 2019 203,245 39.6 52.75 48.75 9.1 78% 2020 208,761 40.7 52.75 48.75 8.0 80% 2021 213,913 41.7 52.75 48.75 7.0 82% 2022 219,170 42.7 52.75 48.75 6.0 84% 2023 221,769 43.2 52.75 48.75 5.5 85% 2024 229,840 44.8 52.75 48.75 3.9 88% 2025 235,257 45.9 52.75 48.75 2.9 90% 2026 240,401 46.9 52.75 48.75 1.9 92% 2027 245,484 47.9 52.75 48.75 0.9 94% 2028 250,622 48.9 5.00 57.75 53.75 4.9 88% LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) STANDARD ASSESSMENT FOR SERVICE AREA 9/12/2018 Collier County Government Public Utilities Department 2018 ANNUAL UPDATE AND INVENTORY REPORT (AUIR) POTABLE WATER SYSTEM - TREATMENT FACILITIES Page 51 of 262 9.A.2.h Packet Pg. 358 Attachment: February 2019 10-Yr Water Supply Facilities Work Plan-CleanVersion-190315 (8272 : Ten Year Water Facilities Supply Plan - Notes (References are to the column numbers on previous page) 1. 2. 3. 4. 9/12/2018 New Treatment Capacity is the additional treatment capacity in million gallons per day (MGD) placed into service by 2028 5 MGD Water Service Area, as adopted in the 2015 CCWSD Potable Water System AUIR, approved by the Board of County Commissioners on November 10, 2015, based on the Board adopted 2014 Water, Wastewater, Irrigation Quality Water and Bulk Potable Water Master/CIP Plan, which utilizes a max. TDADD basis for capacity analysis. Required Treatment Capacity at Max. TDADD is plotted in the chart on the next page. the start of the fiscal year through plant construction/expansion. Timing and capacity are tentative and may be adjusted with updates in development forecasts and adoption of developer agreements: Collier County Government Public Utilities Department 2018 ANNUAL UPDATE AND INVENTORY REPORT (AUIR) POTABLE WATER SYSTEM - TREATMENT FACILITIES LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) STANDARD ASSESSMENT FOR SERVICE AREA Fiscal Year starts October 1 and ends September 30. New Treatment Capacity Permanent Population Served on Oct. 1. Estimates and projections for the served area were prepared by the Collier County Comprehensive Planning Section on June 15, 2018. Populations are based on the Bureau of Economic and Business Research (BEBR) Medium Range growth rate applied through 2028. Permanent population is used in accordance with the Board adopted 2014 Water, Wastewater, Irrigation Quality Water and Bulk Potable Water Master/CIP Plan. The population projections include the NE Utility WTP (formerly Orange Tree Utilities - OTU) service area beginning in FY 2018 and the Golden Gate City service area (approximately 4 square miles) beginning in FY 2019 based on acquisition dates during FY 2017 and FY 2018 respectively. The CCWSD presently supplies potable water to a population of approximately 12,404 in Golden Gate City. Based on the implementation plan outlined in the Board adopted "Technical Feasibility Study for Acquisition of FGUA Water and Wastewater Assets in Golden Gate," Phase 2 will increase the population served to 21,285 within 10 years. Required Treatment Capacity at Max. TDADD is obtained by multiplying the Permanent Population Served on Oct. 1 by 150 gallons per capita per day (gpcd) and by a maximum 3-day average daily demand (TDADD) peaking factor of 1.3 and is expressed in million gallons per day (MGD). 150 gpcd is the established Level of Service (LOS) Standard for the Potable Fiscal Year Comments and Cost Estimates Design and permitting updates for additional potable water treatment capacity at the NEUF started in FY 2018 and will be online in FY 2028, as follows: a. Update design criteria, completed FY 2018. b. Update construction drawings and bid package, $500,000 - $1,000,000, FY 2018-19. c. Construct site work, $4,000,000, FY 2019. d. Construct NERWTP potable water facilities, $71,000,000, FY 2025-28. e. Construction Engineering & Inspection, $7,500,000 estimate, FY 2025-28. Page 52 of 262 9.A.2.h Packet Pg. 359 Attachment: February 2019 10-Yr Water Supply Facilities Work Plan-CleanVersion-190315 (8272 : Ten Year Water Facilities Supply Plan - 9/12/2018 Collier County Government Public Utilities Department 2018 ANNUAL UPDATE AND INVENTORY REPORT (AUIR) POTABLE WATER SYSTEM - TREATMENT FACILITIES LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) STANDARD ASSESSMENT FOR SERVICE AREA 5. 6. 7. 8. Capacity in FY 2018 increased by 0.75 MGD (as currently sited) because Orange Tree Utilities (OTU) was integrated into the CCWSD on March 1, 2017, during FY 2017. Acquisition of the Golden Gate City Utility from the Florida Governmental Utility Authority occurred on March 1, 2018. Existing Golden Gate City Utility potable water facilities include a 2.1 MGD water treatment plant; however, no additional capacity is stated because this area is now served by the nearby CCWSD regional potable water system. Unused Golden Gate City Utility assets are being repurposed and/or decommissioned, depending on condition. Twin Eagles potable water services transitioned from the NE Utility WTP (former OTU) to the CCWSD Regional potable water system on December 18, 2017. All customers within the Orange Tree PUD and the Orange Blossom Ranch PUD as well as the Corkscrew Elementary/Middle and the Palmetto Ridge High public school campuses were diverted through reliability interconnects over the course of FY 2018. Percent of Total Permitted Capacity (Max. Day) is the total maximum-day quantity of finished water produced by all treatment plants connected to the water system as a percentage of Total Permitted Treatment Capacity. Per FAC 62-555.348, source/treatment/storage capacity analysis reporting to the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) is triggered once maximum-day demand exceeds 75% of Total Permitted Treatment Capacity, as plotted in the chart on the next page. In accordance with the Board adopted 2014 Water, Wastewater, Irrigation Quality Water and Bulk Potable Water Master/CIP Plan, Total Operational Treatment Capacity must be sufficient for the max. TDADD. Retained Operational Treatment Capacity is the Total Operational Treatment Capacity minus the Required Treatment Capacity at Max. TDADD. Total Permitted Treatment Capacity is the total permitted finished water treatment capacity at the beginning of the fiscal year in million gallons per day (MGD), including New Treatment Capacity. Total Operational Treatment Capacity is the Total Permitted Treatment Capacity less 4 MGD, the treatment capacity of a lime softening reactor/clarifier, which could be out of service during a period of peak demand, as plotted in the chart on the next page. Page 53 of 262 9.A.2.h Packet Pg. 360 Attachment: February 2019 10-Yr Water Supply Facilities Work Plan-CleanVersion-190315 (8272 : Ten Year Water Facilities Supply Plan - Collier County GovernmentPublic Utilities Department2018 ANNUAL UPDATE AND INVENTORY REPORT (AUIR)LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) STANDARD ASSESSMENT FOR POTABLE WATER SERVICE AREALOS: 150 GPCD9/12/20180102030405060MGDFISCAL YEARTotal Operational Treatment CapacityRequired Treatment Capacity at Max. TDADD75% of Total Permitted Treatment Capacity per FAC 62-555.348Page 54 of 2629.A.2.hPacket Pg. 361Attachment: February 2019 10-Yr Water Supply Facilities Work Plan-CleanVersion-190315 (8272 : Ten Year Collier County Water-Sewer District Current and Future Potable Water Service Areas (2018 AUIR) Figure PW-1 Page 55 of 262 9.A.2.h Packet Pg. 362 Attachment: February 2019 10-Yr Water Supply Facilities Work Plan-CleanVersion-190315 (8272 : Ten Year Water Facilities Supply Plan - COLLIER COUNTY WATER-SEWER DISTRICT WATER SERVICE JURISDICTION Jurisdiction Page 56 of 262 9.A.2.h Packet Pg. 363 Attachment: February 2019 10-Yr Water Supply Facilities Work Plan-CleanVersion-190315 (8272 : Ten Year Water Facilities Supply Plan - Page 57 of 2629.A.2.hPacket Pg. 364Attachment: February 2019 10-Yr Water Supply Facilities Work Plan-CleanVersion-190315 (8272 : Ten Year WATERREGIONALNORTH SOUTH1a.52.000 24.100 16.0001b.48.000 24.100 16.0002a.33.963 16.734 17.3132b.31.877 11.962 9.9443a.n/a 0.092 n/a3b.n/a 0.060 n/a4a.14.037 7.274 (1.313)4b.16.123 12.078 6.0565a.SYSTEM AVAILABILITY BASED ON MAX. 3-DAY (Line 4a / Line 1b)29% 30% -8%5b.SYSTEM AVAILABILITY BASED ON MAX. MONTH (Line 4b / Line 1b)34% 50% 38%WATERREGIONALNORTH SOUTH6.13.094 3.710 5.6497a.0.943 3.565 (6.962)7b.3.029 8.368 0.4078a.SYSTEM AVAILABILITY BASED ON MAX. 3-DAY (Line 7a / Line 1b)2% 15% -44%8b.SYSTEM AVAILABILITY BASED ON MAX. MONTH (Line 7b / Line 1b)6% 35% 3%PROJECTED AVAILABLE CAPACITY (WITH FUTURE COMMITMENTS)Total BCC-approved Active PUD commitments (Unbuilt per GMD PUD Master List) [5]Projected Available Capacity Based on Max. 3-Day (Line 4a - Line 6)Projected Available Capacity Based on Max. Month (Line 4b - Line 6)CURRENT AVAILABILITY WITH FUTURE COMMITMENTSDiverted Flow (MADF) [4] Current Available Diminishing Capacity Based on Max. 3-Day (Line 1b - Line 2a - Line 3a)Current Available Diminishing Capacity Based on Max. Month (Line 1b - Line 2b - Line 3b)CURRENT AVAILABILITY WITHOUT FUTURE COMMITMENTSMillion Gallons per Day (MGD) WASTEWATER [1]CURRENT AVAILABLE CAPACITY (BASED ON HISTORICAL DATA)Existing Permitted Plant Capacity (MADD for Water, MADF for Wastewater)Existing Operational Plant Capacity (per 2017 AUIR)Historical Maximum 3-Day Average Daily Demand/Flow (TDADD/TDADF) [2] Historical Maximum Month Average Daily Demand/Flow (MADD/MADF) [3] Diverted Flow (TDADF) [4] COLLIER COUNTY WATER - SEWER DISTRICTSYSTEM UTILIZATION AND DIMINISHING CAPACITY REPORT ("CHECKBOOK")REGIONAL WATER AND WASTEWATER SYSTEMSDATA: Current as of August 15, 2018Million Gallons per Day (MGD) WASTEWATER [1]1 of 2Page 58 of 2629.A.2.hPacket Pg. 365Attachment: February 2019 10-Yr Water Supply Facilities Work Plan-CleanVersion-190315 (8272 : Ten Year COLLIER COUNTY WATER - SEWER DISTRICTSYSTEM UTILIZATION AND DIMINISHING CAPACITY REPORT ("CHECKBOOK")REGIONAL WATER AND WASTEWATER SYSTEMSDATA: Current as of August 15, 2018WATERREGIONALNORTH SOUTH9a.0.000 0.000 0.0009b.0.000 0.000 0.00010a.n/a 3.111 (2.700)10b.n/a 0.154 0.00011a.0.943 0.453 (4.262)11b.3.029 8.214 0.40712a.SYSTEM AVAILABILITY BASED ON MAX. 3-DAY (Line 11a / Line 1b)2% 2% -27%12b.SYSTEM AVAILABILITY BASED ON MAX. MONTH (Line 11b / Line 1b)6% 34% 3%[1][2]Apr-07 Aug-17 Sep-03[3]Apr-06 Aug-17 Jan-16[4][5][6][7]Line 2a: Mo-Yr of Max. 3-Day Since January 2003 =>Line 2b: Mo-Yr of Max. Month Since January 2003 =>The sub-regional Northeast Utility Facilities (former OTU) previously served all customers in the Orange Tree and Orange Blossom Ranch PUDs as well as the Twin Eagles subdivision, but all former OTU customers have been transferred to the regional potable water system as of August 13, 2018, and flow from Twin Eagles will be diverted to the NCWRF wastewater collection/transmission system by April 2019. Since the historical max. wastewater flows occurred prior to any services being transferred, values are reduced by eleven percent (11%) based on billing data from September 2017, the month in which the maximums occurred.Capacity requested by outstanding active BCC-approved PUD units, as documented in the most current GMD PUD Master List. Built-out, closed-out, inactive, and discontinued PUD's are not included in line 5; only active PUD's are included. The outstanding PUD units are assumed to be developed before PUD closeout. Level of service for future commitments is defined by the latest master plan.Peak flows and effluent will be diverted to the NCWRF by the 0.75 MGD OT pump station and Oil Well Road force main; Heritage Bay master pump station; and new and existing force mains along Oil Well Rd, Immokalee Rd, Logan Blvd, Vanderbilt Beach Rd, and Goodlette-Frank Rd.Per the 2014 master plan, a maximum of 2.7 MGD can be diverted from the south service area to the NCWRF upon completion of the East and West Interconnects and associated pump station improvements.Future Available Capacity Based on Max. 3-Day (Line 7a + Line 9a + Line 9b - Line 10a)Future Available Capacity Based on Max. Month (Line 7b + Line 9a + Line 9b - Line 10b)FUTURE AVAILABILITY WITH EXPANSIONS AND DIVERSIONSFOOTNOTES/QUALIFIERS:Wastewater North and South shown separately because of the finite capacity of the interconnect.WASTEWATER [1]FUTURE AVAILABLE CAPACITY (WITH EXPANSIONS AND DIVERSIONS)Expansions Within Next 12 Months (MADD for Water, MADF for Wastewater)Expansions Within Next 12-24 Months (MADD for Water, MADF for Wastewater)Excess Flow Diverted to (from) WWTP for Max. 3-Day [6] [7]Excess Flow Diverted to (from) WWTP for Max. Month [6] [7]Million Gallons per Day (MGD) 2 of 2 Page 59 of 2629.A.2.hPacket Pg. 366Attachment: February 2019 10-Yr Water Supply Facilities Work Plan-CleanVersion-190315 (8272 : Ten Year EXHIBIT "A"COLLIER COUNTY SCHEDULE OF CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTSFISCAL YEARS 2019-2023PUD POTABLE WATER SYSTEM PROJECTS$ AMOUNT $ AMOUNT $ AMOUNT $ AMOUNT $ AMOUNT $ AMOUNTCIE # PROJECTFY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023 TOTALDebt Service$10,242,000 $13,015,000 $14,951,000 $14,389,500 $12,585,000 $65,182,500Expansion Related Projects - Other$50,000 $0 $5,000,000 $0 $5,000,000 $10,050,000Replacement & Rehabilitation Projects - Other$14,670,000 $35,285,000 $21,325,000 $23,510,000 $21,980,000 $116,770,000Departmental Capital$1,135,000 $1,158,000 $1,181,000 $1,205,000 $1,229,000 $5,908,000Reserve for Contingencies - Replacement & Rehabilitation Projects$1,459,000 $3,529,000 $2,133,000 $2,351,000 $2,198,000 $11,670,000POTABLE WATER SYSTEM PROJECT TOTALS$27,556,000 $52,987,000 $44,590,000 $41,455,500 $42,992,000 $209,580,500REVENUE KEY - REVENUE SOURCEFY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023 TOTALWIF - Water System Development Fees / Impact Fees$6,500,000 $6,500,000 $6,500,000 $6,500,000 $6,500,000 $32,500,000B1 - Bonds$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0SRF - State Revolving Fund Loans$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0WCA - Water Capital Account$1,135,000 $1,158,000 $1,181,000 $1,205,000 $1,229,000 $5,908,000REV - Rate Revenue$19,921,000 $45,329,000 $36,909,000 $33,750,500 $35,263,000 $171,172,500REVENUE TOTAL$27,556,000 $52,987,000 $44,590,000 $41,455,500 $42,992,000 $209,580,500CIE consistent with Board approved: FY19 budget.CONSTRUCTIONSCHEDULE NOTESNOTE: Collier County has adopted a two-year Concurrency Management System. Figures provided for years three, four and five of this Schedule of Capital Improvements are not part of the Concurrency Management System but must be financially feasible with a dedicated revenue source or an alternative revenue source if the dedicated revenue source is not realized. Figures provided for years six through ten of the Schedule of Capital Improvements are estimates of revenues versus project costs but do not constitute a long term concurrency system. DATA SOURCES: Expansion Related and Replacement & Rehabilitation Projects:FY 2019 is obtained from the 2019 Proposed Budget. Department Capital:FY 2019 is obtained from the 2019 Proposed Budget, split 50/50 between Water and Wastewater.FY 2020 to FY 2028 is a 2% increase over each fiscal year from - FY 2020 through FY 2028 -(pursuant to CPI adjustments per Board policy). Debt Service:FY 2019 - FY 2023 are obtained from the Collier County Water and Sewer District Financial Statements and Other Reports, Summary of Debt Service requirements to maturity. Debt Service for anticipated 2020 bonds is estimated. Total Debt Service amount is split 50/50 between Water and Wastewater. Reserve for Contingencies - Replacement and Rehabilitation Projects:As per Florida Statues, reserve for contingencies are up to 10% of expenses.9/12/20188:18 AMPage 60 of 2629.A.2.hPacket Pg. 367Attachment: February 2019 10-Yr Water Supply Facilities Work Plan-CleanVersion-190315 (8272 : Ten Year APPENDIX HFUTURE COSTS AND REVENUES BY TYPE OF PUBLIC FACILITYFISCAL YEARS 2024-2028PUDPOTABLE WATER PROJECTS$ AMOUNT $ AMOUNT $ AMOUNT $ AMOUNT $ AMOUNT $ AMOUNTCIE # PROJECTFY 2024 FY 2025 FY 2026 FY 2027 FY 2028 TOTALDebt Service$14,725,000 $17,510,000 $16,727,000 $15,900,500 $15,689,500$80,552,000Expansion Related Projects - Generally$82,500,000 $5,000,000 $0 $5,000,000 $0$92,500,000Replacement & Rehabilitation Projects - Generally$22,375,000 $17,755,000 $17,815,000 $23,495,000 $23,495,000$104,935,000Departmental Capital$1,254,000 $1,279,000 $1,305,000 $1,331,000 $1,358,000$6,527,000Reserve for Contingencies - Replacement & Rehabilitation Projects$2,238,000 $1,776,000 $1,782,000 $2,350,000 $2,350,000$10,496,000POTABLE WATER PROJECT TOTALS$123,092,000 $43,320,000 $37,629,000 $48,076,500 $42,892,500 $295,010,000REVENUE KEY - REVENUE SOURCEFY 2024 FY 2025 FY 2026 FY 2027 FY 2028 TOTALWIF - Water System Development Fees$6,500,000 $6,500,000 $6,500,000 $6,500,000 $6,500,000 $32,500,000B1 - Bonds$82,500,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $82,500,000SRF - State Revolving Fund Loans$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0WCA - Water Capital Account$1,254,000 $1,279,000 $1,305,000 $1,331,000 $1,358,000 $6,527,000REV - Rate Revenue$32,838,000 $35,541,000 $29,824,000 $40,245,500 $35,034,500$173,483,000REVENUE TOTAL$123,092,000 $43,320,000 $37,629,000 $48,076,500 $42,892,500$295,010,000CONSTRUCTIONSCHEDULE NOTESNOTE: Collier County has adopted a two-year Concurrency Management System. Figures provided for years three, four and five of this Schedule of Capital Improvements are not part of the Concurrency Management System but must be financially feasible with a dedicated revenue source or an alternative revenue source if the dedicated revenue source is not realized. Figures provided for years six through ten of the Schedule of Capital Improvements are estimates of revenues versus project costs but do not constitute a long term concurrency system. 