Loading...
Agenda 01/13/2009 Item #10EAgenda Item No. 10E January 13, 2009 Page 1 of 398 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Recommendation to deny the Alternative Impact Fee Appeal submitted by Tamiami Square of Naples, LLC (Developer) and authorize the Chairman to execute a notice to the Developer for the collection of the Collier County Water -Sewer District (CCWSD) Alternative Impact Fee calculation of $120,904 for the existing tenants of Building 300, with Developer's concurrence, or the original amount of $196,873 without Developer's concurrence. OBJECTIVE: That the Board of County Commissioners, Ex- Officio, the Governing Board of the Collier County Water -Sewer District (Board), deny the Appeal submitted by Tamiami Square of Naples, LLC and authorize the Chairman to execute a notice to the Developer for the collection of the Collier County Water - Sewer District (CCWSD) Alternative Impact Fee calculation of $120,904 for the existing tenants of Building 300, with Developer's concurrence, or the original amount of $196,873 without Developer's concurrence. CONSIDERATIONS: On December 27, 2007, the Developer's representative initiated a discussion with staff concerning potential changes to the water, wastewater, and irrigation demand. In preparation for the meeting, staff uncovered an underpayment of prior water and wastewater impact fees associated with property located at 14700 Tamiami Trail North. The Developer was contacted and ultimately advised that $288,623.50 was due and payable to CCWSD. The Developer disputed the calculation, and informed staff of its intent to pursue an alternative impact fee calculation process. In March 2008, the Developer made a payment to the CCWSD in the amount of $43,444 for unpaid water and wastewater impact fees. An additional amount of $15,939 was collected on permit number 20070911176 for water and wastewater impact fees. In total, an amount of $59,383 has been collected and applied to the original balance of $288,623.50. The outstanding balance for the development now stands at $229,240.50. During Alternative Impact Fee discussions in October, the Developer requested that Building 100 and 200 be excluded from the calculation because there are no existing tenants. This figure reflects historical data and submitted information from the Developer for existing tenants in Building 300. The collection of water and wastewater impact fees far Buildings 100 and 200 will occur at a later date. On May 13, 2008, Agenda Item 16C3, the Board approved the Agreement Regarding Alternative Impact Fee Calculation (Agreement) that allowed the Developer to proceed with an Alternative Impact Fee Calculation Process with the CCWSD. On August 1, 2008, the County Attorney's Office received the Developer's Alternative Impact Fee Calculation proposal for review. On August 29, 2008, Staff notified the Developer that their submission was deemed "complete," but rejected due to use of a calculation method inconsistent with the methodology established within the Consolidated Impact Fee Ordinance (Ordinance) and inconsistent with the discussions held in the pre - application meeting with staff. On October 2, 2008, the County Attorney's Office received an Appeal from the Developer requesting that the Board approve the Alternative Impact Fee Calculation proposal submitted on August 1, 2008. No facts or Building 100 Building 200 Building 300 Total Original Balance Due $ 11,770.00 $ 20,597.50 $ 256,256.00 $ 288,623.50 Due after payments $ 11,770.00 1 $ 20,597.50 $ 196,873.00 $ 229,240.50 During Alternative Impact Fee discussions in October, the Developer requested that Building 100 and 200 be excluded from the calculation because there are no existing tenants. This figure reflects historical data and submitted information from the Developer for existing tenants in Building 300. The collection of water and wastewater impact fees far Buildings 100 and 200 will occur at a later date. On May 13, 2008, Agenda Item 16C3, the Board approved the Agreement Regarding Alternative Impact Fee Calculation (Agreement) that allowed the Developer to proceed with an Alternative Impact Fee Calculation Process with the CCWSD. On August 1, 2008, the County Attorney's Office received the Developer's Alternative Impact Fee Calculation proposal for review. On August 29, 2008, Staff notified the Developer that their submission was deemed "complete," but rejected due to use of a calculation method inconsistent with the methodology established within the Consolidated Impact Fee Ordinance (Ordinance) and inconsistent with the discussions held in the pre - application meeting with staff. On October 2, 2008, the County Attorney's Office received an Appeal from the Developer requesting that the Board approve the Alternative Impact Fee Calculation proposal submitted on August 1, 2008. No facts or Agenda Item No. 10E January 13, 2009 Page 2 of 398 figures related to the Developer's calculations or conclusions were changed from the submission that was rejected on August 29, 2008. In the months of October and November 2008, Staff met with the Developer on multiple occasions. On November 4, 2008, Staff proposed an alternative calculation of $120,904 (54.9 Equivalent Residential Connections [ERCs] for water impact fees and 32.0 ERCs for wastewater impact fees) for immediate resolution of the outstanding balance for Building 300. Staff used a combination of historical data and the Developer's submitted information as the basis for the proposed dollar amount. The proposed amount of $120,904 was rejected by the Developer, despite the 39 percent reduction from the total balance due ($196,873) for Building 300. Staff derived the $120,904 with the understanding that calculations for water and/or wastewater impact fees, under the Ordinance, Section 74 -303 (d) 2 (g), are based on flows. As supported by a letter from the current CCWSD rate consultant, dated August 26, 2008, by Mr. Robert J. Ori, President of Public Resources Management Group, Inc., the Developer's submission is based on a static and inflexible criterion that did not account for the variance of business types and their associated flows. The Developer's submission and appeal must be denied because the proposed methodology is not consistent with the Ordinance as it does not provide an accurate reflection of water /wastewater use. During the alternative impact fee calculation process historical flow data was supplied for this development. It is Staff's position that this historical data is the methodology that should be relied upon during the alternative impact fee calculation as it is fully consistent and sufficient with the Ordinance. LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS: On or before 30 days after the hearing on the Alternative Impact Fee the County is required to provide written notice to the Developer of the amount of any impact fees owed based on the outcome of the alternative impact fee process. See Paragraph 22 of the attached Agreement. The notice made part of this item has been approved for form and legal sufficiency. The Developer has 30 days from the date of the notice to pay all such impact fees in full or to enter into a binding agreement with the County to make installment payments to include the statutory interest rate which shall commence upon the Board meeting date. Paragraph 22 allows the County Manager to enter into such binding agreement for a payment plan This item is quasi - judicial and as such requires ex parte disclosure to be made. This item requires a majority vote. - JAB FISCAL IMPACT: Denial of the appeal will initiate the collection process outlined in Paragraph 22 of the Agreement and allow the CCWSD to pursue the full amount of the outstanding balance. GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: There is no associated Growth Management Impact. RECOMMENDATION: That the Board of County Commissioners, Ex- Officio, the Governing Board of the Collier County Water -Sewer District, deny the Appeal submitted by Tamiami Square of Naples, LLC and authorize the Chairman to execute a notice to the Developer for the collection of the Collier County Water - Sewer District Alternative Impact Fee calculation of $120,904 for the existing tenants of Building 300, with Developer's concurrence, or the original amount of $196,873 without concurrence. PREPARED BY: Jennifer A. Belpedio, Assistant County Attorney / Thomas G. Wides, Operations Support Director, Public Utilities Division Page 1 of 1 Agenda Item No. 10E January 13, 2009 Page 3 of 398 file: / /C:AAgendaTest \Export\] 21- January%2013 %202009\1 0. %2000UNTY %20MANAGE... 1/7/2009 COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Item Number: 10E Item Summary: This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex disclosure be parte provided by Commission members. Recommendation to deny the Alternative Impact Fee Appeal submitted by Tamiami Square of Naples, LLC (Developer) and authorize the Chairman to execute a notice to the Developer for the collection of the Collier County Water -Sewer District (CCWSD) Alternative Impact Fee calculation of $120,904 for the existing tenants of Building 300, with Developers concurrence, or the original amount of $196,873 without Developers concurrence. (Tom Wides, Director Fiscal Operations, Public Utilities) Meeting Date: 1/13/2009 9:00:00 AM Prepared By Gilbert Moncivaiz Utility Billing Temp. Emp. Date Department Of Revenue 12/15/2008 2:16:35 PM Approved By Thomas Wides Operations Director Date Public Utilities Public Utilities Operations 1212212008 2:31 PM Approved By James W. DeLony Public Utilities Administrator Date -- Public Utilities Public Utilities Administration 1212212008 3:39 PM Approved By Jeff Klatzkow Assistant County Attorney Date County Attorney County Attorney Office 12/22/2008 3:43 PM Approved By Susan Usher Senior ManagemenUBudget Analyst Date County Manager's Office Office of Management & Budget 12/23/2008 12:06 PM Approved By James Y. Mudd County Manager Date Board of County Commissioners County Manager's Office 1212312008 4:44 PM file: / /C:AAgendaTest \Export\] 21- January%2013 %202009\1 0. %2000UNTY %20MANAGE... 1/7/2009 Agenda Item No. 10E January 13, 2009 Page 4 of 398 AGREEMENT REGARDING ALTERNATIVE IMPACT FEE CALCULATION This Agreement is made and entered into on May, 2008 into by and between Tamiami Square of Naples, LLC, a Florida limited liability company ( "Developer "), and the Collier County Board of County Commissioners ( "BCC ") acting as the governing body of the Collier County Water -Sewer District ( "CCWSD "). WHEREAS, CCWSD has calculated $288,623.50 in water and sewer Impact fees based on the square footage and/or use of existing commercial development located on real property identified by the following Collier County tax identification numbers: (i) 00143080000; (ii) 76422000065; and (iii) 76422000049 ( "Property "); and WHEREAS, Developer disputes the $288,623.50 calculation. Notwithstanding, Developer has paid $43,444.00 for water and sewer impact fees for the Property, subject to and conditioned upon Developer reserving all of its rights under the Consolidated Impact Fee Ordinance and all other applicable laws, ordinances, etc.; and WHEREAS, CCWSD and Developer desire to participate in an alternative impact fee process regarding the amount of water and sewer impact fees ( "Impact Fees ") due and owing for the Property and hereby agree to withhold the filing or initiation of any claim, action or lawsuit during the pendency of the alternative impact fee process; and WHEREAS, CCWSD has released all current Public Utilities Division holds or any other holds related to Impact Fees on building permits and related certificates of occupancy pending on the Property as of the effective date of this Agreement as a condition of payment in the amount of $43,444.00 made by the Developer on April 3, 2007. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing premises and the following promises, the parties agree as follows: The foregoing recitals are true and correct and are hereby incorporated herein by reference. 2. Developer has tendered a check in the amount of $43,444.00 for Impact Fees and $2,500.00 for: (i) staff to review its alternative impact fee calculation; and (ii) payment of all of Developer's fees and costs due and owing the County for the alternative impact fee process. 3. CCWSD agrees not to withhold issuance of certificates of occupancy, issue stop work orders or take any other adverse action on all issued or pending building permits for the Property based on or related to the $288,623.50 in disputed Impact Fees. 4. No later than May 13, 2008, Developer shall arrange and attend a pre - application meeting with the County Manager to discuss the requirements, procedures and methodology of the alternative fee calculation. The pre- application meeting will normally cover the following topics: (1) proposed previous studies; (2) credits; (3) proposed study sites; (4) study data elements; (5) proposed data collection methodology; and (6) report format. 5. Subsequent to the pre- application meeting, Developer shall submit three (3) copies of the proposed approach to the alternate fee calculation to the County Manager. The County Manager shall have 30 County working days to respond in writing to the proposed approach. If the County Manager concurs with the proposed approach, Developer will be notified to proceed with the alternative fee calculation. If the County Manager disagrees with the proposed approach, the County Manager shall identify the problem areas for Developer to incorporate and address in its re- submittal to the County. Developer shall be required to receive approval from the County Manager prior to proceeding with the Agenda Item No. 10E January 13, 2009 Page 5 of 398 altemadve fee calculation. If the County Manager has not approved Developer's proposed approach after one re- submittal, Developer may request a decision from the County Manager whereupon the County Manager shall either approve, approve with conditions, or deny the proposed approach. 6. The alternative fee calculation shall be undertaken through the submission of an impact analysis for the water and sewer facilities at issue, which shall be based on data, information, methodology and assumptions contained in Chapter 74, of the Collier County Code of Ordinances and/or the impact fee studies incorporated herein, or an independent source, including local studies for alternative impact fee calculations performed by others within the immediately preceding three (3) years, if applicable or available, provided that the independent source is a local study supported by a data base adequate for the conclusions contained in such study performed pursuant to a methodology generally accepted by professionals in the field of expertise for the water and sewer facilities at issue and based upon standard sources of information relating to facilities planning, cost analysis and demographics and generally accepted by professionals in the field of expertise for the public facilities at issue. 7. The alternative fee calculation shall be submitted by the Developer for the Property and shall be prepared and certified as accurate by persons accepted by the County as qualified professionals in the field of expertise for the public facilities at issue, and shall be submitted to the County Manager. 8. Within thirty (30) County working days of receipt of an alternative fee calculation, the County Manager shall determine if it is complete. If the County Manager determines the application is not complete, he shall send a written statement specifying the deficiencies to the person submitting the application at the address set forth in the application. The County Manager will not be required to take any further action on the alternative fee calculation until all specified deficiencies have been corrected. 9. After the County Manager determines that the alternative fee calculation is complete, he shall notify Developer of its completion within ten (10) days, and he shall, within thirty (30) County working days, complete a review of the data, analysis, and conclusions asserted in the alternative fee calculation. If this review is not completed within these time frames, and if requested by Developer, the item will be scheduled for the next available BCC meeting. 10. If the County Manager determines that in the alternative fee calculation the County's cost to accommodate the existing commercial square footage and use on the Property is statistically significantly different than the impact fee established pursuant to Section 74 -201 and the applicable Sections 74 -302 through 74 -309, of the Collier County Code of Ordinances, the amount of the impact fee invoiced Developer shall be reduced to a dollar amount consistent with the amount determined by the alternative fee calculation, subject to the BCC's approval. 11. In the event Developer disagrees with a decision of the County Manager that effectively results in a denial of the alternative fee calculation, Developer may file a written appeal petition with the BCC not later than thirty (30) days after receipt of notice of such a decision by the County Manager. In reviewing the decision, the BCC shall use the standards established or to be established hereunder. The appeal petition must advise the BCC of all issues and shall explain the precise basis Developer asserts that the decision(s) of the County Manager is/are alleged to be incorrect. 12. Developer agrees that future permits sought for the Property seeking a net increase in size or use and creating additional demand or impact on water or sewer public facilities will not be issued unless Impact Fees due for the particular unit(s) (based solely on such sire or use increase creating additional demand or impact on water or sewer public facilities) are paid in full. CCWSD agrees that it will not withhold issuance of permits or certificates of occupancy, issue stop work orders, or take any adverse action relating to: (i) future permits sought for particular unit(s) within the Property that do not result in a net increase in size or use and do not create additional demand or impact on water and sewer public Agenda Item No. 10E January 13, 2009 Page 6 of 398 facilities; and (it) permits for particular unit(s) within the Property where additional Impact Fees are due (given a net increase in size or use and creating additional demand or impact on public facilities) and paid in full. 13. Should an alternative impact fee be approved by the BCC, Developer agrees to provide the CCWSD with sewer flow rates' on a monthly basis until two (2) years after the approval of the alternative impact fee. 14. At the end of each six month period within the two (2) year cycle CCWSD will analyze the water and/or sewer flows for sewer during those six month periods. CCWSD hereby acknowledges that during the two (2) year cycle the Developer will continue to lease and develop the Property and that water and sewer flows for the Property will likely increase. In the event that actual water and/or sewer flows for the Property in two consecutive months exceed the sum of water and/or sewer flows used in the alternative impact fee calculation and water and/or sewer flows accounted for in the issuance of future building permits, CCWSD can properly claim additional water and sewer Impact Fees are due and owed. CCWSD will recover additional water and sewer Impact Fees at the then in effect Impact Fee rate. During, the two (2) year cycle, and after its expiration, all additional future water and sewer Impact Fees not yet accounted for or related to the $288,623.50 in disputed impact fees will be paid at the time of the future building permit issuance. 15. For the pendency of the alternative impact fee process, the parties agree that all applicable statute of limitations as to any and all claims of the County or Developer shall be tolled and suspended. 16. Developer hereby waives any defense by way of any statute of limitations which would otherwise arise during the pendency of the alternative impact fee process. 17. This waiver shall not be construed as a waiver of any statute of limitations defense that has become established as of the effective date of this Agreement, or which would arise after the pendency of the alternative impact fee process; it only excludes the period during which this Agreement has operated to toll any applicable statute of limitations. 18. It is understood that by entering into this Agreement, neither party is waiving any claims, rights or defenses that may have accrued up to the effective date of this Agreement. 19. This Agreement shall not be offered in evidence in any action or proceeding except with respect to any action or proceeding related to this Agreement, or to enforce the terms of the Agreement, or prove that the statute of limitations was tolled for the period of time during which this Agreement was in effect. 20. The pendency of the alternative impact fee process will he deemed to have commenced upon approval of this Agreement by the BCC and full execution of the same by the parties hereto and shall be deemed to have expired upon a final determination by the BCC on Developer's alternative impact fee calculation. 21. During the pendency of the alternative impact fee process, the $288,623.50 in Impact Fees invoiced Developer shall not be deemed delinquent under Section 74 -501, of the Collier County Code of Ordinances or otherwise and no delinquency fee, interest, or other fees shall be due and owing the County with respect to said Impact Fees or any portion thereof which may be due and owing the County for the Property. 22. On or before thirty (30) days after the end of the alternative impact fee process and only in the event additional Impact Fees are due and owing the County, the County shall provide written notice to ' CCWSD will monitor the monthly water flows. Agenda Item No. 10E January 13, 2009 Page 7 of 398 Developer of the amount of any Impact Fees due based on the outcome of the alternative impact fee process. Developer shall have thirty (30) days from the date of said notice by the County to pay all such Impact Fees in full or enter into a binding agreement with the County to make installment payments for said Impact Fees to include the statutory interest rate which shall only commence to accrue from and after the date a final determination is made by the BCC on Developer's alternative impact fee calculation. The County Manager is hereby authorized to enter into an agreement with Developer for installment payments with a reasonable repayment period not to exceed three (3) years. If Developer fails to either pay in full all such Impact Fees and any statutory interest due and payable thereon on or before the expiration of said thirty (30) day period or enter into a binding agreement with the County regarding installment payments, the County may only thereafter deem any such Impact Fees due and owing the County for the Property delinquent under Section 74 -501, of the Collier County Code of Ordinances and proceed with its collection rights and remedies under Section 74 -501, of the Collier County Code of Ordinances. Notwithstanding anything contained in this Agreement to the contrary, it is expressly understood and agreed to by the parties hereto that Developer does not hereby waive or limit in any way any existing or future claims, rights, positions or defenses that Developer may have to seek a refund for overpayment of impact fees pursuant to Section 74 -202 or to legally challenge: (i) the alternative impact fee process, (ii) the final determination made by the BCC on Developer's alternative impact fee calculation, (iii) the Impact Fee calculation, and/or (iv) any future impact fee calculation for the Property. ATTEST: DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK st .ptryo� t : prova as o. fd3tm and legal sufficiency; nrl 1 , -� Jennftfe A. Be edio Assistant County Attorney DEVELOPER Tamiami Square of Naples, LLC, a Florida limited liability company By: Crifasi Enterprises, Inc., a as Manager 0 BOARD N yjT COMMISSIONERS OF COL /tR R C C Y, F ORIDA By: TOM HENNING, CHAIRMAINP 'ilSYi�tn tb 6r .a.., a ` u z P' A n Lq YF'9y 91�at�2 I Is 5 1 ;f 1 850PARKsHoREDi?age 8 of 398 A LEGAL PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION August 1, 2008 VIA HAND DELIVERY Jennifer L. Belpedio, Esq. Assistant County Attorney Collier County Attorney Office 3301 E. Tamiami Trail, 8th Floor Naples, FL 34112 TRIANON CENTRE - THIRD FLOOR NAPLES, FL 34103 239.649.2712 DiRECr 239.649.6200 MAIN 239.261.3659 FAx dalewis@ralaw.mm N ^ e1M l r :> y CD C, L TI ul i m N 3 �T w zm �n Re: Agreement Regarding Alternative Impact Fee Calculation dated May 13, 2008 between Tamiami Square of Naples, LLC and Collier County Board of County Commissioners (the "Agreement') — Alternative Fee Calculation Study /Report dated July 23, 2008 and prepared by GAI Consultants, Inc. (the "Study ") Dear Jennifer: Pursuant to the terms of the Agreement and Appendix H, Alternative Fee Calculation Methodology Water and Sewer Impact Fee from the Collier County Consolidated Impact Fee Administrative Procedures Manual, enclosed please find five (5) originals of the above - referenced Alternative Fee Calculation Study /Report for review by the County Manager, Collier County Public Utilities Department Administrator and Impact Fee Coordinator. The enclosed Study has been certified by Gerald C. Hartman with GAI Consultants, Inc., a professional engineer registered with the State of Florida, and the Study complies with the proposed approach and methodology that we discussed and agreed to use at the May 13, 2008 Alternative impact Fee Study pre - application meeting. Based on the data, information, assumptions and methodology included in the Study and discussed at the pre - application meeting, the proposed alternative water and sewer impact fee calculations are as follows: 1. Water (potable service) impact fees — unit count. 4.7 additional ERCs at $3,575 per ERC for a total of $16,803 in additional impact fees and a total of 32 potable water ERCs. 2. Wastewater impact fees — unit count. 4.7 additional ERCs at $3,495 per ERC for a total of $16,427 in additional impact fees paid to the County and a total wastewater impact fee count of 32 ERCs. Additionally, and in follow -up to the County letter dated March 31, 2008 (see Attachment H to the Study) and our pre- application meeting, our client proposes to install the requested two (2) inch irrigation meter and separate the potable water system from the water CLFvF[ANO TOLEDO AKRON COLUMBUS CINCTNNAII WASHFGTON,D,C. TAILAHA.\Sa ORLANDO FORTMYERs NAPLES FORTLAuDERUALF w ww,ralaw, Coin Agenda Item No. 10E January 13, 2009 Page 9 of 398 Jennifer L. Belpedio, Esq. August 1, 2008 Page 2 used to irrigate the property and re- hydrate the wetlands located along the eastern boundary of the property. A meter tapping fee of $1,140.00 plus impact fees for irrigation totaling of $22,060.59 would be paid by our client based on an ERC value of 6.1. As such and subject to approval of the Study, the total additional amount to be paid to the County by my client would be $56,430.59. Should the Study be approved, our client requests that the two (2) year monitoring period pursuant to Paragraphs 13 and 14 of the Agreement not commence until our client has sufficient time to separate the potable water lines from the lines used to irrigate and re- hydrate the wetlands and only upon written notification to the County from our client that such work has been completed and that the potable water and wastewater systems are functioning correctly. Pursuant to Paragraph 22 of the Agreement and the County letter dated March 31, 2008, our client proposes to pay the tapping fee for the two (2) inch irrigation meter and purchase an additional ERC value of 6.1 for irrigation for an amount totaling $22,060.59 on or before thirty (30) days from the date of County approval of the Study and County invoice for the same. With respect to the additional $16,803.00 in potable water impact fees and $16,427,00 in wastewater impact fees, our client is able to pay $1,000.00 per month until such balance is paid -in -full such that the repayment period for such additional impact fees will not exceed three (3) years. We look forward to hearing from you and greatly appreciate your cooperation and assistance in this matter. In the meantime should you have any questions whatsoever, please feel free to contact me. Very truly yours, ROETZEL & ANT .FySS, LPA Douglas A. Lewis DAL/ksn For the Firm Enclosures as Stated cc: Mr. Jack J. Crifasi, Jr. (w /enclosure) Mr. Gerald C. Hartman (w /o enclosure) 563300.01.111647.0003 Agenda Item No. 10E January 13, 2009 Pa e 1 of 39 0MCE OF ME • gai coneuitants COUNTY ATTORNEY „�1,f.1m1n9 dl.,_ 11w r,,I,ty, mr !n -2 W 3: 19 July 23, 2008 GAI Proj. # A080376.00 Douglas A. Lewis, Esquire Roetzel & Andress, P.A. 850 Park Shore Drive Trianon Centre — 3`d Floor Naples, FL 34103 Re: Tamiami Square — Collier County Water and Sewer Facilities Proposed Alternative Fee Calculation Methodology Dear Mr. Lewis In accordance with the "Agreement Regarding Alternative Impact Fee Calculation" (May 2008), Appendix H 'Water and Sewer Facilities Proposed Alternate Fee Calculation Methodology" (June 2001), and the pre - application meeting (May 2008); this letter with its Exhibits and Attachments represents the "Study Report" certified by a Florida Professional Engineer qualified in this area of work for consideration by Collier County Utilities Department Impact Fee Coordinator. Attachment A provides Appendix H. Attachment B presents clearly the 1.) Level of Service (LOS) standards for water at 350 gallons per day annual average daily flow per Equivalent Residential Connection (ERC) and the water peaking factor of 1.2, 2.) the LOS for wastewater at 250 gallons per day annual average daily flow (AADF) per ERC and the wastewater peaking factor of 1.3, the basis of determining the respective impact fee for water or the sewer system as well as other items. Attachment C provides the older County Ordinance Nos. 2007 -52, 2007 -57 and and latest Resolution 2008 -200 and Article VI. for the Water -Sewer District Uniform Billing which establishes 1.) the level of the impact fees at $3,575 per ERC for water and $3,495 per ERC for wastewater, 2.) that the subject property is a non - residential use, and 3.) that a unit within the subject property is at one ERC each. Attachment D shows site photos which clearly show that 1.) there is only one lift station on -site such that run time analysis is appropriate and includes all flows, 2.) the major building construction was recently completed by 5/12/08 the date the photographs were taken, 3.) the irrigation system is connected and that landscaping is still underway and irrigation to assure plant/sod survival was practiced, and 4.) the repairs to the water system were completed. Orlando Office 301 E. Pine Street, Suite 1020 Orlando, Florida 32601 T 407.423.8398 F 407.843.1070 www.gaiconsultantscom Agenda Item No. 10E January 13, 2009 Page 11 of 398 Douglas A. Lewis, Esquire July 23, 2008 Page 2 Attachment E documents the responsiveness of the developer to the County's request for information. Attachment F provides excerpts which document the practice of using units when within the ERC LOS, which Tamiami Square is, as an Alternate Method Impact of Fee Calculation for commercial properties. Attachment G provides excerpts from M1 (Manual of Practice) AWWA again confirming the methodology. Attachment H summarizes key points in the pre - application meeting. The County's rejection of FPSC meter equivalencies. This attachment includes the County's offer which was accepted in May and pending approval of this Study /Report payment will be made for the two (2) two -inch water irrigation meters at 6.1 ERCs (water only) and the tap -in cost (3/31/08 County letter). The Developer has agreed and paid or will be paid by time of C.O. some 27.3 ERCs for both water and wastewater. Attachment H page 2 of 3 and the attachments thereto which drawings show the buildout of the site in the three (3) phases including some 32 units. A unit in Phase 1 was approximately an estimated average of 1,900 ftZ, in Phase 2 similarly approximately 1,950 ftZ and Phase 3 approximately 1,200 ftZ. These sized units are consistent with the PRMG Study of 2006 and the County Ordinance of 2007 for one (1) ERC each. Page 3 of 3 of Attachment H provides that after the separation of the irrigation system from the potable system which the developer has agreed to do, that the agreed audit/two (2) year study between the County and Developer would thereafter for potable (non - irrigation) water and sewage AADF of 11,200 gpd and 8,000 gpd, respectively. The two (2) month average peak would be 13,440 gpd for water and 10,400 gpd for sewage. Using the Unit Count Method (number of units in the structure) for which the unit sizing is consistent with one ERC each results in 32 units and ERCs. The items listed below summarize the Professional Engineer's findings following receipt of comments from those attending the pre - application meeting: 1. a.) Water LOS 350 gpd AADF (i) Annual Average Daily Flow through potable (non irrigation meters) = 32 x 350 gpd AADF or 11,200 gpd (ii) 2 month peak factor (see page 29 Table 1 PRMG 40.00 + 33.33 = 1.2 gal consultants transforming ideas mto ienLty„ Douglas A. Lewis, Esquire July 23, 2008 Page 3 2. 3 Agenda Item No. 10E January 13, 2009 Page 12 of 398 (iii) 2 month audit use on average day of that period limit is 11,200 gpd x 1.2 or 13,440 gpd for test period. b.) Wastewater LOS 250 gpd AADF (i) Annual Average (12 month period) Daily Flow = 32 x 250 = 8,000 gpd AADF (ii) 2 month peak factor (see page 32 Table 2 PRMG) 40.100 = 30.846 = 1.3 (iii) 2 month audit of use on average day for that period is 8,000 gpd x 1.3 or 10,400 gpd. Proposed Additional Payments a.) Irrigation meters 31311/08 (i) Tapping fee (ii) ERCs irrigation $ 1,140.00 $22,060.59 b.) Water potable service) impact fees — unit count (i) 4.7 ERCs x $3,575 $16,803.00 c.) Wastewater impact fees — unit count (i) 4.7 ERCs x $3,495 $16,427.00 Total Amount Due (following approval) 56 430.59 Consensus of Follow -up (following pre - application meeting) a.) Answer questions and requests for information by County. This activity is complete. b.) Submit alternative methodology signed and sealed by engineer. This letter report and attachments satisfies this final item. Typically, Alternative Methodologies, if possible, are documented by the historical record. Table 1 presents the sewage flow records for Tamiami Square for 2007 for the occupied 18 units on average for the year. On an annual average basis the actual flows and the paid units and the occupied units correlate exactly. On a peaking basis the correlation is within 6.1 % (six point one percent) which following the manual of practice for the smaller demand center of Tamiami Square versus the entire Collier County wastewater system is expected and appropriate (size /population peaking factor adjustments pursuant to FDEP, 10- States Standards and WEF MOPs). I conclude and have verified that the unit count method is valid and approximately applied. gai consultants transforming Idc as inw .calRg„ Agenda Item No. 10E January 13, 2009 Page 13 of 398 Douglas A. Lewis, Esquire July 23, 2008 Page 4 Table 1 is supported by Exhibit A. Table 2 documents the repairs to the integrated irrigation and potable water system in 2007. Site photographs illustrate the new landscaping needs in 2007. Site development records illustrate that major construction of structures occurred in 2007. Since May of 2008, the amount of irrigation and conservation practices in the commercial establishments were emphasized. Although both the irrigation and potable use were integrated at the customer side of the meters (both types of flow through the meters) and therefore irrigation and repairs to that system would skew the historical record; the same documentation analysis was conducted. Table 3 presents the combined water flow through the meters. AWWA guidelines state that where major breaks have occurred that data is not re- occurring and therefore should be excluded from the analysis. Considering the occupancy of 18 units and the County 6.1 ERCs for irrigation a conservative weighted average of 24.1 ERCs is obtained. The skewed data (as a result of sod establishment, construction, minor breaks, irrigation use) results is a comparable 30.8 ERCs AADF. The correlation is within AWWA standards to the 24.1 ERCs. Nonetheless, it is the metered data as shown on Exhibit B supporting Table 3, which confirms the agreed two year audit and true -up. As a Florida Professional Engineer qualified and accepted in Civil Court mediation and FPSC expert testimony for such cases /proceedings and due to my over 30 years experience, training, and practice in Florida on many such impact fee matters (see Attachment 1), 1 do hereby certify and conclude that the Alternative Methodology as the unit count method is appropriate for the Tamiami Square project taken in conjunction with the reasonable assurance from an agreed two (2) year Study /Audit of the use. Very truly yours, GAI Consultants, ACHartm Vice President Florida P.E. 27703 GCH /jev 1A080376.00 1RepuTt1R -1 Cvr itr GAI Consultants, Inc. 301 E. Pine St., Suite 102 Orlando, FL 3 jEngreer' r a E. CEE,ASA o da R s ration #27703 ASA Registration #7542 gai consultants transforming ideas Inro reality,,, Agenda Item No. 1 OE January 13, 2009 Page 14 of 398 Table 1 Tamiami Square 2007 Data Run Times - Sewage Flow Actual Use Date Flow Days ADF /Month 1107 192825 + 31 6,220 gpd 2/07 164346 + 28 5,870 gpd 3/07 188906 - 31 6,094 gpd 4/07 144349 - 30 4,812 gpd 5/07 118168 - 31 3,812 gpd 6/07 110295 - 30 3,677 gpd 7/07 101769 - 31 3,283 gpd 8/07 93103 - 31 3,003 gpd 9/07 103676 - 30 3,456 gpd 10/07 130074 - 31 4,196 gpd 11/07 139200 30 4,640 gpd 12/07 139833 + 31 4,511 gpd Qmax Mo. = 6,220 gpd + (250 x 1.3) = 19.0 ERCs Q AADF 1,626,544 + 365 + 250 = 18 ERCs 0 Good correlation of °max month @ 19.1 ERCs, oaadf @ 18 ERCs and occupancy @ 18 units or ERCs as averaged for period. 