9/12/20188:18 AMPage 61 of 2629.A.2.hPacket Pg. 368Attachment: February 2019 10-Yr Water Supply Facilities Work Plan-CleanVersion-190315 (8272 : Ten Year EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Recommendation to adopt a Resolution proposing amendment to the Collier County Growth Management Plan, Ordinance 89-05, as amended, specifically amending the Potable Water Sub element of the Public Facilities Element to amend Policy 1.7 to reference the updated Ten-Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan, and furthermore directing transmittal of the amendment to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity. (Transmittal Hearing) (PL20180002552/CPSP-2018-6) OBJECTIVE: The objective of this petition is to have the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) consider a request to amend the County’s Growth Management Plan (GMP) to modify the reference to the updated Ten-Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan with the new date, as required by Section 163.3177(6)(c), Florida Statutes, as well as to consider directing transmittal of the amendment to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity (DEO). CONSIDERATIONS: The Florida Water Resources Act (Chapter 373, F.S.) requires the five water management districts to provide regional water supply planning in all areas of the State to meet future projected demands. Each regional water supply plan is based on at least a 10-year future planning horizon, and a complete update of each plan is required every 5 years. The purpose of regional water supply planning is to develop strategies to meet future water demands of urban and agricultural uses, while meeting the needs of the environment. This process identifies historical uses of water and water source options to meet potential shortfall. Florida Statutes Section 163.177(6)(c) requires local governments to prepare a Ten-Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan and adopt revisions to comprehensive plans within 18 months following the approval of the most current version of the applicable regional water supply plan. Collier County is within the water supply planning area under the purview of the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD). On February 24, 2009, the County adopted its first Ten -Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan, by Ordinance No. 09-04, based on the guidelines of the 2005-2006 Lower West Coast Plan Update. The most recently revised 2017 Lower West Coast Water Supply Plan Update was approved by the SFWMD Governing Board in December 2017. This plan assesses projected water demands and potential sources of water for the period through 2040. Therefore, Collier County must adopt their updated plan by May 15, 2019, 18 months after SFWMD adopted the latest Plan Update. The proposed 10-Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan update addresses the following objectives: • Identifies population and water demands of the County and each utility for the planning period, 2019 to 2028. • Presents existing and planned potable and reclaimed water facilities that will be utilized to meet demand projections. • Identifies sources of raw water needed for potable water and irrigation water supply to meet demands through the year 2028. • Identifies the steps necessary to develop additional potable and reclaimed water supplies and specifies when they must occur and how they will be funded. • Demonstrates that the water supply plans for each utility within the County are feasible with respect to facility capacity to be developed and consumptive use permit allocations required. 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 369 Attachment: Transmittal Ex. Summary_PL20180002552_(2)FNL (8272 : Ten Year Water Facilities Supply Plan - February 2019) • Describes the conservation practices and regulations utilized by each utility to meet water supply demand. After the initial transmittal of the GMP Amendment for the Ten-Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan to the Department of Economic Opportunity and their 30-day review period, comments (if any) are sent back to the Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners; and subsequently, staff revises the amendment as necessary. The adoption process for the GMP amendment follows these revisions with staff bringing the amendment back through both the Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners for adoption public hearings. NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING (NIM) SYNOPSIS: A Neighborhood Information Meeting (NIM) is not required by Section 10.03.05.F of the LDC for Growth Management Plan amendments which are not site specific. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION (CCPC)/ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL (EAC) RECOMMENDATION: The CCPC, sitting in its capacity as the local planning agency under Ch. 163.3174, F.S., and also sitting as EAC, heard this petition, at their December 6, 2018 meeting, and voted 6-0 to forward the subject petition to the BCC with a recommendation to transmit to DEO. The Planning Commission brought up a number of concerns with the Work Plan and requested staff address their comments. Public Utilities has compiled a table listing the Planning Commission’s comments and how each will be addressed (Attachment A). FISCAL IMPACT: None LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS: This Growth Management Plan (GMP) amendment is authorized by, and subject to the procedures established in, Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes, The Community Planning Act, and by Collier County Resolution No. 12-234, as amended. The Board should consider the following criteria in making its decision: “plan amendments shall be based on relevant and appropriate data and an analysis by the local government that may include but not be limited to, surveys, studies, community goals and vision, and other data available at the time of adoption of the plan amendment. To be based on data means to react to it in an appropriate way and to the extent necessary indicated by the data available on that particular subject at the time of adoption of the plan or plan amend ment at issue.” 163.3177(1)(f), F.S. This item is approved as to form and legality. It requires a majority vote because this is a transmittal hearing of the GMP amendment. [SAS] GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: Adoption of the ten-year water supply plan update and subsequent amendment to the Potable Water Sub element of the Growth Management Plan will satisfy the requirements of 163.3177(6)(c), F.S. RECOMMENDATION: That the Board of County Commissioners transmit this GMP Amendment, petition PL20180002552/CPSP-2018-6, to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity. Prepared By: Sue Faulkner, Principal Planner, Comprehensive Planning Section, Zoning Division 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 370 Attachment: Transmittal Ex. Summary_PL20180002552_(2)FNL (8272 : Ten Year Water Facilities Supply Plan - February 2019) Agenda Item #9.A.4 PL20180002552/CPSP-2018-6 Ten-Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan – Potable Water Sub element of the Public Facilities Element 1 STAFF REPORT TO: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION (CCPC) FROM: COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING SECTION, ZONING DIVISION, GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT HEARING DATE: December 6, 2018 RE: Petition PL20180002552/CPSP-2018-6, Ten-Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan, Growth Management Plan Amendment. (TRANSMITTAL HEARING) NOTE: This petition also requires a recommendation by the CCPC sitting as the Environmental Advisory Council. AGENT/APPLICANT: Public Utilities Department Engineering and Project Management Division Collier County Government 3339 East Tamiami Trail, Suite 303 Naples, FL 34112 GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION: The proposed Growth Management Plan (GMP) amendment is not specific to a certain location. REQUESTED ACTION: The proposed text change seeks to amend the Potable Water Sub-Element of the Public Facilities Element to update the reference to our next Ten-Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan, as required of Collier County government by Section 163.3177(6)(c), Florida Statutes. Policy 1.7 is proposed to be amended as follows: [Note: Current Potable Water Sub-Element language appears below in plain text, the proposed amendment is shown in strike-through/underline format. Objective 1 of the Sub-Element is included for background/clarity purposes] 9.A.2.j Packet Pg. 371 Attachment: Transmittal Staff Report_PL20180002552_(2)FNL (8272 : Ten Year Water Facilities Supply Plan - February 2019) Agenda Item #9.A.4 PL20180002552/CPSP-2018-6 Ten-Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan – Potable Water Sub element of the Public Facilities Element 2 Proposed Potable Water Sub-Element Text Amendment: [page 2] OBJECTIVE 1: Locate and develop potable water supply sources to meet the future needs of the County owned and operated systems, said supply sources meeting the minimum Level of Service Standards established by this Plan. The development and utilization of new potable water supply sources and the acquisition of land necessary for such development shall be based upon the information, guidelines and procedures identified within the County’s Ten-Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan (as updated) and the Lower West Coast Water Supply Plan prepared by the South Florida Water Management District. [Note: No revisions to Policies 1.1 through 1.6 are proposed.] Policy 1.7: The County has developed the Ten-Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan, dated October 2013 November 2018, in accordance with the water supply guidelines of the most current version of the South Florida Water Management District’s Lower West Coast Water Supply Plan. The County’s Ten-Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan is incorporated herein by reference. STAFF ANALYSIS: As indicated in Policy 1.7 of the Public Facilities Element, Potable Water Sub-Element, the County has developed the Ten-Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan (Appendix A). The proposed text amendment seeks to adopt the updated version of the County’s plan, which has been prepared in accordance with the most current version of the South Florida Water Management District’s Lower West Coast Water Supply Plan. The updated version of the Ten- Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan is proposed for incorporation into the County’s GMP by reference. Regional Planning: In December 2017, the Governing Board of the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) approved the 2017 Lower West Coast Water Supply Plan (LWCWSP) Update. Under Florida law (section 163.3177(6)(c), Florida Statutes) Collier County must adopt amendments to its comprehensive plan within 18 months of the SFWMD approval of the update. These amendments include the development of an updated 10-Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan and amendments to the Growth Management Plan (GMP). The LWCWSP amendment required the five water management districts to initiate regional water supply planning in all areas of the State. The purpose of regional water supply planning is to develop strategies to meet future water demands of urban and agricultural uses, while meeting the needs of the environment. This process identifies historical uses of water and water source options to meet potential shortfall. Each regional water supply plan is based on at least a 10-year future planning horizon, and a complete update of each plan is required every five years. 