0 Note 32 ERCs to be purchased (1) 1.3 peak factor for sewage flor per PRMG 2007 report - impact fees P: \OR0HCD \Word Proc120D8WOBD376 .00 \Report\R- 1 \Tables.xlsx Agenda Item No. 10E January 13, 2009 Page 15 of 398 Exhibit A Actual Sewage Flows 2007 Agenda Item No. 10E January 13, 2009 Page 16 of 398 TAMIAMI SQUARE MONTH: January 2007 Flow per Min /Hr DATE TIME PUMP #1 HRS. RUN PUMP #2 HRS. RUN MAINTENANCE 31 0.7 0.6 30 0.7 0.6 29 0901 719.7 0.7 173.6 0.6 28 0.5 0.6 27 0.5 0.6 26 0.5 0.6 25 1356 717.7 0.5 171.4 0.6 24 0.6 0.6 23 0.6 0.6 22 0957 715.9 0.6 169.5 1 0.6 21 0.6 0.6 20 0.6 0.6 19 0.6 0.6 18 1127 713.5 0.6 167.1 0.6 17 0.5 0.4 16 0.5 0.4 15 0938 712.0 0.5 165.9 1 0.4 14 0.5 0.6 13 0.5 0.6 12 0.5 0.6 11 1021 709.9 0.5 163.5 0.6 10 0.4 0.5 9 0.4 0.5 8 1112 708.7 0.4 162.0 0,5 7 0.6 0.6 6 0.6 0.6 5 0.6 0.6 4 0857 706.2 0.6 159.6 0.6 3 0.5 0.5 2 1214 705.2 0.5 158.6 0.5 1 0.6 0.6 17.2 98865.6 17.4 93959.46 total flow for month 192825.06 Agenda Item No. 10E January 13, 2009 Page 17 of 398 TAMIAMI SQUARE MONTH: February 2007 Flow per Min /Hr DATE TIME PUMP 91 HRS. RUN PUMP #2 HRS. RUN MAINTENANCE 31 30 29 28 0.6 0.6 27 1 0.6 1 0.6 26 0941 734.5 0.6 188.6 0.6 25 0.5 0.5 24 0.5 0.5 23 0.5 0.5 22 1120 732.5 0.5 185.6 0.5 21 0.5 0.5 20 0.5 0.5 19 0920 731.0 0.5 185.1 0.5 18 0.5 0.6 17 0.5 0.6 16 0.5 0.6 15 0938 729.0 0.5 182.7 0.6 14 0.6 0.5 13 0.6 0.5 12 0938 727.2 0.6 1812 0.5 11 0.5 0.5 10 0.5 0.5 9 0.5 0.5 8 1135 725.2 0.5 179.2 0.5 7 0.6 0.6 6 0.6 0.6 5 1134 723.4 0.6 177.4 0.6 4 0.4 0.5 3 0.4 0.5 2 0.4 0.5 1 1013 721.8 0.4 175.4 0.5 14.5 83346 15 81000 total flow for month 164346 Agenda Item No. 10E January 13, 2009 Page 18 of 398 TAMIAMI SQUARE MONTH: MARCH 2007 Flow per Min /Hr DATE TIME PUMP #1 HRS. RUN PUMP #2 HRS. RUN MAINTENANCE 31 0.4 0.5 30 0.4 0.5 29 0309 751.9 0.4 206.0 0.5 28 0.5 0.5 27 0.5 0.5 26 0922 750.4 0.5 204.5 0.5 25 0.6 0.6 24 1 0.6 0.6 23 0.6 0.6 22 0912 748.0 0.6 202.1 0.6 21 0.5 0.5 20 0.5 0.5 19 1248 746.5 0.5 200.6 0.5 18 0.6 0.6 17 1 0.6 0.6 16 0.6 0.6 15 0927 744.1 0.6 198.2 0.6 14 0.5 0.5 13 0.5 0.5 12 1043 742.6 0.5 196.7 0.5 11 0.6 0.6 10 0.6 0.6 9 0.6 0.6 8 0945 740.2 0.6 194.3 0.6 7 0.5 0.5 6 0.5 0.5 5 0938 738.7 0.5 192.8 0.5 4 0.6 0.6 3 0.6 0.6 2 0.6 0.6 1 1111 736.3 0.6 190.4 0.6 16.8 96566.4 17.1 92340 total flow for month 188906.4 Agenda Item No, 10E January 13, 2009 Page 19 of 398 TAMIAMI SQUARE MONTH: APRIL 2007 Flow per Min /Hr DATE TIME PUMP #1 HRS. RUN PUMP 42 HRS. RUN MAINTENANCE 31 30 0909 755.8 0.2 220.4 0.1 29 0.4 0.4 26 0.4 0.4 27 0.4 0.4 26 0917 764.2 0.4 218.8 0.4 25 0.3 0.3 24 0.3 0.3 23 1428 763.3 0.3 217.9 0.3 22 0.6 0.6 21 0.6 0.6 20 0.6 0.6 19 1030 760.9 0.6 215.5 0.6 16 0.4 0.5 17 0A 0.5 16 1127 759.7 0.4 214.0 0.5 15 0.4 0.4 14 0.4 0.4 13 0.4 0.4 12 1021 758.2 0.4 212.4 0.4 11 0.4 0.4 10 0.4 0.4 9 1057 757.0 0.4 211.2 0.4 8 0.5 0.5 7 0.5 0.5 6 0.5 0.5 5 0920 755.0 0.5 209.2 0.5 4 0.5 0.4 3 0.5 0.4 2 1226 753.5 0.5 208.0 0.4 1 0.4 0.5 12.9 74149.2 13 70200 total flow for month 144349.2 Agenda Item No. 10E January 13, 2009 Page 20 of 398 TAMIAMI SQUARE MONTH: MAY 2007 Flow per Min /Hr DATEI TIMEJ PUMP #1 HRS. RUN PUMP #2 HRS. RUN MAINTENANCE 31 0936 776.8 0.4 231.7 0.4 30 0.4 0.5 1021 776.0 0.4 230.7 0.5 0.3 0.3 r 0.3 0.3 2C 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 24 1224 774.5 0.3 229.2 0.3 23 0.3 0.3 22 0.3 0.3 21 1046 7716 0.3 228.3 0.3 20 0.4 0.4 19 0.4 0.4 18 0.4 0.4 17 1117 772.0 0.4 226.7 0.4 16 0.3 0.3 15 0.3 0.3 14 1130 771.1 0.3 225.8 0.3 13 0.4 0.4 12 0.4 0.4 11 0.4 0.4 10 1130 769.5 0.4 224.2 0.4 9 0.4 0.3 8 0.4 0.3 7 1110 768.4 0.4 223.3 0.3 6 0.3 0.4 5 0.3 0.4 4 0.3 0.4 3 1025 767.2 0.3 221.7 0.4 2 0.3 0.1 1 0.3 0.1 10.5998 60927.6504 10.6 57240 total flow for month 118167.6504 Agenda Item No. 10E January 13, 2009 Page 21 of 398 TAMIAMI SQUARE MONTH: JUNE 2007 Flow per Min /Hr DATE TIME PUMP #1 HRS. RUN I PUMP #21 HRS. RUN MAINTENANCE 31 30 0.3 0.4 29 0.3 0.4 28 1249 786.0 0.3 241.0 0.4 27 0.3 0.3 28 _j_1 0.3 0.3 25 1313 785.1 0.3 2401 0.3 24 0.3 0.3 23 0.3 0.3 22 0.3 0.3 .9 0.3 236.9 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 V1251 .7 0 4 237.7 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.3 14 1357 781.5 0.3 236.5 0.3 13 0.3 0.3 12 0.3 0.3 11 0908 780.6 0.3 235.6 0.3 10 0.4 0.4 9 0.4 0.4 8 0.4 0.4 7 1105 779.0 0.4 233.9 0.4 6 0.2 0.2 5 0.2 0.2 4 1107 778.4 0.2 233.3 0.2 3 0.4 0.4 2 0.4 10.4 1 0.4 1 0.4 9.7 55755.6 10.154540 total flow for month 110295.6 Agenda Item No. 10E January 13, 2009 Page 22 of 398 TAMIAMI SQUARE MONTH: JULY 2007 Flow per Min /Hr DATE TIME PUMP #1 HRS. RUN PUMP #2 HRS. RUN MAINTENANCE 31 0.3 0.3 30 1116 795.3 0.3 250.6 0.3 29 0.4 0.4 28 0.4 0.4 27 0.4 0.4 26 1331 793.7 0.4 249.0 0.4 25 0.2 0.3 24 1030 7913 0.2 248.4 0.3 23 0.3 0.2 22 0.3 0.2 21 03 0.2 20 0.3 0.2 19 1133 792.3 0.3 247.4 0.2 18 1 0.3 1 0.3 17 0.3 0.3 16 1254 791.4 D.3 246.5 0.3 15 0.3 0.3 14 0.3 0.3 13 0.3 0.3 12 1113 790.2 0.3 245.3 0.3 11 0.3 0.3 10 0.3 0.3 9 1126 789.3 0.3 244.4 0.3 8 0.3 0.3 7 0.3 0.3 6 0.3 0.3 5 1026 788.1 0.3 2412 0.3 4 0.3 0.2 3 0.3 0.2 2 1154 787.2 0.3 242.6 0.2 1 0.3 0.4 9.25 53169 9 48600 total flow for month 101769 Agenda Item No. 10E January 13, 2009 Page 23 of 398 8.4 48283.2 8.3 44820 total flow for month 93103.2 TAMIAMI SQUARE MONTH: AUGUST 2007 Flow per Min /Hr DATE TIME PUMP #1 HRS. RUN PUMP #2 HRS. RUN MAINTENANCE 31 0.3 0.3 30 0929 8037 0.3 258.9 0.3 29 02 0.1 28 0.2 0.1 27 1051 803.1 0.2 258.6 0.1 26 0.3 0.3 25 0.3 0.3 24 0.3 0.3 23 1200 801.9 0.3 257.4 0.3 22 0.2 0.3 21 0.2 0.3 20 1045 8013 0.2 256.5 0.3 19 0.3 0.3 18 0.3 0.3 17 0.3 0.3 16 1102 800.1 0.3 255.3 0.3 15 0.3 0.4 14 0.3 0.4 13 1414 799.2 0.3 254.1 0.4 12 0.3 0.2 11 0.3 0.2 10 9 1150 798.0 0.3 253.3 0.2 8 0.2 0.2 7 0.2 0.2 6 1039 797.4 0.2 252.7 0.2 5 0.3 0.3 4 0.3 0.3 3 0.3 0.3 2 1454 796.2 0.3 251.5 0.3 1 0.3 0.3 8.4 48283.2 8.3 44820 total flow for month 93103.2 Agenda Item No. 10E January 13, 2009 Page 24 of 398 TAMIAMI SQUARE MONTH: SEPTEMBER 2007 Flow per Min /Hr DATE TIME PUMP #1 FIRS. RUN PUMP #2 FIRS. RUN MAINTENANCE 31 30 0.3 0.3 29 0.3 0.3 28 0.3 0.3 27 1028 812.4 03 267.6 0.3 26 0.4 0.4 25 0.4 0.4 24 0950 611.2 0.4 266.4 0.4 23 0.3 0.3 22 0.3 0.3 21 0.3 0.3 20 0820 810.0 0.3 265.2 0.3 19 0.3 0.3 18 0.3 0.3 17 1142 809.1 0.3 264.3 0.3 16 0.3 0.3 15 0.3 0.3 14 0.3 0.3 13 0848 807.9 0.3 263.1 0.3 12 0.3 0.3 11 0.3 0.3 10 1309 807.0 0.3 262.2 0.3 9 0.3 0.3 8 0.3 0.3 7 0.3 0.3 6 1040 805.8 0.3 261.0 0.3 5 0.3 0.3 4 1226+1 805.2 0.3 260.4 0.3 3 0.3 0.3 2 0.3 0.3 1 0.3 1 0.3 9.3 53456.4 9,3 50220 total flow for month 103676,4 Agenda Item No. 10E January 13, 2009 Page 25 of 398 TAMIAMI SQUARE MONTH: OCTOBER 2007 Flow per Min /Hr DATE TIME PUMP #1 HRS. RUN PUMP #2 HRS. RUN MAINTENANCE 31 0.5 0.5 30 0.5 0.5 29 0832 824.2 0.5 278.5 0.5 28 0.4 0.4 27 1 0.4 1 0.4 26 0.4 0.4 25 1244 822.6 0.4 276.9 0.4 24 0.3 0.4 23 0.3 0.4 22 0902 821.7 0.3 275.7 0.4 21 0.5 0.4 20 0.5 0,4 19 0.5 0.4 18 0939 819.7 0.5 274.1 0.4 17 0.4 0.5 16 0.4 0.5 15 0840 818.5 0.4 272.6 0.5 14 0.3 0.3 13 0.3 0.3 12 0.3 0.3 11 0930 817.3 0.3 271.4 0.3 10 0.4 0.3 9 0.4 0.3 8 1123 816.1 0.4 270.5 0.3 7 0.4 0.4 6 0.4 0.4 5 0.4 0.4 4 0917 814.5 0.4 268.9 0.4 3 0.3 0.0 2 0.3 0.0 1 1004 813.5 0.3 268.8 0.0 12.1 69550.8 11.208 60523.2 total flow for month 130074 Agenda Item No. 10E January 13, 2009 Page 26 of 398 TAMIAMI SQUARE MONTH: NOVEMBER 2007 Flow per Min /Hr DATE TIME PUMP #1 HRS. RUN PUMP #2 HRS. RUN MAINTENANCE 31 30 0.4 0.4 29 1152 837.3 0.4 292.8 0.4 28 0.4 0.3 27 0.4 0.3 26 1104 836.2 0.4 291,9 0.3 25 0.3 0.4 24 0.3 0.4 23 0.3 0.4 22 0.3 0.4 21 1126 834.7 0.3 289.9 0.4 20 0.7 0.6 19 1027 833.3 0.7 288.7 0.6 18 0.5 0.5 17 0.5 0.5 16 0.5 0.5 15 0905 831.3 0.5 286.7 0.5 14 0.3 0.3 13 0.3 0.3 12 1408 830.4 0.3 285.8 0.3 11 0.5 0.5 10 0.5 0.5 9 0.5 0.5 8 1000 828.5 0.5 1 283.8 0.5 7 0.4 0.4 6 0.4 0.4 5 1003 827.3 0.4 282.6 0.4 4 0.4 0.4 3 0.4 0.4 2 0.4 0.4 1 1208 825.7 0.4 281.0 0.4 12.38 71160.24 12.6 68040 total flow for month 139200.24 Agenda Item No. 10E January 13, 2009 Page 27 of 398 TAMIAMI SQUARE MONTH: DECEMBER 2007 Flow per Min /Hr DATE TIME PUMP #1 HRS. RUN PUMP #2 HRS. RUN MAINTENANCE 31 0935 850.2 0.4 305.6 0.4 30 0.5 0.5 29 0.5 0.5 28 0.5 0.5 27 1207 848.2 0.5 303.6 0.5 26 0.2 0.3 25 0.2 0.3 24 0842 847.6 0.2 302,7 0.3 23 0.6 0, 5 22 0.6 0.5 21 0.8 0.5 20 1156 845.2 0.6 300.7 0.5 19 0.3 0.3 18 0.3 0.3 17 0901 844,3 0.3 299.8 0.3 16 0.4 0.4 15 0.4 0.4 14 0.4 0.4 13 0954 842.7 0.4 298.2 0.4 12 0.3 0.4 11 0.3 0.4 10 0941 841.8 0.3 297.0 0.4 9 0.4 0.4 6 0.4 0.4 7 0.4 0.4 6 0819 840.2 0.4 295.4 0.4 6 0.4 0.4 4 0.4 0.4 3 1249 838.9 0.4 294.2 0.4 2 0.4 0.4 1 0.4 0.4 12.49 71792.52 12.6 68040 total flow for month 139832.52 Agenda Item No. 10E January 13, 2009 Page 28 of 398 Table 2 Tamiami Square Irrigation Repairs 2005 12/15/2004 Zone had 4 & 5 crushed valves. 2006 3/23/2006 By entrance - there was a 3" main line break. 5/1112006 South exit - there were 4 rotors and 6 mist heads that had been run over. 11/29/2006 Zone 2 - the valve was stuck on. Replaced solenoid. 12/28/2006 Zones 1 & 3 - crushed 2" valve. 2007 1/18/2007 3" main line separated. 2/3/2007 Zone 4 - cut 1 -114 pipe to irrigation rotors. 3/7/2007 Cement truck ran over 8 heads. 7/3/2007 Crack in line due to construction digging. 11/13/2007 Main ine break due to electrical work. 12/15/2007 Zone 1 - 2" main line break. Also, 4" main line break (system ran for 9 hours). 2008 3/5/2008 Repaired line and pressured it up to check for leaks. Agenda Item No. 10E January 13, 2009 Page 29 of 398 Table 3 Tamiami Square Irrigation and Potable Use Combined 2007 Period Flow (1,000) Days ADF /Month 1/05/07 -2 15107 652 31 21,030 (1) 2/5107- 3/6/07 549 + 29 18,930 111 316/07- 4 /5107 420 + 30 14,000 4/5/07 - 5/4107 423 + 30 14,100 5/4107 - 6/6107 312 - 32 9,750 6/6/07- 716/07 385 - 30 12,830 7/6/07- 8/6107 292 - 31 9,420 8/6/07- 9/6/07 249 - 31 8,030 9/6/07- 10/4/07 244 - 30 8,710 10/4/07- 11/1/07 223 + 28 7,960 11/1/07- 11130 /07 374 + 29 12,900 11/30107 - 1/4/08 781 34 22,970 111 4,904 13,440 11> Q AAOF= 2,922 kgal + 271 + 350 = 30.812) ERCs Q AAr1F = 13,440 + 350 = 38111 ERCs Q 2 mmo = 39,960 + (350 x 1.2131 x 2) = 47.6 ERCs Q 2 MMo = 28,100 + (350 x 1.213) x 2) = 33.5(2) ERCs 18 ERCs Weighted Average plus 6_1 ERCs Irrigation ERCs 24.1 ERCs Weighted Average versus 30.8 or 33.5 ERCs in period Note 4 items occurring - a.) Sod establishment b.) Construction c.) Minor breaks d.) Irrigation use Reasonable to allow 6.7 ERCs during sod, construction, damage, and irrigation use - see SFW MD provisions and FAC. Some correlation, these results drive the need for a 2 year audit Final note: Total purchased ERCs at buildout is 38.1 ERCs with 32 ERCs as potable and 6.1 ERCs as irrigation. (1) Includes major main breaks as shown in Table 2 (2) Excludes major breaks, still includes minor breaks (3) 12 peak factor for water flow per PRIAG 2006 report PAORUHCDIWord Proc1 2008tA080376 .001ReportlR- 11Tables.xls Agenda Item No. 10E January 13, 2009 Page 30 of 398 Exhibit B Metered Water Use 2007 Agenda Item No. 10E COLLIER COUNTY UTILITIES BILLING January 13, 2009 4420 MERCANTILE AVE • NAPLES. FLORIDA 34104. (239) 403 -2380H 2 � "j{ )J Page ED of 398 TAMIAMI SO OF NAPLES LLC %' —'DATE 61LLE0 C/O CRIFASI MP.NAGMENT INC 02/12/01 ACCOUNT NUMBER RATE CLASS STE 208C 04046017600 CO 2375 TAMIAMI TRL N SERVICE ADDRESS NAPLES FL 34103 -4438 14100 TAMIAMI TR N METER NUMBER METER I • _ SIZE OATE READING I DATE IN READO CONSUMPTION CODE AMOUNT 21443635 5/8" 01/05/07 2335 02/05/07 2506 171 21637090 3" 01/05/07 7440 02/05/07 7921 481 WA 2,928.06 SM 2,328.00 NARNING =THIS BILL BECOMES DELINQUENT IF THE TOTAL AMOUNT DUE IS NOT PAID BY 02/27/07 'AYMENTS RECEIVED AFTER THIS DATE SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PENALTY CHAgGES AND FAILURE TO PAY BY THIS DATE AL O SHALL a 1UBlECT THE PROPERTY TO SHUTOFF F WATER SERVICE AND AUTOMATIC LIEN WI,. THOVq MER NOTICE IF YOU DISPUTE THIB INACCURATE IN ANY WAY, Y U MUST CONTACT THE COWER COUNTY UTILITY BILLING ANO CUSTOMER SERVICE tEPT_ AT (2391403 2380 DURING BUSINESS HOVRS (T:b A.M, - 5:30 P.M., M -P1 BEFORE THE DELINQUENT DATE. SEE BACK OF BILL FOR ADDITIONAL_ BILL INFORMATION MAKE CHECKS PAYABLE TO: DETACH HERE COLLIER COUNTY UTILITIES BILLING 14706, SERVICE COLLIER N (239) 403 -2380 ACCOUNT NUMBER DATE BILLED , n 04046017600 02/12/07 02/27/071 5,256,06 MI SO OF NAPLES LLC CIO C IIIIIIIII III IIIIIIIIIIIIII II C/0 RXFASI MANAGMENT INC STE 208C 2375 TAMIAMI TEL N NAPLES FL 34103 -4438 000000404601760000525606 MAIL THE LOWER PORTION WITH YOUR PAYMENT IN U.S. FUNDS TO: COLLIER COUNTY UTILITIES BILLING P.O. BOX 3369 NAPLES, FLORIDA 34106 -3369 Agenda Item No. 10E �i �f46 WARNING: THIS BILL BECOMES DELINQUENT IF THE TOTAL AMOUNT DUE IS NOT PAID BY 03/23/07 PAYMENTS RECEIVED AFTER THIS DATE SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PENALTY CHARGES AND FAILURE TO PAY BY THIS DATE ALSO SHALL 3UBJECT THE PROPERTY TO SHUTOFF OF WATER SERVICE AND AUTOMATIC LIENS WITHOUT FURTHER NOTICE YOU DISPUTE THIS 4, 376.39 SILL OR BELIEV THAT iT IS INACCURAT IN ANY WAY, YOU MUST CONTACT THE COLLIER COUNTY UTILITY BIWNG ANU OUSTOMER SERVICE )EFT. AT (239) 403-2350 DURING BUSINESS HOURS p:30 A,M. - 5:30 P.M.. M -F) BEFORE THE DELINOUENT PATE. SEE BACK OF BILL FOR ADDITIONAL BILL INFORMATION MAKE CHECKS PAYABLE TO: COLLIER COUNTY UTILITIES BILLING (239) 403 -2380 TAMIAMI SQ OF NAPLES LLC C/O CRIFASI MANAGMENT INC STE 203C 2375 TAMIAMI TRL N NAPLES FL 34103 -4438 DETACH HERE {SERVICE-ADDRESS 14700'TAMIAMI TR N ACCOUNT NUMBER DATE'BILLED , 11 , 04046017600 03/ 08) 07 �!03/i3/ 07 4,376.39 MAIL THE LOWER PORTION WITH YOUR II �ul �I IIIIIIIII IIIIIuI PAYMENT IN U.S. FUNDS TO: - C04'.LIER 000NT,Y UTILITIES BILLING I ; P.0,60X 3369 'NAPLES, FLORIDA 34106 -3369 000000404601760000437639 anuary 13, 2009 COLLIER COUNTY UTILITIES BILLING L 1 D Page 32 of 398 4420 MERCANTILE AVE • NAPLES. u FLORIDA 34104 • (239) 403 -230 u U DATE BILLED TAMIAMI SQ OF NAPLES LLC 03/08/07 C/0 CRIFASI MANAGMENT INC ACCOUNT NUMBER RATE CLASS STE 208C /' I 04046017600 CO 2375 TAMIAMI TRL N } C SERVICE ADDRESS NAPLES FL 34103 -4438 14700 TAMIAMI TR N METER METER NUMBER SIZE DATE • PEADINO CDDE OATB '` ,1t,jFSOIDINO,.: -'� CONSL4dPT10N. AMOUNT 21443635 5/8" 02/05/07 2506 03/06/07 2673 167 21637090 3" 02/05/07 7921 03/06/07 8303 382 'WA 2,334.78 SM 2,005.61 IP 36.00 �i �f46 WARNING: THIS BILL BECOMES DELINQUENT IF THE TOTAL AMOUNT DUE IS NOT PAID BY 03/23/07 PAYMENTS RECEIVED AFTER THIS DATE SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PENALTY CHARGES AND FAILURE TO PAY BY THIS DATE ALSO SHALL 3UBJECT THE PROPERTY TO SHUTOFF OF WATER SERVICE AND AUTOMATIC LIENS WITHOUT FURTHER NOTICE YOU DISPUTE THIS 4, 376.39 SILL OR BELIEV THAT iT IS INACCURAT IN ANY WAY, YOU MUST CONTACT THE COLLIER COUNTY UTILITY BIWNG ANU OUSTOMER SERVICE )EFT. AT (239) 403-2350 DURING BUSINESS HOURS p:30 A,M. - 5:30 P.M.. M -F) BEFORE THE DELINOUENT PATE. SEE BACK OF BILL FOR ADDITIONAL BILL INFORMATION MAKE CHECKS PAYABLE TO: COLLIER COUNTY UTILITIES BILLING (239) 403 -2380 TAMIAMI SQ OF NAPLES LLC C/O CRIFASI MANAGMENT INC STE 203C 2375 TAMIAMI TRL N NAPLES FL 34103 -4438 DETACH HERE {SERVICE-ADDRESS 14700'TAMIAMI TR N ACCOUNT NUMBER DATE'BILLED , 11 , 04046017600 03/ 08) 07 �!03/i3/ 07 4,376.39 MAIL THE LOWER PORTION WITH YOUR II �ul �I IIIIIIIII IIIIIuI PAYMENT IN U.S. FUNDS TO: - C04'.LIER 000NT,Y UTILITIES BILLING I ; P.0,60X 3369 'NAPLES, FLORIDA 34106 -3369 000000404601760000437639 Agenda Item No. 10E January 13, 2009 COLLIER COUNTY'UTILITIES -.7- EING ' Page 33 of 398 4420 MERCANTILE AVE • NAPLES. FLORIDA 34104 • (2,A9) 403 -_2380 DATE BILLED TAMIAMI SO OF NAPLES LLC , p E('' 04/11/07 C/O CRIFASI MANAGMENT INC (.ilp�VJL1 / / I ACCOUNT NUMBER RATE G1A53 STE 206C 04046017600 CO 2375 TAMIAMI TRL N �y SERVICE ADDRESS NAPLES FL- 34103 -4438 / 1 /�� 14700 TAMIAMI TR N METER NUMBER I SIZE DATE READING = DATE'' ryi:REA01ry(i>r 21443635 5/8" 03/06/07 2673 04/05/D7 2842 21637090 3" 03/06/07 8303 04/05/07 8554 CODEI AMOUNT 169 251 WA 1,649.34 SM 1,601.84 IP. {4 36.00 WARNING: THIS BILL BECOMES DELINQUENT IF THE TOTAL AMOUNT DUE IS NOT PAID BY 04/26/07 PAYMENTS RECEIVED AFTER THIS DATE SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PENALTY CHARGES AND FAILURe Tn PAY MY THrc nATP Al en 3,287.18 (239) 4032380 DURING BUSINESS HOURS (7:30 A.M.. 5:30 P.M„ M -F) BEFORE SEE BACK OF BILL FOR ADDITIONAL BILL INFO_ RMATION MAKE CHECKS PAYABLE TO: DETACH HERE' SERVICE ADDRESS COLLIER COUNTY UTILITIES BILLING 14700 TAMIAMI TR N (239) 403 -2380 ACCOUNT NUMBER DATE BIDED 04045017600 04/11/07 04/26/071 3,287.18 MAIL THE LOWER-PORTION WITH YOUR C o CRIFASI°MANAGMPNTJINC IIIIIIIIIIIIoilIIIIIIIII1II. PAYMENT INU.B: FUNDS TO: STE 208C COLLIER COUNTY UTILITIES BILLING 2375 TAMIAMI TRL N P.O. BOX "33QB NAPLES FL 34103 -443B NAPLES, FLORIDA 34106 -3369 000000404601760000328718 L7 WARNING: THIS BILL BECOMES DELINQUENT IF THE TOTAL AMOUNT DUE IS NOT PAID BY 05/25/07 PAYMENTS RECEIVED AFTER THIS DATE SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PENALTY CHARGES AND FAILURE TO PAY P.Y. THIS DATE ALSO ' CT SUA THE PROPERTY TO SMIITnFP !1C WLTPP SFRvICF eun euThe•eTV' , mue ,u-- m,e.uee u.. - -- i........ AT (239) +032390 DURING BUSINESS HOURS p30 AM - 5.30 P M„ DATE. SEE BACK OF BILL FOR ADDITIONAL BILL INFORMATION MAKE CHECKS PAYABLE TO: COLLIER COUNTY UTILITIES BILLING (239) 403 -2380 TAMIAMI SQ OF NAPLES LLC C/O CRIFASI MANAGMENT INC STE 208C 2375 TAMIAMI TRL N NAPLES FL 34103 -443B TOTAL DU[ I- DETACH HERE SERVICE ADDRESS 14700 TAMIAMI TR N ACCOUNT NUMBER GATE BILLED 04046017600 05/10/07 ,05/25/07 1 3,310. MAIL THE LOWER PORTION WITH YOUR II��IIIII II III IIIIII �II II PAYMENT IN U,S. FUNDS TO: COLLIER COUNTY UTILITIES BILLING P.O. BOX 3369 NAPLES, FLORIDA 34106 -3369 000000404601760000331097 Agenda Item No. 10E January 13, 2009 k-;ULLIEII (.UUN I Y U111-14S BILLING Page 34 of 398 4420 MERCANTILE AVE • NAPLES. FLORIDA 34104 • (239) 403 -2380 TAMIAMI SQ OF NAPLES LLC �:- DATE BIDED 05/1 DATE C/0 CRI FASI NANAGMENT INC E- - ,-i1,z)-n ACCOUNT NUMBER RATE CLAS•: STE 208C (/j 04046017600 CO 2375 TAMIAMI TRL N SERVICE ADDRESS NAPLES FL 34103 -4438 ]7��1}' /er •/f j 14700 TAMIAMI TR N /�' f-� •-`/7 METER . i METER NUME)ER • CODE AMOUNT SIZE DATE READING DATE READIND CDNBUMPigN 21443635 5/8" 04/05/07 2842 05/04/07 2994 152 21637090 3" 04/05/07 8554 05/04/07 8825 271 WA 1,663.74 SM 1,611.23 TP 36.00 WARNING: THIS BILL BECOMES DELINQUENT IF THE TOTAL AMOUNT DUE IS NOT PAID BY 05/25/07 PAYMENTS RECEIVED AFTER THIS DATE SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PENALTY CHARGES AND FAILURE TO PAY P.Y. THIS DATE ALSO ' CT SUA THE PROPERTY TO SMIITnFP !1C WLTPP SFRvICF eun euThe•eTV' , mue ,u-- m,e.uee u.. - -- i........ AT (239) +032390 DURING BUSINESS HOURS p30 AM - 5.30 P M„ DATE. SEE BACK OF BILL FOR ADDITIONAL BILL INFORMATION MAKE CHECKS PAYABLE TO: COLLIER COUNTY UTILITIES BILLING (239) 403 -2380 TAMIAMI SQ OF NAPLES LLC C/O CRIFASI MANAGMENT INC STE 208C 2375 TAMIAMI TRL N NAPLES FL 34103 -443B TOTAL DU[ I- DETACH HERE SERVICE ADDRESS 14700 TAMIAMI TR N ACCOUNT NUMBER GATE BILLED 04046017600 05/10/07 ,05/25/07 1 3,310. MAIL THE LOWER PORTION WITH YOUR II��IIIII II III IIIIII �II II PAYMENT IN U,S. FUNDS TO: COLLIER COUNTY UTILITIES BILLING P.O. BOX 3369 NAPLES, FLORIDA 34106 -3369 000000404601760000331097 Agenda Item No. 10E January 13, 2009 COLLIER COUNTY UTILITIES BILLING Page 35 of 398 4<'20 MERCANTILE AVE • NAPLES. FLORIDA 34104 • (239) 403 -2380 TAMIAMI SQ OF NAPLES LLC DATE BILLED C/O CRIFASI MANAGMENT INC IC' 06/12/07 \_� �, ACCOUNT NUMBER RATE CLASS STE 208C 04046017600 CO 2375 TAMIAMI TRL N SERVICE ADDRESS NAPLES FL 34103 -4438 ee /1� 14700 TAMIAMI TR N METER NUMBER METER SIZE dT + - - • e DATE •READING DATE READING CONSUMPTION CODE AMOUNT 21443635 5/8 05/04/07 2994 06/06/07 3162 168 21637090 3'1 05/04/07 8825 06/06/07 8969 144 WA 1,138.62 WS 122.11 SM 1,263.80 IP 36.00 DUE TO SEVERE DROUGHT, SFWMD PHASE II WATER RESTRICTIONS ARE IN EFFECTI THIS BILL MAY INCLUDE A 15% SURCHARGE DEPENDING ON TOTAL USAGE. PRACTICE WATER CONSERVATION DAILY TO PROTECT FLORIDA'S WATER RESOURCES. FOR INFO VISIT WWW.COLLIERGOV.NET, UTILITY BILLING \CUSTOMER SERVICE, YARNING: THIS BILL BECOMES DELINQUENT IF THE TOTAL AMOUNT DUE IS NOT PAID BY 06/27/07 AYMENTS RECEWED AFTER THIS DATE SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PENALTY CHARGES AND FAILURE TO PAY BY THIS DATE ALSO 5HALL .USJECT THE PROPERTY TO SH TOFF OF WATER 5 RVICE -NO AUTOMATIC LIENS WITHOUT FURTHER NOTICE. IF YOU DISPUTE TAI$ 2, 560.53 ILL OR BELIEVE THAT 1T IS MACLURATE M ANY WAY. YDU 1USi CONTACT COLLI fl COUN U ILITY BILLING AND CUSTOMER SERVICE DEPT AT 12397 aW -2380 DURING BUSINESS HOURS 17:30 AlA. - 5'30 P,M. M-F) BEFORE THE DELINQUENT DATE. SEE BACK OF BILL FOR ADDITIONAL BILL INFORMATION MAKE CHECKS PAYABLE TO: c DETACH HERE COLLIER COUNTY UTILITIES BILLING 14700 $TRAMIAMI ETR N (239) 403 -2380 ACCOUNT NUMBER DATE BILLED , , pgy ! 04046017600 06/12/07 06/27/071 2,560.53 MAIL THE LOWER PORTION WITH YOUR TAMIAMI SQ OF NAPLES LLC IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII PAYMENT IN U.S. FUNDS 70: C/O CRIFASI MANAGMENT INC STE 208C COLLIER COUNTY UTILITIES BILLING 2375 TAMIAMI TRL N P.O. BOX 3369 NAPLES FL 34103 -4438 NAPLES, FLORIDA 34106 -3369 000000404601760000256053 Agenda Item No. 10E nLary 13, 2009 '— ULLILI<UUUINIY UIILIIiE6t31LLINV 'P377 g'0' age 36 of 398 4420 MERCANTILE AVE • NAPLES. FLORIDA 34104 • (239) 4032380 DATE BILLED TAMIAMI SQ OF NAPLES LLC 07/16/07 C/0 CRIFASI MANAGMENT INC ACCOUNT YUMBER RATE CLASS STE 2OBC 04046017600 CO 2375 TAMIAMI TEL N SERVICE ADDRESS NAPLES FL 34103 -4436 /� �` e. )/}..Z 14700 TAMIAMI TR N �A'E TER' .�j.y+��Lp rw CODE AMOUNT METER .NUL +BER ERE DATE I READING DATE READING CONSIHAPTION 21443635 5/8" 06/06/07 3162 07/06/07 3355 193 21637090 3" 06/06/07 8969 07/06/07 9161 192 WA 1,481.34 WS 173.52 SM 1,492.29 IP 36.00 BL 7.93CR DUE TO SEVERE DROUGHT, SFWMD PHASE II WATER RESTRICTIONS ARE IN EFFECT THIS BILL MAY INCLUDE A 151 SURCHARGE DEPENDING ON TOTAL USAGE. PRACTICE WATER CONSERVATION DAILY TO PROTECT FLORIDA'S WATER RESOURCES. FOR INFO VISIT WWW.COLLIERGOV.NET, UTILITY BILLING \CUSTOMER SERVICE. NARNING: THIS BILL BECOMES DELINQUENT IF THE TOTAL AMOUNT DUE IS NOT PAID BY 07/31/07 'AYIAENT$ RECEDED AFTER TKS LATc SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PENALTY CHARGE$ AND FAILURE TO PAY BY THIS DATE ALSO SHALL IUBJEC- THE PROPERTY 70 5HUTOFF OF WATER SERVICE AND AUTOMATIC LIENS WITHOUT FURTHE NOTIOE. IF VOL DISPUTE THIS 3, 175.22 IILL OR BELIEVE THAT iT iS INACCURATE IN ANY WAY, YOU MUST CONTACT THE COLLIER COUNTY ILITY BILLING AND CUSTOMER SERVICE IEPT AT R39, :032390 OU;ING 9USI14E3S HOURS p:30 A M. 530 PM M.FI BEFORE THE DELINQUENT DATE, y �9 SEE BACK OF BILL FOR ADDITIONAL BILL INFORMATION° �rT MAKE CHECKS PAYABLE TO: COLLIER COUNTY UTILITIES BILLING (239) 403 -2380 TAMIAMI SQ OF NAPLES LLC C/0 CRIFASI MANAGMENT INC STE 208C 2375 TAMIAMI TRL N NAPLES FL 34103 -4438 ( DETACH HERE SERVICE ADDRESS 14700 TAMIP.MI TR N ACCOUNT NUMBER DATE BILLED , 04046017600 07/16/07 07/31/07 3,175.22 MAIL THE LOWER PORTION WITH YOUR II I II I II II� If VIII PAYMENT IN U.S. FUNDS TO: COLLIER COUNTY UTILITIES BILLING P.O. BOX 3369 NAPLES, FLORIDA 34106 -3369 000000404601760000317522 Agenda Item No. 10E DUE TO SEVERE DROUGHT, SFWMD PHASE II WATER RESTRICTIONS ARE IN EFFECTI THIS BILL MAY INCLUDE A 15$ SURCHARGE DEPENDING ON TOTAL USAGE, PRACTICE WATER CONSERVATION DAILY TO PROTECT FLORIDA-S WATER RESOURCES. FOR INFO VISIT WWW.COLLIERGOV.NET, UTILITY BILLING\CUSTOMER SERVICE. IARNING: THIS BILL BECOMES DELINQUENT IF THE TOTAL AMOUNT DUE IS NOT PAID BY 08/29/07 aYMENTS RECEIVED AFTER THIS DATE SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PENALTY CHARGES AND FAILURE TO PAY BY THIS DATE ALSO SHALL JB.IECT T1:E PROPERTY TO SHUTOFF OF WqT q SERVI E AND AUTOMATIC LIENS WITHOUT FURTHER NOTICE. IF YOU DIBPUTE THIS Ll OR BELIEVE THAT IT IS INA CDRATE IN ANYWAY. YOU MUST CONTACT THE COLLIER C UNTY UTILITY BILLING AND CUSTOMER SERVICE 42 , 4 09.61 EP- AT (2391403-2390 DURING BUSINESS HOURS (t30 A.M 5:30 P M., M-F) BEFORE THE DELINQUENT DATE. SEE BACK OF BILL FOR ADDITIONAL BILL INFORMATION MAKE CHECKS PAYABLE TO: COLLIER COUNTY UTILITIES BILLING (239) 403 -2380 TAMIAMI SQ OF NAPLES LLC C/O CRIFASI MANAGMENT INC STE 208 2375 TAMIAMI TRL N NAPLES FL 34103 -4439 tDETACH HERE SERVICE ADDRESS 14700 TAMIAMI TR N ACCOUNT NUMBER DATE BILLED =ffil 04046017600 08/14/0 08/29/01 2,409.61 MAIL THE LOWER PORTION WITH YOUR III IIIIIIIIIII I IIIIIIIIII II PAYMENT IN U.S. FUNDS TO: IIII COLLIER COUNTY UTILITIES BILLING P.O. BOX 3369 NAPLES, FLORIDA 34106 -3369 n n nnn n U n U L n l,7 L n n nn7 U nq L T. January 13, 2009 Page 37 of 398 � � _ILR C:UUNTY UTILI IIES BILLING _ -J� ITILE AVE • NAPLES. FLORIDA 341D4 • (239) 403 -2380 DATE BILLED Qlir'R 08/14/07 3'L7 LL 7S � l ACCOUNT NUMBER RATE CLASS 04046017600 CO ' ¢ _ SERVICE ADDRESS 14700 TAMIAMI TR N READING DATE READING CONSUMPTION I CODE AMOUNT 55 08/06/07 3502 61 08/06/07 9306 147 145 WA 1,061.82 - 1Cj7�� g- ✓ /-��i WS 110.59 SM 1,201.20 A IP 36.00 DUE TO SEVERE DROUGHT, SFWMD PHASE II WATER RESTRICTIONS ARE IN EFFECTI THIS BILL MAY INCLUDE A 15$ SURCHARGE DEPENDING ON TOTAL USAGE, PRACTICE WATER CONSERVATION DAILY TO PROTECT FLORIDA-S WATER RESOURCES. FOR INFO VISIT WWW.COLLIERGOV.NET, UTILITY BILLING\CUSTOMER SERVICE. IARNING: THIS BILL BECOMES DELINQUENT IF THE TOTAL AMOUNT DUE IS NOT PAID BY 08/29/07 aYMENTS RECEIVED AFTER THIS DATE SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PENALTY CHARGES AND FAILURE TO PAY BY THIS DATE ALSO SHALL JB.IECT T1:E PROPERTY TO SHUTOFF OF WqT q SERVI E AND AUTOMATIC LIENS WITHOUT FURTHER NOTICE. IF YOU DIBPUTE THIS Ll OR BELIEVE THAT IT IS INA CDRATE IN ANYWAY. YOU MUST CONTACT THE COLLIER C UNTY UTILITY BILLING AND CUSTOMER SERVICE 42 , 4 09.61 EP- AT (2391403-2390 DURING BUSINESS HOURS (t30 A.M 5:30 P M., M-F) BEFORE THE DELINQUENT DATE. SEE BACK OF BILL FOR ADDITIONAL BILL INFORMATION MAKE CHECKS PAYABLE TO: COLLIER COUNTY UTILITIES BILLING (239) 403 -2380 TAMIAMI SQ OF NAPLES LLC C/O CRIFASI MANAGMENT INC STE 208 2375 TAMIAMI TRL N NAPLES FL 34103 -4439 tDETACH HERE SERVICE ADDRESS 14700 TAMIAMI TR N ACCOUNT NUMBER DATE BILLED =ffil 04046017600 08/14/0 08/29/01 2,409.61 MAIL THE LOWER PORTION WITH YOUR III IIIIIIIIIII I IIIIIIIIII II PAYMENT IN U.S. FUNDS TO: IIII COLLIER COUNTY UTILITIES BILLING P.O. BOX 3369 NAPLES, FLORIDA 34106 -3369 n n nnn n U n U L n l,7 L n n nn7 U nq L T. DUE TO SEVERE DROUGHT, SFWMD PHASE II WATER RESTRICTIONS ARE IN EFFECT! THIS BILL MAY INCLUDE A 154 SURCHARGE DEPENDING ON TOTAL USAGE. PRACTICE WATER CONSERVATION DAILY TO PROTECT FLORIDA'S WATER RESOURCES. FOR INFO VISIT WWW.COLLIERGOV.NET, UTILITY BILLING \CUSTOMER SERVICE. YARNING: THIS BILL BECOMES DELINQUENT IF THE TOTAL AMOUNT DUE IS NOT PAID BY 09/27/07 AYMENTS RECEIVED AFTER THIS DATE SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PENALTY CHARGES AND FAILURE TO PAY BY THIS DATE ALSO SHALL 'JBJGCT THE PROPERTY i0 SHUTOFF pf WATER SERVICE AND AUTOMATIC LIENS WITHOUT FURTHER NOTICE IF YOU DISPUTE THIS 2, 009.67 'LL OR BELIEVE THAT IT IS INACCURATE IN ANY WAY. YOU MUST CONTACT THE COLLIER COUNTY UTILITY BILLING AND CUSTOMER SERVICE 'PT AT (239) 4032380 DURING BUSINESS HOURS (7 35 A.M. - 530 P.M.. M -F) BEFORE THE DELINOUENT DATE. SEE BACK OF BILL FOR ADDITIONAL BILL INFORMATION MAKE CHECKS PAYABLE TO: COLLIER COUNTY UTILITIES BILLING (239) 403 -2380 TAMIAMI SQ OF NAPLES LLC C/O CRIFASI MANAG14ENT INC STE 208 2375 TAMIAMI TRL N NAPLES FL 34103 -4439 DETACH HERE SERVICE ADDRESS 14700 TAMIAMI TR N ACCOUNT NUMBER DATE BILLED • 1� 04046017600 09/12/07[-1-97-17 07 2,009.67 MAIL THE LOWER PORTION WITH YOUR VIII I III III II 11111111111 II II PAYMENT IN U.S. FUNDS TO: COLLIER COUNTY UTILITIES BILLING P.O. Box 3369 NAPLES, FLORIDA 34106 -33E9 000000404601760000200967 Agg�enda Item No. 10E O6nuary 13, 2009 4420 MERCANTILE AVE • NAPLES. FLORIDA 34104 • (239) 403 -2380 DApEgRtr�8 of 398 TAMIAMI SQ OF NAPLES LLC ;J c'�' ce"a-c 09/12/07 C/O CRIFASI MANAGMENT INC ACCOUNT NUMBER RATE CLASS STE 208 04046017600 CO 2375 TAMIAM1 TRL N SERVICE ADDRESS NAPLES FL 34103 -4439 14700 TAMIAMI TR N METER NUMBER METER B RE MI • DATE • DATE READING CODE CONSUMPTICN AMOVNT _READING 21443635 5/811 08/06/07 3502 09/06/07 3652 150 21637090 3" 08/06/07 9306 09/06/07 9395 89 WA 858.30 WS 80.06 SM 11035.31 IP 36.00 DUE TO SEVERE DROUGHT, SFWMD PHASE II WATER RESTRICTIONS ARE IN EFFECT! THIS BILL MAY INCLUDE A 154 SURCHARGE DEPENDING ON TOTAL USAGE. PRACTICE WATER CONSERVATION DAILY TO PROTECT FLORIDA'S WATER RESOURCES. FOR INFO VISIT WWW.COLLIERGOV.NET, UTILITY BILLING \CUSTOMER SERVICE. YARNING: THIS BILL BECOMES DELINQUENT IF THE TOTAL AMOUNT DUE IS NOT PAID BY 09/27/07 AYMENTS RECEIVED AFTER THIS DATE SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PENALTY CHARGES AND FAILURE TO PAY BY THIS DATE ALSO SHALL 'JBJGCT THE PROPERTY i0 SHUTOFF pf WATER SERVICE AND AUTOMATIC LIENS WITHOUT FURTHER NOTICE IF YOU DISPUTE THIS 2, 009.67 'LL OR BELIEVE THAT IT IS INACCURATE IN ANY WAY. YOU MUST CONTACT THE COLLIER COUNTY UTILITY BILLING AND CUSTOMER SERVICE 'PT AT (239) 4032380 DURING BUSINESS HOURS (7 35 A.M. - 530 P.M.. M -F) BEFORE THE DELINOUENT DATE. SEE BACK OF BILL FOR ADDITIONAL BILL INFORMATION MAKE CHECKS PAYABLE TO: COLLIER COUNTY UTILITIES BILLING (239) 403 -2380 TAMIAMI SQ OF NAPLES LLC C/O CRIFASI MANAG14ENT INC STE 208 2375 TAMIAMI TRL N NAPLES FL 34103 -4439 DETACH HERE SERVICE ADDRESS 14700 TAMIAMI TR N ACCOUNT NUMBER DATE BILLED • 1� 04046017600 09/12/07[-1-97-17 07 2,009.67 MAIL THE LOWER PORTION WITH YOUR VIII I III III II 11111111111 II II PAYMENT IN U.S. FUNDS TO: COLLIER COUNTY UTILITIES BILLING P.O. Box 3369 NAPLES, FLORIDA 34106 -33E9 000000404601760000200967 - . -, "Lt nVL TAMIAMI SQ OF NAPLES LLC C/O CRIFASI MANAGMENT INC STE 208 2375 TAMIAMI TRL N NAPLES FL 34103 -4439 l7T,/i Agenda Item No. 10E NAPLES. FLORIDA 34104 . (239) 403 -2380 January 13, 2009 Iamq%L"il@Tof 398 f 11/16/07 I I• Q, ACCOUNT NUMBER RATE CLASS I 04046017600 CO SERVICE ADDRESS ] ✓-I T 14700 TAMIAMI TR N METER NUMBER MSEITER ZE -' I ' DATE ' �' READIND DATE READINf3 CONSUMPTION CODE I AMOUNT 21443635 5 /8" 10/04/07 3795 11/01/07 3953 158 21637090 3" 10/04/07 9496 11/01/07 9561 65 WA 912,92 WE 81.18 SM 1,083.08 IP 36.00 .8 IL COLLIER COUNTY UTILITIES RATE INCREASE The Water, Sewer & Effluent rates will be increasing October 1, 2007. The new rates are effective with your November 2007 utility bills. A rate increase flyer is enclosed with your utility bill also. WARNING: THIS BILL BECOMES DELINQUENT IF THE TOTAL AMOUNT DUE IS NOT PAID BY 12/01/07 'AYMENTS RECEIVED AFTER THIS DATE SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PENALTY CHARGES AND FAILURE TO PAY BY THIS DATE ALSO S44s, i BJECT THE PROPERTY Tp SHUTOFF OF WATER SERVICE A D A TOMATI LIEN WITHOUT F RTHER NOTIC . IF YOU DISPUTE 31LL 0 BELIEV THAT IT IE INACCURATE R ANY WAY, YOU MUST CONTACT THE COLLIE COUNTY U ILITV BILLING AND YOU SERVICE )CRT. AT Q]9I :033]00 DUPING BUSINESS HOUR$ (> 30 A,M, - 500 P M., M.F) BEFORE THE DELINQUENT DATE. SEE BACK OF BILL FOR ADDITIONAL BILL INFORMATION MAKE CHECKS PAYABLE TO: COLLIER COUNTY UTILITIES BILLING (239) 403 -2380 TAMIAMI SQ OF NAPLES LLC C/O CRIFASI MANAGMENT INC STE 208 2375 TAMIAMI TRL N NAPLES FL 34103 -4439 9 DETACH HERE - SERV19E ADDRESS 1470.0' .TAMLAM]: TR N ACCOUNT NUMBER: OATS BILLEb " 04046017600 11/16/07F12/02/071 2,113.18 MAIL THE LOWER PORTION WITH YOUR III IIII III II III IIIIIi��I: PAYMENT IN U.S. FUNDS TO: COLLIER COUNTY UTILITIES BILLING P.O. BOX 3369 NAPLES, FLORIDA 34105 -3369 000000404601760000211318 Agenda Item No. 10E January 13, 2009 =�w MERCANTILE AVE • NAPLES. FLORIDA 34104 • (239) 403 -2380 Page 4E of 398 DATE BILLED T,,MIAMI SO OF NAPLES LLC \ 12/12/07 C/0 CRIFASI MANACIVENT INC �I,T I• oY�l' ACCOUNT NUMBER RATE CLASS STE 208 VJ1 4 �(J 04046017600 CO 2375 TAMIAMI TRL N —/�� ��]] SERVICE ADDRESS NAPLES FL 34103 -4439 /V ��,� /T� 14700 TAMIAMI TR N METER NUMBER METER SIZE , WHIq I DATE • READING GATE READING CONSUMPTION I CODE AMOUNT 21443635 5/8" 11/01/07 3953 11/30/07 4107 154 21637090 3" 11/01/07 9561 11/30/07 9781 220 WA 1,636.72 WS 189.75 SM 1,602.52 IP 36.00 4 SFWMD PHASE II WATER RESTRICTIONS ARE IN EFFECT 1 This bill may include a 15% surcharge depending on total usage. Practice water conservation daily to protect Florida's water resources. For info visit www.colliergov.net, Utility Billing \Customer Service. .YARNING: THIS BILL BECOMES DELINQUENT IF THE TOTAL AMOUNT DUE IS NOT PAID BY 12/27/0") PAYMENTS RECEIVED AFTER THIS DATE SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PENALTY CHARGES AND FAILURE TO PAY BY THIS DATE ALSO SHALL .UBJECT THE PROPERTY TO SHUTOFF OF WATER SERVICE AND AUTOMATIC LIENS WITHOUT FURTHER NOTICE. IF YOU DISPUTE THIS 3,464 99 TILL OR BELIEVE THAT IT 15 WACCURATE IN ANY WAY. YOU MUST CONTACT THE COLLIER COUNTY UTILITY BILLING AND CUSTOMER SERVICE DEPT AT 12391 4032390 DURING B'JSNESS HOURS 1730 A M. -k30 PM, M F) BEFORE THE OELWOUENT DATE. SEE BACK OF BILL FOR ADDITIONAL BILL INFORMATION MAKE CHECKS PAYABLE TO: t DETACH HERE SERVICE ADDRESS COLLIER COUNTY UTILITIES BILLING 14700 TAMIAMI TR N (239) 403 -2380 ACCOUNT NUMBER DATE BILLED 04046017600 12/12/07 12/Z7/07 3,464.99 TAMIAMI SO OF NAPLES LLC IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIII C/0 CRIFASI MANAGMENT INC STE 208 2375 TAMIAMI TRL N NAPLES FL 34103 -4439 000000404601760000346499 MAIL THE LOWER PORTION WITH YOUR PAYMENT IN U.S. FUNDS TO: COLLIER COUNT`! UTILITIES BILLING PA. BOX 3369 NAPLES. FLORIDA 341063369 SFWMD PHASE II WATER RESTRICTIONS ARE IN EFFECT I This bill may include a 15% surcharge depending on total usage. Practice water conservation daily to protect Floridals water resources. For info visit wWW.colliergov.net, Utility Billing \Customer Service. WARNING: THIS BILL BECOMES DELINQUENT IF THE TOTAL AMOUNT DUE IS NOT PAID By 01/30/08 PAYMENTS RECEIVED AFTER THIS DATE SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PENALTY CHARGES AND FAILURE TO PAY BY THIS DATE ALSO SHALL SUBJECT THE PROPERTY TO SHUTOFF OF WATER SERVICE AND AUTOMATIC LIENS WITHOUT FVRTH R NOTIC . IF YOU DISPUTE —PS 7, 816.65 I BILL OR BELIEVE THAT IT I$ INACCURA E IN NO VOU MUST CON ACT THE COLLIER COGNTY UTILITY BILLING AND CUSTOMER SERVICE DEPT. AT 123 91 4 03 -23M DURING BUSINESS HOUR$ P30 A.M. 530 P.M.. M FI BEFORE THE DELINOUENT DATE. I SEE BACK OF BILL FOR ADDITIONAL BILL INFORMATION HLC`' MAKE CHECKS PAYABLE TO: DETACH SERVICE ADDRESS COLLIER COUNTY UTILITIES BILLING 14700 TAMIAMI TR N (239) 403 -2380 ACCOUNT NUMBER DATE BILLED r I r 04046017600 01/15/08 01/30/08 7,816.65' TAMIAMI SQ OF NAPLES LLC C/O CRIIIIII II IIIIIII IIIII�III II UI C/0 CRIFASI MANAGMENT INC STE 208 2375 TAMTAMI TRL N NAPLES FL 34103 -4439 000000404601760000781665 MAIL THE LOWER PORTION WITH YOUR PAYMENT IN U.S. FUNDS TO: COLLIER COUNTY UTILITIES BILLING P.O. BOX 3369 NAPLES, FLORIDA 34106 -3369 Agenda Item No. 10E L ICI. u- January 13, 2009 AVE - NAPLES. FLORIDA 41 4420 MERCANTILE E •NAPLES. LORIDA 34104. (239) 403 -2380 (239) „ paggO,LL�u398 MI TAMIAMI SQ OF NAPLES LLC � 01/15/08 C/O CRIFASI MANAGMENT INC I -'1 t a D ACCOUNT NUMD =R ;A rE CLA' `: STE 206 �U 04046017600 CO 2375 TAMIAMI TRL N SERVICE ADDRESS NAPLES � nq FL 34103 -4439 QII/�%Z- 14700 TAMIAMI TR N METER NUMBER MS12CR DATE • READING ` DATE READING •CONSUMPTION CORE AFa00Pil 21443635 5/811 11/30/07 4107 01/04/08 4286 179 21637090 3" 11/30/07 9781 01/04/08 10383 602 WA 4,203.31 WS 574.74 SM 3,002.60 IP 36.00 SFWMD PHASE II WATER RESTRICTIONS ARE IN EFFECT I This bill may include a 15% surcharge depending on total usage. Practice water conservation daily to protect Floridals water resources. For info visit wWW.colliergov.net, Utility Billing \Customer Service. WARNING: THIS BILL BECOMES DELINQUENT IF THE TOTAL AMOUNT DUE IS NOT PAID By 01/30/08 PAYMENTS RECEIVED AFTER THIS DATE SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PENALTY CHARGES AND FAILURE TO PAY BY THIS DATE ALSO SHALL SUBJECT THE PROPERTY TO SHUTOFF OF WATER SERVICE AND AUTOMATIC LIENS WITHOUT FVRTH R NOTIC . IF YOU DISPUTE —PS 7, 816.65 I BILL OR BELIEVE THAT IT I$ INACCURA E IN NO VOU MUST CON ACT THE COLLIER COGNTY UTILITY BILLING AND CUSTOMER SERVICE DEPT. AT 123 91 4 03 -23M DURING BUSINESS HOUR$ P30 A.M. 530 P.M.. M FI BEFORE THE DELINOUENT DATE. I SEE BACK OF BILL FOR ADDITIONAL BILL INFORMATION HLC`' MAKE CHECKS PAYABLE TO: DETACH SERVICE ADDRESS COLLIER COUNTY UTILITIES BILLING 14700 TAMIAMI TR N (239) 403 -2380 ACCOUNT NUMBER DATE BILLED r I r 04046017600 01/15/08 01/30/08 7,816.65' TAMIAMI SQ OF NAPLES LLC C/O CRIIIIII II IIIIIII IIIII�III II UI C/0 CRIFASI MANAGMENT INC STE 208 2375 TAMTAMI TRL N NAPLES FL 34103 -4439 000000404601760000781665 MAIL THE LOWER PORTION WITH YOUR PAYMENT IN U.S. FUNDS TO: COLLIER COUNTY UTILITIES BILLING P.O. BOX 3369 NAPLES, FLORIDA 34106 -3369 Agenda Item No. 10E January 13, 2009 Page 42 of 398 ATTACHMENTS CONTENTS Attachment Description A Appendix H Water and Sewer Facilities Proposed Alternate Fee Calculation Methodology B PRMG — Relative Items Collier County Water and Wastewater Impact Fee Study C -1 County Ordinance No. 2007 -53 C -2 Article VI. Water -Sewer District Uniform Billing, Operating and Regulatory Standards D Site Photos E Pre - Application Meeting Follow -up F Excerpts from System Development Charges for Water. Wastewater. and Stormwa ter Facilities by Arthur C. Nelson G Excerpts from AWWA Principles of Water Rates. Fees, and Charges H Pre - Application Meeting with Tamiami Square and Collier County Utilities Gerald C. Hartman, PE, ASA Resume Agenda Item No. 10E January 13, 2009 Page 43 of 398 Attachment A Appendix H Water and Sewer Facilities Proposed Alternate Fee Calculation Methodology f Agenda Item No. 10E January 13, 2009 Page 44 of 398 Appendix H Water and Sewer Facilities Proposed Alternative Fee Calculation Methodology l Agenda Item No. 10E January 13, 2009 Page 45 of 398 Appendix H Alternative Fee Calculation Methodology Water and Sewer Impact Fee This section of the appendix presents a proposed methodology for conducting an Alternative Fee Calculation for Water and Sewer Impact Fees. It contains the requirements, procedures and methodology for preparation, performance, and submission of an Altemative Fee Calculation Study. Pre - application Meeting - Before beginning the Alternative Fee Calculation Study, the applicant or applicant's representative shall arrange and attend a pre - application meeting jointly with the Impact Fee Coordinator and the Public Utilities Department Administrator to discuss the requirements, procedures, and methodology of the Alternative Fee Calculation. Subsequent to the pre - application meeting, the applicant shall submit three copies of the proposed approach to the study to the Collier County Public Utilities Department Administrator. County staff has five (5) working days to respond in writing to the proposed approach. If County Staff concurs with the proposed approach, the applicant will be notified to proceed with the study. If County staff disagrees with the proposed approach, County staff will identify the problem areas for the applicant. The applicant must receive approval from County staff before proceeding with the study. 2. Methodology - The Alternative Fee Calculation shall follow the prescribed methodologies and formats of the Water and Sewer Impact Fee Study, prepared by Agnoli, Barber, and Brundage, Inc. (1997), as amended, the Consolidated Impact Fee Ordinance, and the Administrative Procedures Manual. The results of the Alternative Fee Calculation shall be submitted to both the Impact Fee Coordinator and Public Utilities Department. The Alternative Water and/or Sewer Systems Impact Fee calculations shall be based on data, information, or assumptions included in the Water and Sewer Impact Fee Study (identified above) and as agreed upon at the Pre - application Meeting, 3. Guidelines - The applicant will use the information derived from the study to calculate an alternative impact fee. The results of the Alternative Fee Calculation study shall be submitted to both the Impact Fee Coordinator and the Public Utilities Department. 4. Submitting the Study Report - The applicant shall submit five (5) copies of the study report to the Collier County Public Utilities Department Administrator. The study must be certified by a Professional Engineer who is registered in the State of Florida. Tindale- Oliver and Associates, Inc. Collier County Consolidated Impact Fee June 1, 2001 H -1 Administrative Procedures Manual -- 1. Agenda Item No. 10E January 13, 2009 Page 46 of 398 S. Sufficiency Determination - The Impact Fee Coordinator and the Public Utilities Department Administrator will review the Alternative Fee Calculation for sufficiency methodology, technical . accuracy, and findings and will make recommendations concerning the amount of the impact fee to the Impact Fee Coordinator. 6. Determination of Fee - The Public Utilities Department Administrator and the Impact Fee Coordinator will make the final determination of the impact fee amount. G: 107312IdocslmanuallappendicesWpndxh. doc iindale- Oliver and Associates, Inc. Collier County Consolidated Impact Fee June 1, 2001 H -2 Administrative Procedures Manual Agenda Item No. 10E January 13, 2009 Page 47 of 398 Attachment B PRMG — Relative Items Collier County Water and Wastewater Impact Fee Study Agenda Item No. 10E January 13, 2009 Page 48 of 398 Public Resources Management Group, Inc. Utility, Rate, Financial and Management Consultants May 4, 2006 PRMG #1125 -12 Board of County Commissioners of Collier County 3301 Tamiami Trail East Naples, FL 34112 Subject: Water and Wastewater Impact Fee Study Ladies and Gentlemen: We have completed our update of the Water and Wastewater Impact Fee Study for the Collier County (the "County ") Water -Sewer District's (the "District") water and wastewater system (the "System "), and have summarized the results of our analyses, assumptions, and conclusions in this letter report, which is submitted for your consideration. The purpose of our analysis was to review the existing impact fees and make recommendations as to the level of charges that should reasonably be in effect consistent with the capital expenditure requirements as identified in the District's 2005 Water and Wastewater Master Plan Updates (the "2005 Master Plan Updates "). Based on the findings presented in the District's Master Plan Updates, Public Resources Management Group, Inc. (PRMG) is recommending that the water system impact fee be increased from $2,760 to $3,415 per Equivalent Residential Connection (ERC). For the wastewater system, we are recommending an increase in the impact fee from $3,125 to $3,515 per ERC. The combined water and wastewater fee with the proposed rate adjustments would be $6,930, an increase of $1,045 or 17.8% over the existing combined fee of $5,885. The rate schedule for the proposed impact fees is shown on Table ES -I following this letter. At the outset of the study, it was determined that the proposed impact fees should meet a number of goals and objectives. These goals and objectives dealt primarily with criteria related to fee sufficiency and level. Specifically, the major objectives considered in this study included: • Existing customers, to the extent practical, should not finance or be impacted by the cost of financing and constructing water and wastewater infrastructure to serve new growth; • The impact fees should be sufficient to fund the pro rata cost of the projected capital requirements associated with providing water and wastewater service to new development; • To the extent practical, the impact fees should not be used to fund deficiencies in the capital needs of the water and wastewater utility systems (i.e., no expenditures for renewal and replacement or upgrade of facilities serving existing customers); • The impact fees should be based upon reasonable level of service standards that meet the needs of the District, should be indicative of the criteria used for long -term infrastructure planning, and should be consistent with industry standards; Agenda Item No. 10E January 13, 2009 Page 49 of 398 Board of County Commissioners of Collier County May 4, 2006 Page 2 • The proposed impact fees should be based on cost of service principles; • The proposed impact fees should take into consideration the comparable fees charged by neighboring utility systems; and • New development, to the extent practical, should fund the cost of financing the construction of System infrastructure specifically allocated to expansion; the proposed carrying charge provides a basis of recovering such costs and further shifts the burden of expansion- related capital to new growth. The proposed water and wastewater impact fees presented in this report have been structured to meet these objectives. The impact fees we calculated during the course of our analyses were based on the recovery of capital - related costs anticipated to be incurred by the District to expand water and wastewater service to meet the needs of anticipated population growth within the utility service area. As previously mentioned, the capital- related costs were identified in the 2005 Master Plan Updates prepared by the District's Consulting Engineers that documented the capital improvement plan for the fiscal year period of 2006 to 2015, which is the capital needs period reflected in the Impact Fee Report. In addition to the proposed impact fees for the System, PRMG is recommending the imposition of a "carrying charge" to recover certain costs associated with providing capacity to new development. The proposed carrying charges (Allowance for Funds Prudently Invested or "AFPI Fees ") reflect the cost of financing the expansion - related infrastructure until the impact fees are received by the District and have been structured to meet the service / rate objectives outlined above. A summary of the proposed AFPI Fees is shown on Table ES -2 at the end of this letter. Based on the information provided by the District and prepared by its Consulting Engineers and the assumptions and considerations outlined in this report, which should be read in its entirety, PRMG considers the proposed Impact Fees to be cost - based, reasonable, and representative of the identified capital expenditure needs of the District as identified in the Master Plan Updates. Additionally, the proposed AFPI fees are considered by PRMG to be reasonable and comparable with similar charges imposed by other Florida utilities. Moreover, such fees provide a basis for the recovery of the cost of capital associated with constructing expansion - related infrastructure. 