9.A.2.j Packet Pg. 372 Attachment: Transmittal Staff Report_PL20180002552_(2)FNL (8272 : Ten Year Water Facilities Supply Plan - February 2019) Agenda Item #9.A.4 PL20180002552/CPSP-2018-6 Ten-Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan – Potable Water Sub element of the Public Facilities Element 3 The Lower West Coast Water Supply Planning Area includes Lee County and portions of Charlotte, Collier, Glades, Hendry and Monroe counties. The 2017 Lower West Coast Water Supply Plan Update (LWC Update) was approved by the SFWMD Governing Board in December 2017. The LWC Update assesses projected water demands and potential sources of water for the period through 2040. Source: 2017 Lower West Coast Water Supply Plan Update 9.A.2.j Packet Pg. 373 Attachment: Transmittal Staff Report_PL20180002552_(2)FNL (8272 : Ten Year Water Facilities Supply Plan - February 2019) Agenda Item #9.A.4 PL20180002552/CPSP-2018-6 Ten-Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan – Potable Water Sub element of the Public Facilities Element 4 Local Planning: On February 25, 2003 the Board of County Commissioners adopted an update to the County’s 2001 Water Master Plan, to provide an integrated approach for meeting the projected water system demands up to the year 2022. The “2002 Water Master Plan Update” provided for comprehensive overview of the entire water system, including emergency systems, water demand projections and demands and proposed conservation and reclaimed water projects, and provided a plan for future water supply and infrastructure needs to meet the requirements of growth, infrastructure renewal, replacement and enhancement over a course of five years. Water demands were provided at five-year increments to be consistent with the 2000 Lower West Coast Regional Water Supply Plan. During the State of Florida’s 2005 legislative session, lawmakers revised state water law to include a new statutory provision. Local governments within the Lower West Coast Planning Area are required to prepare a Ten-Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan that identifies water supply projects and adopt revisions to comprehensive plans within 18 months following the approval of the most current version of the Lower West Coast Water Supply Plan Update. On January 25, 2007, as part of the 2004 Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR) based amendments, and in preparation of the anticipated Ten-Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan, Collier County adopted language to coordinate water supply planning with SFWMD. Modifications of various Goals, Objectives and Policies (GOPs), as required by these legislative actions, were addressed through the GMP amendment to the Potable Water Sub-Element, the Conservation and Coastal Management Element and the Intergovernmental Coordination Element. The amendments referenced the 2002 Water Master Plan Update and any updates as the County’s water supply planning document. During the County’s 2011 EAR-based amendments, references to the County’s 2002 Water Master Plan document were further revised to note the adopted Ten-Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan (dated October 2008) as the County’s appropriate document for water supply planning. On February 24, 2009, the County adopted its first Ten-Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan, by Ordinance No. 09-04. It was based on the guidelines of the 2005-2006 Lower West Coast Plan Update, subsequently adopted. In December 2017, the SFWMD’s Governing Board approved the 2017 Lower West Coast Water Supply Plan Update. Therefore, Collier County must adopt the proposed GMP text amendment that references the proposed Ten-Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan by May 15, 2019 (or 18 months after the District Governing Board approved each regional water supply plan) [s. 163.3177(6)(c), F.S.]. 9.A.2.j Packet Pg. 374 Attachment: Transmittal Staff Report_PL20180002552_(2)FNL (8272 : Ten Year Water Facilities Supply Plan - February 2019) Agenda Item #9.A.4 PL20180002552/CPSP-2018-6 Ten-Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan – Potable Water Sub element of the Public Facilities Element 5 Proposed 10-Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan update: As noted in the attached 10-Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan, the updated document addresses the following objectives: • Identifies population and water demands of the County and each utility for the planning period, 2019 to 2028. • Presents existing and planned potable and reclaimed water facilities that will be utilized to meet demand projections. • Identifies sources of raw water needed for potable water and irrigation water supply to meet demands through the year 2028. • Identifies the steps necessary to develop additional potable and reclaimed water supplies and specifies when they must occur and how they will be funded. • Demonstrates that the water supply plans for each utility within the County are feasible with respect to facility capacity to be developed and consumptive use permit allocations required. • Describes the conservation practices and regulations utilized by each utility to meet water supply demand. The population methodology used for the 10-Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan is based on the County’s latest adopted Annual Update Inventory Report and Capital Improvement Element (AUIR-CIE) available at the time the plan was created (2018 AUIR-CIE). Please note that because of updates to data, the proposed Ten-Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan will differ from the 2017 Lower West Coast Plan Update, as well as the most recent AUIR-CIE documents. These variances have been vetted with SFWMD staff, who agrees that the population methodology is appropriate. This 10-Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan was prepared by the County’s consultant, CDM Smith, in coordination with Public Utilities Department and Growth Management Department staff, as well as representatives from various private utilities, and includes the areas of the County served by the Collier County Water and Sewer District, the Ave Maria Utility Company (AMUC), and the Immokalee Water and Sewer District (IWSD). Also referenced in the plan are the Lee Cypress Water and Sewer Co-Op, Inc, and the Port of The Islands Community Improvement District, as well as a number of small capacity water systems regulated by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) (see pages 2-6 and 2-7 of the attached plan). These did not meet the minimum size requirements to be included. In substance, the CCWSD portions of the Plan update provide detail behind the following broad subject areas: (a) Existing Facilities (Section 4): The CCWSD is served by three water treatment plants, the North County Regional Water Treatment Plant, the South County Regional Water Treatment Plant, and the Orange Tree Water Treatment Plant, with maximum finished water production capacities of 20 MGD, 32 MGD, and 0.75 MGD respectively. Four wellfields provide raw water for the plants, drawing from both brackish and non-brackish 9.A.2.j Packet Pg. 375 Attachment: Transmittal Staff Report_PL20180002552_(2)FNL (8272 : Ten Year Water Facilities Supply Plan - February 2019) Agenda Item #9.A.4 PL20180002552/CPSP-2018-6 Ten-Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan – Potable Water Sub element of the Public Facilities Element 6 sources. Collier County has been a leader in the use of brackish water source production. Along with these production and wellfield facilities, the CCWSD contains over 1,000 miles of transmission and distribution pipelines, water storage tanks, pumping facilities, an aquifer storage and recover (ASR) system and approximately 56,000 individual service connections. In addition, the CCWSD operates one of the largest irrigation quality (IQ) water systems in south Florida. With contractual commitments of over 23 MGD to golf courses communities, parks and roadway medians, there is additional potential demand of over 28.5 MGD represented by communities that have been dual-piped. (b) Planned Water Supply Facilities (Section 5): Based on the 2018 AUIR population and Level of Service (LOS) standard, the Plan update indicates 2027 as the optimal first production year for the new Northeast Regional Water Treatment Plant Wellfield Phase 1. Components of this regional improvement include the Phase 1 Water Treatment Plant, the Phase 1 wellfield, and all associated transmission pipelines, pumps and water storage tanks. The District’s IQ water system will be enhanced by the development of 5 ASR wells that will allow storage of IQ water in the wet season for use in the dry season. Additional sources of IQ supply will be addressed, through permit allocations of groundwater and capture and storage of surface water. (c) Facilities Capacity Analysis (Chapter 6): Plans to bring online a new potable water treatment facility and associated wellfield during the 10-year period will allow CCWSD to stay ahead of the demand curve during the 10-year planning period. (d) Conservation (Section 7): Conservation measures have been an important element in CCWSD planning for many years. Local regulations on domestic irrigation, low flow devices, Florida Friendly landscape principles, Fridays are Dry Days, and a block rate structure have been employed and will be continually improved. A meter replacement program is now underway, and efficiency gains at the Regional Plants and throughout the Distribution system are being realized. (e) Capital Improvement Projects (Section 8): Subsections present the capital improvement projects planned by each utility, including the funding source, project number, project name, and cost estimate for each project. A depiction of the District boundaries for each of the covered utilities follows. 