1125- 12Q.etter Agenda Item No. 10E January 13. 2009 Page 50 of 398 Board of County Commissioners of Collier County May 4, 2006 Page 3 We appreciate the opportunity to be of service to the County and would like to thank the County's staff for their assistance and cooperation during the course of this study. Respectfully submitted, Public Resources Management Group, Inc. Robert J. Ori President Bryan A. Mantz Senior Consultant 1125�121Leacr ; ! kk }ƒ ;! /! }} Agenda Item No. sE January y 2009 Page of , | � § §m i \\ !| ! ; ! | § - » � � /� � / / !| � 2 { - &! () } §) | § ® § \ ! ci (/ ! § § \! 7} G \ 19 //9 ` Agenda Item No. sE January y 2009 Page of } \\ \� \� Agenda No. 10E January Rz , wee of | � \ a M - � } t � i $ ( ! } 7 } } | } } ! \ \ � k � � i \ $ \ $ $ ® §Z � ; ■ �( IC • � � |()■ ; - } }§ Agenda No. 10E January Rz , wee of Table ES-2 Collier County Water -Sewer District Water and Wastewater Impact Fee Study Proposed Allowaace for Funds Prudently invested (AFPI) Schedule Agenda Item No. 10E January 13, 2009 Page 53 of 398 $762.98 $939.05 AM Schedule Per ERC- Water System (`) 953.72 792.33 968.40 807.00 Calendar Year 821.67 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 $0.00 $58.69 $234.76 $410.84 $586.91 0.00 73.36 249.44 425.51 601.58 0.00 8804 264.11 440.18 616.25 0.00 102.71 278.78 454.85 630.93 0.00 117.38 293,45 469.53 645.60 0.00 132.05 308.13 484.20 660.27 0.00 14673 322.80 498.87 674.94 0.00 161.40 337.47 513.54 689.62 0,00 176.07 352.14 528.22 704.29 14.67 190.74 366.82 542.89 718.96 29.35 205.42 381.49 557.56 733.63 4402 220.09 396.16 572.23 74931 Agenda Item No. 10E January 13, 2009 Page 53 of 398 $762.98 $939.05 777.65 953.72 792.33 968.40 807.00 983.07 821.67 997.74 836.34 1,01242 851.02 1,027.09 865.69 1,041,76 880.36 1,056,43 895.03 1,056.43 909.71 1.05643 924.38 1p56,43 (•) Assumes that the AFPI fee m initiated on October 1, 2006. AFP] Schedule Per ERC- Wastewater System ` Payment Calendar Year Month 2006 2007 2009 2009 2010 2011 2012 January $0.00 $38.24 $15194 $267.65 $382.36 $49206 $611.77 February 0.00 47.79 162.50 277.21 391.92 506.62 621.33 March 0.00 57.35 172.06 286.77 40147 516.18 630.89 April 0.00 66.91 181.62 296.33 411.03 525.74 640.45 May 0.00 76.47 191.18 305.89 420.59 535.30 650.01 June 0.00 8603 200.74 31544 430.15 544.86 659.57 July 0.00 95.59 210.30 325.00 439.71 554.42 669.12 August 0.00 105 15 219.86 334.56 449.27 563.98 678.68 September 0.00 114.71 229.41 344.12 458,83 57353 688.24 October 9.56 124.27 239.97 35368 468.39 583.09 688.24 November 19.12 13182 248.53 363.24 477.95 592.65 688.24 December 28.68 143.38 258.09 372.80 487.50 60121 6R8.24 (•) Assumes that the AFPI fee m initiated on October 1, 2006. COLLIER COUNTY WATER -SEWER DISTRICT WATER AND WASTEWATER IMPACT FEE STUDY TABLE OF CONTENTS Title Letter of Transmittal Agenda Item No. 10E January 13, 2009 Page 54 of 398 Page No. Introduction............................................................................................................ ..............................1 Purpose of Water and Wastewater Impact Fees .................................................... ............................... I ExistingImpact Fees .............................................................................................. ..............................3 ImpactFee Methodology ....................................................................................... ..............................4 Level of Service Requirements .............................................................................. ..............................5 ExistingPlant in Service ........................................................................................ ..............................6 Additional Capital Investment ............................................................................... ..............................9 Designof Water Impact Fee .................................................................................. .............................13 Design of Wastewater Impact Fee ........................................................................ .............................16 Impact Fee Comparisons ....................................................................................... .............................19 Sufficiency of Impact Fees—.. ...................................... ...... .............. ...................... — ................. .... 20 Allowance for Funds Prudently Invested (AFPI) Fee ........................................... .............................21 Conclusions and Recommendations ...................................................................... .............................25 Acknowledgements............................................................................................... .............................28 K:\DW 125- 121Reports\Report i Agenda Item No. 10E January 13, 2009 Page 55 of 398 The current study employed the same methodology, and the impact fees were calculated on an ERC basis. The capital - related costs were identified in the 2005 Master Plan Update reports prepared by the County's Consulting Engineers, which documented the capital improvement plan for Fiscal Years 2006 through 2015 (the "CIP Planning Period ") which was relied upon in the preparation of this report. Level of Service Requirements In the evaluation of the capital facility needs for providing water and wastewater utility services, it is critical that a level of service (LOS) standard he developed. Pursuant to Chapter 9J -5, Florida Administrative Code, the "level of service" means an indicator of the extent or degrees of service provided by, or proposed to be provided by a facility, based on and related to the operational characteristics of the facility. Level of service shall indicate the capacity per unit of demand for each public facility or service. Essentially, the level of service standards are established in order to ensure that adequate facility capacity will be provided for future development and for purposes of issuing development orders or permits, pursuant to Section 163.3202(2)(8) of the Florida Statutes. As further stated in the Administrative Code, each local government shall establish a LOS standard for each public facility located within the boundary for which such local government has authority to issue development orders or permits. Such LOS standards are set for each individual facility or facility type or class and not on a system wide basis. For water and wastewater service, the level of service that is commonly used in the industry is the amount of capacity (service) allocable to an ERC expressed as the amount of usage (gallons) allocated on an average daily basis. This allocation of capacity would generally represent the amount of capacity allowable to an ERC, whether or not such capacity is actually used (commonly referred to as "readiness to serve "). As previously mentioned, an ERC — sometimes known as an Equivalent Residential Unit (ERU) — is representative of the average capacity required to service a typical individually- metered or single - family residential account. This class of users represents the largest amount of customers served by a public utility such as the District and generally the lowest level of usage requirements for a specifically metered account. For the purposes of calculating water and wastewater system Impact Fees, PRMG utilized LOS standards of 350 gallons per day (gpd) expressed on an average annual daily flow basis per water ERC. The wastewater LOS standard used in the study was 250 gpd expressed on an average annual daily flow basis per wastewater ERC. These LOS standards were reviewed in previous studies for the District and discussed with District staff and its Consulting Engineers. In the development of the level of service standards the following reference sources were considered: • 2005 Water and Wastewater Master Plan Updates prepared by the District's Consulting Engineers, Greeley and Hansen LLC; • Collier County Growth Management Plan adopted on October 28, 1997; • Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) general design standards; • Florida Public Service Commission (FPSC) capacity relationships for private utilities; and • Actual water production and wastewater flow data reported by the District over the past several years. Agenda Item No. 10E January 13, 2009 Page 56 of 398 As a result, the following level of service standards were assumed for impact fee determination purposes: Level of Service Water System 350 gpd per ERC Wastewater System 250 gpd per ERC These level of service standards have been utilized in previous impact fee studies performed on behalf of the District, and are consistent with those utilized by other utilities throughout the State of Florida. Existing Plant in Service In the determination of the Impact Fee associated with the servicing of future customers, any excess capacity of the existing utility system available to serve such growth was considered. Since this capacity is available to serve the near -term incremental growth of the utility system, it would be appropriate to evaluate the capacity availability of such facilities. In order to evaluate the availability of the existing utility plant -in- service to meet or provide for near -term future capacity needs, it was necessary to functionalize the plant by specific plant requirement. The "functionalization" of the existing plant is necessary to: i) identify those assets which should be included in the determination of the capital facilities fees; and ii) match existing plant type to the capital improvements to meet future service needs. The functional cost categories are based on the purpose of the assets and the service that such assets served. The following is a summary of the functional cost categories for the utility plant -in- service identified in this report. Functional Plant Categories Water Service Wastewater Service Other Plant Supply Treatment General Plant Treatment Effluent/Reclaimed Transmission Transmission Distribution Collection Fire Hydrants Meters and Services It was necessary to functionalize the utility plant into these cost categories so that a proper fee could be developed. Generally, the costs of on -site facilities which serve a specific development or customer such as water distribution and wastewater collection lines, meters and services, and fire hydrants are usually: i) donated by a developer as part of the City's utility extension program (a contribution of the plant); ii)recovered from the individual properties through an assessment program based on those properties which receive special benefit from such facilities or from the application of a main line extension fee to recover the specific cost of such facilities; or iii) funded from the customer directly (e.g., by a "front- foot" charge where the on -site lines were initially financed by the utility and then paid by the customer or an installation charge to recover the cost of a new service line and/or the potable water meter). Agenda Item No. 10E January 13, 2009 Page 57 of 398 117 a *or Proie ct Costs inCIP 'Tbat Primarily Benefit EdstimrC tourers (Fund 412 and Fund 414 Projects) Design of Water Impact Fee As shown on Table 7, the calculated impact fee for the water system is $3,415 per ERC. This represents an increase in the fee of $655 or 23.7% higher than the current fee of $2,760 per ERC. The reason for this increase is: i) an increase in the number of growth - driven (Fund 411) projects than what was shown in the 2003 Master Plan Update which was relied upon to develop the previously calculated impact fees; and ii) a higher cost per unit of capacity being added than what was calculated in the last impact fee study. For example and with respect to the inflationary impact on the cost of new construction, over the past five years, the Construction Cost Index published by Engineering News - Record (ENR), which measures the inflation in the prices of construction labor and materials, increased by approximately 21% (this would not take into account any effects of regulatory process changes associated with treatment standards). During the impact fee analysis, several assumptions were utilized or incorporated. The major assumptions utilized in the design of the calculated impact fees are: The existing water supply and treatment facilities have an estimated available capacity margin to serve new growth of approximately 22.51% of the average daily capacity of the facilities based on: i) the firm design capacity of the existing water treatment plant facilities; ii) actual maximum month daily demand to annual average daily demand relationships recently experienced by the water system, including a review of the actual demand 13 Project Cost Water Treatment Proiects NCRW TP - New Hawthome (Zone l) W ellfield (Well Nos.: 101,102,114,115,116, 109,117,118,119,120) $14,300,000 NCRWTP RO Wenfield Reliability (North Hawthorn Wells 18.20) 12,547,617 Hawthorn Future Reliability Wells (3 wells by 2012,3 wells by 2015,3 wells by 2018, 3 wells by 2021, 3 wells by 2024) 12,069,800 South Hawthorn Reliability /Replacement Wells (Well Nos.:39S-42S) 8,500,000 NCRW TP Emergency Generator Switchgear Upgrades 5,343,514 Tamiami Well Replacement Program (Well Nos.: 38-42) 5,175,000 Lime Softening Upgrade at SCRWTP 3,885,915 SCRW TP One RO Reliability Well 2,600,000 Water Trans mis s ion Projects Replace Water Main US 41 from Rattlesnake Hammock Road to Barefoot Williams Road 3,900,000 Wastewater Treatment Projects IQ W ater A SR 11,200 000 NCWRF Bleach System 3,000,000 Wastewater Transmission Projects Future Pump /Lift Station Rehab 5,100,000 Design of Water Impact Fee As shown on Table 7, the calculated impact fee for the water system is $3,415 per ERC. This represents an increase in the fee of $655 or 23.7% higher than the current fee of $2,760 per ERC. The reason for this increase is: i) an increase in the number of growth - driven (Fund 411) projects than what was shown in the 2003 Master Plan Update which was relied upon to develop the previously calculated impact fees; and ii) a higher cost per unit of capacity being added than what was calculated in the last impact fee study. For example and with respect to the inflationary impact on the cost of new construction, over the past five years, the Construction Cost Index published by Engineering News - Record (ENR), which measures the inflation in the prices of construction labor and materials, increased by approximately 21% (this would not take into account any effects of regulatory process changes associated with treatment standards). During the impact fee analysis, several assumptions were utilized or incorporated. The major assumptions utilized in the design of the calculated impact fees are: The existing water supply and treatment facilities have an estimated available capacity margin to serve new growth of approximately 22.51% of the average daily capacity of the facilities based on: i) the firm design capacity of the existing water treatment plant facilities; ii) actual maximum month daily demand to annual average daily demand relationships recently experienced by the water system, including a review of the actual demand 13 Agenda Item No. 10E January 13, 2009 Page 58 of 398 requirements for the ten fiscal year period ended 2005; and iii) the capacity factors reflected in the 2005 Master Plan Updates. The analysis is included on Table t herein. The capital improvement program as identified in the County's 2005 Master Plan Updates was reviewed and the capital costs were apportioned: i) by functional category; and ii) to existing and future users in the determination of the water impact fee. Those facilities that were considered to be entirely allocable to growth were included in the fee determination at full cost (i.e., 100% of the total cost). For facilities that would provide an improvement to existing utility plant assets that had available capacity to service future growth, a portion of the impact fee was reflected in the fee determination since such new growth will benefit from such improvements. For capital expenditures which were solely for the replacement of existing assets which would directly benefit existing customers or were considered as an on- site cost (provide service to a local area such as a development which would normally be constructed and subsequently contributed to the District System by a developer), such amounts were not reflected as an appropriate cost to be recovered from the application of the water impact fees. A summary of the capital costs recognized in the impact fee analysis is shown on Table 4 and as follows (differences due to rounding): Costs ($ MiUmns) - FY 2006 to FY 2015 3. For the capital improvements identified as transmission system upgrades which would benefit both existing and future users, the total cost of such improvements has been recognized in the analysis. Since the transmission function capacity is difficult to ascertain except at "build -out" conditions, the total existing (expressed at original cost and not on a replacement or current cost basis) and anticipated capital costs to serve the total capacity of the water system through 2015 was recognized, thus calculating a new users per ERC "buy - in" cost for this functional component of the system. Therefore, the cost of certain capital expenditures shown on Table 4 that was fully recognized in the fee determination will not be fully recovered by growth since the "unit cost" of this function includes existing ERCs. 4. With respect to those capital projects which have been allocated to existing users that may include a capacity increment associated with serving new development, an adjustment to the reported plant -in- service balances has been made in order to not double -count plant -in- service (recognized a retirement of plant associated with the addition of the new facilities as identified in the 2005 Master Plan Update). Since a match of the facility upgrade to the existing plant -in- service balances as reported on the County's Fixed Asset Records was not possible, the adjustment was based on: i) an average in- service date based on the weighted in- service date of all functional assets in service as reported on the Fixed Asset Records; and 14 Expansion/ Impact Fee Eligble Costs to Be Expansion / Impact Fee Recognized in Future Total Expansion / Eligible Costs Study (e.g., provide Total Impact Fee Eligible Recogni=d in Current Benefit Beyond Ten- Project Cosh (C=em and Existing Study Year widow) Costs Future Studies) water Treatment $89.8 $245.9 $211.6 $547.2 $457.4 Transmasion 14.2 46.2 68.2 128.6 114.4 Total $104.0 $292.0 $279.8 $675.8 $571.8 3. For the capital improvements identified as transmission system upgrades which would benefit both existing and future users, the total cost of such improvements has been recognized in the analysis. Since the transmission function capacity is difficult to ascertain except at "build -out" conditions, the total existing (expressed at original cost and not on a replacement or current cost basis) and anticipated capital costs to serve the total capacity of the water system through 2015 was recognized, thus calculating a new users per ERC "buy - in" cost for this functional component of the system. Therefore, the cost of certain capital expenditures shown on Table 4 that was fully recognized in the fee determination will not be fully recovered by growth since the "unit cost" of this function includes existing ERCs. 4. With respect to those capital projects which have been allocated to existing users that may include a capacity increment associated with serving new development, an adjustment to the reported plant -in- service balances has been made in order to not double -count plant -in- service (recognized a retirement of plant associated with the addition of the new facilities as identified in the 2005 Master Plan Update). Since a match of the facility upgrade to the existing plant -in- service balances as reported on the County's Fixed Asset Records was not possible, the adjustment was based on: i) an average in- service date based on the weighted in- service date of all functional assets in service as reported on the Fixed Asset Records; and 14 Agenda Item No. 10E January 13, 2009 Page 59 of 398 ii) the estimated replacement cost of the asset being placed in service as identified in the 2005 Master Plan Update, based on an analysis of historical and projected inflation as measured by the Construction Cost Index as measured by Engineering News - Record. It was considered that the use of the replacement cost of the assets, which would generally include an upgrade to the facilities and probably result in a higher cost due to such factors as restoration expenses, would be conservative in the evaluation of the capital costs recognized in the determination of the fee. It was assumed that approximately $32,163,106 of existing water system assets would be retired as a result of the implementation of the County's identified capital improvement program. No capital facility expansion costs associated with distribution facilities have been included in the calculation of the water impact fees since the County generally requires the developer to contribute such facilities or the County has adopted a separate fee (e.g., water meter installation fee) on behalf of the District to recover the cost of such capital additions (contribution in aid of construction). 6. The level of service for a water ERC was assumed to be 350 gallons per day (gpd) expressed on an average daily flow basis. This level of service represents no change from the previous impact fee study. The level of service was predicated on the level of service requirements as contained in the County's Growth Management Plan (potable water sub - element); discussions with the County's Consulting Engineers regarding capacity planning statistics as reflected in the 2005 Master Plan Update; Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) general design standards for water use analysis; Florida Public Service Commission (FPSC) capacity relationships for private utilities (Florida Administrative Code Rule 25- 30.020); and discussions with the District. 7. No grant funds have been or are expected to be received by the District relative to the funding of the water capital improvement program, and none of the existing water treatment and transmission assets were assumed to have been funded from grants. 8. Based on discussions with the County and as part of the review of the monthly rates for water service (a separate study of the District), it was determined that the lowest overall cost to the existing ratepayer (in terms of rates to be charged and financial health of the District System) was to use impact fees first for capital project funding as opposed to the payment of debt service. Because of this benefit and the need to recover the full capital cost assigned to growth, no rate adjustment was reflected in the determination of the fee. All impact fee funds remain in the system and the long -term financing costs are mitigated by using the fees for capital project financing. Although a new rate payer will potentially pay debt service on expansion- related financing, the overall cost to the ratepayer is less by not applying impact fees to current year debt and the additional customers to the system actually tend to maintain or reduce the debt service component built into the rates for service. Thus there appears to be no justification to continue to have a debt service adjustment in the determination of the impact fees. The water system impact fee was calculated utilizing estimated capital costs for the water supply /treatment/transmission system, ERC service requirements, and current fixed asset and plant capacity data available to PRMG regarding the water system. By designing the water system impact fee to recover costs on a prospective basis, an attempt is made to design a charge that will 15 Agenda Item No. 10E January 13, 2009 Page 60 of 398 provide funds on a reasonable basis in order to meet the future needs of the water system. It should be noted that in the event the construction costs, capacity requirements, or utility service area materially change from what is reflected on Table 7, the water impact fee might need to be adjusted accordingly. As shown on Table 7, the calculated water impact fee is $3,685 per ERC, which is $925 or 33.5% higher than the existing water impact fee of $2,760 per ERC. This fee would be applied to a standard individually- metered residential customer. Based on the capital facilities associated with the determination of the fee, the functional breakdown of the components of the rate is as follows: Rounded Cost Per ERC Water Supply/Treatment $2,865 Water Transmission 550 Total Proposed Water Impact Fee Design of Wastewater Impact Fee As shown on Table 8, the calculated impact fee for the wastewater system is $3,515 per ERC. This represents an increase in the fee of $390 or 12.5% above the current fee of $3,125 per ERC. The reason for this increase is a rise in the cost per unit of additional capacity from the costs assumed in the previous impact fee study. As previously mentioned, with respect to the inflationary impact on the cost of new construction, over the past five years, the Construction Cost Index published by Engineering News - Record (ENR), which measures the inflation in the prices of construction labor and materials, increased by approximately 21% (this would not take into account any effects of regulatory process changes associated with wastewater treatment standards). In the development of the proposed wastewater impact fees, several assumptions were utilized or incorporated in the analysis. The major assumptions utilized in the design of the proposed wastewater impact fees are: The existing wastewater treatment and effluent disposal facilities have an estimated available capacity margin to serve new growth of approximately 47.08% of the average daily capacity of the facilities based on: i) the firm design capacity of the existing wastewater treatment plant facilities; ii) actual maximum month average daily flow to annual average daily flow relationships recently experienced by the wastewater system, including a review of the actual flow requirements for the ten fiscal year period ended 2005; and iii) the capacity factors reflected in the 2005 Master Plan Update. The analysis is included on Table 2 herein. 2. Based on discussions with the County, the cost of treatment and effluent disposal includes the direct system- related cost of expanding the reclaimed water system. As shown on Table 6, the following capital costs were reflected in the analysis: (Remainder of Page Left Blank Intentionally) 16 Agenda Item No. 10E January 13, 2009 Page 61 of 398 Capital Expenditures Reflected in Analysis Expansion- Related Facilities (New and Future) $21,113,958 Facilities Allocated to Existing Capacity 17.280.000 Total Reclaimed Water Capital 38. 9'i.95B Expenditures Recognized The capital improvement program as identified in the County's 2005 Master Plan Update was reviewed and the capital costs were apportioned: i) by functional category and ii) to existing and future users in the determination of the wastewater impact fee. Those facilities that were considered to be entirely allocable to growth were included in the fee determination at full cost (i.e., 100% of the total cost). For facilities that would provide an improvement to existing utility plant assets that had available capacity to service future growth, a portion of the capacity fee was reflected in the fee determination since such new growth will benefit from such improvements. For capital expenditures which were solely for the replacement of existing assets which would directly benefit existing customers or were considered as an on -site cost (provide service to a local area such as a development which would normally be constructed and subsequently contributed to the District System by a developer), such amounts were not reflected as an appropriate cost to be recovered from the application of the wastewater impact fees. A summary of the capital costs recognized in the wastewater impact fee analysis is shown on Table 6 and as follows: Proiect Costs IS Millions) - FY 2006 to FY 2015 Expansion / Impact Fee Eligible Costs to Be Expansion / Impact Fee Recognized in Future Total Expansion / impact Eligible Costs Study (c.g., Provide Fee Eligible Costs Recognized in Current Benefit Beyond Ten -Year Total Project (Current and Future Existing Study Window) Costs Studies) Wastewater Treatment $20.9 $270.7 $8.9 $300.5 $279.6 Transmission 10.5 25.5 19.3 55.2 44.7 Reclaimed Water 17.3 17.3 9.8 38.4 21.1 Total $48.7 $307.5 $37.9 $394.1 $345.4 4. For the capital improvements identified as transmission system upgrades which would benefit both existing and future users, the total cost of such improvements has been recognized in the analysis. Since the transmission function capacity is difficult to ascertain except at "build -out" conditions, the total existing (expressed at original cost and not on a replacement or current cost basis) and anticipated capital costs to serve the total capacity of the wastewater system through 2015 was recognized, thus calculating a new users per ERC "buy -in" cost for this functional component of the system. Therefore, the cost of certain capital expenditures shown on Table 6 that was fully recognized in the fee determination will not be fully recovered by growth since the "unit cost" of this function includes existing ERCs. With respect to those capital projects which have been allocated to existing users which may include a capacity increment associated with serving new development, an adjustment to the 17 Agenda Item No. 10E January 13, 2009 Page 62 of 398 reported plant -in- service balances has been made in order to not double -count plant -in- service (recognized a retirement of plant associated with the addition of the new facilities as identified in the 2005 Master Plan Update). Since a match of the facility upgrade to the existing plant -in- service balances as reported on the District's Fixed Asset Records was not possible, the adjustment was based on: i) an average in- service date based on the weighted in- service date of all functional assets in service as reported on the Fixed Asset Records; and ii) the estimated replacement cost of the asset being placed in service as identified in the 2005 Master Plan Update, based on an analysis of historical and projected inflation as measured by the Construction Cost Index as measured by Engineering News - Record. It was considered that the use of the replacement cost of the assets, which would generally include an upgrade to the facilities and probably result in a higher cost due to such factors as restoration expenses, would be conservative in the evaluation of the capital costs recognized in the determination of the fee. It was assumed that approximately $16,415,000 of existing wastewater and reclaimed water system assets would be retired as a result of the implementation of the County's identified capital improvement program. 6. No capital facility costs associated with the existing collection facilities - including local lift stations, manholes, and on -site collection facilities - have been included in the calculation of the wastewater impact fees since the County generally requires the developer to contribute such facilities, or the County has adopted a separate fee (e.g., wastewater tap -fee) on behalf of the District to recover such capital additions (contributions in aid of construction). All capital improvements to such respective facilities as recognized in the 2005 Master Plan Update were also not recognized in the wastewater impact fee analysis. 7. The level of service for a wastewater ERC was assumed to be 250 gallons per day (gpd) expressed on an average daily flow basis. This level of service represents no change from the previous impact fee study. The level of service was predicated on the level of service requirements as contained in the County's Growth Management Plan (sanitary sewer sub - element); information contained in the 2005 Master Plan Update regarding wastewater capacity; FDEP flow standards as reported in FAC Rule 64E- 6.008; FPSC capacity relationships for private utilities (FAC Rule 25- 30.020); and discussions with the District. 8. No grant funds have been or are expected to be received by the District relative to the funding of the wastewater capital improvement program, and none of the existing wastewater treatment and transmission assets were assumed to have been funded from grants. 9. Based on discussions with the County and as part of the review of the monthly rates for wastewater service (a separate study of the District), it was determined that the lowest overall cost to the existing ratepayer (in terms of rates to be charged and financial health of the District System) was to use impact fees first for capital project funding as opposed to the payment of debt service. Because of this benefit and the need to recover the full capital cost assigned to growth, no rate adjustment was reflected in the determination of the fee. All impact fee funds remain in the system and the long -term financing costs are mitigated by using the fees for capital project financing. Although a new rate payer will potentially pay debt service on expansion - related financing, the overall cost to the ratepayer is less by not applying impact fees to current year debt and the additional customers to the system actually tend to maintain or reduce the debt service component built into the rates for service. Thus 18 Agenda Item No. 10E January 13, 2009 Page 63 of 398 there appears to be no justification to continue to have a debt service adjustment in the determination of the impact fees. The wastewater system impact fee was calculated utilizing estimated capital costs for the wastewater transmission/treatmentidisposal system, ERC service requirements, and current fixed asset and plant capacity data available to PRMG regarding the wastewater system. By designing the wastewater system impact fee to recover costs on a prospective basis, an attempt is made to design a charge that will provide funds on a reasonable basis in order to meet the future needs of the wastewater system. It should be noted that in the event the construction costs, capacity requirements, or utility service area materially change from what was reflected on Table 8, the wastewater impact fee might need to be adjusted accordingly. As shown on Table 8, the calculated wastewater impact fee is $3,515 per ERC, which is $390 or 12.5% higher than the existing wastewater impact fee of $3,125 per ERC. This fee would be applied to a standard individually- metered residential customer. Based on the capital facilities associated with the determination of the fee, the functional breakdown of the components of the rate is as follows: Rounded Cost Per ERC Wastewater Treatment/Disposal $3,200 Wastewater Transmission 315 Total Proposed Wastewater Impact Fee $ Impact Fee Comparisons In order to provide additional information to the County regarding the existing and calculated impact fees, a comparison of the existing and calculated fees for the District with other Florida jurisdictions was prepared. This comparison is summarized on Table 9 and provides a comparison of the existing and proposed District impact fees for single - family residential connections (i.e., one ERC) relative to the impact fees or comparable charges currently imposed by other municipal/governmental water and wastewater systems located primarily in the southwest Florida region. Figure I shows a graphical representation of the comparison. It is important to note that the reader must view the comparison with caution as no in -depth analysis has been performed to determine the methods used in the development of the water and wastewater impact fees imposed by others, nor has any analysis been made to determine whether 100% of the cost of new facilities is recovered from system capacity charges, or some percentage less than 100% with the balance recovered through the user charges. Additionally, no analysis was conducted as to the rate of capital facilities currently in service or planned for the utility. For example, the costs of wastewater effluent disposal utilizing a deep injection well system generally has a higher capital cost per unit of capacity than percolation ponds. (Remainder of Page Left Blank Intentionally) 19 Agenda Item No. 10E January 13, 2009 Page 64 of 398 Table 1 Collier County Water -Sewer District Water and Wastewater Impact Fee Study Development of Existing Water Production/Treatment Facility Cammity Available to Serve Customer Growth Line Water No. System 1 Existing Permitted Plant Capacity of System (N%4DD -MGD) (1) 40.000 Adjustment to Reflect Annual Average Daily Demand 2 of Water Treatment System (MGD) (2) (6.667) 3 Adjusted Treatment Plant Capacity (AADD) 33.333 4 Annual Average Daily Demand - Existing System (3) 25.830 5 Remaining Capacity (AADD) at Existing Plant 7.503 6 Percent of Total Capacity Remaining 22.51% 7 Percent of Total Capacity Recognized 22.51% Capital Costs of Existing Facilities 8 Existing Facility Costs (4) $ 111,400,959 9 Additional Costs (5) 89,761,032 10 Less Assumed Retirements (6) (25,243,690) 11 Less Grant Funds and Other Contributions (7) (969,055) 12 Total Applicable Capital Costs of Existing Facilities $ 174,949,246 13 Estimated Amount Allocable to Future Growth $ 39,381,075 MGD = Million Gallons Per Day MMDD = Maximum Month Daily Demand AADD = Annual Average Daily Demand Footnotes start on page 30. W1 Line No. 1 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Table 2 Collier County Water -Sewer District Water and Wastewater Impact Fee Study Development of Existing Wastewater Treatment Facility Capacity Available to Serve Customer Growth Existing Plant Capacity of System (MMADF -MGD) (1) Adjustment to Reflect Capacity on Annual Average Daily Flow Basis (2) Adjusted Treatment Plant Capacity @ AADF Annual Average Daily Flow - Existing System (3) Remaining Capacity (AADF) at Existing Plant Percent of Total Capacity Remaining Percent of Total System Capitalization Recognized Capital Costs of Existing Facilities Existing Facility Costs (4) Additional Costs (5) Less Assumed Retirements (6) Less Grant Funds and Other Contributions (7) Total Applicable Capital Costs of Existing Facilities Estimated Amount Allocable to Future Growth MGD = Million Gallons Per Day MMADF = Maximum Month Avuage Daily Flow AADF = Annual Avuage Daily Flow Footnotes start on page 33. 32 Agenda Item No. t0E January 13, 2009 Page 65 of 398 Wastewater System 40.100 (9.254) 30.846 16.323 14.523 47.08% 47.08% $ 157,420,647 38,212,595 (11,080,708) (1,753,062) $ 182,799,472 $ 86,061,991 Agenda Item No. 10E January 13, 2009 Page 66 of 398 Attachment C -1 County Ordinance No. 2007 -52 County Ordinance No. 2007 -57 County Resolution 2008 -202 u lJlu � k4M�VIDATED W ORDINANCE NO. 2007 - y AN O CE OF COLLIE CO FLORIDA, AMENDING SUBSECTION ECTION 74.303 OF AR CLE III IN ORDINANCE NO, 2MI -13 (THE IMPACT FEE ORDINANCE), TO SPECIFIC THAT WATER AND SEWER IMPACT FEES FOR NON - RESIDENTIAL USES AND FOR RESIDENTIAL LIVING AREA GREATER THAN 3,000 SQUARE FEET (OR HAVING MORE THAN FOUR TOILETS) SHALL BE DETERMINED BY PROJECTING AVERAGE DAILY J p FLOWS AND NO LONGER BY THE SIZE OF THE SERVICE METER; AMENDING 1\ SCHEDULE TWO IN APPENDIX A TO THE ORDINANCE; PROVIDING FOR OV CONFLICT AND SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION IN THE CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. UUx WHEREAS, on March 13, 2001, the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County adopted Ordinance 2001.13, the "Consohdated ImpactFec Ordinance" repealing and superseding all of the County's then existing impact fee regulations and consolidating all of the County's impact fee regulations into that Ordinance, codified as Chapter 74 of the Collier County Code of laws and Ordinances (the "Code"); and �9\k N, WHEREAS, the Collier County Water -Sewer District contracted with Malcolm Plinio and with the URS Corporation regardingthese impactfees, andboth consulting fume have recommended to staff that water and wastewater impact fees that apply to non - residential uses, or that apply to residential uses that have either living area of 5,000 or more square feet, orirrespective aphe squam footage will have mote than four toilets, no longer be detertninedby the size of the applicable service meter, but shall be determined by the ERC value that results from applicable projected average dpgy flows: and WHEREAS, having reviewed the Consultant's recommendations, staff concurs andtherctim \ is recommending that the Board of County Commissioners adopt the attached Ordinance to amend the current Ordinance and the attached impact Fee Schedule, both of which will accomplish the results recommended by the consultants. 14, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY J\ COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that DN ONE. Subsection (d)(2)(g) in Section 74-303 of Article III of Chapter 74 of the Collier Code of I,sws and Ordinances (the same being Ordinance No. 2001 -13, as amended), is �• UrclMined kat is eddpd; leaf is deleted. Agenda Item No. 10E January 13, 2009 Page 67 of 398 Agenda Item No. 10E January 13, 2009 Page 68 of 398 these impact fee calculations." SECTION TWO. CONFLICT ANDSEVERABIITY. In the event this Ordinance conflicts with any odor Ordinance of Collier County of other applicable law, the more restrictive shall apply, If any phrase or portion of this Ordinance is held invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct, and independent provision and such holding shag not affect the validity of the remaining portions. SECTION THREE. INCLUSION IN THE CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES. The provisions of this Ordinance shell be made a put of the Code of Laws and Ordinances of Collier County, Florida. The sections of the Ordinance may be renumbered or re- lettered and internal cross - references amended throughout to accomplish such, and the word "ordinance" may be changed to "section," "article," or any other appropriate word. SECPIONFOUR EFFECTIVEDATE• This Ordinance shall become effective upon filing with the Florida Department of State. PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED by the Board of County Commissioners of ��'' Collier County, Florida this 'day of 2007. ATTEST: DWIGHT �E. BROW &CLERK =.�'t�'IYc`�c`.�LZtait.att f srl9naWre Oa1•r Approved as to fomt and legal sufficiency: OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA /_ =' By: Thomas C. Palmer, Assistant County Attorney Underlined text it Ad&d: saKk.tlwugh rest is deleted. Page 2 of 4 This erdlncen�e• filed wnh the itse�" —-t c �3 a a..S•e(trgMlaipemcr.t '` thof tf tip se —ived is � . d% �F-�1 tr- 4f awh a.t Agenda Item No. 10E January 13, 2009 Page 69 of 398 APPENDIX A SCHEDULE TWO: WATER AND 144kM41VA R SEWER SYSTEM IMPACT FE6 RATA SCHEDULE mmim I mmm�pnrmpwrw 11 -166-d o- a cdded, 2, --,, L� . sh laxl is deleted. Pap 3 of 4 �Yr 11 -166-d o- a cdded, 2, --,, L� . sh laxl is deleted. Pap 3 of 4 1 Agenda Item No. 10E January 13, 2009 Page 70 of 398 INDIVIDUALLY METERED SERVICE LIVING SPACE (SG.FT.1 ERC VALUE BASIS OF FMFF WATER IMPACT FEES SEWS IMPACT FEES 0 TO 4 (AND MAXIMUM OF 4 MUM 1 Per ERG $3,415 1211.5 5.000 OR GREATER MR MORE THAN 4 ADF! 350 Per ERC ERC VALUE X IML5 (minimum value $9.4151 515 TOILETSI train value W 1.o (rounded to Non - Residential ERC VALUEx the nearest 53.515 !minimum value $3.5151 ten MASTER METERED SERVICE LIVING SPACE (SO.FT) ERC VALUE BASIS OF WATER IMPACT FEES SEWER IMPACT FEES M Residential Una- o TO 750 0.33 Per Un $1,125.00 11,160.01D Residential Unt -751 TO 1.soo 0. 7 3 Per Unit 290.00 $�_ 5.0D _ Residential Unit -1_501 TO 1 Per Unit 3 415.00 515. Residential Unit -5t5 OR ADF/ 350 imin rrewa of n the nearest Per ERC ERC VALUE x $3.415 Ime mum $3,515 ERC VALUE x GREATER (OR MORE THAN 4 TOILFFS Non - Residential value 59,4151 3 51 (minimum value 351 lends ) ACRONYM KEY: ADF - Avarspo Da9v Elpws la proposed use as provided by FOR or Authorked R mtetlw EOR, Enaln"rofFle, tar ro ed ERC- I Eaulvalant ResIdImflal ConnwUon derll a =is -d&d; R--k twyrq tux[ a dektr & Page 4 of 4 Item No. 10E Zi�p� 13, 2009 16117,1 of 398 WHEREAS, Collier County has used impact fees as a funding source for growth- related capital improvements for various facilities since 1978; and WHEREAS, on March 13, 2001, the Board of County Commissioners adopted Ordinance No. 2001 -13, the Collier County Consolidated Impact Fee Ordinance, repealing and superseding all of the County's then existing impact fee regulations, and consolidating all of the County's impact fee regulations into that one Ordinance, codified in Chapter 74 of the Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances (the "Code'j; and WHEREAS, in October of 2002 the Board of County Commissioners directed that during the upcoming required three -you updates of the individual impact fees that methodology also be developed to provide for the annual indexing of the fees in the years between the formal updates; and WHEREAS, on February 28, 2006, the Board of County Commissioners directed that the indexing methodology for each of the impact fees be reviewed and revised, as appropriate, to reflect localized information; and WHEREAS, Section 163.31801, Florida Statutes, which is the Florida Impact Fee Act, requires the most recent and localized data be used in impact fee calculations; and WHEREAS, Collier County, retained Tindale- Oliver & Associates, Inc. (the "Consultant "), to complete the study to localize the indexing methodologies; and WHEREAS, the Consultant worked in association with Robert W. Bumhell, Ph.D. from the Center for Urban Policy Research, Bloustein School of Planning/Public Policy at Rutgers, to develop a legally defensible indexing program, specific to Collier County; and WHEREAS, the Consultant has prepared an impact fee study entitled "Collier County Impact Fee Indexing Study" dated June 11, 2007 (the "Study'); and WHEREAS, Collier County uses impact fees to supplement the funding of necessary capital improvements required to provide public facilities to serve new population and related development that is necessitated by growth in Collier County; and WHEREAS, the Study recommends four revised measures to be used, alone or in combination, to calculate the annual index For each of Collier County's impact fees; and UnduuaSa Icn is add W; Cis o' 146 1 rcxi is dckm ^� U7 ORDINANCENO.2007- jjj AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY TY OMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE IMPACT FEE sr RATE SCHEDULES OF APPENDIX A OF ORDINANCE NO, 200143, srE2rZ[z oZ6v0 AS AMENDED, KNOWN AS THE COLLIER COUNTY CONSOLIDATED IMPACT FEE ORDINANCE; INCORPORATING BY REFERENCE THE IMPACT FEE STUDY ENTITLED "COLLIER COUNTY IMPACT FEE INDEXING STUDY;" DELETING TTiE REQUIRED USE OF INCOME DERIVED FROM THE INTEREST BEARING IMPACT FEE TRUST FUNDS; PROVIDING FOR CHANGES TO THE PROVISIONS RELATED TO IMPACT FEE WAIVERS AND DEFERRALS FOR SPECIFIED CHARITABLE' ' ORGANIZATIONS; AMENDING THE SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS FOR EACH OF THE INDIVIDUAL IMPACT FEES; PROVIDING FOR CONFLICT AND SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION IN THE COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES; AND PROVIDING FOR A DELAYED EFFECTIVE DATE OF JANUARY 1, 2008. WHEREAS, Collier County has used impact fees as a funding source for growth- related capital improvements for various facilities since 1978; and WHEREAS, on March 13, 2001, the Board of County Commissioners adopted Ordinance No. 2001 -13, the Collier County Consolidated Impact Fee Ordinance, repealing and superseding all of the County's then existing impact fee regulations, and consolidating all of the County's impact fee regulations into that one Ordinance, codified in Chapter 74 of the Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances (the "Code'j; and WHEREAS, in October of 2002 the Board of County Commissioners directed that during the upcoming required three -you updates of the individual impact fees that methodology also be developed to provide for the annual indexing of the fees in the years between the formal updates; and WHEREAS, on February 28, 2006, the Board of County Commissioners directed that the indexing methodology for each of the impact fees be reviewed and revised, as appropriate, to reflect localized information; and WHEREAS, Section 163.31801, Florida Statutes, which is the Florida Impact Fee Act, requires the most recent and localized data be used in impact fee calculations; and WHEREAS, Collier County, retained Tindale- Oliver & Associates, Inc. (the "Consultant "), to complete the study to localize the indexing methodologies; and WHEREAS, the Consultant worked in association with Robert W. Bumhell, Ph.D. from the Center for Urban Policy Research, Bloustein School of Planning/Public Policy at Rutgers, to develop a legally defensible indexing program, specific to Collier County; and WHEREAS, the Consultant has prepared an impact fee study entitled "Collier County Impact Fee Indexing Study" dated June 11, 2007 (the "Study'); and WHEREAS, Collier County uses impact fees to supplement the funding of necessary capital improvements required to provide public facilities to serve new population and related development that is necessitated by growth in Collier County; and WHEREAS, the Study recommends four revised measures to be used, alone or in combination, to calculate the annual index For each of Collier County's impact fees; and UnduuaSa Icn is add W; Cis o' 146 1 rcxi is dckm Agenda Item No. 10E January 13, 2009 Page 72 of 398 WHEREAS, the recommended measures and corresponding percentages of increase, in combination with the adopted indexing methodology provide the basis for the annual index for each of Collier County's impact fees; and WHEREAS, the proposed revised fees are incorporated in Schedules One through Ten of Appendix A of Chapter 74 of the Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinance (attached); and WHEREAS, the study methodology has been reviewed and agreed to by Collier County's outside legal counsel, Nabors. Giblin and Nickerson, P.A.; and WHEREAS, staff has thoroughly reviewed the calculations and findings and concurs with the results of the study, and recommends that the Board of County Commissioners adopt this Ordinance to implement the recommended changes; and WHEREAS, on April 10, 2007 the Board of County Commissioners directed that the provisions related to impact fee waivers for specified charitable organizations be amended to instead provide deferrals to such charitable organizations; and WHEREAS, the adoption of this Ordinance incorporates provisions that amend Section 74- 203(i) of the Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances related to charitable organizations by providing impact fee deferrals to qualified entities and requiring that deferred impact fees be paid to Collier County upon such time that the premises is no longer utilized by the qualified entity or the entity ceases to operate in the specified charitable capacity. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that: SECTION ONE. Article 1, General, Section 74 -106, Adoption of impact fee studies, of the Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances is hereby amended to read as follows: Section 74106. Adoption of impact fee studies. The board hereby adopts and incorporates by reference the following studies with regard to the respective public facilities: Rfk LI) Indexing., "Collier Count Impact Fee Indexing Study" dated Jane 11. 2007, mcnared by Tindale- Oliver and Associates. Inc.. in association with Robert W Burchell. Ph.D., to be updated annually. raw SECTION TWO. Article R, Impact Fees, Section 74 -203, Use of funds, subsection (e) and (i) of the Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances is hereby amended to read as follows: Section 74 -203. Use of funds. •k: (e) All funds on deposit which are not than immediately necessary for expenditures shall be invested by the county in compound - interest bearing trust fuad(s). t dyrlinw tart u W W' Bru,M.N,waq Mgt is dsl"tcd P., 2 of23 Agenda Item No. 10E January 13, 2009 Page 73 of 398 BoveRMIS), iAefest pfrifig' GhaFitable leaned loi Vasisferred a98OURt. lffipftSt then Nomad in the Fespeefive "si Amd shall oiagiy Impost fees visaivm. Aeorued imspast &s. AF OL'AFA490 he Ifealied 'A the iseddit of fee 'A'&iN,M gFRMOd 1)54110 bO8Fd Shall be Paid be tised W Wly fund "net fGF ia one Oust fetid shall as! Is any edwF was! Paid of any othe &OM BOOFdad 6mAFAQt fFDM Deals 14e then panding deemed to "be requested M-RiV19FO, L%8 MaPAgOf Of 811011 R"Oh. a4did nvaillmWis" to Fmd these 4104 far Rind fill —.1 AiRd the requested fiffif4i sharitAls wuizi,e�. entity" NaiveFs unless ther (i) Impact fee waivers- ee-deferrals available to charitable organizations and charitable trusts. These impact fees waive ra deferrals are available only to eligible to not- for -profit, charitable entities as specified herein. The cumulative total of all not - for -proft waivers deferrals in each of the county's fiscal years shall not exceed $200,000.00. If the total amount of impact fees waived deferred pursuant to these provisions in a fiscal year is less than $200,000.00 (or is less than the higher total in the funding account for that fiscal year because of prior cash carrying - forward) some or all of the sum of money not waived deferred can be carried forward and thereby be added to the $200,000.00, to a maximum balance of $500,000.00 finding for the next fiscal year. Neither ilrapaet fees collected by the county for water, wastewater, educational facilities nor-pd fire impact fees shall not be waived deferred under these provisions. (1) Entities eligible for waivers deferrals. These waivers deforrals are available only to charitable, not- for -profit entities that provide services of substantial benefit to low income or very low income residents of the county at no charge or at reasonable, reduced rates, and no part of the net eamings of the entity shall inure to the benefit of any private shareholder or individual, and the entity complies with at least one of the following: a. The entity is described in subsection 501(C)(3) of Chapter 26 of the United States Internal Revenue Code as a corporation, a community chest, a fund, or a foundation, organized and operated exclusively for charitable purposes, or for prevention of cruelty to children„ and is then exempt from taxes under Section 501(a) therein; or b. The entity is described in Subsections 501(C)(4)(A) and (13) of Chapter 26 of the United States Internal Revenue Code as either a Civic League or an organization not organized for profit, is operated exclusively for the promotion of social welfare, and is exempt from taxes under Section 501(a), therein; or c. The entity is described in Subsection 501(C)(20) of Chapter 26 of the United States Internal Revenue Code as an organization or trust, the exclusive function of which is to form part of a qualified group legal services plan or plans within the -- meaning of Section 120 as referenced therein; or tfided neA ¢xt a added AawWare, 91 Wet is dele ee Page 3 orr5 Agenda Item No. 1OE January 13, 2009 Page 74 of 398 d. The entity is a hospital, a cooperative hospital service organization, a medical research organization, or similar organization under any provision within (or referenced) in Section 501 of Chapter 26 of the United States Internal Revenue Code and the entity is exempt from federal income taxation; or e. The entity is then exempt from Florida's annual and nonrecurring intangible taxes pursuant to F.S. § 199.185(4), as a "Charitable Trust" and at least 95 percent of its income is paid to one or more of the above - listed federal tax exempt entities. (2) Amount of waivers deferrals available to applicants. Subject to not exceeding the amount of impact fees paid (or to be paid) by the applicant to the county, the applicant may request waivers deferral of all impact fees that are waivable eligible for deferral under these provisions, but no applicant shall be granted more than $100,000.00, or 50 percent of the available funding, which ever is less, of not - for -profit waivers deferrals. (3) No wnstruction that has obtained an affordable housing deferral under this article shall be eligible for any waiver deferral under these provisions. No construction that has been granted a waiver deferral under these provisions shall be eligible for any county affordable housing deferrals. (4) ,4pp{ieetieea Requests for waivers deferrals pursuant to this section 74 -203. a. Except as specified in this subparagraph a., the applicant must file a written waiver request for deferral epplisatiee to the county manager not later than concurrently with payment of the respecfive impact fees. The county shall not accept any such sppiioa6sns requests after the respective impact fees have been paid to the county except in those instances when the Collier County building permit that authorized the respective waiver eligible development was issued after September 7, 2001 and before October 13, 2001 and the development paid the applicable impact fees in full, The applicant can avoid payment of impact fees (up to the maximum amount of impact fees that may possibly be waived deferred for that applicant) only when it is possible that the board may grant the requested waver deferral before the respective impact fees become due and payable to the county. The eppliest6on written request must prove all of the applicable above - specified elements that render the entity eligible for the requested waivers deferrals, including the required tax exemption(s). The county manager may request additional information deemed appropriate to ascertain the applicant's eligibility for the requested waivers deferrals including criteria noted in F.S. §§ 196.195 and/or 196.196. h. sewad= basis. The county manager shall review each applisatiae written request to determine eligibility for the requested waivers deferrals. Within 30 days after receipt of the appiieetien request, the county manager elteuld shall inform the applicant in writing whether the appHsatien recire st is complete. if the Wplieatien request is incomplete, the applicant, shall be notified speei€yaxg in writing why the eppNeatiea written request fails to prove that the entity is eligible for the requested waivers deferrals. After receipt of such "tea ljn Wit is WAts l A 0' Ira ii dibW P., 4 ore5 Agenda Item No. 10E January 13, 2009 Page 75 of 398 notice, the applicant shall have an additional 30 days to re- submit an amended applieetien request . Failure to meet this deadline shall void the applicant's eligibility for the requested weivets deferrals unless an extension is granted for good cause at the county manager's discretion. c. Alter an- npptieatiea a written request is determined by the county manager to meet the above - specified minimum filing requirements, the county manager shall promptly place the app9eatien request on the county's manager portion of the board's agenda. The fiscal year in which the waiver deferral applieatiea is granted or denied by the board shall be the fiscal year that applies to the applieation request. The executive summary shall specify the criteria deemed by the county manager to render the applicant eligible (or ineligible) for the requested -:elvers deferrals, and shall include the county manager's recommendations whether the board should grant the request in whole or in part, or should deny the request, along with a proposed resolution agreement that may be adapted xecuted by the board requested— wei+'ere. No resolution agreement shall apply to more than one applicant. the- reselarierr. The agreement shall be Preoarcd by the County Attomev's Office consistent with this chanter (5) Not - for -profit wai-ess deferrals are discretionary and the board's decisions are final. At the conclusion of the deferral Period the subject impact fees for the then current use arc due and Payable (6) The county manager may adopt additional generally applicable procedural rules with regard to applieatien requests provided those rules apply to all similarly situated applicants and do not impose additional mandatory eligibility requirements upon any applicant. (7) No construction that has applied for or obtained Fee Payment Assistance F- funding under Chapter 49 of the Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances shall be eligible for any waiver deferral under these provisions. No construction that has been granted a waiver deferral under these provisions shall be eligible for any county Tee pPayment aAssistance funding. SECTION THREE. Article III, Special Requirements for Specific Typej of Impact Fees, Section 74302, Special requirements jar road impact fee, subsection (g) of the Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances, is hereby amended to read as follows; Section 74 -302. Special requirements fur road Impact fee. (g) Annual mid -cycle road impact fee rare indexing. Beginning November 1, 2002, the county shall commence a three -year road impact fee update cycle pursuant to subsections 74- 201(b) and 74- 502(a) of this chapter. Durin¢ each of the two mid -years between updates, the county shall implement indexed:. Lndvrned Mt is added; ghs A Wwap ws, is delete Pape 5 o(25 Agenda Item No. 10E January 13, 2009 Page 76 of 398 adjustments to the cost components of design, utilities, mitigation, interchange, carrying cost, construction, engineering, inspection and, the non -land components of right -of -way acquisition costs based an the AoFida Depetansat index, The index adjusmani is and the land value component of rights -of -way costs she!! be based on 'a O10(b) _r t` is ahspte• the percentages of increase set forth in the adopted "Collier County Impact Fee Indexing Study" prepared by Tindale- Oliver and Associates Inc_ in association with Robert W. Burchell Ph.D., as updated annually and in accordance with the indexing methodology specified in the current and adooted road impact fee study, SECTION FOUR. Article 111, Special Requirements for Specific Types oflmpact Fees, Section 74.303, Special requirements for Water and /or sewer impact fee, subsection (g) of the Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances is hereby amended to read as follows: Section 74 -303. Special requirements for Water and/or sewer impact fee. rYa (g) Annual mid -cycle water and sewer impact fee rate indexing, Beginning January 1, 2005, the county shall commence a three -year water and sewer (wastewater) impact fee update cycle pursuant to subsections 74- 201(b) and 74- 502(a) of this article. In each of the two mid -cycle years (between the formal three -year updates) end beginning on of about '°°° 1, inn5, the county shall implement indexing adjustments to each water and sewer impact fee amount by the percentages of increase set forth in the adopted "Collier County Impact Fee Indexing Study" prepared by Tindale- Oliver and Associates. Inc.. in association with Robert W Burchell Ph.D., as undated annually, and in-accordance with the index stated in the hoard resolution (or ordinance) that implements that indexing and the dmgminaitw � the "alien shall als erdiaanee(e). Water and wastewatee sewer impact fees shall be increased by indexing only to the extent that increases resulting from indexing exceed the assumed inflation rato used to calculate the then applicable impact fees. SECTION FIVE. Article III, Special Requirements fur Specific Types of Impact Fees, Section 74 -304, Special requirements for Parks and recreation impact fee, subsection (g) of the Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances is hereby amended to read as follows: 11aGf!49SG ma iv cdd,a; GwektlreuaA mq a apnea P., o or 2a Agenda Item No. 10E January 13, 2009 Page 77 of 398 -° Section 74.304, Special requirements for Parks and recreation impact fee. (g) Annual mid -cycle parks and recreational facilities impact fee rate indexing. Collier County Resolution No. 2002 -304, adopted June 25, 2002, established a parks and recreational facilities impact fee rate schedule three -year update program, which commenced on June 25, 2002, pursuant to subsections 74- 201(b) and 74- 502(a) of this chapter. Aa- er-ebeat Msy-16 a During each of the two mid -years between updates, the county shall implement indexing adjustmcnts to each park impact fee amount -The based upon the percentages of increase set forth in the adopted "Collier County Impact Fee indexing _. Study" prepared by Tindak -Oliver and Associates Inc., in association with Robert W Burchcll PhD m undated annually and in accordance with the indexing methodolog specified in the current and adopted parks and recreation impact fee study. SECTION SIYL Article III, Special Requirements jar Specific 4pes of Impact Fees, Section 74 -305, Special requirements for Library impact fee, subsection (g) of the Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances is hereby amended to read as follows: Section 74 -305. Special requirements for Library impact fee. r.a (g) Annual mid -cycle library impact fee rate indexing. Beginning on May 1, 2004 the county shall commence a three -year library system impact fee update cycle pursuant to subsections 74- 201(b) and 74- 502(a) of the Code. Aa- ar- ebeat- p,4ay -J_e€ Dunne each of the two mid -years between updates, the county shall implement adjustments cost the u "ee.t "ed pere 7 of 25 eti- based upon the oercentages of increas Agenda Item No. 10E January 13, 2009 Page 78 of 398 set forth in the adopted "Collier County lmpact Fee Indexing Study" Prepared by Tindale- Oliver and Associates Inc. in association with Robert W. Burchell. Ph.D., as updated annually. and in accordance with the indexing methodology specified in the current and adopted library impact fee study SECTION SEVEN. Article III, Special Requirements for Specific Types of Impact Fees, Section 74 -306, Special requirements for Emergency medical services impact fee, subsection (g) of the Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances is hereby emended to read m follows: Section 74.306. Special requirements for Emergency medical services Impact fee. # ## (g) Annual Mid -Cycle Emergency Medical Services Impact Fee Rate Indexing. Beginning on February 28, 2006 the county shall commence a three -year emergency medical services impact fee update cycle pursuant to subsections 74- 201(b) and 74- 502(a) of the Code. In each of the two mid -cycle years (between the formal three -year updates) , the county shall implement adjustments to the emergency medical services impact fee rates thfaagh adjusimmts to land, Wilding, tho�sllieF- Eaunty .. based upon the percentages of increase set forth in the adopted "Collier County Impact Fee Indexing Study" prepared by Tindale - Oliver and Associates. Inc in association with Robert W Bumhell PhD as updated annually, and in accordance with the indexing methodology specified in the current and adopted emergency medical services impact fee study. SECTION EIGHT. Article 111, Special Requirements for Specific Types of Impact Fees, Section 74.307, Special requirements for Educational facilities impact fee, subsection (g) of the Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances is hereby amended to read as follows: Section 74.307. Special requirements for Educational facilities impact fee. # #k (g) Annual mid -cycle educational facilities impact fee rate indexing. Beginning on May 9, 2006, the county shall commence a three -year educational facilities impact fee update cycle pursuant to subsections 74- 201(b) and 74- 502(a) of this chapter. On 9FabouE May -1-ag During each of the two mid -years between updates, the county shall implement adjustments to building oasis based upon the buildinp east indivi provided by the ona y"hin'.. ,. b _a an nde iintj lox! is xddc ; ,, ,cx, is d6" Pegg 6 o1725 Agenda Item No. 10E January 13, 2009 Page 79 of 398 dus 4+S ieer -be teF based upon the percentages of increase set forth in the adopted "Collier County Impact Fee Indexing Study" prepared by Tindale- Oliver and Associates Inc.. in association with Robert W Burchell PhD as updated annually, and in accordance with the indexin methodology specified in the current and adopted educational facilities impact fee study, SECTION NINE, Article 111, Special Requirements for Specific Types of Impact Fees, Section 74 -303, Special requirements for Correctional impact fee, subsection (g) of the Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances is hereby amended to read as follows: Section 74 -309. Special requirements for Correctional impact fee. xxx (g) Annual Mid -Cycle Correctional Impact Fee Rare Indexing. Beginning on November 1, 2005, the county shall commence a three -year Correctional Impact Fee update cycle pursuant to subsections 74- 201(b) and 74.502(a) of the Code. In each of the two mid -cycle years (between the formal three -year updates) - 1-, -2006 the county shall implement adjustments to the correctional impact fee rates based upon the building cost index . percentage set forth in the adopted "Collier County Impact Fee Indexing Study' prepared by Tindale -Oliver and Associates Inc in association with Robert W Burchell PhD as updated annually, and in accordance with the indexing methodology specified in the current and adopted correctional impact fee study. SECTION TEN. Article III, Special Requirements for Specific Types of Impact Fees, Section 74 -309, Special requirements for Fire impact fee, subsection (g) of the Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances is hereby amended to read as follows; Section 74 -309. Special requirements for Fire Impact fee. (g) Annual Mid -Cycle Fire Impact Fee Rate Indexing. Beginning on February 29, 2006, the county shall commence a three -year fire impact fee update cycle pursuant to subsections 74- 201(b) and 74- 502(a) of the Code. In each of the two mid -cycle years (between the formal three -year updates) beginning an of abo t * lay lg 2007, the county shall implement adjustments to the fire impact fee rates threugh-ed}'ueNmenFS--{e r"d ind tni is added;&*e&W ,po text u 4c)nW NO 9 ur 25 Agenda Item No. 10E January 13, 2009 Page 80 of 398 indexed Fate ehange adjustments shall be adopted b�' 8 F898hitlilfk Bf th@ suk,at'wn 74 391 h of this Bhaptm based upon the percentages of increase set forth itt the adopted "Collier County Imnacl Fee Indexing Study" prepared by Tindaic- Oliver and Associates Inc. in association with Robert W. BuTchell, Ph.D., as updated annually, and in accordance with the indexing mcthodoloev specified in the current and adonted fire impact fee stud SECTION ELEVEN. Article III, Special Requirements for Specific Types of Impact Fees, Section 74.310, Special requirements for General government building impact fee, subsection (g) of the Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances is hereby amended to read as follows: Section 74.310, Special requirements for General government building impact fee. xxr. (g) Annual mid -cycle general government building impact fee rate indexing. Beginning February 10, 2004, the county shall commence a three -year general government building impact fee update cycle pursuant to subsections 74- 201(b) and 74- 502(a) of this chapter. Durinz each of the two mid -years between updates, the county shall implement adjustments to land and build ng eass subsection :74 201(b) af this . based upon the percentages of increase set forth in the adopted "Collier County impact Fee Indexing Study" progared by Tindalc- Oliver and Associates. Inc., in association with Robert W Burchell PhD as undated annually, and in accordance with the indexing methodology . eciGed in the current and adopted general govemment building impact fee study. SECTION TWELVE. Article III, Special Requirements for Specific Types of Impact Fees, Section 74 -311, Special requirements for Law enforcement impact fee, subsection (g) of the Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances is hereby amended to read as follows: Section 74 -311, Special requirements for Law enforcement impact fee. x,rw (g) Annual mid -cycle law enforcement impact fee rate indexing. Beginning June 14, 2005, the county shall commence a three -year law enforcement impact fee update cycle pursuant to subsections 74- 201(b) and 74- 502(a) of this article, In each of the two mid -cycle years (between the formal three -year updates) beg mang en - -about August 6 20" the county shall implement adjustments to land, building, Undll " d get is edd,d: ¢x, is dekud Pee, is its Agenda Item No. 10E January 13, 2009 Page 81 of 398 bated upon the Dercentaecs of increase set forth in the adopted "Collier County tmpaet Fee Indexing Study" prepared by Tindale - Oliver and Associates Inc.. in association with Robert W Burchell PhD as updated annually, and in accordance with the ind xina Methodology specified in the current and adopted law enforcement impact fee study, SECTION THIRTEEN, CONFLICT AND SEVERABILITY. In the event this Ordinance conflicts with any other Ordinance of Collier County or other applicable law, the more restrictive shall apply. If any phrase or portion of this Ordinance is held invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct, and independent provision and such holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions. SECTION FOURTEEN. INCLUSION IN THE CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES. The provisions of this Ordinance shall be made a part of the Code of Laws and Ordinances of Collier County, Florida. The sections of the Ordinance may be renumbered or re- lettered and internal cross - references amended throughout to accomplish such, and the word "ordinance" may be changed to "section," "article," or any other appropriate word. SECTION FIFTEEN. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance shall become effec8ve on January 1, 2008, PASSED AND � �D4ULY ADOPTED by the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida this .t L_ day of JU4 t 12007. ATTEST Dwight E. Itrvck Cfetk nA . By, x4%,4; �s'foechiit p. eputy Clerk 04�4'„re ;nl+ gi m w t County At torney BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA r � UUWW d_lest is Wdedl 6mW4kreuah WM.. delemd Page I I of 25 This wdinoce filed with the Secretory of Stole's Office the °I dcy of - MUL.1— -� A- ond ockno Iadgement of that fd.-n received this ft^ doy of ' L.. dC�C'T a - rwany c�a, APPENDIX A SCHEDULE ONE: ROAD IMPACT FEE RATE SCHEDULE EFFECTIVE JANUARY 1, 200$ Residential Rate Single Family Detached House Less than 1,500 sq. ft. 53,63;,08 $3,420.1 dwelling unit (Annual Household Income s Poverty Level) Less than 1,500 sq, ft. $3a3a -B6 4 872. 3 /dwelling unit (Annual Household Income 5 50116 of Collier County Median Annual Household Income) Less than 1,500 sq. ft. 1,500 to 2,499 sq, ft. 2,500 sq, ft. or larger Multi- Family (1 -2 Stories) Multi - Family (3 -9 Stories) Multi - Family (Above 10 Stories Assisted Living Facility (ALF) Condominium/Townhouse Mobile Home Retirement Community High -Rise Condominium Lodging $Fr,339 -00 8 247. dwelling unit 587g8400j11,522.55 /dwelling unit 59;884.90$12.819.55 /dwelling unit 36;2}9.90 8S .054.37 dwelling unit 5633&.90$8.220.39 / dwelling unit &3-r 00 14,254.5411 dwelling unit 3796:09 41 /dwelling unit $6,059:90 7 58.52/ dwelling unit &444"15 35 , 6).80/ dwelling unit 52;246.90 2 913.06/ dwelling unit °'4,23z -G9 5 488.90 /dwelling unit Hotel S44&:�:90 7 765.14 per room Motel $}828:00 4$ ,964.92 per room Resort Hotel $1236,0056.817.03 per room RV Park &j-'3 ^.^^ ^.^^ 4 280.10 silo Recreation Golf Course $804;466,00$1.043,392.40 / 18 Holes Movie Theaters $42;389:00$54.978.53 Per screen Marina 33,380.80 4 3.26/ boat berth Institutional Hospital Nursing Home Church Elementary School Middle School High School University /Jr. College <7.501 Students University /Jr. College >7.500 Students Day Care $+4,- 198:00 18 414.81/1,000 sq, ft. 64446.00 1 4 36 per bed $8;92290 10 404.53/1,000 sq. It. $837,08 1$ .111.53 per student &4-,- ,00 1 540.84 per student S4-, -00 J1,740.57 per student $1,302 go pff saiden $2,71 9.go Per 84ident $2,926.03 Per student 52,153.02 per student $950.00 1$ .232 15 per student Undolind tot, is Weed, Swe4LwuaM Ytl i. deklee P.S. 12 or25 Agenda Item No. 10E January 13, 2009 Page 82 of 398 Office Office 50,000Sq Fl or less Office 50,001- 100,000Sq Ft or less Office 100,001- 200,000Sq Fl or less Office 200,001- 400,000Sq Ft or less Office Greater than 400,000Sq Ft Medical Office Retail Specialty Retail Retail 50,000Sq Ft, or less Retail 50,001- 100,000Sq Ft Retail 100,DOI- 150,000Sq Ft Retail 150,001- 200,000S9 Ft Retail 200,001- 400,000Sq Ft Retail 400,001- 600,000Sq Ft Retail 600,D01- 1,D00,000Sq Ft Retail gmaier than I,000,00OSq Ft Pharmacy/Drug Store w/Drive -Thru Home Improvement Superstore Restaurant: High Turnover Restaurant: Low Turnover Restaurant: Drive -in Gasoline /Service Station Supermarket Quick Lube Convenience Store Convenience Store w /Gas pumps Services Tire Store New/Used Auto Sales Luxury Auto Sales Bank/Savings: Walk -in Bank/Savings: Drive -in Car Wash industrial and Agricultural General Industrial Business Park (Flex - space) Mini - Warehouse $1- 31478.99 20 074.97/ 1,000 sq. ft. e11 +rte2, x$17.019.23/ 1,D00 sq. ft. s m44449,99 t 413.56/1,000 sq. ft. $9414-M!120_ .07/1,000 sq, ft, 1 0 4.33/1,000 sq, ft. . 47 85.63/1,000 sq. ft. 4/1,000 sq. R 4/1,000 sq. ft. 111,000 sq. ft. 7/1,000 sq. ft. 011,000 sq. ft. i5/1,000 Sq. Ft. 6/1,000 sq, ft. 11,000 sq. ft. 5 /1,000 sq, ft, 18 11,000 sq. ft. 5 /1,000 sq, ft. )1,000 sq. R i_/1,000 sq. ft. 76/1,000 sq. ft. n fuel position / 1,000 sq. fl. per bay 7/ 1,000 sq. ft. Set fuel position 54&,05&99 13 04523 per bay S25;99-5,0911L 3701 6 . 1,000 sq. fl. 5+3,8 -1 99 17 920.65/1,000 sq. ft. 543,x99 99 55 381.90/1,000 sq. ft, 583;690:99$108 545 93/1,000 sq. ft. 5337994 -00 3 76.08 per bay $7;973.99 9 176.28/ 1,000 sq. ft. 5]4;994:99 16 855.81/1,000 sq. ft. $1;363-09 1 770.41/ 1,000 sq. ft. Lsauaor4l t a added; 9 4µa OwO tat ii deleted Pay, 13 or 2s Agenda Item No. 10E January 13, 2009 Page 83 of 398 Agenda Item No. 10E January 13, 2009 Page 84 of 398 APPENDIX A SCHEDULE TWO: WATER AND SEWER SYSTEM IMPACT FEE RATE SCHEDULE EFFECTIVE JANUARY 1. 2008 INDIVIDUALLY METERED SERVICE ERC METER WATER SEWER LIVING SPACE (SQ.FT.) VALUE SIZE IMPACT FEES IMPACT FEES 0 TO 4,999 $3,4115 $3,54 (AND NO MORE THAN 4 1 3/4" $3,61649 3$ .722.39 BATHROOMS) 5,000 OR MORE ADF / $3,515 (OR MORE THAN 4 350 ERC VALUE x $3,722.39 BATHROOMS) (min value of 1.0) PER $3;415 3 616.49 ERC VALUE x (rounded FOR (minimum value 537545 Non - Residential to the 3 616.49 $3,722.39 nearest (minimum value tenth) 43,5411 $3,722.39) MASTER METERED SERVICE LIVING SPACE (SQ.FT.) ERC FREQUENCY WATER SEWER VALUE OF FEE IMPACT FEES IMPACT FEES Residential Unit- 070750 0.33 Per Unit $4'425,00 1191.38 54'1610,99 $1,226.44 Residential Unit -751 TO 1,500 0.67 Per Unit $2,290.99 $2.425.11 $2,355.00 $2,493.95 Residential Unit - 1,501 TO 1' per Unit $3;4.45,09 53;5 - 1.x:00 4999 $3,616.4 3$ .722.39 Residential Unit - 5,000 OR ADF / MORE (OR MORE THAN 4 350 ERC VALUE X $545 $3.722.39 BATHROOMS) (min value of 1.0) $3,4+45 $3,616.49 ERC VALUE x (rounded (minimum value $3;545 Non - Residential to the 53;445 616.49) $3,722.39 nearest tenth) (minimum value lli"71 9722.39_ ACRONYM KEY: ADF - Average Daily Flows for proposed use as provided by FOR FOR • Engineer of Record for project ERC - Equivalent Residential Connection (1 ERC = 350 gallons per day) U iut iv Wdcd: &waANwwah aa, n del=M Page 14 V25 Agenda Item No. 10E January 13, 2009 Page 85 of 398 APPENDIX A SCHEDULE THREE: PARKS AND RECREATIONAL FACILITIES IMPACT FEE RATESCHEDULE E£FECTIYE JANUARY i yooa COMMUNITY PARKS (Calculated on Living Area): LAND USE: SINGLE - FAMILY DETACHED: Less than 1,500 sq. ft. 1,50010 2,499 sq. ft. 2,500 sq. ft. or more MULTI - FAMILY MOBILE HOME/RV PARK HOTEL/MOTEL RATE PER $995,.0 $1,075.25 Dwelling Unit S n 1 1 .05 Dwelling Unit $1-449:84 L 286.85 Dwelling Unit $73&00 862.50 Dwelling Unit $924-00 0 2.6 Pad $30]:00 578.45 Room REGIONAL PARKS (Calculated on Living Area): LAND USE: SINGLE- FAMILY DETACHED: Less than 1,500 sq, ft. 1,500 to 2,499 sq, ft. 2,500 sq. ft. or more MULTI- FAMILY MOBILE HOME(RV PARK HOTEL/MOTEL RATE PER $x;06854 $2,37820 Dwelling Unit Dwelling Unit $2,4;6,00-K,8 740 Dwelling Unit $};639:09 11,907,85 Dwelling Unit $2446. -00 2 351.75 Pad $1113:84$12. 