9.A.2.j Packet Pg. 376 Attachment: Transmittal Staff Report_PL20180002552_(2)FNL (8272 : Ten Year Water Facilities Supply Plan - February 2019) Agenda Item #9.A.4 PL20180002552/CPSP-2018-6 Ten-Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan – Potable Water Sub element of the Public Facilities Element 7 Source: Collier County 10 Year Water Supply Plan Update (Draft), October 2018 9.A.2.j Packet Pg. 377 Attachment: Transmittal Staff Report_PL20180002552_(2)FNL (8272 : Ten Year Water Facilities Supply Plan - February 2019) Agenda Item #9.A.4 PL20180002552/CPSP-2018-6 Ten-Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan – Potable Water Sub element of the Public Facilities Element 8 Statutory Requirements: The Department of Economic Opportunity (DEO) has published “A guide to Preparation of the Water Supply Facilities Work Plan”. Local governments must comply with the following statutory requirements for water supply and facility planning (Each requirement followed by staff comment in bold and italics): 1. Coordinate appropriate aspects of their comprehensive plan with the appropriate water management district's regional water supply plan. [Section 163.3177(4)(a), F.S.]. The current GMP contains Goals, Objectives, and Policies (GOPs) that had been adopted with the purpose of maintaining coordination with the SFWMD’s water supply plan. 2. Revise the Potable Water Sub-Element to adopt a water supply facilities work plan covering at least a 10-year planning period to meet existing and projected demand. The work plan should address those water supply facilities for which the local government has responsibility and include the facilities needed to develop alternative water supplies. The work plan should also identify conservation and reuse measures to meet future needs. [Section 163.3177(6)(c), F.S.] Policy 1.7 of the Potable Water Sub-Element was amended by Ordinance 09-04 to incorporate by reference the County’s 10-Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan. This proposed GMP amendment seeks to adopt the revised update to the plan, which identifies: the County’s traditional and alternative water supply sources to meet existing and projected needs for the a 10- year period; the capital improvements that will be needed to develop, treat, and deliver those alternative supplies; and the conservation measures and reuse supplies utilized to offset demand for new water. The County also updates its Capital Improvement Element on a yearly basis through the AUIR-CIE to include the capital improvements needed in the first five years of the 10-Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan. 3. Revise the Conservation Element to assess current and projected water needs and sources for at least a 10-year planning period. The analysis must consider the existing levels of water conservation, use, and protection and the applicable policies of the water management district, and the district’s approved regional water supply plan. In the absence of an approved regional water supply plan, the analysis must consider the district’s approved water management plan. [Section 163.3177(6)(d)3, F.S.] The current Conservation and Coastal Management Element of the GMP contains Goals, Objectives, and Policies (GOPs) that consider the SFWMD’s levels of water conservation, use, and protection. 4. Revise the Capital Improvements Element to identify capital improvements projects to be implemented in the first 5 years of the work plan for which the local government is responsible, including both publicly and privately funded water supply projects necessary to achieve and maintain adopted level of service standards; and adopt a 5-year schedule of capital improvements to include those projects as either funded or unfunded, and if unfunded, given a level of priority for funding. [163.3177(3)(a)4, F.S.] The County 9.A.2.j Packet Pg. 378 Attachment: Transmittal Staff Report_PL20180002552_(2)FNL (8272 : Ten Year Water Facilities Supply Plan - February 2019) Agenda Item #9.A.4 PL20180002552/CPSP-2018-6 Ten-Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan – Potable Water Sub element of the Public Facilities Element 9 updates its Capital Improvement Element on a yearly basis through the AUIR-CIE to include the capital improvements needed in the first five years of the 10-Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan. 5. Revise the Intergovernmental Coordination Element to adopt principles and guidelines to be used to coordinate the comprehensive plan with the regional water supply authority (if applicable) and with the applicable regional water supply plan. [163.3177(6)(h)1, F.S.] The current Intergovernmental Coordination Element of the GMP contains Goals, Objectives, and Policies (GOPs) that provide principles and guidance for coordination with the SFWMD and other public and private utilities in regard to water supply planning. 6. During the Evaluation and Appraisal review, determine if comprehensive plan amendments are necessary to reflect statutory changes related to water supply and facilities planning since the last update to the comprehensive plan. If necessary, transmit the amendments to incorporate the statutory changes as appropriate. [Section 163.3191(1) and (2), F.S.] The recently adopted County’s EAR-based amendments included revisions to several of its Elements (not related to statutory changes) to revise references to the County’s 2014 Water and Wastewater Master Plan Update document and include the adopted Ten-Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan, the Lower West Coast Water Supply Plan and the Water Master Plan as the County’s appropriate documents for water supply planning. NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING (NIM) SYNOPSIS The Collier County Land Development Code Chapter 10.03.00: Notice Requirements, establishes the required methods of providing public notice procedures and refers to Chapter 8 of the Collier County Administrative Code for Land Development (2018), which addresses information relating to public notice requirements for land use petitions (including when a Neighborhood Information Meeting is required.) The Administrative Code states, “The NIM is only for site-specific amendments.” This project is not a site-specific amendment, therefore no NIM was held. LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS: This staff report has been reviewed and approved by the Office of the County Attorney. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That the Collier County Planning Commission, sitting as the Environmental Advisory Council under Ordinances 2013-50 and 2013-51, and in its capacity as the local planning agency under Ch. 163.3174, F.S., forward Petition PL20180002552/CPSP-2018-6 to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation to approve for Transmittal to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity. 9.A.2.j Packet Pg. 379 Attachment: Transmittal Staff Report_PL20180002552_(2)FNL (8272 : Ten Year Water Facilities Supply Plan - February 2019) Agenda Item #9.A.4 PL20180002552/CPSP-2018-6 Ten-Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan – Potable Water Sub element of the Public Facilities Element 10 9.A.2.j Packet Pg. 380 Attachment: Transmittal Staff Report_PL20180002552_(2)FNL (8272 : Ten Year Water Facilities Supply Plan - February 2019) Attachment A Collier County Planning Commission – December 6, 2018 Item 9.A.4 – Discussion of the 10-Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan Update Time Speaker Comments/Questions 22:00 Fryer Signature block of Resolution has Dwight Brock’s name. Faulkner Corrected version of Resolution will be uploaded to Accela. [Done] 22:15 Fryer Reference to the termination of the Potable Water Bulk Services Agreement with Marco Island for Marco Shores 22:50 Klatzkow Explained situation and offered his opinion that the City of Marco Island is not legally entitled to reimbursement of impact fees; will be a BCC decision 25:45 Fry New (NE) Water Treatment Plant online around 2025; looks like it is out north of Immokalee, way out there. Why was that location chosen so far away from population growth? 26:12 Fry Capacity deficit for Ave Maria Utility Company--didn’t notice a solution for the deficit in the plan. Is that solution included in the plan? 26:46 Fey AMUC capacity deficit—AMUC is identified in the Lower West Coast Water Supply Plan as one of two utilities that need to perform water supply projects to meet projected demand. A 2.5 MGD capacity WTP is included in the LWCWSP to address the deficit. (Additional comments provided by Jason Sciandra at 46:37.) 