7995 Room Note: Community Parks Impact Fees do not apply to the City of Naples, City of Marco Island and Everglades City. .unnrmsod axis. mdod; .,;, d.m,W hp 15 a25 Agenda Item No. 10E January 13, 2009 Page 86 of 398 APPENDIX A SCHEDULE FOUR: CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES IMPACT FEE RATE SCHEDULE EFFECTIVE JANUARY 1, 2008 Land Use Correctional Facilities Impact Fee Per Square Foot Single-Family Detached $044676$ 115 per square foot' Other Residcntial/Nursing Home $B,95g4 OS 063oer square foot" Non- Residential: Lodging Hotel/ Motel $4,44949.346 per square foot Medical Hospital $9,3398$0 367 per aqua= foot Commercial Office Retai UCommerciaURecreation Restaurant/Bar /Lounge Industrial /Manufacturing Lcisure/Outdoor $0321430.240 per square foot $&5443$(1.611 per square foot $03643$0,611 per square foot $0..8308$0.033 per square foot $943643 0.611 per square foot e 1 he Correctional Facilities Impact Fee is capped based upon the fee applicable to a 4,000 square foot (living area) Singlc- Family, Detached dwelling unit. " The Correctional Facilities Impact Fee is capped based upon the fee applicable to a 4,000 square foot (living area) Other Residential dwelling unit. The cap does not apply to the square footage of Nursing Homes. U31sumd Rxl is Wed, ab� WI u ddelcd Peac 15 d2a Agenda Item No. 10E January 13, 2009 Page 87 of 398 APPENDIX A SCHEDULE FIVE: FIRE IMPACT FEE RATE SCHEDULE EFFECTIVE JANUARY 1, 2008 Ocbopee Fire Control and Rescue District Residential: Non- Residential: Isles of Capri Flre Contra] and Rescue District Residential: Non - Residential: $838 %0.74 per square foot* $8:28 0.21 er square foot $8A+ 0.43 ersquarefoot•* ("as,i.. uen fee 8;$1,6 4 t L $"&-E .14 per square foot * The Ochopee Fire Control and Rescue District Impact Fee is capped based upon the fee applicable to a 4,000 square foot dwelling unit ** The Isles of Capri Fire Control and Rescue District Impact FCC is capped based upon the fee applicable to a 4,000 square foot dwelling unit yOr ih axt 10 Oddsd; G, k#ss* A Ext is dck P., 17 arts Agenda Item No. 10E January 13, 2009 Page 88 of 398 APPENDIX A SCHEDULE SIX: EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES IMPACT FEE RATE SCHEDULE EFFECTIVE JANUARY I. 2008 Housing Type Single- Family Less than 1,500 square feet 1,500 -2,499 square feet 2,500 square feel or larger Multi - Family Mobile Home Impact Fee Rate (pa dwelling unit) 6842g,00 $%026.12 $4286 -:00 0$ I 096.98 $aB;BI.7,00 $10.988.65 $2;862,80 $3,139.61 S§, z;.gB $6.279.23 Undvibned 4x1 is Wded; StrwMSMreYph sa is delertd ,,d IIof 25 Agenda Item No. 10E January 13, 2009 Page 89 of 398 APPENDIX A SCHEDULE SEVEN: EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES IMPACT FEE RATE SCHEDULE EFFECTIVE JANUARY 1.2008 Impact Fee Land Use Category Residential: Less than 1,500 square feet 1,500 to 2,499 square feet 2,500 square feet or more Transieut, Assisted, Croup: Hotel/ Motel Nursing home Recreational: Marina Golf Course Movie Theater with Matinee institutions: Hospital Elementary School Middle School High School Junior /Community College University / Coliege Church Day Care Center Office and Financial: Office 50,000 sq, ft, or less Office 50,001 - 100,000 sq. ft. Office 100,001 - 200,000 sq. ft. Office 200,001 - 400,000 sq. ft. Office greater than 400,000 sq. ft. Medical Office Retail (Gross Square Feet) Specialty Retail Retail 50,000 sq. ft. or less Retail 50,001 - 100,000 sq, ft. Retail 100,001 - 150,000 sq. ft. Retail 150,001 - 200,000 sq. ft. Retail 200,001 - 400,000 sq, ft. Retail 400,001 - 600,000 sq. ft, Retail 600,001 - 1,000,000 sq. ft. Retail over 1,000,000 sq. ft. Pharmacy/Dnrg Store w /Drive -Thru Home Improvement Superstore Quality Restaurant High- 1'umover Restaurant Fast Food Rest. w /Drive -thru Gas /Service Station Quick Lube Supermarket Convenience Store Convenience Store w /Gas Impact Fee Rate $- 109.59 $112.46 per dwelling unit $112.04 $125.26 per dwelling unit $laa,G3 1137.15 per dwelling unit $46-61 S52-1 I per room S7941 J= per bed $3436 JIL29 per berth $4;730:97 $5-299.22 per 18 holes $703.31 $786.3 0 per screen 533444 S150.86 per 1,000 sq. ft. $4-93 $5.49 per student $472 $6,39 per student $634 $7.31 per student $4113 $5.49 per student $19,63 $ ] 1.88 per student $44,64 -4 jjz.0 per 1,000 sq. R. $4,93 $5,49 per student 5 „6.57 5132.69 per 1,000 sq. ft. SIQ5 5 $117.95 per 1,000 sq. ft. $89196 $100,SS per 1,000 sq. ft. $7447 IK24 per 1,000 sq. ft. $63.43 12214 per 1,000 sq. ft. $141,48 $158.17 per 1,000 sq, ft. $Q2.67 $137.15 per 1,000 sq. ft. 5$34.71 $202.41 per 1,000 sq. ft. 5216,08 $240.46 per 1,000 sq, ft $191:37 $213.95 per 1,000 sq. ft. &2733-.,W $260.5 7 per 1,000 sq, ft $204-03 $228,58 per 1,000 sq. ft. $208:54 $233. 15 per 1,000 sq. ft. $208:54 5233.15 per 1,000 sq. ft. $- 478 -92 191.09 er 1,000 sq, ft. $153.73 171.89 per 1,000 sq. ft. $146.9 $162.75 per 1,000 sq, ft. $55163 1618.9 8 per 1,000 sq. ft. $579.82 S§48.2 per 1,000 sq. ft. 5:35:38 $800.02 per 1,000 sq, ft. $141112 181.03 per fuel position $94.46 $106.05 er service bay $- 166.91 Sl 85.60 per 1,000 sq. ft. 834475 $387,67 oar 1,000 sq. ft. 5333,74 $397.7 2 per fuel position ❑nde fined 1W is added; i� ASArwpq mq a deleed Page 19 or2s Auto Repair Tire Store New and Used Car Sales Self Service Car Wash BaWSavings Walk -in Bank/Savings Drive -in Industrial! General Industrial Business Park Mini - warehouse $250:88 $291.66 per 1,000 sq. ft $127 -58 1$ 42.63 per service bay $14649 $159.17 per 1,000 sq. ft. SIS4.55 1$ 72A perservicebay $2 -10,17 $234.9 7 per 1,000 sq. ft. $- 169.18 1$ 89.26 per 1,000 sq. ft. $36.43 65 3.09 per 1,000 sq. ft, $81:78 591.43 per 1,000 sq, fL 4342 $6.39 per 1,000 sq. ft. llt d,,H ed acx, u added, 90 n' iprtwSA ten if d.I.W P., 20 of r5 Agenda Item No. 10E January 13, 2009 Page 90 of 398 Agenda Item No. 10E January 13, 2009 Page 91 of 398 APPENDIX A SCHEDULE EIGHT: LIBRARY IMPACT FEE RATE SCHEDULE EFFECTIVE JANUARY 1. 2009 Land Use Category Singie- Family Detached: Less than 1,500 square feet 1,500 to 2,499 square feet 2,500 square feel or more Multi - Family Mobile Home Impact Fee Rate &46943K 3.49 Per dwelling unit $366.23 553.84 er dwelling unit $348.39 600.16 per dwelling unit $368.1$ 4 2.79 per dwelling unit $454:76 497.44 er dwelling unit Unne�l'ned kxi is cdded, 8in.kdrwgl, kM a dole PDP21 ar25 APPENDIX A SCHEDULE NINE: GENERAL GOVERNMENT BUILDING IMPACT FEE SCHEDULE F,FFECTIVE JANUARY L 2008 Land Use Residential: Single Family Less than 1,500 sq ft 1,500 to 2,499 sq ft 2,500 sq ft or more Multi Family Mobile Home Transient, Assisted, Group Hotel/Motel Nursing Home/ALF Recreational Marina Golf Coursc Movie Theater with Matinee Institutions Hospital Elementary School Middle School High School Junior /Community College University /College Church Day Care Center Office and Financial Office 50,000 sq. ft. or less Office 50,001 - 100,000 sq. ft, or less Office 100,001- 200,000 sq, ft. or less Office 200,001- 400,000 sq. fl. or less Office Greater than 400,000 sq. ft. Medical Office Retail Specially Retail Retail 50,000 sq ft or less Retail 50,001- 100,000 sq. ft. Retail 100,001 - 150,000 sq. ft. Retail 150,001 - 200,000 sq. ft. Retail 200,001- 400,000 sq. ft. Retail 400,001- 600,000 sq. ft. Rate 796.05 $886.09 967.34 543080 4$ 50.18 $3$34 9 640.13 $3 i i.9 $341,49 /Room 5414AA 54.57/Bed $86:00 9S 4.43Berth $&34199 $9,213.32 /18 Holes �712 n $ $3 n 0 4 .0 .78 Green $732,00 $781.78 /1,000 sq. ft. $26.00 2$ 8.55 /Student $39.0 $32.94tStudcnt 535.00 $38 ,43 /Student $26.00 128 ,55 /Student $46:00 $61 .49 /Student $246,00 $270.11 /1,000 sq, ft. $26.00 $28 .55 /Student 67-3i.09 7S 91.66/1,000 sq, ft. 5.43,',00 $611.5 9/1,000 sq. ft. 5473.90 $521.55/1,000 sq. ft. $406.0 $445.7 9/1,000 sq. ft. $34590 38 78.81 /1,000 sq. ft. $747:00 820.21/1,000 sq. ft. $647.9 $710.41 /1,000 sq. ft. $1x-239.90 $1,360.4 2/1,000 sq. ft. $1.246.23/1,000 sq. ft. $1,010:00 $1,108.99/1,000 sq. ft. $1,' :. -139.0 $1,350.54 1,000 sq. ft. $1;079.0 0 1 184.74/1,000 sq. ft. S;,19i90 $1,208.9 0 /1,000 sq. ft. und,ri1 as i, .dded:&waWkwWb Wxt u dcicWd Nr 22 ofZ5 Agenda Item No. 10E January 13, 2009 Page 92 of 398 Agenda Item No, 10E January 13, 2009 Page 93 of 398 Retail 600,001 . 1,000,000 sq. ft. $1,191.90 $1,208.9 0 /1,000 sq. ft. Retail greater than 1,000,000 sq. ft. $902,99 $990.40 /1,000 sq. 11. Pharmacy /Drug Store w/Drive -Thru ssia.O $891.58 /1,000 sq. ft, Ilome lmprovement Superstore s768,98 $943.26 /1,000 sq. ft. Quality Restaurant $2,922.9 $3,208.36 1,000 sq. ft. High Turnover Restaurant $3,860,99 12,159.88/1,000 sq. ft. Fast Food Rest. w/Drive -Thru T2,'�- 77.0 $4.147.15 /1,000 sq. ft. Gas/Service Station $855.0 $938,79 {fuel position Quick Lube $591:00 11LOU21bay Supermarket $876.9 $961.85 /1,000 sq. ft. Convenience Store $2,0093 ;: /1,000 sq. ft. Convenience Store w /Gas $2,062.0 fuel ,, position Tire Store $673.0 73 /bay New/Used Auto Sales $347,99 $820.21 /1,000 sq. ft. Self Service Cat Wash $816.0 U25 97/bay Bank/Savings: Walk -in $1,199.0 $1,217.68 /1,000 sq. ft. Bank/Savings: Drive -in $894..9 981.61/1,000 sq. ft. Industrial General Industrial $298:09 $327.20 / 1,000 sq. ft. Business Park $432.09 $474.3 4/1,000 sq. R Mini - Warehouse 539:00 $32.94 /1,000 sq. ft. Undala{i91cxt I66aae0; x616 ftele6e0 Np 21 or25 Agenda Item No. 10E January 13, 2009 Page 94 of 398 APPENDIX A SCHEDULE TEN: LAW ENFORCEMENT IMPACT FEE RATE SCHEDULE EFFE JANUARY 1. 2008 Land Use Rate Residential: Single- Family Less than 1,500 square feet $283,48 3$ 09.75 /dwelling unit 1,500 to 2,499 square feet ,$3 -43:33 344.54 /dwelling unit 2,500 square feet or more $346.42 $375.87 /dwelling unit Multi- Family $1- 7-4k -1- 186.20/dwelling unit Mobile Home $2.37.36 5257.54 /dwelling unit Transient, Assisted, Group Hotel/Motel 59.1 9$ ,43 9.19/Room Nursing Home/ALF 91.33:96 1S 67.05Bed Recreational Marina $2.76 jZ2,WBerLh Golf Course 0x-,4,40" $3,661.2 118 Holes Movie Theater with Matinee 980.6 $941.41 /Screen Institutions Hospital $3 -19.14 346.29/1,000 sq. ft. Elementary School $4443 15.66 /Student Middle School W.64 $19.14 Student High School c,r, $21.18 /Student Jr. /Community College $22-03 $24.36 Student University /College 53432 55.68 /Student Chosen $&139 $89.7 411,000 sq. ft. Day Care Center 5&92 $8.70 /Student Omce and Financial Office 50,000 sq, ft. or less W02.09 $219.26 /1,000 sq, ft. Office 50,001- 100,000 sq. ft, or less $4,13-.24 S187.93 /1,000 sq. ft. Office 100,001- 200,000 sq. ft. or less $14733 $160.09 /1,000 sq. ft. Office 200,001- 400,000 sq. ft. or less $123-49 $135.73 /1,000 sq. ft. Office Greater than 400,000 sq, ft. $119,87 $123.55 /1,000 sq. ft. Medical Office $263 4 $274.94 1,000 sq. ft. Retail Specialty Retail $34434 $341.06/1,000 sq. ft. Retail 50,000 sq. ft. or less 5309.40 SS 51.61 /1,000 sq. ft. Retail 50,001 - 100,000 sq. ft. $479 -93 5$ 18.55 /1,000 sq. ft. Retail 100,001 - 150,000 sq. ft. $519.03 $562.0611,000 sq. ft. Retail 150,001- 200,000 sq. ft. $485.4$ $527.26/1,000 sq. ft. Retail 200,001- 400,000 sq. ft. $421.80 $457.65/1,000 sq. ft. Underlined rc., is &tided; 8W%e6J, ..w0 rc., k d<kvL P., 24 or25 Agenda Item No. 10E January 13, 2009 Page 95 of 398 Retail 400,001- 600,000 sq. ft. $434 -84 $475.06 11,000 sq. ft. Retail 600,001 - 1,000,000 sq. ft. $434:43 S471.5 7/1,000 sq. ft, Retail greater than 1,000,000 sq. ft. $391.7 $414.14 /1,000 sq. ft. Pharmacy/Drug Store w/Drive -Thru $370.49 $401.97 !1,000 sq. R Home Improvement Superstore $420.29 $455.92 /1,000 sq. ft. Quality Restaurant Q1^�-28; -'. 9" $1,39210/1,000 sq, ft. High Turnover Restaurant $1,374.46 $1,491.29 /1,000 sq. ft. Fast Food Rest. w/ Drive -Thra $1- ;7.77..$1 $1.928.06 /1,000 sq. R. Gas /Service Station $392.93 4$ 26.33/Fuel Position Quick Lube $}76.42 191.42Bay Supermarket $364.06 $395.01 /1,000 sq. ft. Convenience Store $774.64 $840.4 8 /1,000 sq, ft. Convenience Store w /Gas $1.122.6 - `� 81.218.09/Fuel Position Tire Store $241,42 283.64/Bay New /Used Auto Sales $- 304: -73 $330.6 2/1,000 sq. ft. Self Service Car Wash $912.74 3$ 39.32Bay Bank/Savings: Walk -in $332.94 $382,93/1,000 sq. ft. Bank/Savings: Drive -in $287.98 $31148 /1,000 sq. ft. Industrial General Industrial SW.44 $107,8 9/1,000 sq. ft. Business Park $144.34 5156 ,61/1,000 sq. ft. Mini - Warehouse $11,23 $12. 18/1,000 sq, R. Untlerl,^m teal is added: 6w,ekfimxgq text to deleted Pogo 25 ar25 Agenda Item No. 10E January 13, 2009 Page 96 of 398 STATE OF FLORIDA) COUNTY OF COLLIER) I, DWIGHT E. BROCK, Clerk of Courts in and for the Twentieth Judicial Circuit, Collier County, Florida, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of: ORDINANCE 2007 -57 Which was adopted by the Board of County Commissioners on the 26th day of June, 2007, during Regular Session. WITNESS my hand and the official seal of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, this 28th day of June, 2007, DWIGHT E. BROCK Clerk of Courts and Clerk Ex- officio to Board '.,o ?'. County Commissioners BTeresa PolaSki,';, -,; ' Deputy Clerk' Agenda Item No. 10E January 13, 2009 Page 97 of 398 RESOLUTION NO. 2008- 202 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE IMPACT FEE RATES ESTABLISHED BY ORDINANCE NO. 2007-57. WHEREAS, on March 13, 2001, the Board of County Commissioners adopted Ordinance No. 2001 -13, the Collier County Consolidated Impact Fee Ordinance, repealing and superceding all of the County's then existing impact fee regulations, and consolidating alt of the County's impact fee regulations into that one Ordinance, codified in Chapter 74 of the Collier County Code of Law and Ordinances (the Code), and incorporating the water and sewer impact fee rates established by the adoption of Ordinance No. 98 -69; and WHEREAS, on December 11, 2001, the Board of County Commissioners ( "Board') adopted Resolution No. 2001 -488 thereby amending Schedule Two of Appendix A of Chapter 74 of the Code, as amended, the same being the Collier County Consolidated Impact Fee Ordinance; increasing the Water and Sewer Impact Fee rates and directed staff to update the Impact Fee after one year, and WHEREAS, in accordance with that direction, the County has retained Public Resources Management Group, Inc. ( "the Consultanf) to review the existing water and sewer impact fees and to recommend changes to those fees if appropriate; and WHEREAS, on February 12, 2002, the Board adopted Resolution No. 2002 -88 to correct Scrivener's errors, and to correct the water impact fee downward by $50 per Equivalent Residential Unit (ERC), and to amend Schedule Two of Appendix A of Chapter 74 of the Code, as amended, the same being the Collier County Consolidated Impact Fee Ordinance; thereby increasing the Water and Sewer Impact Fee rates; and WHEREAS, on June 6, 2006, the Board adopted Ordinance No. 2006 -26 amending Ordinance No. 2001 -13 changing the impact fee rate; and WHEREAS, on June 26, 2007, the Board adopted Ordinance No. 2007 -57 amending Ordinance No. 2006 -26 changing the impact fee rate and to include Annual Mid -Cycle water and sewer impact fee rate indexing; and WHEREAS, the County uses impact fees to supplement the funding of necessary capital improvements required to provide public facilities to serve new population and related development that is necessitated by growth in Collier County; and WHEREAS, the Consultant has estimated the cost to future utility system users of approximately five- hundred and three million ($503 million) in the next ten (10) years; and WHEREAS, the Consultant has recommended a water impact fee rate decrease from $3,616.49 per ERC to $3,575 per ERC, a decrease of $41.49 and a sewer impact fee rate decrease from $3,722.39 per ERC to $3,495 per ERC, a decrease of $277.39 for all customer classes based on their ERC's equivalents; and Agenda Item No. 10E January 13, 2009 Page 98 of 398 WHEREAS, the above recommended rate decrease for water and rate decrease for sewer establish these rates at the maximum levels allowed in accordance with equity tests established and existing pursuant to Florida law; and WHEREAS, staff has thoroughly reviewed the Consultant's findings and recommendations and staff concurs with the recommended decrease to water and the recommended decrease to sewer impact fee rate changes, and staff recommends that the Board adopt this Resolution to implement these recommended changes; and WHEREAS, the Board finds that it is in the health, safety and welfare to accept the recommendations of the Consultant and from staff. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that: The Board of County Commissioners hereby declares, after advertised public hearing, that the water and sewer impact fee rates set forth in the revised Schedule Two of Appendix A of Ordinance No. 2007 -57, as amended, the Collier County Consolidated Impact Fee Ordinance, the same being Schedule Two of Appendix A of Chapter 74 of the Collier County Code of Law and Ordinances, attached hereto, and incorporated be reference herein as Exhibit "A" are fair and reasonable and are to be assessed to those who receive or will receive benefits from increased water facilities capacity, increased sewer public facilities capacity, or from both, which increased capacity is necessitated by increased population and related growth driven development. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that these revised water and sewer impact fees will tak� effect as of 8:00 A.M. on Wednesday, October 1, 2008. This Resolution is adopted after motion; second and majority vote favoting adoption this day ', , 2008. ATTEO DWFGHT E. BROCK, CLERIC ii9eailgoattv1 t` t txtl Approval as to form and legal Sufficiency: Jenni A. Belpedio Assistant County Attom BOARD OF COUNTY COMMMSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA By: TOM IMNNING, CHAIRMAf- }f }f �! Agenda Item No. of January %2009 Page 99 of fill !I�| MI !!,. , ° °,. � | ■��) | !fill } ! ` } § 81| !�� | ! Agenda Item No. of January %2009 Page 99 of fill !I�| MI !!,. , ° °,. Agenda Item No. 10E January 13, 2009 Page 100 of 398 Attachment C -2 Article Vl. Water -Sewer District Uniform Billing, Operating and Regulatory Standards ARTICLE VL WATER -SEWER DISTRICT UNIFORM BILLING, OPERATING AIXF6ndg�I:h W. 411 January 13, 2009 Page 101 of 398 ARTICLE VI. WATER -SEWER DISTRICT UNIFORM BILLING, OPERATING AND REGULATORY STANDARDS• "Editor's note: Ord. No. 01 -73, §§ 1.1 - -1.4, adopted Dec. 11, 2001, did not specifically amend this Code but is treated as superseding § §134 - 171 -- 134 -174 in their entirety at the discretion of the editor. Further, said ordinance §§ 2.1 - -7 provided additional regulations included as §§ 134- 175 -- 134 -180 at the discretion of the editor to read as herein set out. Section 11 of said ordinance states that the revised rates shall not go into effect until April 1, 2002. See the Code Comparative Table -- Ordinance Disposition Table. DIVISION 1. DISTRICT RATES FEES CHARGES AND REGULATIONS Sec. 134 -171. Definitions. Unless specifically provided otherwise these definitions shall apply to this section. District shall refer to the/Collier County Water -Sewer District. Equivalent dwelling unit shall mean the equivalent usage requirements of an average single - family residential connection. It is used as a factor to convert a given average daily water or wastewater requirement to the equivalent number of single - family residential connections. Equivalent residential connection shall mean 350 gallons of water per day and is 250 gallons of sewerage treatment per day. Goodland shall mean the Goodland Service Area is classified as a subdistrict of the Collier County Water -Sewer District as the service is dependent on a bulk purchase with a private entity and therefore has a rate structure that is different from the major district rate structure. Service availability charge shall mean a monthly charge per dwelling unit or equivalent dwelling unit for residential and non - residential users with no usage included. "Sewer only use" shall be defined as the connection of drains for all faucets and facilities on the property where well water or potable water from a non - district water supply or where no water (leachate) is used. Sewer use shall be defined as the connection of drains for all faucets and facilities on the property, where potable water is used in connection with sanitary purposes from the potable water system. Such usages shall include, but not be limited to, sinks, showers, bathtubs, commodes, urinals, bidets, dishwashers, washers, and other such facilities. "Sewer use" shall specifically not include runoff water being allowed to enter the district sanitary sewer system. Use shall mean with respect to "water use" on the district's water system, which is a potable water system, shall mean the sole utilization of water from the district system through all fixtures and pipelines on the property except where a separately metered system is available solely for outside irrigation. Any such irrigation shall require an approved backflow prevention device and a physical separation from the remaining potable water system. "Water use" shall specifically include, but not be limited to, the flow of water to all sinks, dishwashers, commodes, urinals, showers, hot water heaters, washers, drinking water coolers and drinking water machines. Such facilities shall also drain to the district's sanitary sewer system, where available, in conformance with other applicable sections of this http:// Iibraryi .municode.com/default/DoeView /10578/1/305/311 4/17/2008 ARTICLE VI. WATER -SEWER DISTRICT UNIFORM BILLING, OPERATING ANAen ?,4ft;Ai ROOE January 13, 2009 Page 102 of 398 article as well as other ordinances adopted by the county, or applicable state and federal laws, rules or regulations. (Ord. No. 01 -73, § 1.1, 12- 11 -01; Ord. No. 2006 -27, § 3) Sec. 134 -172. Monthly rates, fees and charges. Monthly rates, fees and charges for water, sewer, or effluent irrigation, and fire meter services provided by or made available by the district shall be sufficient to recover system operation, maintenance, renewal enhancement, replacement and debt service costs and shall be proportionally distributed among system users and customers receiving the benefits as follows: (1) Monthly user fees for the Collier County Water -Sewer District. Residential and non- residential properties within the boundaries of the county water -sewer district shall pay the rates, fees and charges for service provided by the county water -sewer district in accordance with Appendix A-- Schedule 1. (2) Monthly user fees for the Goodland Water Subdistrict The rates for service to residential and non - residential properties within the Goodland Water Subdistrict shall be in accordance with Appendix A-- Schedule 2. (3) Monthly user fees for effluent irrigation usage in the district shall be in accordance with Appendix A -- Schedule 3. Except in cases where a written agreement between the district and the property owner establishes a minimum gallonage monthly effluent rate that cannot be changed unilaterally by the district, all golf course and other bulk sales of effluent shall be sold and billed in accordance with this section. (4) Accounts and bill delivery addresses. a. Accounts shall be established in the name of the property owner. b. Monthly bills will be sent to the address requested in the service application. c. Changes of address for billing purposes must be approved by the property owner. Approval can be by letter, district change of address form or by e-mail. d. Duplicate bills may be requested by letter or district change of address form /or e-mail. e. A duplicate bill processing fee (Appendix A-- Schedule 6) will be placed on the account for billing purposes. (5) Methods of payment. a. Cash, check, direct debit and /or credit card (when available), and electronic transfer are available methods to pay monthly bills. b. Cash, check and credit card payments may be made at the billing office address. c. Check payments can be made through the U.S. mail to the lockbox facility in the envelope provided with the bill to the P.O. box. d. Credit card payments (when available) can be made telephonically. e. Direct debit payments are available. Requires processing of a direct debit approval form. f. Non - sufficient funds (NSF) checks returned by the district bank or banks will not be reprocessed for payment. The amount of the NSF check plus an appropriate NSF charge (Appendix A-- Schedule 6) and where applicable any other fees and charges will be placed on the account for rebilling. http: //libraryl. municode. com /default/DoeView /10578/l/305/311 4/17/2008 ARTICLE VI. WATER -SEWER DISTRICT UNIFORM BILLING, OPERATING Ar gadapage ocofl ag January 13, 2009 Page 103 of 398 (Ord. No. 01 -73, § 1.2, 12- 11 -01) Sec. 134 -173. District rates, fees and charges other than monthly user fees. (a) Meter installation charges for meters and for backflow devices two inches or smaller in size are to be paid to the district in accordance with Appendix A -- Schedule 4. The fees in this subsection are based upon meter installation costs for a typical single - family residential street. (1) All meters two inches or smaller will be installed by the district and shall remain the property of the district. (2) For meters larger than two inches, the materials and labor for installation of such meters shall be furnished by the developer in accordance with district requirements and specifications and dedicated to the district in accordance with county ordinances, at no cost to the district. (3) Meters must be left accessible to district employees at all times. Dangerous and /or dense underbrush will be trimmed to a "margin of safety" by district employees. (4) When any property owner, who has a water meter, makes application to the district for the installation of a larger meter to replace a smaller meter, and such installation is approved, a tapping fee for the larger meter is required and no credit shall be given for tapping charges paid on the smaller meter. The difference in impact fees between the smaller meter and the larger meter must be paid before a work order will be issued for the installation of the larger meter. There shall be no refunds or credits of tapping fees or impact fees given to any property owner requesting a smaller meter. (b) Temporary meters. (1) Temporary meters may be installed and removed by the district. The fee for such installation and removal shall be based upon the district's actual costs for time, equipment and material, as appropriate, in accordance with Appendix A— Schedule 5. (2) The temporary meter monthly charge for service shall be based upon the non- residential monthly availability and volume charges. (3) A work order for the installation of a temporary meter will be issued upon receipt of an executed temporary meter application. (4) A refundable temporary meter deposit (Appendix A-- Schedule 6) must be paid concurrently with the temporary meter application. The deposit may be used to offset costs for repair and /or replacement to district assets. If damages and repair costs are greater than the deposit, the applicant will be invoiced for the remainder. (c) District rates, fees, and charges other than monthly user fees, meter tapping fees, time and material fees, temporary meter fees, impact fees, industrial sewer use fees, backflow prevention service fees and development/permitting related fees. The rates, fees and charges established by this section include but are not limited to the services listed below. The actual charge rate for the service is in accordance with Appendix A-- Schedule 6. (1) New accounts — Change of ownership, (2) Turn - off /turn -on at owner's request. (3) Meter re -read. (4) Meter test. (5) Meter lock. http:// Iibraryl .municode.conVdefault/DoeView /10578/1/305/311 4/17/2008 ARTICLE VI. WATER -SEWER DISTRICT UNIFORM BILLING, OPERATING AlA%nd94V rfltR# 2t$E January 13, 2009 Page 104 of 398 (6) Unlock after hours. (7) Meter removal. (8) Illegal connection. (9) Credit card handling charge. (10) Temporary meter deposit. (11) Duplicate processing fee. (12) Non - sufficient funds (NSF) processing charge. (13) Late payment charge. (d) Late payments for monthly user fees are subject to a late payment charge (Appendix A -- Schedule 6) on the unpaid balance after the due date on the bill. (e) The rates, fees and charges as established in this section shall be reviewed on an annual basis to ensure adequate revenues for district system operation, maintenance, renewal, replacement, enhancement and debt service costs. (f) Reasonable pay plan arrangements may be used at the discretion of the district for delinquent accounts. All pay plan arrangements must provide for the full and timely payment of future consumption. (g) Adjustments. (1) Any debit or credit adjustments for any district service can only be made as the result of a documented and approved procedure. For example: The procedure for adjusting customer accounts for unexplained loss of metered water was approved in updated form on January 3, 2001. (2) Debit and credit adjustments identified in documented and approved procedures shall be approved by the public utilities division administrator or designee before processing. (3) Debit and/or credit adjustments for district errors and omissions should be applied to the account or refunded, if appropriate, and are subject to appropriate review and authorization. (h) Refund of credit balances /final bills. (1) Refunds of credit balances for a continuing account shall be processed and forwarded to finance for disbursement on a weekly basis. (2) Refunds of credit balances as a result of final bills shall be processed and forwarded to finance for disbursement on a monthly basis. (3) In no event, shall refunds be processed for credit balances which are less than $5.00. (4) In no event, shall final bills less than $5.00 be processed and mailed. (i) Allowance for funds prudently invested (AFPI) fee. (1) The board of county commissioners as ex- officio board of the Collier County Water - Sewer District hereby adopts allowance for funds prudently invested (AFPI) fees, as set forth in Schedule 7 hereby appended as part of Appendix A to this ordinance. The AFPI charges may be changed from time -to -time by Collier County Ordinance, or by resolution of the board of county commissioners, always acting as ex- officio board of the Collier County Water -Sewer District, provided the board publishes notice of one scheduledpublic hearing with regard to all such then proposed changes. The proposed http: / /Iibraryl. municode. comJ default /DoeView /10578/l/305/311 4/17/2008 ARTICLE VI. WATER -SEWER DISTRICT UNIFORM BILLING, OPERATING ATQerJa90 Vf.2i %E January 13, 2009 Page 105 of 398 resolution or ordinance can be agendized on the board's regular agenda or on its summary agenda. (2) Allowance for funds prudently invested (AFPI) fees afford the district an opportunity to earn up to a fair rate of return on the district's investment in water and /or wastewater plant that has been constructed but is not yet used and useful. Such non -used and useful plant is by definition held for future use by the district's future water and /or wastewater customers. Such non -used and useful plant incurs costs such as, but not limited to, the district's embedded costs of borrowed money, investment of the district's money in such plant, as well as operation and maintenance expenses between the time the plant is constructed and the time all of the respective equivalent residential connections (ERCs) are connected to the district's respective utility system by means of an "active connection." Calculation of the AFPI charges excludes plant paid from impact fees, which are classified in law as "contributions -in -aid of construction" ( "CIAC "). (3) The amount of the applicable AFPI charge is controlled (determined) by the month when the related impact fee (a) to pay for the respective ERCs is received by county staff. Each AFPI charge is calculated for one equivalent residential connection (ERC) on a month -to -month basis. In this context there is no distinction between an ERC for residential use, industrial use, commercial use or any other uses. (4) These AFPI charges apply only to ERCs reserved by payment of the relevant water and /or wastewater impact fees actually received by county staff subsequent to October 1, 2006 and these AFPI charges shall cease to apply to ERCS reserved by staffs receipt of these impact fee payments subsequent to December 31, 2012. (5) All water AFPI charges shall be accounted for in a separate account for the subject water treatment facilities. All wastewater AFPI charges shall be accounted for in a separate account for the subject wastewater treatment facilities. (Ord. No. 01 -73, § 1.3, 12- 11 -01; Ord. No. 2006 -27, § 1) Sec. 134 -174. District regulation. (a) Application for service, (1) To obtain service, application must be made at the office(s) of the district. Applications are accepted by the district with the understanding that there is no obligation on the part of the district to render service other than that which is then available from its existing facilities. The district reserves the right to refuse service from its transmission mains or to accept service to its collection system. (2) Utility service is furnished only upon signed application of the property owner, accepted by the district, and the conditions of such application or agreement are binding upon the property owner as well as the district. A copy of each application or agreement for utility service accepted by the district will be furnished to the property owner. (3) The applicant shall furnish to the district the correct name, street address and legal description at which service is to be rendered at the time of the application for service. All system development charges, impact fees, connection and installation fees, and any other fees, rates and charges established by the district shall be paid in full at the time of application for service. (4) Application for service requested by firms, partnerships, associations, corporations and others, shall be tendered only by duly authorized individuals. When service is rendered under agreement or agreements entered into between the district and an agent of the property owner, the use of such service by the property owner shall constitute full and complete ratification by the property owner of the agreement or agreements entered http://Iibraryl.municode.com/default/DoeView/10578/l/305/311 4/17/2008 ARTICLE VI. WATER -SEWER DISTRICT UNIFORM BILLING, OPERATING AT'QenYaW4IQ9.2F6E January 13. 2009 Page 106 of 398 into between agent and the district under which such service is rendered. A tenant of property shall not be construed to be an agent. (5) Where the district's water or sewer main is accessible to render service no county building permit may be issued until such time as proper application shall have been made for service and all fees necessary for the rendering of such service shall have been paid to the district. (6) The district may withhold or discontinue service rendered under application made by a property owner, or the property owner's agent, unless all prior indebtedness to the district of such property for utility service has been settled in full. Service may be withheld or discontinued for non - payment of bills and /or non - compliance with rules and regulations in connection with the same or any different class of service furnished to the same property owner at the same premises, or for non - payment of any account for service to the property. (b) Limitation of use, continuity of service. (1) Unless authorized by the district, water and /or sewer service purchased from the district shall be used by the consumer only for the purposes specified in the application for service, and the property owner shall not sell or otherwise dispose of such service supplied by the district. Unless authorized by the district, service furnished to the property owner shall be rendered directly to the property owner through the district's connection, and under no circumstances shall be property owner or property owner's agent or any other individual, association, or corporation install equipment for the purpose of disposing of said service. In no case shall a property owner, except with the written consent from the district, extend their installation across a street, alley, lane, court, property line, avenue, or any other way, in order to furnish service for adjacent property, even though such adjacent property is owned by them. In the event there is an unauthorized extension, sale or disposition of service, the property owner's service will be subject to discontinuance until such unauthorized extension, sale or disposition is discontinued and full payment is made of bills for service, calculated on proper classification and rate schedules and reimbursements in full are made to the district for all extra expenses incurred for clerical work, testing and inspections. (2) The district will at all times use reasonable diligence to provide continuous service, and having used reasonable diligence shall not be liable to the property owner or occupants for failure or interruption of continuous water service. The district shall not be liable for any act or omission caused directly by strikes, labor troubles, accident, litigation, breakdowns, shutdowns for emergency repairs, or adjustment, acts of sabotage, enemies of the united states, wars, state, municipal or other govern mentalinterrerence, acts of God or other causes beyond its control. (3) Property owners shall maintain that portion of the water lines on their property located beyond the district service connection, and all loss of water through breaks or leakage to the premises will be paid by the property owner. The property owner shall maintain that portion of the sewer line located on their property. (c) Property owner's liability for damage to equipment. The property owner is liable to the district for any damage done to the district's equipment used in providing service to the property owner, except damage done by district employees. (d) Security deposits on water account. Security deposits normally are not required on district customer accounts for water service. However, the district may require a deposit equivalent to two months average service when an account has been shut -off for non - payment more than two times in any six month concurrent period. These deposits may be returned after six months of timely payments. (e) Security deposits on sewer accounts. Security deposits are normally not required on hup:// Iibraryl. municode. com /dcfault/DoeView /10578/l/305/311 1 4/17/2008 ARTICLE VI. WATER -SEWER DISTRICT UNIFORM BILLING, OPERATING ANOMCIRAWNd2 @E January 13, 2009 Page 107 of 398 district customer accounts for sewer service. However, the district may require a deposit equivalent to two months average service when an account has been shut off for non - payment more than two times in any six month concurrent period. These deposits will be returned after six months of timely payments. (f) Property owner's responsibility for water service; bad debts. (1) The property owner is responsible for all water, and /or sewer service and /or other district services provided to the property. In the event service is discontinued for non- payment, service will be restored only after property owner has fully complied with provisions of section 134 -174, subsection (g)(2) and (g)(3), of this article. (2) Unpaid fees constitute a lien against the property (see section 134- 174(p) of this article). In the event water, and /or sewer service and /or other district services have been discontinued for non - payment and any or all services are requested to be reinstated for the property in the future, this back debt plus associated charges must be paid before water and /or sewer service will be furnished. (3) Bad debts as a result of bankruptcy or court actions will be written off in accordance with applicable laws, rules and regulations. (g) Dates bills due and delinquent; discontinuance of service for non - payment,- reinstatement following discontinued service. (1) Bills for service are due by the date set forth on the bill from the district and are delinquent thereafter. Service will be discontinued when delinquent for non - payment of bills. (2) When service has been discontinued for non - payment of bills, service will be renewed upon payment of all unpaid bills, plus a shut -off lock fee and a late payment fee (Appendix A-- Schedule 6). (3) If the lock has been tampered with and the street cock has been turned on prior to full payment of all fees the meter may be removed from the property. Should the property owner request renewal of service for the property, service will be restored upon full payment of: 1) all past due bills plus a late payment fee where applicable, and (2) a meter removal fee (Appendix A-- Schedule 6). (4) If service has been discontinued for non - payment of bills and an illegal water connection is made, service will be renewed upon payment of all unpaid bills, time and material cost to remove the illegal connection, the cost of the estimated amount of water consumption loss, plus the fine specified in Appendix A-- Schedule 6. (5) Billing for potable water service or effluent irrigation service shall begin upon registration of consumption on the meter, or 90 days from date of meter installation, whichever occurs first. Billing for sewer service shall commence upon the issuance of a certificate of occupancy or 90 days following the issuance of a notice to connect to the sewer system, whichever occurs first. (6) The property owner shall immediately notify the district of any additional dwelling units connected to the district's service lines if the dwelling units have not been included in previous applications. For violation of this section, the district's service may be discontinued. (h) Billing payment when meter becomes defective; right of entry of authorized agents or employees. (1) Should the meter on any premises become defective, so that the amount delivered for the current month cannot be ascertained, the property owner shall pay for that month an amount equal to the average amount charged for the four preceding months unless the actual amount of water can be determined. http: //Iibraryl. municode. com/ default/DoeView /10578/l/305/311 4/17/2008 ARTICLE VI. WATER -SEWER DISTRICT UNIFORM BILLING, OPERATING ANMJaNneVn 9 Page 108 of 398 (2) Duly authorized agents and employees of the district shall, during daylight hours or if called out after dark for emergency service, have access to any property for the purpose of examining the condition of fixture, service pipe installation and such other purposes as may be proper to protect the interest of the district, reading or repairing the water meters located thereon, or turning the supply of such water service to the premises off or on. (i) Water bill complaints. Normally, high water bill complaints will not be accepted for inspection by the district unless all plumbing fixtures, piping and outlets have been examined by a licensed plumber who has certified that there are no leaks. If an investigation is made by the district and the findings reveal the initial meter reading was accurate and the meter is functioning properly, a re -read charge (Appendix A-- Schedule 6) will be assessed against the property owner. The property owner shall be charged (Appendix A-- Schedule 6) for meter tests which show the meter is functioning properly. Q) Meters, location and charge for moving. Meters shall be placed when possible just within the property line at the property corner at the nearest point to the tap -in main. If a meter is moved at the request of the property owner, the property owner shall pay a fee equal to the district's cost in accordance with Appendix A-- Schedule 5. (k) Connections with water and sewer required. The owner of each lot or parcel of land within the district where any improvement is now situated or shall hereafter be situated, shall, if the district operates and maintains water distribution and /or sewer collection facilities along the frontage of their property, connect or cause such improvement to be connected with the water and /or sewer facilities of the district. The usage of such facilities shall, at a minimum, be used for all indoor usage and shall be connected within 90 days following notification to do so by the district. Connection to the reuse system shall only be required if the development order and /or property purchase agreements require such connection. All such connections shall be made in accordance with rules and regulations which may be adopted from time to time by the district, which rules and regulations shall provide for a charge for making any such connection in such reasonable amount as the governing board of the district may fix and determine. No connection or connections shall berequired where the water or sewer system or line is more than 200 feet from such property line. (1) Exceptions To connections. This article shall not be construed to require or entitle any person to cross the private property of another in order to connect to the district's water and /or sewer service. (m) Connections may be made by district. If any property owner of any lot or parcel of land within the district shall fail or refuse to connect to and use the water and /or sewer facilities of the district after notification, as provided herein, then the district shall be authorized to make such connections, entering on or upon any such property for the purpose of making such connection. The district shall thereupon be entitled to recover the cost (Appendix A-- Schedule 5) of making such connection, together with reasonable penalties and interest and attorney's fees, by suit in any court of component jurisdiction. In addition and as an alternative means of collecting such costs of making such connections, the district shall have a lien on such property for such cost; which lien shall be equal dignity with the lien of state and county taxes. Such lien may be foreclosed by the county in the same manner provided by the laws of Florida for the foreclosure of mortgages upon real estate. (n) Unlawful connection prohibited. No person shall be allowed to connect into any water or sewer line owned by the district without written consent of the district. The connection with such line shall be made only under the direction and supervision of the district. Any property owner or plumber who shall make any connection without such consent of the county shall, upon conviction be subject to the penalties hereinafter provided. (o) Failure to maintain plumbing system. The property owner shall be responsible for maintaining and keeping free from obstruction the water and sewer pipes leading to and http://IibraryI.municode.com/default/DocView/10578/l/305/311 4/17/2008 ARTICLE VI. WATER -SEWER DISTRICT UNIFORM BILLING, OPERATING AN34enftgerg bt52VE January 13, 2009 Page 109 of 398 connecting from the plumbing system to the district's water and sewers mains, and failure to keep the water and sewer pipes, free from obstructions and maintained in a proper manner. (p) Unpaid fees to constitute a lien. In the event that the fees, rates or charges for the services and facilities of any water or sewer system shall not be paid as and when due, any unpaid balance thereof and all interest accruing thereon shall be an automatic lien on any parcel or property affected thereby. Such liens shall be superior and paramount to the interest on such parcel or property of any owner, lessee, tenant, mortgagor or other person except the lien of county taxes and shall be on a parity with the lien of any such county taxes-in the event that any such fees, rates or charges shall not be paid as and when due and shall be in default for 30 days or more the unpaid balance thereof and all interest accrued thereon, together with attorneys fees and costs, may be recovered by the district in a civil action, and any such lien and accrued interest may be foreclosed or otherwise enforced by the district by action or suit in equity as for the foreclosure of a mortgage on real property. (q) No free service. No water or sewage disposal service shall be furnished or rendered free of charge to any person, firm, corporation or governmental body. Each and every county agency, department, or instrumentality which uses such service shall pay therefore at the rates fixed by this article. (r) Separate connections for each separate unit. Unless authorized by the district, each dwelling unit whether occupying one or more lots and whether it shall occupy any lot or parcel jointly with any other dwelling unit shall be considered a separate unit for the payment of the water and sewage disposal rates and charges, and separate connections will be required for each of such dwelling units. (Ord. No. 01 -73, § 1.4, 12- 11 -01; Ord. No. 2006 -27, § 4) Sec. 134 -175. Submetering. (a) A landlord who is a customer of the district and who provides water and /or sewer service to rental units through a single master water meter shall, under any of the following three circumstances, be exempt from the prohibitions contained in section 134 -174, paragraph (b)(1) against the sale or disposition of district water and /or sewer service: (1) A landlord may apportion the monthly charge for district water and /or sewer service through the master meter equally among all rental units provided that the total monthly charge to all rental units shall not exceed the landlord's actual cost for district water and /or sewer service; or (2) A landlord may install submeters for each rental unit to track each unit's usage of water service and then charge each unit according to its exact usage. A landlord who installs submeters shall comply with the requirements of subsection (d), below and shall not recover more than his actual cost for district water and /or sewer service through the master meter and shall not pass on to his tenants any of the capital or administrative cost incurred in the installation and monitoring of the submeters or the billing of tenants for their water and /or sewer service usage; or, (3) A landlord may also provide water and /or sewer service to rental units through a single master water meter for no specific compensation provided that in no event shall any landlord recover more than his actual cost for district water and /or sewer service from his tenants. (b) For any rental units which are under lease agreement as of the effective date of this article [April 1, 2002], a landlord choosing to install submeters as provided in section 134 -174, paragraph (b) above, shall not begin monitoring a rental unit's water usage for the purposes of charging a unit according to its actual water usage until the expiration of the then existing term under such lease agreement. Upon renewing an expired lease, or upon entering any new lease http: //Iibraryl. municode. com /default/DocView /10578/l/305/311 4/17/2008 ARTICLE VI. WATER -SEWER DISTRICT UNIFORM BILLING, OPERATING AXgenPagD&0, f 28E January 13, 2009 Page 110 of 398 agreement with a tenant subsequent to theeffective date of this article, a landlord choosing to submeter shall fully disclose to the tenant the landlord's ability to separately charge each rental unit according to its exact water usage. Such disclosure shall be in both of the following forms: (1) oral representations by the landlord to the tenant at the time of negotiating the lease and before either party has signed the lease agreement, and (2) by a conspicuously printed disclosure provision in the lease agreement specifically referencing the landlord's ability to submeter pursuant to the terms of this article and initialed by the tenant. (c) Upon a tenant's written request, any landlord who exercises his privilege to recover his actual cost for county water and /or sewer service shall provide to the tenant documentation of the landlord's actual cost for district water and /or sewer service as well as documentation and a written explanation of the basis for any costs charged to the tenant for water and /or sewer service. Such documentation and written explanation shall be provided within five business days from receipt of the written request. (d) Furthermore, upon dispute of a water bill by a tenant in person, in writing, by telephone, or in any other manner, a landlord shall, within five business days of receiving notice of the tenant's dispute, pursue all of the following remedies in an effort to resolve the dispute: (1) Reread the master meter and /or any submeter to verify the accuracy of the meter reading process and the working condition of the meter(s); (2) If the working condition or accuracy of the master meter or any submeter is in question after being reread, the landlord shall have the meter tested; (3) If after being tested the master meter or any submeter is found to be inaccurate or otherwise defective, the district or the landlord, as the case may be, shall immediately repair or replace the meter. (4) Provide documentation of current and past billing practices with respect to the applicable rental unit for the period of the requesting tenant's occupancy; (5) Arrange a meeting with the tenant and the property manager or some other representative of the landlord to discuss the billing process; and (6) Any tenant whose request is unsatisfactorily addressed or who has exhausted the above options without redress may bring suit in a court of competent jurisdiction to obtain relief under F.S. ch. 83, the Landlord Tenant Act. (e) All submeters must achieve no less than the accuracy standards as currently met by the district for its own water meters. In addition, any landlord installing submeters shall provide, where applicable, the following services, at the landlord's expense, which either meet or exceed the level of service currently provided by the district with respect to its water meters: (1) The landlord shall promptly, upon receiving notice, repair all submeter leaks; (2) The landlord shall promptly, upon receiving notice, replace any failed service lines or associated components; (3) The landlord shall promptly, upon receiving notice, replace damaged or deteriorated submeter boxes or lids, and shall, where applicable, lower or raise a submeter box to grade as necessary; (4) The landlord shall, upon receiving a water quality complaint, check applicable connections and flush applicable service lines; (5) The landlord shall, upon receiving a low pressure complaint, check and test the system to ensure proper operation: (6) The landlord shall locate and provide the location of all submeters and service lines upon reasonable request by a tenant; littp: / /Iibraryl. municode. com /defauWDocView /10578/l/305/311 4/17/2008 ARTICLE VI. WATER -SEWER DISTRICT UNIFORM BILLING, OPERATING ANAgetftgtteU 082$oE January 13, 2009 Page 111 of 398 (7) The landlord shall turn off applicable submeters in emergency situations; (8) The landlord shall read all submeters no less frequently than once a month; (9) The landlord shall replace all submeters that become stuck or difficult to read; and (10) The landlord shall notify the tenant of a potential leak upon reading a submeter that reflects an unusually high usage. (f) The provision of water service through a single master meter by a landlord as described in this section is deemed not to constitute the sale or disposition of water service. The provision of sewer service as described in this section is deemed not to constitute the sale or disposition of sewer service. (g) Any condominium association that is a customer of the district and provides water and /or sewer service to condominium units through a single master meter may allocate the cost for such water service among its members either by equal apportionment, installation of submeters, or otherwise provided that such allocation of cost is restricted to recovery of the condominium association's actual cost for district water and /or sewer service and directly related administrative or capital expenses incurred in recovering that cost. Upon a member's written request, any condominium association that exercises its privilege under this exemption from the prohibitions in section 134 -174, paragraph (b)(1) to recover its actual cost for district water and /or sewer service and directly related administrative and capital expenses incurred in recovering that cost shall provide to the member documentation for the condominium association's actual cost for district water and /or sewer service as well as documentation and a written explanation of the basis for any costs charged to the member for water service. Such documentation and written explanation shall be provided with five business days from receipt of the written request. The provision of water service through a single master water meter by a condominium association as described in this section is deemed not to constitute the sale or disposition of water service. The provision of sewer service as described in this section is deemed not to constitute the sale or disposition of sewer service. (h) Any landlord or condominium association that elects to install submeters shall not charge a security deposit. (Ord. No. 01 -73, § 2.1 - -2.8, 12- 11 -01) Sec. 134 -176. City of Naples service area. (a) No extension of existing distribution water mains of the water system of the City of Naples may be made within the county water -sewer district, without the prior, written consent and approval of the governing board of the district, except that this article shall not apply to the lands described in subsection (d). (b) All applications for said distribution water main extensions shall be made in writing to district staff who shall present said requests to the governing board of the district within 30 days of receipt thereof. (c) The governing board of the district may attach reasonable conditions to the issuance of permits for distribution water main extensions which conditions may include, but not be limited to, provisions for payment of system development charges or impact fees which are, or may be enacted by the county. (d) The City of Naples water service area boundaries are as follows: Beginning at the intersection of the easterly shoreline of the Gulf of Mexico with the southerly city limit line of the City of Naples; thence easterly along said southerly city along the easterly city limit line to the northeast corner of said Section 27; thence westerly along the north line of http: / /Iibraryl. municode. com /default/DocView /10578/l/305/311 4/17/2008 ARTICLE VI. WATER -SEWER DISTRICT UNIFORM BILLING, OPERATING AI jenBA@Q_-dr2r0f. E January 13, 2009 Page 112 of 398 Section 26, Township 50 south, Range 25 east to the northeast corner of said Section 26; thence northerly along the east line of Section 23, Township 50 south, Range 25 east to its intersection with the southerly right -of -way line of Thomasson Drive; thence easterly along said southerly right -of -way of Thomasson Drive to its intersection with the range line lying between Range 25 east and Range 26 east; thence northerly along said range line lying between Range 25 east and Range 26 east to the northeast corner of Section 13, Township 49 south, Range 25 east; thence westerly along the north line of Sections 13, 14, 15, 16 and 17, Township 49 south, Range 25 east to the intersection of the north line of said Section 17with the easterly shoreline of the Gulf of Mexico; thence southerly along the meanders of the easterly shoreline of the Gulf of Mexico to the point of beginning. (Ord. No. 01 -73, §§ 3.1 - -3.4, 12- 11 -01) Sec. 134 -177. Appendices for rates, fees and charges. The board of county commissioners as ex- officio board of the Collier County Water -Sewer District hereby adopts the rates, fees, and charges as set forth in schedule I[11 through 7; inclusive, appended hereto as Appendix A, which as of October 1, 2006, shall be imposed upon all users of the county water -sewer district's services within the district's boundaries and outside the district's boundaries subject to appropriate mutual agreements. The AFPI charges shall apply only to the respective ERCs reserved bypayment of the related water and /or wastewater impact fees subsequent to October 1, 2006, and these AFPI charges shall not apply to ERCs reserved by payment for the ERCs received by staff subsequent to December 31, 2012. These rates, fees and charges may be changed from time to time by ordinances or by resolutions of the board of county commissioners as ex- officio board of the Collier County Water -Sewer District, provided the board publishes, in a newspaper of general circulation in Collier County, notice of an advertised public hearing with regard to the then proposed schedule amendments. The proposed amendments (by county ordinances or board resolutions) can be agendized on the board's regular agenda, or on the board's summary agenda subject to removal to the board's regular agenda. (Ord. No. 01 -73, § 4, 12- 11 -01; Ord. No. 2006 -27, § 2) Sec. 134 -178. Penalties. Unless another penalty is specifically provided for, any person who violates any section or provision of this article shall be prosecuted and punished as provided by F.S. § 125.69. Each day the violation continues shall constitute a separate offense. Additionally, the board may bring suit for damages or to restrain, enjoin or otherwise prevent the violation of this article in the Circuit Court of Collier County. (Ord. No. 01 -73, § 5, 12- 11 -01) Sec. 134 -179. Confidentiality. Confidential information. (1) Information and data on a user obtained from reports, questionnaires, applications, and other material provided shall be available to the public or other governmental agency without restriction unless the user specifically requests and is able to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the district and county that the information is not "public record" under then applicable law, and is clearly within an exemption outlined in the Florida Public Record Law of the State of Florida, F.S. ch. 119, or its successor infunction. http://IibraTyl.municode.com/default/DoeView/l 0578/1/3051311 4/17/2008 ARTICLE VI. WATER -SEWER DISTRICT UNIFORM BILLING, OPERATING AN*ge Weld 14.2kE C% ARTICLE V1 WATER -SEWER DISTRICT UNIFORM BILLING, OPERATING AAjen i4j0fZ% January 13, 2009 Page 114 of 398 TABLE INSET: (c) Block rate structure. Consumption Blocks in Gallons - -Up To Or Next TABLE INSET: Meter Effective Oct. 1, 2006 Effective Oct. 1, 2007 Block 1 $1.92 $2.20 Block 2 2.88 3.30 Block 3 3.84 4.40 Block 4 4.80 5.50 Block 5 5.76 6.59 Bl ock 6 7.68 8.79 (c) Block rate structure. Consumption Blocks in Gallons - -Up To Or Next TABLE INSET: Meter Block 1 Block 2 Block 3 Block 4 Block 5 Block 6 Size 1, 2007 1, 2006 1, 2007 5/8" Over 50,000 and 5,000 10,000 20,000 30,000 50,000 3/4" 1" 12,000 25,000 50,000 75,000 120,000 Over 120,000 1- 1/4" 20,000 40,000 80,000 120,000 200,000 Over 200,000 1-1/2" 25,000 50,000 100,000 150,000 250,000 Over 250,000 2" 40,000 80,000 160,000 240,000 400,000 Over 400,000 3" 80,000 160,000 320,000 480,000 800,000 Over 800,000 4" 120,000 250,000 500,000 800,000 1,200,000 Over 1,200,000 6" 250,000 500,000 1,000,000 1,500,000 2,500,000 Over 2,500,000 8" 450,000 900,000 1,800,000 2,700,000 4 500,000 Over 4,500,000 10" 700,000 1,450,000 2,900,000 4,300,000 7,000,000 Over 7,000,000 1,075,000 2,150,000 4,300,OOD 6,450,000 11,000,000 Over 12" 11,000,000 2. Wastewater: (a) Wastewater service availability charge for individually metered residential, non- residential, and multi - family: TABLE INSET: Size Effective Oct. Effective Oct. Size Effective Oct. Effective Oct. 1 2006 1, 2007 1, 2006 1, 2007 http:// Iibraryl .municode.com/default/DoeView /10578 /l/305/311 4/17/2008 ARTICLE VI. WATER -SEWER DISTRICT UNIFORM BILLING, OPERATING AMendhggrgd?f14 January 13, 2009 Page 115 of 398 518 inch $22.26 per $24.49 per 3 inch $287.24 per $315.96 per meter month month meter month month 314 inch 22.26 per 24.49 per 4 inch 476.32 per 523.93 per meter month month meter month month 1 inch 50.61 per 55.67 per 6 inch 949.23 per 1,044.12 per meter month month meter month month 1 114 inch 64.90 per 71.38 per 8 inch 1,516.92 per 1,668.55 per meter month month meter month month 1 1/2 inch 97.93 per 107.72 per 10 inch 2,719.65 per 2,991.50 per meter month month meter month month 2 inch 154.75 per 170.22 per 12 inch 4,030.95 per 4,433.89 per meter month month meter month month (b) Volume charge per 1,000 gallons: TABLE INSET: 3. Fire systems (dedicated and compound): (a) Fire meter. (i) Fire service meter size will refer to the largest diameter meter register installed for fire protection. (ii) Fire service meter connections that have consumption registered for three consecutive billing periods are deemed to have provided domestic or other water usage shall be billed according to regular water monthly availability and usage charges as described herein. (b) Volume charge: (i) Per 1,000 gallons. 4. Water restriction surcharge: TABLE INSET: Water Shortage Phase' Percent Reduction In Overall Demand Effective Oct. 1, 2006 Effective Oct. 1, 2007 (�) All Metered Usage $3.13 $3.44 (ii) Individually Metered Residential Maximum: The maximum volumetric charge for individually metered residential property shall be 15,000 gallons per month. 3. Fire systems (dedicated and compound): (a) Fire meter. (i) Fire service meter size will refer to the largest diameter meter register installed for fire protection. (ii) Fire service meter connections that have consumption registered for three consecutive billing periods are deemed to have provided domestic or other water usage shall be billed according to regular water monthly availability and usage charges as described herein. (b) Volume charge: (i) Per 1,000 gallons. 4. Water restriction surcharge: TABLE INSET: Water Shortage Phase' Percent Reduction In Overall Demand Flow Charge Rate Adjustment Percentage Phase 1— Moderate Less Than 15% 15% Phase 2 -- Severe Less Than 30% 30% Phase 3-- Extreme Less Than 40% 40% Phase 4-- Critical Less Than 60% 60% PUBLIC UTILITIES DIVISION COLLIER COUNTY WATER -SEWER DISTRICT UNIFORM BILLING, OPERATING AND REGULATORY STANDARDS ORDINANCE http:/ /library Lmunicode- coTn/default/DoeV ie W /10578/l/305/311 4/17/2008 ARTICLE VI. WATER -SEWER DISTRICT UNIFORM BILLING, OPERATING M jend9E[gm4AcP.f1Z& January 13, 2009 Page 116 of 398 APPENDIX A- -FEES, RATES AND CHARGES SCHEDULE 2— GOODLAND SUB - DISTRICT WATER Effective October 1, 2006 Providing monthly user fees for residential, non - residential and multi - family properties in the Goodland Water Sub - district as follows: 1. Water. (a) Service availability charge: (i) Individual metered residential, non - residential and multi - family properties: TABLE INSET: Meter Size Effective Oct. 1, 2006 3/4 inch $25.00 per month 1 inch 58.00 per month 1 1/2 inch 113.00 per month 2 inch 178.00 per month 3 inch 353.00 per month 4 inch 548.00 per month 6 inch 1,095.00 per month 8 inch 1,967.00 per month (b) Volume charge per one thousand gallons ($ /Mgal) of usage: (i) Individual metered residential, non - residential and multi - family properties: TABLE INSET: Block Proposed Oct. 1, 2006 Block 1 (1) $4.30 Block 1 (1) $5.30 Block 1 (1) $6.40 Block 1 (1) $7.40 Block 1 (1) $8.50 Block 1 (1) $10.60 (1) Same Block Rate Structure as that of Collier County Water -Sewer District. (c) Block rate structure: Consumption blocks in gallons - -Up to or next TABLE INSET: Meter Block 1 Block 2 Block 3 Block 4 Block 5 Block 6 Size 5/8" and 5,000 10,000 20,000 30,000 50,000 Over 50,000 3/4" bttp:// Iibraryl. munioode. com/ default/DoeVicw /10578/l/305/311 4/17/2008 ARTICLE VI. WATER -SEWER DISTRICT UNIFORM BILLING, OPERATING AAlgancRaggM "Plof?k January 13, 2009 Page 117 of 398 1" 12,000 25,000 50,000 75,000 120,000 Over 120,000 23.00 20,000 40,000 80,000 120,000 200,000 Over 200,000 1- 1/2" 25,000 50,000 100,000 150,000 250,000 Over250,000 2" 40,000 80,000 160,000 240,000 400,000 Over 400,000 3" 80,000 160,000 320,000 480,000 800,000 Over 800,000 4„ 120,000 250,000 500,000 800,000 1,200,000 Over 1,200,000 6„ 250,000 500,000 1,000,000 1,500,000 2,500,000 Over 2,500,000 8„ 450,000 900,000 1,800,000 2,700,000 4,500,000 Over 4,500,000 (2) The usage charge shall be adjusted based on the following formula: Purchased Water Adjustment Clause (PWAC) - Existing Rates (New City of Marco Island Volume Charge - Old City of Marco Island Volume Charge)/ $0.75 = Adder Existing Goodland $ /Mgal +Adder = New Goodland $ /Mgal The purpose of the 0.75 factor is needed to adjust for unaccounted for water and the change in the monthly fixed charges from the City of Marco Island. For Each Rate Block: Existing Rate Block $/Mgal + Adder = New Rate $ /Mgal PUBLC UTILITIES DIVISION COLLIER COUNTY WATER -SEWER DISTRICT UNIFORM BILLING, OPERATING AND REGULATORY STANDARDS ORDINANCE APPENDIX A- -FEES, RATES AND CHARGES SCHEDULE 3-- IRRIGATION QUALITY WATER RATES Effective October 1, 2006 Irrigation Quality (Reuse) Rates 1. Irrigation quality water usage in the district shall be at the following schedule: (a) Service availability charge: Individually metered irrigation: TABLE INSET: http://IibraryI.municode.com/default/DoeView/I0578/l/305/311 4/17/2008 Effective October 1, 2006 3/4 inch $5.00 FinchSize 11.00 23.00 http://IibraryI.municode.com/default/DoeView/I0578/l/305/311 4/17/2008 ARTICLE VI. WATER -SEWER DISTRICT UNIFORM BILLING, OPERATING A4*endRaigwi6cDf12& January 13, 2009 Page 118 of 398 2 inch 46.00 3 inch 91.00 4 inch 182.00 6 inch 346.00 8 inch 628.00 10 inch 1,005.00 12 inch 1,497.00 (b) Volume charge per 1,000 gallons: TABLEINSET: Type of Service Effective October 1, 2006 (i) Pressurized and distributed $0.75 (ii) Pressurized 0.39 (iii) Bulk 0.30 PUBLIC UTILITIES DIVISION COLLIER COUNTY WATER -SEWER DISTRICT UNIFORM BILLING, OPERATING AND REGULATORY STANDARDS ORDINANCE APPENDIX A- -FEES, RATES AND CHARGES SCHEDULE 4 —METER TAPPING CHARGES AND BACKFLOW DEVICE CHARGES Effective October 1, 2006 Meter Installation Charges (Tapping Fees) 1. Meter Installation charges to be paid to the District shall be as follows: Meter size meter tapping charges: TABLE INSET: Meter Size Meter Tapping Charges With Service Line Installation Charge Meter Size Meter Tapping Charges Without Service Line Installation Charge Effective Oct. 1, 2006 Effective Oct. 1, 2006 3/4 inch $676.00 3/4 inch $248.00 1 inch 738.00 1 inch 282.00 1.5 inch 1,012.00 1.5 inch 493.00 2 inch 1,140.00 2 inch 618.00 The fees are based upon meter installation for a typical single - family residence. In all other circumstances, the meter installation fee shall be based upon the district's actual cost for time, equipment and materials. Backflow device charges (1) Backflow device charges to be paid to the District shall be as follows: TABLE INSET: http:// Iibraryl. municode. com/ default/DoeView /10578/l/305/311 4/17/2008 ARTICLE VI. WATER -SEWER DISTRICT UNIFORM BILLING, OPERATING A9genft9*dF \jgf 38E January 13, 2009 Page 119 of 398 Meter Size Reduced Pressure Backflow Prevention Assembly Charge Meter Size Double Check Valve Backflow Prevention Assembly Charge $75.00 Effective Oct. 1, 2006 50.00 Effective Oct. 1, 2006 314 inch $214.00 3/4 inch $108.00 1 inch 237.00 1 inch 116.00 1.5 inch 345.00 1.5 inch 294.00 2 inch 412.00 2 inch 342.00 PUBLIC UTILITIES DIVISION COLLIER COUNTY WATER -SEWER DISTRICT UNIFORM BILLING, OPERATING AND REGULATORY STANDARDS ORDINANCE APPENDIX A- -FEES, RATES AND CHARGES SCHEDULE 5— EQUIPMENT, LABOR AND ADMINISTRATION CHARGES Effective October 1, 2006 TABLE INSET: DESCRIPTION EFFECTIVE OCT. 1, 2006 (1) Equipment (Per Hour Rates): Rehab & Electrician's Truck $75.00 Crew Trucks 50.00 Vector Truck 200.00 Camera Truck 150.00 Boom Truck 100.00 20 Yard Dump Truck 70.00 10 Yard Dump Truck 40.00 Pumper Truck 200.00 Track Hoe (Big or Small) 50.00 Back Hoe 65.00 Olympian Generators 60.00 Dewatering System 40.00 4" Trash Pump 10.00 Mud Hog 15.00 Trailer 45.00 Signs, Barricades and /or Traffic Board 100.00 Road Saw and /or Compactor 15.00 Miscellaneous Small Equipment 5.00 (2) Labor (Per Hour Rates): Tech 1 & 2 30.00 Supervisors 40.00 (3) Administration (per incident): 15% or $300.00; Whichever is smaller. http://IibraryI.rnunicode.com/default/DocView /i0578/l/305/31 1 4/17/2008 ARTICLE VI. WATER -SEWER DISTRICT UNIFORM BILLING, OPERATING ANgenftgvr�ws & January 13, 2009 Page 120 of 398 Parts and Sub - contractors I Actual Cost PUBLIC UTILITIES DIVISION COLLIER COUNTY WATER -SEWER DISTRICT UNIFORM BILLING, OPERATING AND REGULATORY STANDARDS ORDINANCE APPENDIX A- -FEES, RATES AND CHARGES SCHEDULE 6— MISCELLANEOUS CHARGES Effective October 1, 2006 TABLEINSET: DESCRIPTION EFFECTIVE OCT. 1, 2006 New Accounts - Change of Ownership $25.00 Turn Off/Turn On at Owner's Request 38.00 Meter Re -Read (If Different -- Charge is 0.00) 38.00 Meter Test: Onsite Test (More than 3% Error— Charge is 0.00) 80.00 Offsite Bench Test (More than 3% Error — Charge is 0.00) 215.00 Meter Lock 55.00 Meter Unlock, 2nd and Su bsequent Events 55.00 Unlock After Hours 100.00 Meter Removal 160.00 Illegal Connection Actual Time And Material Cost, Plus Average Consumption, Plus a $300.00 Fine Convenience Fee - Credit Card 5.00 Temporary Meter Deposit 1,000.00 Duplicate Bill Processing Fee 2.00 Non - Sufficient Funds (NSF) Processing Charge 15% of the Amount or $100.00, Whichever is Smaller Late Payment Charge 5% of Unpaid Balance Vehicle Over Meter Charge 55.00 Removal of Landscaping to Access Meter 75.00 Septage Processing Charge /1,000 Gallons 31.00 Grease Trap Waste Charge /1,000 Gallons 42.00 PUBLIC UTILITIES DIVISION COLLIER COUNTY WATER -SEWER DISTRICT http: // Iibraryl .municode.com /default/DoeView /10578/l/305/311 4/17/2008 ARTICLE VI. WATER -SEWER DISTRICT UNIFORM BILLING, OPERATING AN1geftoc" WC 30E January 13, 2009 Page 121 of 398 UNIFORM BILLING, OPERATING AND REGULATORY STANDARDS ORDINANCE APPENDIX A- -FEES, RATES AND CHARGES SCHEDULE 7- ALLOWANCE FOR FUNDS PRUDENTLY INVESTED (AFPI) Effective October 1, 2006 AFPI Schedule Per ERC -Water Svstem ( *1 TABLE INSET: Payment Calendar Year Month 2008 2009 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 January $0.00 $58.69 $234.76 $410.84 $586.91 $762.98 $939.05 February 0.00 73.36 249.44 425.51 601.58 777.65 953.72 March 0.00 88.04 264.11 440.18 616.25 792.33 968.40 April 0.00 102.71 278.78 454.85 530.93 807.00 983.07 May 0.00 117.38 293.45 469.53 645.60 821.67 997,74 June 0.00 132.05 308.13 484.20 660.27 836.34 1,012.42 July 0.00 146.73 322.80 498.87 674.94 851.02 1,027.09 August 0.00 161.40 337.47 513.54 689.62 865.69 1,041.76 September 0.00 176.07 352.14 528.22 704.29 880.36 1,056.43 October 14.67 190.74 366.82 542.89 718.96 895.03 1,056.43 November 29.35 205.42 381.49 557.56 733.63 909,71 1,056.43 December 44.02 220.09 396.16 572.23 748.31 924.38 1,056.43 AFPI Schedule Per ERC-- Wastewater System ( *� TABLE INSET: http: // libraryl.municode.con- /default/DoeView /10578/1/305/311 4/17/2008 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 January $0.00 $38.24 $152.94 $267.65 $382.36 $497.06 $611.77 February 0.00 47.79 162.50 277.21 391.92 506.62 621.33 March 0.00 57.35 172.06 286.77 401.47 516.18 630.89 April 0.00 66.91 181.62 296.33 411.03 525.74 640.45 May 0.00 76.47 191.18 305.89 420.59 535.30 650.01 June 0.00 86.03 200.74 315.44 430.15 544.86 659.57 L.July 0.00 95.59 210.30 325.00 439.71 554.42 669.12 http: // libraryl.municode.con- /default/DoeView /10578/1/305/311 4/17/2008 ARTICLE VI. WATER -SEWER DISTRICT UNIFORM BILLING, OPERATING A)�en W!Z1 _ January 13, 2009 Page 122 of 398 August 0.00 105.15 219.86 334.56 449.27 563.98 678.68 September 0.00 114.71 229.41 344.12 458.83 573.53 688.24 October 9.56 124.27 238.97 353.68 468.39 583.09 688.24 November 19.12 133.87 248.53 363.24 477.95 592.65 688.24 December 28.68 143.38 258.09 372.80 487.50 602.21 688.24 ( *) AFPI fee is initiated on October 1, 2006. DIVISION 2. COLLIER COUNTY WATER -SEWER DISTRICT* *Editor's note: Ord. No. 04 -55, § 2.13., provided for the relocation of LDC section 1.5.7. to be included as § 134 -186. Sec. 134 -186. Provision of water, sewer, and reuse irrigation water within the Collier County Water -Sewer District; applicability to special purpose independent governments. (a) The Collier County Water -Sewer District is a dependent special district created by the Florida legislature. Its governing body is ex officio the board of county commissioners. The Collier County Water -Sewer District has been charged by the legislature with the overall responsibility for the provision of water and sewer services within the boundaries of the Collier County Water -Sewer District, which are more particularly described in chapter 88 -499, Laws of Florida. (b) This legislative charge is consistent with the goals and policies of the state comprehensive plan and the Collier County Growth Management Plan in that a regional utility system like that operated by the Collier County Water -Sewer District (1) fulfills the goal of assuring the ability of an adequate supply of water among competing uses by requiring development to be compatible with existing local and regional water supplies, (2) fulfills the goals of protecting the county's substantial investments in regional public utility facilities by maximizing the use of such existing public facilities, (3) fulfills the goal of economic and efficient provision of quality public services which eliminates needless duplication of public facilities and instead employs the use of regional facilities as opposed to multiple or smaller scale and less efficient local, public or private utility facilities. (c) The provision and treatment of water, sewer and reuse irrigation water within the Collier County Water -Sewer District as a matter of local land development policy and regulation shall be provided by Collier County Water -Sewer District facilities in conformance with this Code and all other applicable county ordinances, regulations and policies relative to the provision of such utility facilities and services. (d) The provisions of this Code and all other applicable ordinances, regulations and policies of the county shall be construed as applicable planning and permitting laws, rules, regulations, and policies which control development of lands within the Collier County Water -Sewer District to be http:// Iibraryl. municode. com/ default/DoeView /10578/l/305/311 4/17/2008 ARTICLE VI. WATER -SEWER DISTRICT UNIFORM BILLING, OPERATING AMgerPagljlejV W.29)E January 13, 2009 Page 123 of 398 serviced by a special - purpose government such as a community development district. (Ord. No. 04 -55, § 2.B.) Secs. 134 - 187 -- 134 -200. Reserved. DIVISION 3. RESERVED* *Editor's note: Ord. No. 01 -73, § 8, adopted Dec. 11, 2001, repealed §§ 134 - 201 - -134 -204, in their entirety. Formerly, said sections pertained to extension of existing distribution water mains, applications for distribution water main extensions, permits for distribution water main extensions, conditions, water service area boundaries as related to the City of Naples Service Area. See the Code Comparative Table. Secs. 134 -201 -- 134 -215. Reserved. DIVISION 4. RESERVED* *Editor's note: Ord. No. 01 -73, § 8, adopted Dec. 11, 2001, repealed §§ 134 -216 -- 134 -219, in their entirety. Formerly, said sections pertained to general regulations, definitions, abbreviations, and supplemental service charge as related to sewer use restrictions. See the Code Comparative Table. Secs. 134- 216 - 134 -225. Reserved. DIVISION 5. RESERVED* *Editor's note: Ord. No. 01 -73, § 8, adopted Dec. 11, 2001, repealed §§ 134 - 226 -134 -250, in their entirety. Formerly, said sections pertained to general provisions, discharge of industrial waste, effluent quality bond, use of public wastewater system, general discharge prohibitions, maximum concentrations allowed, approval of pretreatment facilities, maintenance of pretreatment facilities, use of interceptors (traps), use of control manhole, measurements, tests, special arrangements, special arrangements; determination ofacceptability, national categorical pretreatment standards, alternative discharge limits, state requirements, county's and district's right of revision, excessive discharge, pretreatment standards, slug discharges, reasonable service conditions, baseline report, compliance schedule, compliance date report, and periodic compliance reports as related to rules and regulations of the uniform utility operating and regulatory standards and procedures. See the Code Comparative Table. http: //Iibraryi. municode. com /default/Doeview /10578/l/305/311 4/17/2008 ARTICLE VI. WATER -SEWER DISTRICT UNIFORM BILLING, OPERATING ANgenBikg(b mf.2�E January 13, 2009 Page 124 of 398 Secs. 134 -226 -- 134 -255. Reserved. DIVISION 6. RESERVED* *Editor's note: Ord. No. 01 -73, § 8, adopted Dec. 11, 2001, repealed §§ 134 -256 -- 134 -258, in their entirety. Formerly, said sections pertained to monitoring facilities, inspection and sampling and powers and authority of inspectors as related to monitoring and inspections. See the Code Comparative Table. Secs. 134 -256 -- 134 -258. Reserved. DIVISION 7. RESERVED* *Editor's note: Ord. No. 01 -73, § 8, adopted Dec. 11, 2001, repealed §§ 134- 261 -- 134 -265, in their entirety. Formerly, said sections pertained to penalties, authority to disconnect service, suspension of service, revocation of permit, and notice of disconnection, suspension, revocation as related to confidential information. See the Code Comparative Table. Secs. 134 -261- 134 -270. Reserved. DIVISION S. RESERVED* *Editor's note: Ord. No. 01 -73, § 8, adopted Dec. 11, 2001, repealed §§ 134 -271, 134 -272, in their entirety. Formerly, said sections pertained to confidential information and disclosure laws as related to confidential information. See the Code Comparative Table. Secs. 134 -271- 134 -275. Reserved. DIVISION 9. RESERVED* `Editor's note: Ord. No. 01 -73, § 8, adopted Dec. 11, 2001, repealed §§ 134- 276 -- 134 -278 in their entirety. Formerly, said sections pertained to purpose, service charges and charges and fees as related to service charges and fees. See the Code Comparative Table. http: // Iibraryl .municode.com /default/DocView /10578/l/305/311 4/17/2008 ARTICLE VI. WATER -SEWER DISTRICT UNIFORM BILLING, OPERATING AXoenflagp�a&d28E January 13, 2009 Page 125 of 398 Secs. 134 -276 -- 134 -285. Reserved. DIVISION 10. WATER IRRIGATION* *Editor's note: Ord. No. 00 -61, §§ 1 - -8, adopted Sept. 26, 2000, did not specifically amend this Code. Hence its inclusion as §§ 134 - 286 -- 134 -293 was at the discretion of the editor. See the Code Comparative Table. Sec. 134 -286. Title and applicability. This division is entitled "The Collier County Water Irrigation Ordinance." This division shall apply only within unincorporated Collier County. (Ord. No. 00 -61, § 1, 9- 26 -00) Sec. 134 -287. Findings. The board of county commissioners hereby makes the following findings: (1) That irrigation by water during the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. increases water loss to evaporation and reduces the beneficial use of water resources; (2) That adopting an ordinance to limit irrigation between 5:00 p.m. and 9:00 a.m. will raise public awareness and promote conservation; and (3) That restricting irrigation during the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. will not create a hardship on residents of the county. (Ord. No. 00 -61, § 2, 9- 26 -00) Sec. 134 -288. Purpose. The primary purpose of this division is to provide a regulatory framework to assist in conservation of water resources through consistent and uniform use for landscape irrigation in specified geographic areas. (Ord. No. 00 -61, § 3, 9- 26-00) Sec. 134 -289. Definitions. The following definitions shall apply throughout this division: Agriculture means the growing of farm products including, but not limited to, sugar cane, vegetables, citrus and other fruits, pasture lands, sod or nursery stock, including, but not limited to, ornamental foliage and greenhouse plants. County means Collier County, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, by and through its http: / /library l .municode. com/default/DocView /10578/1 /305/311 4/17/2008 ARTICLE VI. WATER -SEWER DISTRICT UNIFORM BILLING, OPERATING AMend�aW_&ofM January 13, 2009 Page 126 of 398 board of county commissioners and as Ex- Officio the Governing Board of the Collier County Water -Sewer District and Goodland Water District. Code enforcement officer means any authorized agent or employee of the county whose duty it is to enforce most of the county's codes. County water /sewer district means the service boundaries as established in Collier County Water -Sewer District, Special Act Chapter 88 -499, Laws of Florida, as now or hereafter amended. Goodland Water District