27:47 Fey NE WTP location—facility is centrally located within the NE Service Area; 3 of 4 large developments actively pursuing zoning; fourth already held a pre- application meeting. Strain The four developments include Hogan Island (pre-app), Hyde Park, Rural Lands West, and Immokalee Rural Village. The new WTP is in the north part of Orange Tree. Immokalee has its own utility service. 29:11 Schmidt Does Plan include any changes to the wellfield protection areas identified in the Comp Plan? 29:21 Fey No, Pollution Control is working on an update to the Ordinance separately. 29:37 Strain The map on page 7 of the staff report identifies the 2018 AUIR; relabel this map or change map to the one used in 2018 AUIR. Areas in blue are not the same. 31:24 Fey The map in the staff report is the updated map and includes the service area resulting from BCC action on September 11, 2018 that expanded the district boundaries. It was not included in the 2018 AUIR because the AUIR was prepared prior to this action. [Update: Reference to the 2018 AUIR was deleted from the map on page 7 of the staff report.] 33:15 Strain Design Treatment Capacity (Table ES-1) doesn’t match with the Available Facility Capacity (Table ES-2), which doesn’t match with the numbers in the AUIR (New Treatment Capacity, Page 51 in the AUIR). You don’t reference Design Treatment Capacity in the AUIR. [See Fey, 48:28.] 33:46 Strain Page ES-3 (Table ES-2), the Service Population, Required Treatment Capacity, Available Facilities Capacity, Facility Capacity Surplus, Permitted Amount, and Permitted Surplus numbers don’t correspond with the 2018 AUIR. Example: 2018 Population—AUIR 186,362; WSFWP 241,422. Why wouldn’t you use the AUIR numbers that have already been vetted and approved by the BCC? 35:14 Fey The WSFWP uses peak season population while the AUIR uses permanent population. 35:31 Strain Wouldn’t that generate a higher number in this document? 9.A.2.k Packet Pg. 381 Attachment: Attachment A - CCPC Transmittal Hearing Discussion and Action Items (8272 : Ten Year Water Facilities Supply Plan - February Attachment A Time Speaker Comments/Questions 35:38 Fey The AUIR addresses WTP capacity based on max. 3-day demand, which has a higher multiplier than peak season. Consumptive use permits issued by the SFWMD are based upon max. month. Peak season population is being used in this document to be consistent with the LWCWSP. [Correction: The LWCWSP uses permanent population.] 36:15 Strain If this is supposed to be based on the AUIR, why don’t you use the same numbers and the same terminology in this document? 37:22 Fey We will work to provide consistency and explanations as to why the numbers differ. [See action item #1 below.] 38:09 Strain Figure 2-1—Why is Marco Shores area not colored? Who serves that area? 38:59 Fey We currently serve Marco Shores via bulk water master meter on CR-951; Marco Island is terminating agreement and will supply water to Marco Shores upon completion of a new water main extension. 39:30 Strain Won’t Marco Island serve Marco Shores within the 10-year planning horizon? 39:44 Fey Yes, the water main extension should be complete within a matter of months. 39:49 Strain Then Marco Shores should be shown as part of the City of Marco Island’s service area. [See action item #2 below.] Why doesn’t Figure 2-2 show any pipes in Marco Shores? 40:08 Fey The internal piping network is already owned and maintained by the City of Marco Island. 40:33 Strain As previously discussed, the population projections for the CCWSD are inconsistent with the 2018 AUIR. [See action item #1 below.] 41:00 Strain Demand per capita--Immokalee 75, Ave Maria 90, and we’re at 150. Why do we have such a higher demand per capita? 41:27 Fey Per capita use rate is total finished water divided by permanent population and includes commercial, industrial, and institutional uses as well as potable water used for irrigation. These and other factors explain the large differences between urban and rural area water users. [See action item #3 below.] 42:45 Strain What is the City of Naples per capita use rate? 42:48 Fey That information is in the LWCWSP. We will get it for you. [See Fey, 50:25.] 43:06 Chrzanowski What is the typical per capita use rate? Does that include irrigation? Fey 150 gpcd is typical per FDEP, and presumably includes irrigation. Our PCUR has been hovering slightly below 150 (around 140) for the past eight years and will likely continue to decline as irrigation becomes a smaller portion of total demand. [See action item #3 below.] 44:25 Strain Page 5-2--Water levels in the LT Aquifer continue to rise. How often are we collecting data? 45:12 Sciandra We report monthly data to the SFWMD, including monitoring well levels and chloride concentrations. We are getting ready to renew permits. Over time, levels have improved, largely due to shifts in water users—less agricultural and more residential demand. Long-term planning by the County to use alternative supplies has led to more fresh water availability, which is advantageous as treatment is less expensive. 46:37 Sciandra In answer to Fry’s earlier question about deficient supply in the AMUC service area, the additional capacity of the proposed WTP is not included because it is not yet permitted. 9.A.2.k Packet Pg. 382 Attachment: Attachment A - CCPC Transmittal Hearing Discussion and Action Items (8272 : Ten Year Water Facilities Supply Plan - February Attachment A Time Speaker Comments/Questions 47:50 Strain Table 5-3 on page 5-7 shows two facilities for the NERWTP with different capacities. Are you building both? 48:28 Fey Yes, we are building both at the same time. We list them separately because they treat water from different aquifers. 48:36 Strain 2027 is beyond the start dates for the four new communities. How are they going to get water service? 49:18 Fey The regional system has been expanded to include Orange Tree; the regional system has sufficient capacity to serve the initial phases. 49:58 Fry Are the new communities already factored into the population projections? 50:20 Fey That is correct. 50:25 Fey In answer to an earlier question, the City of Naples’ per capita use rate is 207 gpcd. 50:40 Strain Regarding Fry’s question, how would you have factored in the populations of the new developments? 51:55 Fey We have been tracking those developments for years and have build-out schedules from the developers, but we used preliminary results from the Collier Interactive Growth Model. 52:39 Strain Do you have confidence that you used the right persons per household and the right density? 53:13 Fey The CIGM’s numbers were less than developers build-out schedules. For design, we are using developer projections as the worst-case scenario, but the preliminary CIGM results represent the best available information for planning purposes. 53:55 Strain Use of more conservative numbers ensures concurrency. 54:10 Klatzkow The real issue is making sure pipes are sized to handle more people than projected. 54:46 Strain Agreed, that’s why we should be conservative on the plus side. 54:52 Fey We will continue to refine population projections every year through the AUIR, based upon population projections from BEBR and considering growth patterns, as analyzed by Comprehensive Planning. 55:13 Strain Page 6-3, Table 6-3—Ave Maria is growing at a rate of 264 units per year based upon the projection for 2023. Are they really growing that fast? Where do these numbers come from? 55:50 Fey Population figures for Ave Maria are from the LWCWSP, which uses BEBR projections, as refined by the MPO. [Correction: Population figures for 2018, 2023, and 2028 were provided by Jason Vogel of AMUC via email on 9/7/2018, and figures for 2013 were interpolated therefrom.] 56:14 Strain Ave Maria probably could have given you some pretty accurate numbers. 56:25 Fey We can ask them for those numbers; we did coordinate with them on this project. [Done on 9/7/2018] 56:53 Strain Page 7-2, Figure 7-1—Why did water loss almost doubled from 2016 to 2017? 57:40 Fey Acquisition of Orange Tree Utility Company in 2017 may have been a small factor. We will follow up with the Water Division. [See action item #4 below.] 58:28 Strain Page 7-3—Are flushing stations part of the water loss? Are they metered? 58:45 Fey They may account for some of the water loss. They are metered but are not billed. With cul-de-sac development, flushing stations have become prevalent as water main looping is often not feasible on long dead ends. 9.A.2.k Packet Pg. 383 Attachment: Attachment A - CCPC Transmittal Hearing Discussion and Action Items (8272 : Ten Year Water Facilities Supply Plan - February Attachment A Time Speaker Comments/Questions 1:00:00 Strain END OF QUESTIONS ACTION ITEMS: 1 Revise population data for consistency with the 2018 AUIR. 2 The Figure 2.1 map needs to have Marco Shores appropriately shown. 3 Add a discussion of per capita use rate. 4 Add a discussion of water loss, to include an explanation of the increase in 2017. 