means the service boundaries as established in Goodland Water District, Ordinance No. 80-43, or its successor ordinance. Impervious means land surfaces that do not allow penetration of water, including paved roads, paved sidewalks, paved driveways, paved parking lots, or highly compacted areas, including with shell or with clay. Irrigation means the application of water from surface water or ground water sources or aquifers. Irrigation systems means equipment and /or devices which deliver water to landscaping being irrigated including, but not limited to, pipelines, control structures, pipes, ditches, pumping stations, emitters, valves and fittings, but excluding the transfer of water through water management systems from one location to another. Person means natural person, public or private corporation, firm, association, joint venture, partnership, municipality, government or governmental agency, political subdivision, and any other entity whatsoever, or any combination of same, jointly or severally. Water resources means surface and groundwater sources and aquifers. Water utility service means water service provided by a public or private utility. (Ord. No. 00 -61, § 4, 9- 26 -00) Sec. 134 -290. Irrigation hours; operational prohibitions. (a) All water irrigation activities within those areas and boundaries as designated in section 134 -291, and which are not exempted by section 134 -292, shall be restricted to the hours between 5:00 p.m. and 9:00 a.m., seven days each week. Subject to the exceptions specified in this division, irrigation by water in those areas is prohibited between the hours of 9:00 a.m., and 5:00 p.m., seven days each week. (b) All water irrigation activities within those areas and boundaries as designated in section 134 -291, and which are not exempted by section 134 -292, shall be operated in an effective manner so as to not allow water to be applied continuously or primarily to any impervious surface. (c) All water irrigation activities prohibited or restricted from time -to -time by emergency orders declared by the South Florida Water Management District and published in a newspaper of general circulation in Collier County pursuant to F.S. § 373.175. Each such order shall apply to such geographic areas in the county as are specified in the respective order or, if not specified, as otherwise provided by law. Each such order shall be subject only to such exceptions as specified in the respective order, and if not specified therein, as otherwise provided by law. (Ord. No. 00 -61, § 5, 9- 26 -00; Ord. No. 00 -86, § 1, 12- 12 -00) Sec. 134 -291. Irrigation restriction affected areas. (a) The provisions of this division shall apply immediately on its effective date to landscape http: //Iibraryi. municode. com/ default/DocView /10578/l/305/311 4/17/2008 ARTICLE VI. WATER -SEWER DISTRICT UNIFORM BILLING, OPERATING Aloge Jr 1�2Uf 9 Page 127 of 398 irrigation within the boundaries of the Collier County Water /Sewer District and within the boundaries of the Goodland Water District. (b) This division shall hereafter be applicable to other geographic areas of unincorporated Collier County if and when the respective geographic area is classified, by resolution(s) adopted by the board of county commissioners after public hearing, as a water irrigation restricted area, which may include areas served by private utility water service. (Ord. No. 00 -61, § 6, 9- 26 -00) Sec. 134 -292. Exemptions; variances. (a) The following activities are exempt from all provisions of this division: (1) Landscape irrigation by hand watering using only a self - canceling nozzle. (2) Landscape irrigation from which the water source is only treated wastewater effluent. (3) The short -term operation of irrigation systems only for system repair and maintenance, which shall be limited to a maximum of ten minutes per zone per week and there must be a person present and working on the system during each such operation. (4) Landscape irrigation for purposes of watering in fungicides, insecticides and herbicides as required by the manufacturer of the product, or by federal or Florida law. This exemption, however, applies only to then licensed pest control operators and is limited to the amounts of "watering in" water specified by the manufacturer's recommendations. (5) For the first 90 days after initial installation, landscape irrigation for the purpose of 'Watering in" newly planted grass and foliage that constitutes a major portion of the landscaping. (6) Agricultural irrigation to the extent permitted by a consumptive or water use permit issued by the South Florida Water Management District. (b) Any person whose irrigation is affected by this division may make application to the county water director for a variance if strict compliance with this division will impose a unique, unnecessary and inequitable hardship on such service. Relief may be granted only upon submitted proof that such hardship is peculiar to that person or that affected property, the problem is not self- imposed, and that the granting of the variance would be consistent with the general intent and purpose of this division and the variance is the minimum variance necessary to eliminate the hardship. (1) The county water director is the only person authorized to grant or deny variances for irrigation activities that utilize water provided by the county water /sewer district or the Goodland Water District. The water director should render a decision on the variance request within ten working days after actual receipt of a complete application. Denial of a variance request may be appealed to the public works administrator within ten days of actual receipt by the applicant of the water director's decision on the initial request. (2) An application for variance, and/or the granting of a variance, shall operate prospectively and shall not affect any then pending enforcement action against the property owner pursuant to the provisions of this division or otherwise. (c) Should the board of county commissioners extend the provisions of this division to any other areas (only in unincorporated Collier County), the county manager shall designate a county employee who will be responsible to act on behalf of the county to approve, in whole or http:// Iibraryl. municode. com /default/DocView /10578/l/305/311 4/17/2008 ARTICLE VI. WATER -SEWER DISTRICT UNIFORM BILLING, OPERATING AIQ19.en IVY Jan T 3�`(9f2U�e Page 128 of 398 in part, or to disapprove, variance requests within any such designated area(s). This person may also be the county's water director. (Ord. No. 00 -61, § 7, 9- 26 -00) Sec. 134 -293. Penalties. (a) Violators of this division shall be issued a $25.00 citation pursuant to the county's citation ordinance. Persons who commit repeat violations may also be punished pursuant to F.S. § 162.21, as a civil infraction with a maximum civil penalty not to exceed $500.00. Any person who violates any provision of this division shall also be subject to the county's remedies as authorized in F.S. § 125.69, and /or section 1 -6 of the county's Code of Ordinances. (1) Each day (or part thereof) that there is a violation of this division by the same person or entity shall constitute a separate offense. (2) All monies collected pursuant to this division shall be used by the code enforcement department to fund continued and enhanced enforcement of this division and /or other county ordinances under its jurisdiction. (Ord. No. 00 -61, § 8, 9- 26 -00) Secs. 134- 294 -- 134 -310. Reserved. //Collier County, Florida/CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES County of COLLIER, FLORIDA Codified through Ord. No. 07-45, enacted May 22, 2007. (Supplement No. 22) /Chapter 134 UTILITIES* /ARTICLE VI. WATER -SEWER DISTRICT UNIFORM BILLING, OPERATING AND REGULATORY STANDARDS* http: // libraryl .municode.com /default/DoeView /10578/l/305/311 4/17/2008 Agenda Item No. 10E January 13, 2009 Page 129 of 398 Jean E. Valadez From: Lewis, Doug [dalewis@ralaw.comj Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2008 9:48 AM To: Jean E. Valadez Subject: FW: Tamiami Square of Naples Attachments: Tamiami Square 020.jpg; Tamiaml Square 021.jpg; Tamiami Square 022.jpg; Tamiami Square 023.jpg; Tamiami Square 024.jpg; Tamiami Square 025.jpg; Tamiami Square 026.jpg Fyi -- for your file. From: Lewis, Doug Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2006 9:48 AM To: 'wldes_ tom'; 'GilbertMancivalz @colliergov.neT Cc: belpediojennifer ';'CrlfasirealtyCo @aol.mm' Subject: Tamiaml Square of Naples «Tamiami Square 020.jpg>> «Tamiami Square 021.jpg>> «Tamiami Square 022.jpg>> «Tamiami Square 023.jpg>> «Tamiami Square 024.jpg>> «Tamiami Square 025.jpg>> «Tamiami Square 026.jpg>> Tom & Gil, In follow -up to our meeting yesterday, Jerry Hartman and I went to the site and walked the property after our meeting. For your review and file. attached are photographs of the only lift station located on the very north end of the property. Let me know if you have any further questions related to the lift station. Also, in the right -of -way median just north of the site, we noticed that the median is being irrigated by reclaimed water. Does the site have access to reclaimed water for irrigation purposes? Let us know. Thanksll Douglas A. Lewis A1 V Q IRIc S A LEGAL PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION www.ralaw, coin 850 Park Shore Drive Trianon Centre - 3rd Floor Naples, Florida 34103 Phone: (239) 649 -2712 Fax: (239) 261 -3659 E -mail: dalewis&ralaw cons Profile: Douglas A. Lewis BoNi Douglas A. Lewis and Roelzcl & AndrCSS intend that thiS message he used exclusively by the addressecGs'). This nlessngc may amain information that is privileged, cini idential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law, tjnal1thOri7ell discdmurc or u;c of this infurntation is strictly prohibited, 11' you have received this communication in error, pleas¢ pen1ume11tly dispose ()f dic original message and notify Douglas A. LL"is imniodimely at 1(239) 649 -2712. Thant: vou. Any federal tax advice contained herein or in any attachment hereto is not intended to be used, and cannot be used, to (1) avoid penalties imposed under the Internal Revenue Code or .._. (2) support the promotion or marketing of any transaction or matter. This legend has been affixed to comply with U.S. Treasury Regulations governing tax practice. I , Im! r r h +. it �y a I I' � F r ! I F YiF i i+ f1 1 I i Ir I I 'rt � i.AL. I I � y irF�l �y�• } W 'il M i 1{1 ,u „I r i^+II I l T �� I IT Ii I}h�r�i �pplil'q I yyinn u 1 y 1 li y 1 S ^ 4 IT q } h � _i n }iq r IfIIII I �r , G i L f I w r` � v.: 1.9'd °� ,✓k �f V Y If V Ill i ��l IT xl Iki i, �; n IP µIi , 41 ,5 A III + if, _ I f' G i L f I w r` w,I i� f 4 JIB I bY.:l 1 �i•, 1 I ha7rl All UTM 17t Y L II: IIC�I t�14 . /g . 1Ta�E ?y r 1: Y v�i u Y y f� ,n 1. 41 1 IA r z tt 4 1cGj' tifllq i r q'qi .PII' I1 �f:ii t" A i��Iuupp� w ,IIII���IY�1 r.Fq}il'!q 11 P� `tryl d�l sr it . ' r,N h r µ � 4W i 4 r t r r� r' 1 R `L f uf ? I I 0 + �YS y"rJ�/,�� .I • I 1 a II � I ll�l �t 1 It�ll�llll }'. jjjlYl �i tV ����YI IIIIHI }1 �•�' Il��f ��tly hl lil.k��`1ljl llt , Ill lllY Ili 111 I�iYill lli111iY IIIl lI111111111) Fr l l`I It'll V fl i 1 l,l. (Ililill Iv�11 }i ItY� it Il � Its lA� ll 111 WI I l ij l( i YIl III 111 i .111 tl I�l} it II YI 1�1 , fl L 1 1 es KI �I rt k I iMf f, II b l 1 Ai 11 �f 1 ' I 0 i SA I M� 1Ao Agenda Item No. 10E January 13, 2009 Page 137 of 398 Attachment E Pre - Application Meeting Follow -up FW: Tamiami Square -- Pre - Application Meeting with the County on W &S Impact F yq�enda 114PO0 015 January 13, 2009 Page 138 of 398 FW: Tamiami Square -- Pre - Application Meeting with the County on W&S Impact Fees Jean E. Valadez Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2008 2:35 PM To: Gerry Hartman Attachments: Document.pdf (10 KB) FYI. Jean E. Valadez Senior Office Coordinator GAI Orlando has movedl Please note our new address below: GAI Consultants, Inc. 301 East Pine Street, Suite 1020 Orlando, Florida 32801 T 407.423.8398 ext. 3126 F 407.843.1070 www. aiconsultants_com GAI CONSULTANTS _ �� i -nn I 1 rid NL IIt r^ 3iky tor rvel 1' ye- is rvl IS a i e u fl¢Irl h CJ uUi c i'13 I ld a me Ul m.ulbng HIM , ✓P r,g mu r In 1115 m71 Inadc n f u Ur. b u b r : EII rq ' [3p , mYU I.lu ontl fI d: alter J I •ail. ➢I 'st std 4ul i3SLC -Il Unit, tut -: cKell"W7144 ferry TEMS of 591Wce CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE The documents and materials transmitted herewith contain confidential and proprietary information belonging to the sender and are legally privileged. They are solely for the use of their intended recipient. If you are not the intended recipient or the person responsible for delivering e-mail to the intended recipient, you have received this e-mail in error. inform the sender of the error and remove this e -mail from your system. If this transmission includes design data and recommendations, they are provided only as a matter of convenience and should not be used forfnal design and /or construction. From: Lewis, Doug [mailto:dalewis @ralaw.coml Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2008 2:25 PM To: CHfasirealtyCo @aol.com Cc: Jean E. Valadez; Nelson, Karen Subject: RE: Tamiami Square -- Pre - Application Meeting with the County on W8S Impact Fees <<Document. pdf>> Jack, In follow -up to the below, I will follow -up on items 1 & 2 below. You are handling #3 below directly with the consultant, correct? Also, the County asked who is Sunwest plumbing and if they work for you? They work for you correct? The County said that the irrigation meter information provided to the County seemed incorrect. Jerry is going to review this information and provide follow -up to you and the County on this. https :llwebmail.gaiconsultants.com /O WAI ?ae= item &a = Print &t= IPM.Note &id= RgAAAA... 5/27/2008 FW: Tamiami Square -- Pre - Application Meeting with the County on W &S Impact Fe%endapW ;AllE January 13, 2009 Page 139 of 398 i Finally, please review the attached and confirm with Jerry and I whether it is correct and that the ERC calculation reflects what you are showing based on issued permits for the project. Thanksll Douglas A. Lewis R_oLTzLL� A LEGAL PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION www,ralaw.co711 850 Park Shore Drive Trianon Centre - 3rd Floor Naples, Florida 34103 Phone: (239) 649-2712 Fax: (239) 261 -3659 E -mail: dalew_isnralaw,.Em Profile: Douglas A.,Lewis Both Douglas A. Lewis and Roetzel & Andress intend that this message be used exclusively by the addressee(s), this message may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt front disclosure under applicable law. Unauthorized disclosure or use of this information is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please permanently dispose of the original message and notify Douglas A. Lewis immediately at 1(239) 649 -2712. Thank you. From: Lewis, Doug Sent: Monday, May 12, 2008 6:03 PM To: 'CrifasirealtyCo @aol.com' Cc: Nelson, Karen Subject: Tamiami Square — Pre - Application Meeting with the County on W &S Impact Fees Importance: High Jack, In follow -up to the pre - application meeting today, the County is asking for the following items: 1. Sewer flows for February, March and April'08 (Shall I follow -up with J &N on this or can someone in your office track this down ?); 2. The number of sewer pumps on the property, where located and how are they configured — e.g. will these pumps or single pump service all of the sewer flows for the entire project (Shall I follow -up with J &N on this or can someone in your office track this down ?); 3. Copy of the utility plan showing location of potable water and irrigation lines (if you go with a separate irrigation meter, you'll need to have a separate irrigation line and the county will want controllers on the irrigation -' lines to limit to 80 gpm at peak); Also, the County asked who is Sunwest plumbing and if they work for you? They said that the irrigation meter information provided to the County seemed incorrect. Jerry is going to review this information and provide follow- https : / /webmail.gaiconsultants.comlO WA/ ?ae= Item &a = Print &t= IPM.Note&id= RgAAAA... 5/27/2008 FW: Tamiami Square -- Pre- Application Meeting with the County on W &S Impact Fe %endaP[W t PPE January 13, 2009 Page 140 of 398 up to the County on this. Finally, please review the attached and confirm whether it is correct and that the ERC calculation reflects what you are showing based on issued permits for the project. Thanksil « File: Document.pdf >> Douglas A. Lewis << OLE Object: Picture (Metafile) >> www,ralaw.com<hftp://www.ralaw.comi> 850 Park Shore Drive Trianon Centre - 3rd Floor Naples, Florida 34103 Phone: (239) 649-2712 Fax (239) 261 -3659 E -mail: dalewis @ralaw.com Profile: Douglas A. Lewis < http: / /www.ralaw,com /attorney. ffm ?id =4512> Both Douglas A. Lewis and Roetzel & Andress intend that this message be used exclusively by the addressee (s). This message may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. Unauthorized disclosure or use of this information is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please permanently dispose of the original message and notify Douglas A, Lewis immediately at 1(239) 649 -2712. Thank you. Any federal tax advice contained herein or in any attachment hereto is not intended to be used, and cannot be used, to (1) avoid penalties imposed under the Internal Revenue Code or (2) support the promotion or marketing of any transaction or matter. This legend has been affixed to comply with U.S. Treasury Regulations governing tax practice. hnps: // webmail .gaiconsultants.com /OWA/ ?ae= Item &a= Print&t= IPM.Note &id= RgAAAA... 5/27/2008 PW: Tamiami Square of Naples FW: Tamiami Square of Naples Jean E. Valadez Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2008 2:34 PM To: Gerry Hartman FYI. Jean E. Valadez Senior Office Coordinator GAI Orlando has moved! Please note our new address below: GAI Consultants, Inc. 301 East Pine Street, Suite 1020 Orlando, Florida 32801 T 407.423.8398 ext. 3126 F 407.843.1070 www.gaiconsultarts.com CAS CONSULTANTS lu as n +u r 9f Iy f r D ' year, `41 is a 7G(J- pwr501, em Ploy u iN ^�V u ItlelIX 'i Ilna t igi'LC 1117 and 111wronnnent3l con whrg firm, sel7:ag v u cl n z :furld'wiar II nL 11r gy, b 11 l tJLl.h e1 "S UCL U1rJl II 3'_I1J gU.'if Mlel}'v -I R�iIIx (<fl(x ?.'u'�I:i� .h.., ug. our the J,rLn cya:d„ h910,vust. acd xut-easLem Ummld 4,Idtrs C"CORATrN6 rtrn' YEMS OF SERVICE Agenda 96 *e,kPME January 13, 2009 Page 141 of 398 CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE The documents and materials transmitted herewith contain confidential and proprietary information belongingto the sender and are legally privileged. They are solely for the use of their intended recipient. If you are not the intended recipient or the person responsible for delivering e-mail to the intended recipient, you have received this e-mail in error. Inform the sender of the error and remove this e-mail from your system. If this transmission includes design data and recommendations, they are provided only as a matter of convenience and should not be used for final design and /or construction. From: Lewis, Doug [mailto:dalewis @ralaw.com] Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2008 2:14 PM To: Lewis, Doug; CrifasirealtyCo @aol.com Cc: Jean E. Valadez; Nelson, Karen Subject: RE: Tamiami Square of Naples Jack, Have you provided a copy of the utility plan showing location of potable water and irrigation lines to the consultant? If not, can you follow -up with Jean on this. See her contact information below. - -Doug From: Lewis, Doug Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2008 10:17 AM To: 'Jean E. Valadez' Cc: 'CrifasirealtyCo @aol.com' Subject: RE: Tamiami Square of Naples https: / /webniail. gai consultants. com/O WA/ ?ae= Item &a= Print&t= IPM.Note &i d= RgAAAA... 5/27/2008 FW: Tamiami Square of Naples Yes, Thank you. I have an inquiry into the client requesting this. — Doug From: Jean E. Valadez [ mailto :j.valadez @gaiconsultants.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2008 10:09 AM To: Lewis, Doug Subject: RE: Tamiami Square of Naples Thanks( AgerI IQ014E January 13, 2009 Page 142 of 398 Gerry asked me to remind you that you were going to send us the plans and drawings for Tamiami Square. Jean E. Valadez Senior Office Coordinator GAI Orlando has moved! Please note our new address below: GAI Consultants, Inc. 301 East Pine Street, Suite 1020 Orlando, Florida 32801 T 407.423.8398 ext. 3126 F 407.843.1070 www.gaiconsultants.com (I CONSULTANTS gi,7 Olr a, IV rt _i SU 1i3a 'zJ i -a h�l �'i.. C:Filiy e9„ed u llcls -,Pl, nm c L1� „d emv iorimo,tal l msuti ny'en e rv,ng ui Wu s rli'n',de ;n f on nav Irtin il� b u, v 1mC- ,'19u r la -'n l7 ga'tirr L i d sari t, "rr ;It ..J., uI ,. 4. J. +t. _n51, 'Jd • u_t, .l,.:I YEfrS PIETY EARS RS Of SERVICE CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE The documents and materials transmitted herewith contain confidential and proprietary Information belongingto the sender and are legally privileged. They are solely for the use of their intended recipient. If you are not the intended recipient or the person responsible for delivering e-mail to the intended recipient, you have received this e -mail in error. Inform the senderofthe error and remove this e-mail from your system. If this transmission includes design data and recommendations, they are provided only as a matter of convenience and should not be used for final design and /or construction. From: Lewis, Doug [mailto:dalewis @ralaw.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2008 9:48 AM To: Jean E. Valadez Subject: FW: Tamiami Square of Naples Fyi — for your file. From: Lewis, Doug Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2008 9:48 AM To: 'wides_ tom'; 'GilbertMoncivaiz @mlliergov.net Cc: belpediolennifer ;'CrifasirealtyCo @aol.com' Subject: Tamiami Square of Naples bttps : / /webmail.gaiconsultants.com/O WA/ ?ae= Item &a = Print &t= IPM.Note &i d= RgAAAA... 5/27/2008 FW: Tarniami Square of Naples AgendaWl 004E January 13, 2009 Page 143 of 398 «Tamiami Square 020.jpg>> «Tamiami Square 021.jpg>> «Tamiami Square 022.jpg>> «Tamiami Square 023.jpg>> «Tamiami Square 024.jpg>> «Tamiami Square 025.jpg>> «Tamiami Square 026.jp9» Tom & Gil, In follow -up to our meeting yesterday, Jerry Hartman and I went to the site and walked the property after our meeting. For your review and file. attached are photographs of the only lift station located on the very north end of the property. Let me know if you have any further questions related to the lift station. Also, in the right -of -way median just north of the site, we noticed that the median is being irrigated by reclaimed water. Does the site have access to reclaimed water for irrigation purposes? Let us know. Thanks!! Douglas A. Lewis ANDRESS A LEGAL PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION W Ww_ral4W.COnt 850 Park Shore Drive Trianon Centre - 3rd Floor Naples, Florida 34103 Phone: (239) 649-2712 Fax: (239) 261-3659 E -mail: dalewis r ralaw.com Profile: Douglas_A. Lewis Both Douglas A. Lewis and Roetzel & Andress intend that this message be used exclusively by the addressee(s). This message may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. Unauthorized disclosure or use of this Information is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please permanently dispose of the original message and notify Douglas A, Lewis immediately at 1(239) 649 -2712. Thant: You. Any federal tax advice contained herein or in any attachment hereto is not intended to be used, and cannot be used, to (1) avoid penalties imposed under the Internal Revenue Code or (2) support the promotion or marketing of any transaction or matter. This legend has been affixed to comply with U.S. Treasury Regulations governing tax practice. Any federal tax advice contained herein or in any attachment hereto is not intended to be used, and cannot be used, to (1) avoid penalties imposed under the Internal Revenue Code or (2) support the promotion or marketing of any transaction or https : / /webmail.gaiconsultants.com/O WAI ?ae= Item &a = Print &t= IPM.Note &id= RgAAAA... 5/27/2008 Agenda Item No. 10E January 13, 2009 Page 144 of 398 Attachment F Excerpts from System Development Charges for Water, Wastewater, and Stormwater Facilities by Arthur C. Nelson V a Agenda Item No. 10E January 13, 2009 Page 145 of 398 o v o J m o 3 c �o m Agenda Item No. t0E January 13, 2009 Page 146 of 398 w w z a p ^ O N IJ O1 � < 7y C n Z• n a j Rn n £ N � m m m e w � d y 6 m �r m 0 w nU � o 6 o �. U �o• G n � 7� R'a � 6� A �, . 6' @: a T ° �n a g $ o g M' no o LR p� w o 8 C n R E o o d g s 0 5 n g El R 9 n Z e as a5g ^yaw 0 0$ o'e 5 n o o e•° < Agenda Item No. t0E January 13, 2009 Page 146 of 398 w w z a p ^ O N IJ O1 � < 7y C n Z• n a j Rn n £ N � m m m e w � d y 6 m �r m 0 w nU � o z U° d O b 0 C v > O Sb'.'7 y.O ❑ �O O a O U yq O W CL u) 90 3v CL •� VU) V 3 Z) ° [ 5 L Cl) A U U o 0 ❑o 0 0 E. Cl) Zr V]U O °:e� Agenda Item No. 10E January 13, 2009 Page 147 of 398 V 'U D O ti ti 3 o M _ a1 o m'O ° Qb•= L y V �! U y y w b m o w q q µ0 U O v U w 'O U P y U ti V 3 U �F�ro a ti U 4" U U CC+ yy ❑++ y� N ❑ m �' Ry i. •> •> R . cy y m 1 0 3 ¢� w G O w0 d� G U U C N M W U .zi F D W N h C7 z .a Aw 04 d Agenda Item No. t0E January 13, 2009 Page 148 of 398 w ep fy N C d A i� C7 N ti C N �y Yom. b U Aw O ^ > CC ° ° > m o �O o o c°a C 3 U Uy o° o o o 00 '� g a ° s S q n «'tea' w Da�Ay�ba.E On, 0 t8 Ooob� �y3b a u q °� o °❑❑ E o N O ,o Q any °o a o f 0 > '0 71 o U wT- Q�'� SOa au° �. , , N o.�' '4•rr O o ' Q ° r ° G C q N N El Ei a y T a"i _°? •� a.E' .� o w 3 5 Agenda Item No. 10E January 13, 2009 Page 149 of 398 o °°°'oc oav�"•a° °y $ A y w ep °> o c' ° o w$ w •� v 3 c °- 0 y❑ ' z p y bA yd q p i ro 00 y w •`1 D y b C ti A p p, W n,$ o .o 4 u o o $ o ,° > ° q .o w v '�" 3 .�,� O v'7 ° p > o y q k. cl a [ y ro 8 r0 'O N LO N O .y., .� CO 'J� m `a' .� � w A. g C v G° W o w v o ro° y L a q G° ° u° m U tz q p v w° ❑ a m v o o ° a. p ou C u ro° o 0 0° ro F m ro ° c, a� > ,� W •3 a, °' o d' '� . "d '� .� '� b 0 N �°y C � y ,� ro 0 p .°.r e�i 4 yM 0 M U 75 to ?^ a h q � � q •� .p v a > ¢ U o° G g n b n N b y q y a 00 a F U w F z z 0 A W m C q t7 H H Q' .a 7 U a d' U z O U W U W W W a A W Agenda Item No. 10E January 13, 2009 Page 150 of 398 o. 0 a v � m � •° °' ° itl nn b '� � a "" n 3 ° 3 'C a'� Y y v u y b bo ° y^ v 'a o ez °$ a U c a° N �'a °bH° ^ o 8 a 3 C7 n a >° y p ti ❑a LE .� c o > O p cd p .G > pp,, ° v b❑ N C-. y '—' a :7 ti w O y y v b .U, m[ api abi ti >4 C "" 'v A n 3cd ° o .o 0 0 0 y e_n K o W o ON a °� m° o b c a p ocn a�� y°° CG �•° 3 v w H o z i 0 •O ? w 0 Q 0 o d3 h DO � ro zW .N N .�b W GTr w 7 " m > 5 « —° Agenda Item No. 10E January 13, 2009 Page 151 of 398 Attachment G Excerpts from AWWA Principles of Water Rates, Fees., and Charaes Agenda Item No. 10E January 13, 2009 Page 152 of 398 Principles of Water Rates, Fees, and Charges AWWA MANUAL M1 Fifth Edition FOUNDED A 188 i American Water Works Association Agenda Item No. 10E January 13, 2009 Page 153 of 398 LOW - INCOME AFFORDABILITY RATES 131 government provides assistance to less affluent countries to make water service available at more affordable prices. Within North America, an increasing number of water utilities have adopted affordability programs, It is not uncommon to find some elements of affordability rates in many major cities. POLICY ISSUES Low - income affordability alternatives are intended to address social issues, and utility involvement in such issues may be controversial. Although each utility needs to decide whether or not it will participate in such programs, an increasing number of utilities are addressing water affordability in their rates. These types of rate alternatives should be considered when a utility's cost of water is high and some customers have problems paying their bill. Indications of this scenario can include rising arrearages, higher collection costs, and more frequent shutoffs for nonpayment. In making this determination, the cost -of- service analysis should be done first without any affordability considerations. During the rate design portion of the analysis, affordability considerations can be taken into account. The rate analyst then can measure the effects of affordability alternatives and better quantify any discounts and subsidies involved. Low - income rates typically require some degree of subsidy. The question of which customer groups should provide the subsidy needs to be addressed. Utilities should recognize that adopting more affordable rates can reduce the utility's costs if the low- income rates result in increased collections and reduced collection costs. The first issue to consider is at what point a water bill becomes unaffordable. While there is no clear answer to this question, the following guidelines can help utilities make such a determination: • The Safe Drinking Water Act (S. 1547) established special assistance in communities where the average residential water bill exceeds 2 percent of median income. • The US Department of Agriculture has a program to provide funds for water and wastewater systems. Loans are made for projects where the residential water bills are 1.5 percent of the community's median income. Grants are awarded for costs in excess of 1.5 percent. • The AW WARF report, Water Affordability Programs, suggests that programs should not be based on median income but on rates that cause water bills to exceed 2 percent of income for impoverished households. Because of the focus on impoverished households, a measure of 2 percent was selected to determine if water service costs were burdensome. Different measures of poverty can be used to determine eligibility, These include Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC), Supplemental Social Security Income (SSI), minimum wage incomes, and US poverty level. Many of these measures vary with family size. Based on the results of national water and wastewater rate surveys, bills have become unaffordable for low- income households in some of our major cities. For those living on SSI, water and wastewater bills exceeded 5 percent of income for these households in a number of cities. Perhaps the biggest issue involved with affordable rate programs is how to determine eligibility. Utilities are often uneasy about gathering, administering, and verifying income data. Fortunately, a number of existing programs can help. a.: 4 Agenda Item No. 10E January 13, 2009.II Page 154 of 398 SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGES 205 amount of available capacity and investment of these existing facilities should be documented to substantiate the actual cost and value of the facilities. Determining development units. To calculate the SDC, the projected system growth in demand must be converted into common units. Units used to establish the SDC will vary with available information, timing of the SDC assessment and collection, and the billing practices used by the utility. Units may be derived from the system growth analysis and capital improvements planning. Most SDC- related facilities are, designed on the basis of annual average day use, maximum day demand, or maximum hour demand. After the SDC- related capital investment is determined, it must be divided by the applicable design capacity to obtain a cost per unit of capacity. Each type of customer (i.e., residential, commercial, or industrial) has a particular demand or capacity requirement that, when applied to the unit cost of SDC facilities, provides a measure of the investment in SDC facilities applicable to that type of customer. It is common to develop an SDC for a residential customer, or equivalent residential unit, using this unit cost approach, then develop a schedule of SDCs using common billing determinants that relate potential demands of other types of customers to that of the base, or residential, demand. Among the more frequently used units for this purpose are meter size, fixture units, and land area with associated land -use characteristics. Meter size is the most common determinant for assessing SDCs, and the capacity factors developed in Table 28 -2 often are used to establish charges for customers with meters greater than 5/8 -in. When charges are collected at the time of service initiation, meter size is often used as a basis for computing SDCs although many utilities use alternative approaches in defining the base service unit, including equivalent residential units (ERUs) or fixture units. Usually, equivalent service units are developed for customers with more intense uses or potential demand. For example, charges for larger meters may be based onAWWA -rated meter capacity using a 5/8-in. meter as the base service unit. Total overall premise use, facility size, capacity requirement, and number of fixtures also are used with ERU -based charges. The meter size approach may be easiest to explain to customers. It is based on the potential maximum demand that the customer may put on the system, but it does not consider patterns or intensities of customer usage. Meter sizes are expressed in terms of equivalent meters, generally based on the relative capacity of various meter sizes. The ERU approach differentiates among customer classes, but it can be difficult to explain and, in some situations, difficult to determine and apply consistently. The ERU approach is often directly related to the number of fixture units and is based on the potential loading of various fixtures. As a result, the charge for each new customer must be computed individually, which is a disadvantage to this approach. If collection of the SDC is made at the time of platting, the service unit usually is based on an equivalent dwelling unit. The equivalent dwelling unit is based on the estimated demand of a single -family residential unit in the service area. The charge is then based on the size of the dwelling, the types and number of fixtures, or both. Utility billing records are a data source related to system utilization. Water demand characteristics are normally expressed in terms of equivalent units to quantify the capacities of system expansion projects. An example of the calculation of an SDC on an incremental cost basis is shown in Table 28 -4. For purposes of the example in Table 28 -4, it is assumed that all local, on -site facilities, such as distribution mains, meter, services, and hydrants, are contributed by the developer through charges and assessments other than the SDC. ,� i Agenda Item No. 10E January 13, 2009 Page 155 of 398 Attachment H Pre - Application Meeting with Tamiami Square and Collier County Utilities Agenda Item No. 10E January 13, 2009 Page 156 of 398 Attachment H Pre - Application Meeting with Tamiami Square and Collier County Utilities A pre - application meeting was held in accordance with the agreement between Collier County and Tamiami Square developers. 1. Tamiami Square Initial Suggestion Numerous cities, counties and FPSC regulated entities utilize FPSC /AWWA/FAC /F.S. section 25- 30.055 and related similar sections for larger service areas which involve the methodology of meter equivalency factors. Since Tamiami Square is served by one 5/8" x3/4" meter and one 3" meter, as approved by the County and installed and in operation and form the basis of the monthly billing Mr. Hartman initially suggested the consideration of that method. Using the meter equivalency factor methodology the resulting ERCs for the non- residential customer would be: 5/8" x 3/4" = 1 ERC 3" = 16 ERCs Total 17 ERCs See pg. 3 -2 and Section 25- 30.055 2. Public Utilities Response a.) Rejected due to ERC /unit approach pursuant to Ordinances 2007 -52 and 2007 -57 and water and wastewater impact fee study by PRMG. b.) Provided 3/31!087 letter from Gilbert Monciviaz of the County suggesting two @ 2 -inch potable irrigation meters for the irrigation meters for the irrigation water demand @ 6.1 ERCs, meter tapping fee of $1,140 and water impact fee of $22,060.59. See letter attached. In the future, if and when non - potable water is available then reuse water could be substituted. It was pointed out that reuse mains and service to the landscaped medians adjacent and north of the project are served by reclaimed water. GCH /jev /A080376.00 /corresp /Attach H Page 1 of 3 072308 Agenda Item No. 10E January 13, 2009 Page 157 of 398 customer billing data for 12 consecutive months and accumulates by customer clas e number of ERCs and flows at incremental usage levels, in this case 1, gallon increments. The City provided detailed customer and monthly billing infor n for the fiscal year 2005/06. The data received was sorted first by customer s then by meter size into subclasses of users pursuant to meter siZservic eceived in order to determine the number of ERCs and flow for each oasses. To verify the results, the existing rates were applied to the cad flow data and the resulting revenues reconciled to the reported reven me time period. The details of the Billing Fre in Appendix A, B, and C for 3.4 ACCOU O/Analysis and Revenue Reconciliation are provided , wastewater, and reclaimed water respectively. , AND FLOWS Z sed herein, consists of a single connection regardless of customer ze, metered flow, or location. An ERC for water represents a level of on the connection's water meter size as compared to the standard water 8" x 3/4" for a single family connection. The factors associated with the provided in Table 3 -1, as developed from the AWWA standards. Table 3 -1 AWWA Meter Equivalency Factors TLH /jev /Reports /R -1 /Sec 3 HCD # A070299.00 Meter Size ERC Factor 5/8" x 3/4" 1.00 1.0" 2.50 1.5" 5.00 2.0" 8.00 3.0" 16.00 4.0" 25.00 6.0" 50.00 8.0" 80.00 10.0" 115.00 3 -2 112907 Agenda Item No. 10E January 13, 2009 Page 158 of 398 25- 30.055 Systems with a Capacity or Proposed Capacity to Serve 100 or Fewer Persons. (1) A water or wastewater system is exempt under Section 367.022(6), F.S., if its current or proposed water or wastewater treatment facilities and distribution or collection system have and will have a capacity, excluding fire flow capacity, of no greater than 10,000 gallons per day or if the entire system is designed to serve no greater than 40 equivalent residential connections (ERCs). For purposes of this rule only, one ERC equals 250 gallons per day. (a) Unless the Commission determines that valid local statistical data should be used, ERCs for residential use are as follows: Single family detached dwellings 1 ERC per unit Multiple family dwellings .8 ERC per unit Mobile homes .8 ERC per unit (b) ERCs for nonresidential use shall be based on meter size and type as follows: 1. For Water Systems Meter Size Meter Type ERCs 5/8" Displacement 1.0 3/4" Displacement 1.5 1" Displacement 2.5 1112" Displacement or Turbine 5.0 2" Displacement, Compound or Turbine 8.0 3" Displacement 15.0 3" Compound 16.0 3" Turbine 17.5 4v Displacement or Compound 25.0 4" Turbine 30.0 6" Displacement or Compound 50.0 6v Turbine 62.5 8" Compound 80.0 8" Turbine 90.0 10" Compound 115.0 10" Turbine 145.0 12" Turbine 215.0 2. For Wastewater Systems Meter Size Meter Type ERCs 5/8" Displacement 1.0 3/4" Displacement 1.5 P' Displacement 2.5 11 /2" Displacement or Turbine 5.0 2" Displacement, Compound or Turbine 8.0 3" Displacement 15.0 3" Compound 16.0 3" Turbine 17.5 4" Displacement or Compound 25.0 4" Turbine 30.0 6' Displacement or Compound 50.0 6" Turbine 62.5 8" Compound 80.0 8" Turbine 90.0 10" Compound 115.0 10" Turbine 145.0 Agenda Item No. 10E January 13, 2009 Page 159 of 398 12" Turbine 215.0 (c) Where undeveloped land is adjacent to a system or proposed system the Commission may, where appropriate, estimate ERCs for service to future development on the adjacent undeveloped land. Unless the Commission determines that valid local statistical data should be used, ERCs for residential acreage should be estimated as follows: Residential Use ERCs /Acre Mobile home 4.8 Detached single family 4.0 Estimates for other types of residential acreage and for commercial and industrial uses shall be made on a case by case basis. Spectfic Authority 350.127(2), 967.121(1)69 FS Law Implemented 367.011(6) FS History -New 1 -5 -84, Formerly 25- 10.10, 25- 10.010, Amended 11- 10 -86. 03/31/2008 07:15 9417322585 Z% COL x301 March 31, 2008 Ms. Stacey Morales Sunwest Plumbing, LLC 4376 151 Ave NW Naples, FL 34119 CC ENG PLAN ROOM Agenda FFW4No?