9.A.2.k Packet Pg. 384 Attachment: Attachment A - CCPC Transmittal Hearing Discussion and Action Items (8272 : Ten Year Water Facilities Supply Plan - February 1 FeyEric From:FeyEric Sent:Friday, December 21, 2018 6:57 PM To:'Oblaczynski, Deborah' Cc:Sciandra, Jason; 'Desai, Dharmin D.'; Garcia-Alario, Christina M.; ChmelikTom; MattauschPaul; AbbottAlicia; JohnssenBeth; LibbyPamela Subject:RE: Collier County, Informal Review Comments on the Draft Water Supply Facilities Work Plan Update Attachments:Resolution w_Exhibit A.pdf Importance:High Deb, Thank you for your review of the draft Collier County 10-Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan. We agree with your below correction comments and will proceed with the requested revisions, as noted after each comment in bold, italicized text. This email response will be provided as Attachment B to our agenda item for the Board of County Commissioners meeting on January 8, 2019, in which we are requesting Board direction to transmit the draft work plan to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity with the revisions noted below, including the following changes pursuant to discussion at the Collier County Planning Commission meeting on December 6, 2018: 1. Revise population data for consistency with the 2018 AUIR. 2. The Figure 2.1 map needs to have Marco Shores appropriately shown. 3. Add a discussion of per capita use rate. 4. Add a discussion of water loss, to include an explanation of the increase in 2017. Please do not hesitate to contact me about any questions or concerns you might have. Respectfully, Eric Fey, P.E. Senior Project Manager Public Utilities Engineering & Project Management Division Continuous Improvement NOTE: Email Address Has Changed 3339 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 303, Naples, Florida 34112-5361 Phone: 239.252.1037 Cell: 239.572.0043 Attachment B 9.A.2.l Packet Pg. 385 Attachment: Attachment B - SFWMD Informal Comments and Responses (8272 : Ten Year Water Facilities Supply Plan - February 2019) 2 From: Oblaczynski, Deborah <doblaczy@sfwmd.gov> Sent: Friday, December 14, 2018 11:57 AM To: MattauschPaul <Paul.Mattausch@colliercountyfl.gov> Subject: Collier County, Informal Review Comments on the Draft Water Supply Facilities Work Plan Update Dear Mr. Mattausch: Thank you for providing the draft Collier County Water Supply Facilities Work Plan (Work Plan) for District review. We have completed an informal review of the Work Plan and offer the following comments (note: the comments are in no particular order): · Update Table ES-3 Summary of Existing and Planned IWSD Water Treatment Facilities (page ES-4) to reflect current information provided to the District on December 7, 2018. The Carson Road WTP capacity is listed as 2.58 MGD and the RO WTP expected to be online in 2020. According an email from Eva Deyo, Utility Director, the Carson WTP capacity is 2.0 MGD and the RO plant is expected to be online in 2026. We will revise Table ES-3 to reflect the RO WTP coming online in 2026 with a design treatment capacity of 2.0 MGD. · Revise Table 4.4 Existing South Hawthorn RO Wellfield Summary (pages 4-7 – 4-8) as follows: o Update the pump capacity for wells from 1S to 25S and 13s to 15s to be consistent with Table A in Application 180309-16. Table 4-4 will be revised to be consistent with Table A in Application 180309-16. o Wells 39S to 42S are duplicated on Table 4-4. The wells appear on page 4-7 (rows 16 and 19) and then again on page 4-8 (rows 5 and 8). Please revise Table 4-4 accordingly. The duplicate information in rows 16 – 19 on page 4-7 will be deleted. · Update Well D on Table 4-5 Existing Orange Tree Wellfield Summary (page 4-8) to be consistent with application 180111-21. The total depth for Well D on Table 4-5 is 172 ft. The total depth of Well D in Table A of Application 180111-21 is 180 ft. Table 4-5 will be revised to indicate a total well depth of 180 feet for Well D. · Update Table 4-11 Summary of Existing IWSD Potable Water Wells (page 4-18), to be consistent with the details for Wells 7 to 13, 101 to 106, and 204 in Application 120808-32 Table A. Table 4-11 will be revised to be consistent with Table A in Application 120808-32. · Include the Relevant Regional Issues from the Lower West Coast Water Supply Plan. This section is intended to briefly address overarching regional issues impacting water supply planning at the local level, such as the adoption of rules affecting availability of water, a Sector Plan, or other large-scale Attachment B 9.A.2.l Packet Pg. 386 Attachment: Attachment B - SFWMD Informal Comments and Responses (8272 : Ten Year Water Facilities Supply Plan - February 2019) 3 development. Include a narrative of the effects of identified regional issues on the County. Also describe the County’s policies addressing regional concerns. Detailed information on the regional issues can be found in Chapter 6, Water Resource Issues and Analyses, in the Lower West Coast Water Supply Plan. The information can be accessed at: https://www.sfwmd.gov/our-work/water-supply/lower-west-coast The regional issues for the Lower West Coast Water Supply Plan are: Increased withdrawals from the Surficial Aquifer and Intermediate Aquifer Systems are limited This is already addressed in Section 5.1 of the County’s plan. Lake Okeechobee Service Area Restricted Allocation Area criteria This applies to surface water allocations from Lake Okeechobee and hydraulically connected surface water, which the County does not use as source. Freshwater discharges to the Caloosahatchee Estuary Collier County is effectively not in the Caloosahatchee Watershed (see below map). · Include the proposed revisions to the Comprehensive Plan’s Goals, Objectives, and Policies for consistency with the proposed Work Plan update. Updates should include, but not be limited to, Attachment B 9.A.2.l Packet Pg. 387 Attachment: Attachment B - SFWMD Informal Comments and Responses (8272 : Ten Year Water Facilities Supply Plan - February 2019) 4 changes to conservation programs, level of service standards, capital improvements, population projections, and other details updated by the Work Plan. The County’s 10-Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan is incorporated into the Growth Management Plan by reference in Policy 1.7 of the Potable Water Sub-Element of the Public Facilities Element. See Exhibit A to the attached draft resolution. We are happy to meet with you in person or by teleconference to go over the draft Work Plan. If you have any questions, would like to arrange a meeting, or need further information please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you, Deb Oblaczynski Policy & Planning Analyst Water Supply Coordination Unit South Florida Water Management District 3301 Gun Club Road West Palm Beach, FL 33406 (561) 682-2544 or doblaczy@sfwmd.gov Under Florida Law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by telephone or in writing. Attachment B 9.A.2.l Packet Pg. 388 Attachment: Attachment B - SFWMD Informal Comments and Responses (8272 : Ten Year Water Facilities Supply Plan - February 2019) RESOLUTION NO. 19- 11 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PROPOSING AMENDMENT TO THE COLLIER COUNTY GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN, ORDINANCE 89-05, AS AMENDED, SPECIFICALLY AMENDING THE POTABLE WATER SUBELEMENT OF THE PUBLIC FACILITIES ELEMENT TO AMEND POLICY 1.7 TO REFERENCE THE UPDATED TEN YEAR WATER SUPPLY FACILITIES WORK PLAN, AND FURTHERMORE DIRECTING TRANSMITTAL OF THE AMENDMENT TO THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY. PL20180002552] WHEREAS, Collier County, pursuant to Section 163.3161, et. seq., Florida Statutes, the Florida Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act of 1985, was required to prepare and adopt a comprehensive plan; and WHEREAS, the Collier County Board of County Commissioners adopted the Collier County Growth Management Plan on January 10, 1989; and WHEREAS, the Community Planning Act of 2011 provides authority for local governments to amend their respective comprehensive plans and outlines certain procedures to amend adopted comprehensive plans; and WHEREAS, Collier County staff has initiated this amendment to the Future Land Use Element; and WHEREAS, on December 6, 2018, the Collier County Planning Commission considered the proposed amendment to the Growth Management Plan pursuant to the authority granted to it by Section 163.3174, F.S., and has recommended approval of said amendment to the Board of County Commissioners; and WHEREAS, on January 8, 2019, the Board of County Commissioners at a public hearing approved the transmittal of the proposed amendment to the state land planning agency in accordance with Section 163.3184, F.S.; and WHEREAS, upon receipt of Collier County's proposed Growth Management Plan Amendment, various State agencies and the Department of Economic Opportunity (DEO) have thirty (30) days to review the proposed amendment and DEO must transmit, in writing, to Collier County its comments within said thirty (30) days pursuant to Section 163.3184, F.S.; and 18-CMP-01043/1449910/1177 Page 1 of 2 12/6/18 Words underlined are additions; Words struck through are deletions. are a break in text 0) 9.A.2.m Packet Pg. 389 Attachment: Transmittal Resolution 2019-11 (8272 : Ten Year Water Facilities Supply Plan - February 2019) WHEREAS, Collier County, upon receipt of the written comments from DEO must adopt, adopt with changes or not adopt the proposed Growth Management Plan Amendment within one hundred and eighty (180) days of such receipt pursuant to Section 163.3184, F.S.; and WHEREAS, the DEO, within five (5) days of receipt of Collier County's adopted Growth Management Plan Amendment, must notify the County of any deficiencies of the Plan Amendment pursuant to Section 163.3184(3), F.S. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA that: The Board of County Commissioners hereby approves the proposed Growth Management Plan Amendment, attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and incorporated by reference herein, for the purpose of transmittal to the Department of Economic Opportunity and other reviewing agencies thereby initiating the required State evaluation of the Growth Management Plan Amendment prior to final adoption. THIS RESOLUTION ADOPTED after motion, second and majority vote this day of Jq“1Jq 2019. ATTEST: BOARD OF 3UNTY COMM SIONERS CRYSTAL K. KINZEL, CLERK COLLIE 0 P.; Y, FL• ' J c-) BY: A Deputy rk 4 0,15 , Chairman Atter Chaf\. _. sig tore Only., Approved as tQ frin arid legality: ij_____T\fd Scott A. Stone A4 ,al cot'$ Assistant County Attorney Attachment: Exhibit"A" 18-CMP-01043/1449910/1p7 Page 2 of 2 12/6/18 Words underlined are additions; Words struck through are deletions. are a break in text CC) Oj 9.A.2.m Packet Pg. 390 Attachment: Transmittal Resolution 2019-11 (8272 : Ten Year Water Facilities Supply Plan - February 2019) Exhibit A COLLIER COUNTY GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN PUBLIC FACILITIES ELEMENT Potable Water Sub-Element OBJECTIVE 1: Page 2] Locate and develop potable water supply sources to meet the future needs of the County owned and operated systems, said supply sources meeting the minimum Level of Service Standards established by this Plan. The development and utilization of new potable water supply sources and the acquisition of land necessary for such development shall be based upon the information, guidelines and procedures identified within the County's Ten-Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan (as updated), and the Lower West Coast Water Supply Plan prepared by the South Florida Water Management District. Policy 1.7: The County has developed the Ten-Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan,dated October 2013 November 2018, in accordance with the water supply guidelines of the most current version of the South Florida Water Management District's Lower West Coast Water Supply Plan. The County's Ten-Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan is attached hereto incorporated herein by reference. Words underlined are additions; Words struck through are deletions. are a break in text 9.A.2.m Packet Pg. 391 Attachment: Transmittal Resolution 2019-11 (8272 : Ten Year Water Facilities Supply Plan - February 2019) Published DailyNaples, FL 34110 Affidavit of PublicationState of FloridaCounties of Collier and Lee Before the undersigned they serve as the authority, personally appeared Natalie Zollar who on oath says that she serves as Inside Sales Manager of the Naples Daily News, a daily newspaper published at Naples, in Collier County, Florida; distributed in Collier and Lee counties of Florida; that the attached copy of the advertising was published in said newspaper on dates listed. Affiant further says that the said Naples Daily News is a newspaper published at Na-ples, in said Collier County, Florida, and that the said newspaper has heretofore been continuously published in said Collier County, Florida; distributed in Collier and Lee counties of Florida, each day and has been entered as second class mail matter at the post office in Naples, in said Collier County, Florida, for a period of one year next preceding the first publication of the attached copy of advertisement; and affiant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, or corporation any discount, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing this advertisement for publication in the said newspaper.___________________________________________________________Customer Ad Number Copyline P.O.#_____________________________________________________________________________________ BCC/COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING DEV 2237338 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEA 4500190197 Pub DatesMarch 1, 2019 _______________________________________(Signature of affiant) Sworn to and subscribed before meThis March 01, 2019 _______________________________________(Signature of affiant) 9.A.2.n Packet Pg. 392 Attachment: CCPC Adoption Affidavit & Advertisement (8272 : Ten Year Water Facilities Supply Plan - February 2019) NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Notice is hereby given that the Collier County Planning Commission sitting as the local planning agency and the Environmental Advisory Council, will hold a public meeting on March 21, 2019, commencing at 9:00 A.M. in the Board of County Commissioners Chamber, Third Floor, County Government Center, 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Naples FL. The purpose of the hearing is to consider: AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AMENDING ORDINANCE 89-05, AS AMENDED, THE COLLIER COUNTY GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, SPECIFICALLY AMENDING THE POTABLE WATER SUBELEMENT OF THE PUBLIC FACILITIES ELEMENT TO AMEND POLICY 1.7 TO REFERENCE THE UPDATED TEN YEAR WATER SUPPLY FACILITIES WORK PLAN, DIRECTING TRANSMITTAL OF THE ADOPTION AMENDMENT TO THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY, AND FURTHERMORE PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. [PL20180002552] All interested parties are invited to appear and be heard. Copies of the proposed ORDINANCE will be made available for inspection at the GMD Zoning Division, Comprehensive Planning Section, 2800 N. Horseshoe Dr., Naples, between the hours of 8:00 A.M. and 5:00 P.M., Monday through Friday. Furthermore, the materials will be made available for inspection at the Collier County Clerk’s Office, Fourth Floor, Collier County Government Center, 3299 East Tamiami Trail, suite 401 Naples, one week prior to the scheduled hearing. Any questions pertaining to the documents should be directed to the GMD Zoning Division, Comprehensive Planning Section. Written comments filed with the Clerk to the Board’s Office prior to March 21, 2019, will be read and considered at the public hearing. Any person who decides to appeal any decision of the Collier County Planning Commission will need a record of the proceedings pertaining thereto and therefore, may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is based. If you are a person with a disability who needs any accommodation in order to participate in this proceeding, you are entitled, at no cost to you, to the provision of certain assistance. Please contact the Collier County Facilities Management Division, located at 3335 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 101, Naples, FL 34112-5356, (239) 252-8380, at least two days prior to the meeting. Assisted listening devices for the hearing impaired are available in the Board of County Commissioners Office. Mark P. Strain, Chairman Collier County Planning CommissionMarch 1, 2019. No. 2237338 9.A.2.n Packet Pg. 393 Attachment: CCPC Adoption Affidavit & Advertisement (8272 : Ten Year Water Facilities Supply Plan - February 2019) Legal Notices II PLESI{EWS.COM I FRIDAY. MARCH 1,2019 I AlD oflGE Of ?Uluc Eltllac Notice is hereby siven that the collier County Planning Commission sittins as the local planning agency and the Environmental Advisory Codncil, witl hold a public meeting on March 21,2019, commencing at9:00 A.M. in the Board of County Commissioners Chamber, Third Floor. County covernment Center,3299 TamiamiTrail East, Naples FL. The purpose ofthe hearing is to consider: AI{ ORI'II{AI{CE OF THE B(,ARD OF GOUi{TY COUMISSIOIEEt altELD[{GoRDtt{at{cEt905,asaltE}tDE0,TllEcot IJEncout{TY GIOWTII XAXAGEUE]IT PLAII FOR TIIE U]'II'CORPORATED AREA OF COIIIET COUT{TY, FTOIIDA, SPECIRCALLY AIIEI{OII{G THE POTABLE WATER SUBEIIMEIT OF THE PUBI.IC FACIUTIES ELEMENT TO AIIEI'I' POLICY 1.7 TO NEFERETCE THE UPDATED TEt{ YEAI WAIER SUPPIY FACIL]TIES WORX PLAT, DIRECTIT{G TRAISMIT?AL OF THE ADOPTION AMEI{DUEI{T TO THE FLORIDA DEPARII'EI{T OF ECOIIOI'IC OPPONIUIITY, ATID FURTHENMORE PNOVIDII{G fOR SEVERAEILIIY AiID PR()VIDITG FOn AI EFTECT|YE DATE. 1PLl0180002552! All interested pa.ties are invited to appear and be heard. Copies ot the proposed OR0INANCE will be made available for inspection at the GMD Zoning Division, Comprehensive Planning Section,2800 N. Horseshoe Dr., Naples, between the hours ot 8:00 A.M. and 5:00 PM., Monday through Friday. Furthermore, the materials will be made available for inspection at the Collier County Clerk's OfIice. Fourth Floor, Collier County Government Center,3299 East Tamiami Trail. suite 401 Naples, one weekprior to the scheduled hearing. Any questions pertaininq to the documents should be directed to the GMD Zonins Division, Comprehensive Planning Section. Written comments filed with the Clerk to the Board's Oftice prior to March 21,2019, will be read and considered at the public hearing. Any person who decides to appeal any decision ot the Collier County Planniog Commission will need a record of the proceedinOs pertaining thereto and therefore, may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is based. lf youareapersonwith adisabilitywho needsany accommodation in order to participate in this proceeding, you are entitled, at no cost to you, to the provision of certain assistance. Please contact the Collier County Facilities Management Division, located at 3335 TamiamiTrail East, Suite I0l, Naples, FL 34112- 5356, (239) 252-8380, at least two days prior to the meetinq. Assisted listening devices tor the hearing impaired are available in the Board of County Commissioners Office. Mark P, Strain, Chairman collier county Plannino commisslon March l,2019. No. 2237338 egal Noticesi I I ) : 9.A.2.n Packet Pg. 394 Attachment: CCPC Adoption Affidavit & Advertisement (8272 : Ten Year Water Facilities Supply Plan - February 2019)