> M January 13, 2009 Page 160 of 398 PUBLIC UTILITIES rrni • Nay1t%. Florida 341 :2 • (239) 732 -375 - Sax (239) 731 -1516 Subject: Potable Irrigation Meter 14700 Tamiami Trail North — Tamiami Square Dear Ms, Morales: Our office has reviewed the preliminary water -o sly )peter sizing information for the above- referenced address. Based on the information that you supplied to our office, the requested two inch (2 ") meter meets our minimum requiremerrs and is therefore acceptable with certain conditions placed on the meter. This does not consider any continuous load demrnd. Since our review is for the minimum size requirement, the engineer should consider all rel evant factors before approving the final meter size. You should apply for the meter with the Public Utilities Customer Service Department located at 4420 Mercantile Avenue. A meter tapping fee r f $ 1,140 and a water impact fee of $22,060.59 will be charged based on an ERC value of 6.1. Please bring this letter with you at time of payment. The fees quoted in this letter are valid for 90 days from the date of this letter, If you have any further questions or concerns red arding the information contained in this letter or in the attachments, please feel free to contact me at (239) 252 -4215. Sincerely, djj��t7'� Gilbert Monoivaiz Operations Analyst cc: Pam Libby, Water Distribution Ileather Sweet, Customer Service Supervisor Craig Callis, Engineering Services Diane Deoss, Utility Billing Supervisor G- �G�meeru,g Teenl'aex, 51auy�nrol�/��+1 mem. t fe, May -16 -07 08:26 Agenda Item No. 10E January 13, 2009 Cr-;faml Raal Estate 239 261 6776 Page 161 of �9j1 FACIMILE TO: PAM -- Collh Phone: Fax: M►AiI A O 00AITj' �j 00 FROM: Diane Hall, Administrative Assistant, Property t Phone: 239 -594 -7000 Fax: 239 - 261 -5775 DATE: May 16 2007 Pages (with cover sheet): 3 SUBJECT: Potable Irrigation Meter A lications --Pi er's Crossin �/ and Tamiami Square El Urgent Q Fur Review ❑ Please Comment ❑ Please Reply Pam: Please find attached the completed information with regard to the applications for potable irrigation for Piper's Crossing and Tamiami Square. Thank you, again, for your help in this mutter. If you should have any questions, please give me a call. Diane Hal l`�� Property Management Assistant Off: 239- 594 -7000 `�'i Gum- -G l Cell: 239-977-1556 /dh Attachment 'Commrnht Time infurm Lion ronlni td hence G Client privilwd m,d ronrdenllal ihmemuhn, in MINI o.l1y rur the me of the hWlyidunl ur tnlity named olm m If the readtr of lht, nrganpt i. nW 1hr imUnded reripiear, ynu err herehy anrinrd Ihnl A ty unauthnrletd d6wMin'thm. diatibutiun, or ropy of lhle eommuninlion b Nirtedy prohibited. iryno h,,, reni,td Ihfx enmmuniehnnn ie r.,r, plta,e oniiry bh immedirtrly by lelepbonr. Thank y„u. Crifasi Management, Inc. 2376 Tamiami Trail North' Suite 208 C � Naples, Florida 34103 PH: 235.544 -7000 a Fax: 239. 261- 5775Email: Crifaslrealtyco@aol.com COLLIER ( 3301 ERA TvAisnm Mary 17, 2007 Ms. Diane Hall Crifasi Management, Inc. 2375 Tamiami Trail North, Suite 208 C Naples, Florida 34103 Agenda Item No. 10E January 13, 2009 Page 162 of 398 Naples, Banda 34112 = (719) 7322515 • Faz (239) 732 -25. 6 Subject: 14700 Tamiami Trail North / Tamiami Square Potable Irrigation Meter Sizing Dear Ms. Hall: Our office has reviewed the preliminary irrigation meter sizing information for the above - referenced address. Based on the information that you supplied to our office, a irrigation meter meets our minimum requirement and is therefore acceptable with certain conditions placed on the meter. This does not consider any continuous load demand. Since our review is for the minimum size requirement, the engineer should consider all relevant factors before approving the final meter size. You should apply for the meter with the Public Utilities Customer Service Department located at 4420 Mercantile Avenue. A meter tapping fee of $ and a water impact fee of $ will be charged, based upon an ERC value of These fees are in addition to the fees paid on the domestic meter. If you have any further questions or concerns regarding the information contained in this letter or in the attachments, please feel free to contact me at (239) 732 -2575. Sincerely, Pamela Eck Engineering Technician cc: Pam Libby, Water Distribution Heather Sweet, Utility Billing and Customer Service Wes Hill, Engineering Services Jacquelyn DeSear, Impact Fee Coordinator - - MaY'-16 -07 08:26 Crifasi Real Estate 239 261 5775 0 1RpTABLF-MWGAn2 —N AIRTFR APPLICATION SiteAddrt= DO N1frj+w Applmant's Name rwwA .Nvtnber (iroiueua"): YtugaertW Meter S)se 3 Agenda Item No. 10E January 13, 2009 Page 1631gf jj)j Fax k:Oldq 4/^ SVNC IARX Oi IFIRaUION SYSTEM CALCULATIONS: Tow[ if yr Zonrs: 1 6 ToW CWtom 1'er ASinute (WIM) YiT Zabb 1: qo ZONZ 6: / ZONE 2: 90 ZONE 7: t{6 ZON$ 3: 15�47 ZONE J: j6cU ZONE 8• gG [ONE 7: 9G ZONE 5: 1 G' 2ANTt 10: ¢p _ 'It more [Cron [en (10) Zones, piece attach additional otet �ow� Il ?afax[mum k umber orZones Runrdng at Once: 6) -_ PLZASZ SV AUT COMALETI:D FOAMILVO as \11. DRq WNO SHOwMaLOC4710N OFPRO. a:crr.[NO Xrf2VE T6D LOCA77ON OFPROPO3ED MjrI 1270N.VSTZA 70: Ehb.uriea Tak attim poGai Voila Oywhabus 3lNTu9.wt Tr.9 L. Mig It x.plrL FL 31111 Paebe: [2)p) 733 -1373 rail (" ug-ma " iR reef 1Yll1 AMly to ALL potable mrum. AM 792fae ra Lt2C Rrn a Slle Tai )n Fee ERC Rauy# .75" S616.00 1 LS" 51,012.00 2.6.5 V 5738.00 1.1.2.5 ;," SLI40.00 5.1 -8 LVater 2mpaC Fee i 53,615!£i2C EIte +1 +(�rak GPM,24x2O] Ml "rd Impact Peet . 1 RAC FIZA c, oTIIITJZS USF: OhZi' YcakCl'MtwFmpaaedSyctaau _ _ pY[arImpattRta: IA9nlroym Mao StnsRaquired: Tappfng ChwTc: Approved: To[nL• Dace: In)tiab of rule~.. E !L r S1LSt9Z( :t6?557bEZ1 go•rn .mow •- wwf.i. Agenda Item No. 10E January 13, 2009 Page 164 of 398 3. Developer Comments on Payments Doug Lewis summarized the payments and water and wastewater ERCs vested for the project as: Permit # ERCs Paid 2003092564 7.5 2007080564 4.5 Total 2003092564 1.9 (3/31/08) 2005121723 5.6 Cafe Italia 2.3 2005121721 2.0` 2005072983 3.5' Total 27.3 Before C.O 4. Consensus on Irrigation Meters Developer agreed with the County 3/31/08 letter and committed to install the two (2) irrigation two (2) inch meters as stated. The above plus the agreement between the parties for the 2 -year audit/study following County acceptance provides for reasonable assurance on the irrigation portion of the service. 5. General Discussion Proposed Alternate Methodology by Developer Mr. Hartman proposed the M -1 AWWA, Impact fee book, and consistent with PRMG and County ordinance unit county approach per ERC. Phase 1 17 units Phase 2 10 units Phase 3 5 units (Bldg 100) Total 32 units See units and tenant information attached dated 516/08. 6. Meeting Result Alternate Methodology A.) Water and Wastewater Total Units 32 ERCs Paid Units 27.3 ERCs Payment Due 4.7 ERCs B.) Irrigation Meters (2) @ 2" (3/31/08) Total ERCs 6.1 Water Only GGH 'jev /AO80376.00 /corresp/Attach H Page 2 of 3 072308 N r= N W N U N 3 c H E~ ti r� a r-i o O N h Agenda Item No. 10E January 13, 2009 Page 165 of 398 a v O y N p 0 O O v1 'n O O O 4 N o h o 10 ° 0 0 0 u 4 07 0 0 a C14 CA >A7 I. 0o by .N Q+R+00'n vi v�oo�(T O�06000000ON C O 7 7 [� h N h 0 0 _h h N N b N b 'O iD l0 b b l V 00 00 N NNNN '. O N f��1 000 M M C+ 01 C- O� ON Q� C- O� 01 rq 9 td y y h h V �A Vl rA V N V1 V� r/) rA Vi of Vl r/) V� M U CC 17 at M M V1 h 00 01 O O M�-.i 00 01 N N N N N t?� o 0 0 0 8A v� 0000O v, v-, h v, h�QoocO °J c o0 0 i i 'i i N N `i 'i N Cy N 00 N i N ry N N O N N N N C3 N 0 OA Ocn 00 OPr W z�x �b3 � C, R N F.7r c:a.wr� �UUC3w 7 O U E- >>U v w J..1 U pR, i-� N 3 3 0 H x a a O 0 N b Agenda Item No. 10E January 13, 2009 Page 166 of 398 o ea ^O d x� GG A fl � A s. oT, O T. UCS > >> r� N N N O a u i � ry o w U A R s oa R o� Z u u i cl O p r o i c.ioC4 Agenda Item No. 10E January 13, 2009 Page 166 of 398 Agenda Item No. 10E January 13, 2009 Page 167 of 398 PHASE I T� s T�rmtAn�t Sou fAR:E lit Sr d 14-7 06 774m (firn j TkL. No I I i800rg.R IV BUILDING KEY Vnit 6 3,179 sq.R 00 •,..� I I «, __.._�__- .4' Unit 7.— 1,620 sq. it. unit T 1,620 sq. 1t�`.,.. Unit 1 1,620 s9• ft. Unit Ill 1,620 sq. R. Unit 11 1,620 sq. R Unit 12 1,620 sq. R — Unit 13 1,620 ,9.11, Unit 34 _ 1,620 sq. M. I \ 1,620 sq. R Unit 16 _ 1,620 sq, R. JIM Unit 17 1,602 w• R 1 ..L- .1....1...1. -.1 1 1 1.- .1. -.1. .1.- .1.- .1. -•1 flL/ ILIL+ 1 1 f �1• I 1 , I�1 IL�1 1 , 1 1 I I t 1 r 1 LU18 Ip I Q I6I� I W <q I 'gash 010' '�$ = I i aim SIZ° �� i =� i t" i Z5 i z� D� i i i �R B4 .... ------------------ I I I I I I JI I I I I 1 Agenda Item No. 10E January 13, 2009 Page 168 of 398 MAO lWHdSY ONU SM 00- a ----------- - -------------- 1 + 1 1� , --- - - - - -i Z ------ -------- 1 - - --• - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1. - -- 1 rost•u 1 II 1 � r1 1 11 s. 1 i 1� + i LU18 Ip I Q I6I� I W <q I 'gash 010' '�$ = I i aim SIZ° �� i =� i t" i Z5 i z� D� i i i �R B4 .... ------------------ I I I I I I JI I I I I 1 Agenda Item No. 10E January 13, 2009 Page 168 of 398 - -r 1 EEE'9SU - , i d n 1 '/ I o � ; d' I I + 1 , )SZl rost•u I 1 � r1 1 I + i - -r 1 EEE'9SU - , i d n 1 '/ I o � ; d' Agenda Item No. 10E January 13, 2009 Page 169 of 398 I I i 14 75 ! I4 I" ! Itl ,'4 lU ! f1 . 1 I I t 1%ISTiNf rAR %14 I O I I 6 %ISrMiO PAR %ING r • � I f viRn VU!1( , .... a (lI \C,UtiA is • C%1 Mmt 6' e cuaRTrr, vur.xrnl, F� I I , h n+AFR;.aul tAnn:Nr.pA ! ! 211!2'1'21 10 a9 is la In Ob•. L5 1 N q F _ 8 S` I;o 1f 1 troll J M10i'l1SFU RWY(.W L �u TRASNINCL(AURr PROP, ..zVnlECt fipp�pA.t :...'. •� V R6CY- i' :::'�S,Ek`11F7N(SI1P5':;..:.'.' . '�� fl!Oi1. J%Urd',COFIC s�'NTUt YIAtirnc Sp: 1 \R%. :.,n" (n I t TR61'FI Ct'Ftl -fhY.J WAUWAy ItrYN F'r!R r::U'; z ! r.Y .1'. .� .1'1.1' I' .IV -I•. W N[ — nn ' iIARMl' •I Wr All F 51(iN. 'j •n1l[ - a LA1\TI14L;F. a t viaT2 PROPOSED W BLDG. 100 1 11 1 { Ql C'� 61 (CON( -%All r� .L.-:�t.,......7AlAS.f: � i :�)Mf�xuA!Ak 1 li�i r U,o �L nrEvcaur. V / •� � NP0"TKT3 M L% . UNS NVA9 0 ONSTM 4 . L —'L+1 I FS, REV. - 14.6- N.0.V.0 UM 4 y= I am 0M: _.- ..._.... cx \/ OLD C I UNIT 15'41' FRO ai• - - -w� ' 1 . . F 6LX.SFi^ N, w ,1 1I ai �•„ _ � I _ Ili P1 i.l !'' I. F.[ISTINL I 11 VIM` u� p I y. . A. E0 39tid 9NIEW -Id S21MNn5 ST66BbE6EZT 01:9T 600L /5Z /E0 Agenda Item No. 10E January 13, 2009 Page 170 of 398 7. Vested Flow Rates for Study /Audit A 32 ERCs (Potable Only) Water and Wastewater 9 a.) Water LOS 350 gpd AADF (i) Annual Average Daily Flow through potable (non irrigation meters) = 32 x 350 gpd AADF or 11,200 gpd (ii) 2 month peak factor (see page 29 Table 1 PRMG 40.00 + 33.33 = 1.2 (iii) 2 month audit use on average day of that period limit is 11,200 gpd x 1.2 or 13,440 gpd for test period. b.) Wastewater LOS 250 gpd AADF (i) Annual Average (12 month period) Daily Flow = 32 x 250 = 8,000 gpd AADF (ii) 2 month peak factor (see page 32 Table 2 PRMG) 40.100 + 30.846 = 1.3 (iii) 2 month audit of use on average day for that period is 8,000 gpd x 1.3 or 10,400 gpd. Proposed Additional Payments a.) Irrigation meters 3/3/1108 (i) Tapping fee (ii) ERCs irrigation $ 1,140.00 $22,060.59 b.) Water potable service) impact fees — unit count (i) 4.7 ERCs x $3,575 $16,803.00 c.) Wastewater impact fees — unit count (1) 4.7 ERCs x $3,495 $16.427.00 Total Amount Due Consensus of Follow -up $56,430.59 a.) Answer questions and requests for information by County. This activity is complete. b.) Submit alternative methodology signed and sealed by engineer. This letter report and attachments satisfies this final item. GCHfev /A080376.00 /comesp /Attach H Page 3 of 3 072308 Agenda Item No. 10E January 13, 2009 Page 171 of 398 Attachment I Gerald C. Hartman, PE, ASA Resume GERALD C. HARTMAN, PE, BCEE, ASA Vice President EDUCATION B.S., Duke University, 1975 M.S., Duke University, 1976 PROFESSIONAL REGISTRATION Alabama No. 19422 Arizona No. 28939 Colorado No. 31200 Florida No. 27703 Illinois No, 062 - 053100 Indiana No. 10100292 Kentucky No.22463 Louisiana No. 30816 Maine No. 10395 Maryland No. 12410 Mississippi No. 12717 New Hampshire No. 10820 New Mexico No. 15990 North Carolina No. 15264 Ohio No, 70152 Pennsylvania No. 38216 South Carolina No. 15389 Tennessee No.105550 Virginia No.131184 Wisconsin No.32971 NCEES National P.E. No. 20481 American Society of Appraisers CM No. 7542 EXPERIENCE Agenda Item No. 10E January 13, 2009 Page 172 of 398 Page 1 PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS Diplomate - American Academy of Environmental Engineers American Society of Civil Engineers National Society of Professional Engineers Florida Engineering Society American Water Works Association Florida Pollution Control Association American Water Resources Association Water Environment Federation Florida Water and Pollution Control Operators Association Florida Waterworks Association American Concrete Institute (ACI) Water Management Institute American Society of Appraisers QUALIFICATIONS SUMMARY Mr. Hartman is highly qualified in environmental engineering with special expertise in utility management; facility planning; rate charge and fee studies; and funding and grants. Mr. Hartman is a qualified expert witness in the areas of water supply and treatment, wastewater treatment and effluent disposal, rate making, service areas, utility system appraisals, landfill siting, and utility creation /management] acquisition projects. Utility Finance, Rates, Fees and Charges Mr. Hartman has been involved in hundreds of capital charge, impact fee, and installation charge studies involving water, wastewater, stormwater and solid waste service for various Florida entities. He also has participated in hundreds of user rate adjustment reports. Since 1976, Mr. Hartman assisted in the development of over 50 revenue bond issues, 20 short-term bank loan systems, 2 general obligation bonds, 26 grant/loan programs, 10 capacity sale programs, and 20 privatization programs. He has been involved in over hundreds of utility acquisition /utility evaluations for acquisition, and is a qualified expert witness with regard to utility rates and charges, and utility negotiation, arbitration and condemnation cases. A few of his water, wastewater, reuse and /or solid waste rate and charge projects include: • Flagler County— Impact Fee Analysis, 2005 • Flagler County — Base Facility Charge Analysis, 2005 • Marion County— Silver Springs Regional —Water and Wastewater Revenue Sufficiency, 2004 • Beverly Beach - Water and Wastewater System, 2004 • Village of Bald Head Island — Water and Wastewater Rate Sufficiency, 2004 • Farmton Water Resources, Inc. — FPSC, 2004 • B &W Water Resources, Inc. — FPSC, 2004 • Marion County — Stonecrest, Marion Oaks, Spruce Creek, Salt Springs, South Forty, Smyral Villas — Rate Integration /Phasing Program, 2003 • City of North Miami Beach — Water and Wastewater Adjustment, 2003 • City of Fernandina Beach — Water and Wastewater Rate Study, 2002 • St. Johns County — St. Johns Water Co. Rates, 2003 gai consultants trnnsformIng s ideas Into manly. GERALD C. HARTMAN, PE, BCEE, ASA Vice President Agenda Item No. 10E January 13, 2009 Page 173 of 398 Page 2 • St. Johns County— Intercoastal Rates, 2001 • Nashua, NH — Pennichuck Water Co., 2002 • City of Deltona — Water and Wastewater, 2002 • Town of Lauderdale By- The -Sea, 2001 • FICURA — Palm Coast Rates,Certification, 2000 • Marion County -- Pine Run, Oak Run, A.P. Utilities — Rate Integration, 2000 • City of North Miami Beach — Revenue Sufficiency Analysis, 2000 • North Key Largo Utility Authority, 2000 • Port St. Lucie — St. Lucie West — CDD, 1999 • Hanover County — Water and Wastewater, 1999 • UCCNSB /Sugarmill, 1999 • Town of Hope Mills, 1998 • Town of Palm Beach, 1998 • City of Winter Haven, 1998 • Palmetto Resources, Inc. — Raw Water, Reuse, Water, and Wastewater, 1997 • City of Miami Springs -- Analysis, 1997 • Widefield — Water and Wastewater, 1997 • Bullhead City — Wastewater, 1996 • Marion County, 1996 • Utilities Commission, City of New Smyrna Beach - Water and wastewater Rate Study, 1995 • Okeechobee Utility Authority - Rate and charge study, 1995 • Southern States - Statewide rate case, 1995 • Englewood - AFPI and capital charges, 1995 • Lee County - Rates and charges, 1995 • Venice - Reuse rate study, 1994 • Utilities Commission, City of New Smyrna Beach - Capital charge study, 1996 • Port St. Lucie - Water, gas and wastewater rates, 1994 • Port St. Lucie - Capital charge study, 1995 • Bullhead City - Assessment study, 1996 • Englewood - Assessment study, 1996 • Sanibel - Capacity sale study, 1995 • City of New Port Richey - Rate and charge study, 1995 • Acme Improvements District, Wellington, Florida - Water /wastewater studies, 1994 • Charlotte County, Florida - Water /wastewater studies; Rotunda West rate case, 1993 • Clay County, Florida - Water /wastewater studies, 1992 • City of Deerfield Beach, Florida - Water /wastewater studies, 1992 • City of Dunedin, Florida - Water /wastewater studies, 1991 • Englewood Water District, Florida - Water /wastewater studies, 1993 • City of Green Cove Springs, Florida - Water /wastewater studies, 1991 • Hernando County, Florida - Water /wastewater studies, 1992 • City of Lakeland, Florida - Water studies, 1976 -89 • Martin County, Florida - Water /wastewater studies, 1993 • City of Naples, Florida - Water /wastewater and solid waste studies, 1992/94 • City of New Port Richey, Florida - Water /wastewater studies, 1994 • City of North Port, Florida - Water /wastewater studies, 1992 • City of Orange City, Florida - Water /wastewater studies, 1985 -94 • City of Palm Bay, Florida - Water /wastewater studies, 1985 -94 • City of Panama City Beach, Florida - Water /wastewater studies, 1993 • City of Sanibel, Florida - Water and reuse studies, 1988 -94 • Southern States Utilities Inc., Florida - Water /wastewater studies and statewide rate cases, 1991/93 • City of Tamarac, Florida - Water /wastewater studies, 1993 6 gai consultants traworming Ida•t Int.'Mfit'. Agenda Item No. 10E January 13, 2009 Page 174 of 398 GERALD C. HARTMAN, PE, BCEE, ASA Vice President Page 3 • Utilities Commission, City of New Smyrna Beach, Florida - Water/wastewater and reuse studies 1992194 • Volusia County, Florida - Solid waste studies, 1989 • City of West Palm Beach, Florida - Water /wastewater and reuse studies, 1993/94 • City of Sebastian, Florida - Water /wastewater studies, 1993 • City of Tarpon Springs, Florida - Water /wastewater studies, 1994 • City of Miami Springs, Florida - Waterlwastewater and solid waste studies, 1994 • City of Edgewater, Florida - Water /wastewater and solid waste studies, 1987 -90 • City of Venice, Florida - Reuse studies, 1994 City of Port St. Lucie - Water /wastewater studies, 1994 • Ocean Reef Club, Monroe County, Florida - Wastewater studies, 1994 • Placid Lakes Utilities Inc., Florida - Water /wastewater studies, 1994 • Old Overtown- Liberty Park, Birmingham, Alabama - Wastewater studies, 1994 • Bullhead City, Arizona - Wastewater studies, 1994 • Lehigh Utilities Inc., Lee County, Florida - Florida Public Service Commission rate cases for water, wastewater and reuse, 1993 • Marco Island and Marco Shores Utilities Inc., Collier County, Florida - Florida Public Service Commission rate cases for water, wastewater and reuse, 1993 • Venice Gardens Utilities Inc., Sarasota County, Florida - Rate cases for water, wastewater and reuse, 1989/91/93 • Mid -Clay and Clay Utilities Inc., Clay County, Florida - Water /wastewater studies, 1993 • Several expert witness assignments including Palm Bay vs. Melbourne; Tequesta vs. Jupiter; Town of Palm Beach vs. City of West Palm Beach; City of Sunrise vs. Davie; Kissimmee vs. Complete Interiors; and others. Facility Planning Mr. Hartman has been involved in over 50 water, wastewater and /or solid waste master plans, several interlocal negotiations and agreements, over 100 capital improvement programs, and numerous capital construction fund plans. He represented the American Society of Civil Engineers in the State Comprehensive Plan as a Policy Advisory Committee Member on the Utility Element, and participated in the preparation of Comprehensive Plans, Chapter 9J5, for more than 20 communities. Mr. Hartman was involved in the implementation of several stormwater utilities in Florida. Economic Evaluations /Credit Worthiness Analyses • Credit Worthiness Analysis for Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (1999) — Florida Department of Environmental Regulation • Credit Rating Reviews (1980 -2000) — for numerous investor -owned utilities; many city -owned utilities (Winter Haven, Port St. Lucie, Miramar, Tamarac, Palm Bay, North Port, etc.); many county-owned utilities; several not - for - profit utilities; and utility authorities (OUA, etc.) • Financial Feasibility and Engineer's Revenue Bond Reports (1980 -2000) — for over $2 billion of water and /or wastewater bonds for some fifty (50) entities in the Southeast United States including Clay, Lee, Hernando, Martin, and other counties; Lakeland, West Palm Beach, Miramar, Tamarac, Panama City Beach, Winter Haven, Naples, North Port, Palm Bay, Port St. Lucie, New Port Richey, Clermont, Orange City, Deerfield Beach, Sanibel, City of Peachtree City, Widefield, and many other cities; Lee County Industrial Development Authority, Englewood Water District, and other utilities. Privatization Procurement and Analysis for many water and wastewater systems including Sanibel, Town of Palm Beach, Temple Terrace, Palm Bay, Widefeld, Bullhead City and sever others. Negotiations /Service Area Mr. Hartman has participated in over thirty -five (35) service area formations, Chapter 25 F.S. certifications, Chapter 180.02 reserve areas, authority creations, and interlocal service area agreements including Lakeland, Haines City, Bartow, Winter Haven, Sanibel, St. Cloud, Palm Bay, SBWA, ECFS, MWUC, Edgewater, Orange City, UCCNSB, Port St. Lucie, Martin County, CILIA, NKLUA, DDUA, and many others gai consultants n M �nffmng Ideas vo r GERALD C. HARTMAN, PE, BCEE, ASA Vice President Agenda Item No. 10E January 13, 2009 Page 175 of 398 Page 4 Mr. Hartman has been a primary negotiator for interlocal service agreements regarding capacity, joint -use, bulk service, retail service, contract operations and many others for entities such as the Town of Palm Beach, Miramar, Lauderdale -By -The -Sea, North Miami Beach, Collier County, Marion County, St. Johns County, JEA and many others. PUBLICATIONS /PRESENTATIONS Mr. Hartman has presented several training sessions and seminars throughout the State of Florida for the American Water Works Association, the American Society of Civil Engineers, the Water Pollution Association, and the Florida Water and Pollution Control Operators Association. He has presented and /or published more than 30 papers on water, wastewater and solid waste utility systems including: Hartman, G.C.; "Determining The Effectiveness of Solid Waste Collection;" M.S. thesis, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina, 1976. Dajani, J.S., Vesilind, P.A., Hartman, G.C.; "Measuring the Effectiveness of Solid Waste Collection," Urban Analysis, 1977, Vol. 4; Gordon and Breach Science Publishers Ltd.; Great Britain. Vesilind, P.A., Hartman, G.C., Skene, E.T.; Sludge Management and Disposal for the Practicing Engineer; Lewis Publishers Inc.; Chelsea, Michigan; 1986. Rimer, A., Vesilind, P.A., et, al., (Hartman contributing author) Resource Recovery Unit Operations, Prentice Hall, 1981. Hartman, G.C., Utility Management and Finance, (presently under contractual preparation with Lewis Publishing Company /CRC Press). Hartman, G.C., and R. J. Ori, "Water and Wastewater Utility Acquisition," AW WA Specialty Conference, 1994. Hartman, G.C. and R.C. Copeland, "Utility Acquisitions - Practices, Pitfalls and Management," AWWA Annual Conference, 1995. Hartman, G.C., "Safe Drinking Water Act" and "Stormwater Utilities" FLC Annual Meeting, 1995. Hartman, G,C., M.A. Rynning, and R.A. Terrero, "5 -Year Reserve Capacity - Can Customers Afford the Cost ?" FSASCE Annual Meeting, 1996. Hartman, G.C., T-A, Cloud, and M.B. Alvarez, "Innovations in Water and Wastewater Technology" Florida Quality Cities, August 1996. Hartman, G.C., Seth Lehman, "Financing Utility Acquisitions" AWWA(WEF Joint Management Conference, February 1997. Hartman, G.C., M.B. Alvarez, and J.R. Voorhees, "Softening for Color Removal" FWRC Conference, April 1997. Hartman, G.C., B.V. Breedlove, "Water: Where It Comes From and Where It Goes" FRT & G /FDEP Conference, September 1997. Hartman, G.C., W.D. Wagner, T.A. Cloud, and R.C. Copeland, "Outsourcing Programs in Seminole County"AWWA/WEF /FPCOA Conference, November 1997. gai s consultantt trsnsPor s re ideas a Agenda Item No. t0E January 13, 2009 GERALD C. HARTMAN, PE, BCEE, ASA Page 176 of 398 Vice President Page 5 Hartman, G.C., M.B. Alvarez, J.R. Voorhees, and G.L. Basham, "Using Color as an Indicator to Comply with the Proposed D /DBP Rule" AW WA, Water Quality Technology Conference, November 1997. Hartman, G.C., "In- House, Outsourcing and the Non - for - Profit Utilities Option ", Florida Government Finance Officers Association (FGFOA) Conference, March 27, 1998, Hartman, G.C. and D.P. Dufresne, "Understanding Groundwater Mounds - A Key to Successful Design, Operation and Maintenance of Rapid Infiltration Basins" April 4 -7, 1998, FWWA/WET /FPCOA Joint Meeting. Hartman, G.C. and Seth Lehman, "Financing Water Utilities — Acquisition and Privatization Projects" AW WA Annual Conference, June 24, 1998. Hartman, G.C., "Utility Valuation," Wake Forest University Law School Seminars Series, February 7, 2003. Hartman, G.C., H.E. Schmidt, Jr., and Michael S. Davis, 'Biosolids Application in Rural DeSoto County, Florida," WEF /AWWA/CWEA Joint Residuals & Biosolids Management conference, February 19 -22, 2003. Hartman, G.C. contributing author, Chapter 146, Nichols on Eminent Domain, RCNLD Valuation of Public Utilities, March 1999 Edition, Release No. 48. Hartman, G.C., M.A. Rynning, and V. Hargray, "Assessment of Commercial Customer Water Impacts," AW WA 2000. Hartman, G.C., M. Sloan, N.J. Gassman, and D.M. Lee, "Developing a Framework to Balance Needs for Consumptive Use and Natural Systems with Water Resources Availability," WEF Watershed 2002 Specialty Conference, February 23 -27, 2002. Hartman, G.C. and Dr. M. Wanielista, "Irrigation Quality Water — Examples and Design Considerations," ASCE Conference, April 4, 2003. Hartman, G.C., M.A. Rynning and V. Hargray, "Assessing the Water Demands of Commercial Customer," WEF Volume 6, No. 4, July /August 2003 — Utility Executive, Hartman, G.C., D. Cooper, N. Eckloff and R. Anderson, "Water," The Bond Buyer's Sixth Southeast Public Finance Conference, February 23, 2004. Wanielista, Marty and G.C. Hartman, 'Regional Stormwater Facilities ", Stormwater Management for Highways Transportation Research Board TRB AFB60, July 12, 2005. 4 gai consultants hansfvrming Itlees iota reaOlY" Agenda Item No. 10E January 13, 2009 Page 177 of 398 COLLIER COUNTY PUBLIC UTILITIES DIVISION 3301 E. Tamiami Trail • Naples, Florida 34112 • (239) 732 -2575 • FAX (239) 732 -2526 August 29, 2008 Mr. Douglas A. Lewis, Esquire Roetzel & Andress, P.A. 850 Park Shore Drive Trianon Centre — 3`d Floor Naples, Florida 34103 Subject: Alternative Water and Wastewater Impact Fee Calculation — Tamiami Square Dear Mr. Lewis: In accordance with the Agreement Regarding Alternative Impact Fee Calculation dated May 13, 2008 (the "Agreement ") between the Collier County Water -Sewer District (the "District ") and Tamiami Square of Naples, LLC (the "Developer" and collectively with the District, the "Parties "), District staff is providing a response to the alternative impact fee calculation submitted by the Developer for water and wastewater capacity for the Property as defined in the Agreement. In accordance with item 8 of the Agreement, the County Manager must respond in writing within thirty (30) days after the receipt of the alternative impact fee calculation to express that such calculation is considered as being complete. The alternative impact fee calculation was received by the County on August 1, 2008. The District staff, acting as the County Manager's designee, has prepared this letter to provide notification that the District staff does consider such submittal of the alternative impact fee calculation by the Developer as being complete. hi accordance with item 9 of the Agreement, the County (through the District) must review the data, analysis, and conclusions asserted in the alternative impact fee calculation and provide the results of such review, analyses, and conclusions to the Developer within thirty (30) days after the determination that the application is complete. The remainder of this letter provides a discussion of our review and analyses of the alternative impact fee calculation submitted by the Developer and our conclusions. Developer Request Based on information contained in the alternative impact fee calculation and meetings and discussions held with the Developer, the Developer is requesting the following: 1. The Developer per the alternative impact fee calculation states that the total equivalent residential connections (ERC) [for that component of the Property which is identified in the alternative impact fee calculation as Phase 11 is 17 ERCs and is based on the meter equivalency approach that is represented by the Developer as Agenda Item No. 10E January 13, 2009 Page 178 of 398 being used by numerous cities, counties, and private utilities regulated by the Florida Public Service Commission (FPSC). 2. The total amount of ERCs paid as of the date of this letter by the Developer for construction projects upon the Property to the District is 27.3 ERCs. 3. The total amount of F,RCs to be assigned to the Property for all phases (1 through 3) of development is 32 units and was also based on the meter equivalency approach. Based on the assumed prepaid amount by the Developer of 27.3 ERCs, this would result in a remaining balance due for the development of all phases of the Property to be 4.7 ERCs (32 ERCs minus 27.3 ERCs). 4. The Developer plans to install a two -inch irrigation meter to receive water -only service and identified this service requirement to equal 6.1 ERCs; the determination of this level of ERCs was based on the County's "Water -only Meter Application (Potable)" calculation worksheet as prepared and submitted by the Developer to the District. 5. The total remaining amount due to the District for the Impact Fees attributable to all development phases (I through 3) of the Property is as follows: District Review, Analysis, and Conclusions Based on the information contained in the alternative impact fee calculation provided by the Developer, a review of the District Uniform Billing, Operating and Regulatory Standards and Ordinances as applicable to the determination of impact fees, and our understanding of the Developer request as contained in the alternative impact fee calculation, we have performed the following analysis and are of the following opinions: I. The use of the meter equivalent basis as the method to determine the amount of ERCs allocable to the Property is considered incorrect and is not being relied upon by the District. Although numerous cities and counties may use this method, many cities and counties do not use this method due to the fact that this approach can understate the allocated capacity to a specific property. In many instances, the methodology for the determination of ERCs for a commercial classification such the Developer's Property is determined based on flow and a unit of measure that links to flow (e.g., average daily flow or fixture units). This approach is used to recognize the diversity in demand of the commercial class (customers with the same meter can have 2 Impact Fee er ERC Impact Fee Amount Potable Water at 4.7 ERCs $3,575.00 $16,803.00 Wastewater at 4.7 ERCs $3,495.00 $16,427.00 Potable Irr ation at 6.1 ERCs $3,616.49 $22 060.59 Total Impact Fees Due Per Dcvelo er 5 290.59 District Review, Analysis, and Conclusions Based on the information contained in the alternative impact fee calculation provided by the Developer, a review of the District Uniform Billing, Operating and Regulatory Standards and Ordinances as applicable to the determination of impact fees, and our understanding of the Developer request as contained in the alternative impact fee calculation, we have performed the following analysis and are of the following opinions: I. The use of the meter equivalent basis as the method to determine the amount of ERCs allocable to the Property is considered incorrect and is not being relied upon by the District. Although numerous cities and counties may use this method, many cities and counties do not use this method due to the fact that this approach can understate the allocated capacity to a specific property. In many instances, the methodology for the determination of ERCs for a commercial classification such the Developer's Property is determined based on flow and a unit of measure that links to flow (e.g., average daily flow or fixture units). This approach is used to recognize the diversity in demand of the commercial class (customers with the same meter can have 2 Agenda Item No. 10E January 13, 2009 Page 179 of 398 materially different service demands and therefore a different number of ERCs associated with servicing the customer) which is not reflected in the meter based approach. This is further supported by findings and opinion of Public Resources Management Group, Inc. (PRMG), the District's rate consultant, which is attached hereto and made a part of our response. As PRMG states in their letter to the District, the FPSC has allowed private utilities in numerous instances to use a flow based approach in the determination of the plant capacity charges (impact fees) to be paid for general service (commercial) customers for the reservation or allocation of capacity. 2. The approach reflected in the alternative impact fee calculation is not consistent the method reflected in the District's rules and ignores the diversity of the commercial class as it relates to meter size. The impact fee for commercial service recognized by the District is based on a level of service whereby one (1) ERC is equal to 350 gallons per day (gpd) for potable water and 250 gpd for wastewater which is "flow based'; such calculation is not dependant on the size of the meter(s) needed to measure flow to the Property. The County's determination of the impact fee due by an applicant such as the Developer is based on an estimated capacity (flow) approach which is used by many utilities across the state. lust because many utilities use a meter equivalency -based approach does not mean it is the correct approach to use for the Property; just as many utilities do not use this approach. As such, the basis for the Developer's alternative impact fee calculation is not accepted by the District staff. 3. During the meetings between the Developer and the District staff, it was discussed among the Parties that the Impact Fee calculation should be based on actual flow characteristics of the Property. The alternative impact fee calculation as submitted did not reflect the use of this discussed methodology. Predicated on the above, the basis for the Developer's alternative impact fee calculation is not considered as being correct and therefore alternative impact fee calculation is not accepted by the District. 4. The District initially prepared an Impact Fee calculation that identified the water and wastewater ERCs for the Property and it was determined that the total ERCs were 61.4, a copy which is attached as Exhibit 1. The District does not agree with the Developer's alternative impact fee calculation that concludes that there are 32.0 ERCs for the property (absent irrigation demands). 5. The total amount of ERCs paid by the Developer for which the County has received payment was for 21.8 water and wastewater ERCs, not the 27.3 ERCs as stated in the Developer's alternative impact fee calculation. A review of our records indicate that 5.5 ERCs were represented on the building permits as being subject to an impact fee credit due to the Developer; however no payment was actually received (either prepaid or at time of permit issuance) by the District and therefore payment is still outstanding. Included on Exhibit 2 are copies of the respective building permits that indicate the amount due and the status of the respective permit. The permit numbers and corresponding ERCs are summarized below: K Agenda Item No. 10E January 13, 2009 Page 180 of 398 Permit Number ERCs Represented 2005121721 2.0 2005072983 3.5 6. Based on the above, the total ERCs for the Property due by the Developer is as follows: This table does not assume that the Developer may install a water -only irrigation meter in the future which will have the affect of reducing the amount of wastewater ERCs and respective impact fees due. As of the date of this letter, it is our understanding that the Developer has not installed the irrigation meter. To the extent that the water -only meter is installed in the future, the County will give the Developer consideration as to the change in wastewater ERCs for the overall development of the total wastewater impact fees due. District Historical Plow -based Impact Fee Analysis During the preparation of the Agreement, the Parties discussed that the impact fees should be based on actual flows (predicated on actual meter readings) to the Property which was not addressed in the alternative impact fee calculation. Additionally, documentation submitted in support of the alternative impact fee calculation included a summary of irrigation system repairs performed at the Property that may have resulted in water being lost due to leaks. It should be noted that the irrigation repairs are recurrent through the years and the Property did use the water; such water loss is the responsibility of the customer and not the District. As such, the County does not consider the possible water loss due to the irrigation repairs to be extraordinary. Furthermore, when establishing the level of service by the County, all water use is considered in the determination of the level of service. 4 Water Wastewater Total Total ERCs per County 61.4 61.4 Average Impact Fee per ERC 1 $2,695.10 $3,016.96 Total Amount Due to County .00 $350,720.50 _UWjLa Amount Paid by Developer Total ERCs 21.8 21.8 Amount Paid $57,953.00 $63,527.00 121480.00 Net Amount Due County $107,526.00 $121,714.50 $229240 50 111 Amounts shown reflect average impact fee calculated for the determination of the Developer liability by the County since the impact fee rate was based on time of permit application and the rates were adusted by the County over time. This table does not assume that the Developer may install a water -only irrigation meter in the future which will have the affect of reducing the amount of wastewater ERCs and respective impact fees due. As of the date of this letter, it is our understanding that the Developer has not installed the irrigation meter. To the extent that the water -only meter is installed in the future, the County will give the Developer consideration as to the change in wastewater ERCs for the overall development of the total wastewater impact fees due. District Historical Plow -based Impact Fee Analysis During the preparation of the Agreement, the Parties discussed that the impact fees should be based on actual flows (predicated on actual meter readings) to the Property which was not addressed in the alternative impact fee calculation. Additionally, documentation submitted in support of the alternative impact fee calculation included a summary of irrigation system repairs performed at the Property that may have resulted in water being lost due to leaks. It should be noted that the irrigation repairs are recurrent through the years and the Property did use the water; such water loss is the responsibility of the customer and not the District. As such, the County does not consider the possible water loss due to the irrigation repairs to be extraordinary. Furthermore, when establishing the level of service by the County, all water use is considered in the determination of the level of service. 4 Agenda Item No. 10E January 13, 2009 Page 181 of 398 As part of the review process by the District, an evaluation of the actual metered water use at the Property for the eighteen (18) month period ended August 2008 (billing period for July 2008 usage) was conducted. This analysis is shown on Exhibit 3 to this letter. As can be seen on Exhibit 3, the average monthly metered water use is actually approximating the ERC estimate developed in the District's impact fee calculation as shown on Exhibit 1. For the past four most recent months, the implied ERCs based on i) the metered water use at the property; ii) an assumed level of service equal to 350 gallons per day per ERC, and iii) the billing days reflected in the usage cycle result in a ERC value of 61.3 ERCs on a peak monthly use basis and 54.9 ERCs on an average monthly usage period. Furthermore, the ERC value based on the peak month use during the review period as shown on Exhibit 3 was 63.8 ERCs which essentially equates to the amount reflected on the District's initial impact fee calculation as shown on Exhibit 1. As evidenced by the most recent actual water sales as registered by metering at the premise, the Property is requiring the capacity (demand) that the District calculated for the Property as part of the impact fee calculation. This further supports that the Developer's alternative impact fee calculation as received by the District is not accurate and therefore is not being considered by the District. District Conclusion and Recommendation Based on the information submitted in the alternative impact fee calculation, the District review and analysis as presented herein, the actual demands being experienced by the Property, and the estimated use of the Property as reflected on the permits for which the fees were initially based, the District has identified three alternatives for consideration by the Developer. These three alternatives include: 1. Recognize that the demand and the associated impact fee liability of the Developer are based on 64.1 ERCs as initially calculated by the District as shown on Exhibit 1. 2. Recognize that the initial demand and the associated impact fee liability of the developer are 54.9 ERCs which will be subject to adjustment in accordance with the terms of item 14 of the Agreement. 3. The Developer does not agree with the District staff and shall exercise it rights under item 11 of the Agreement by filing a written appeal petition with the Board of County Commissioners not less than thirty (30) days after documented receipt of this letter. Recognizing the above and in order to close this issue relative to the impact fee liability of the Developer, the District staff offers the following as it pertains to alternative 2 (listed above): 1. The initial ERCs established for the property is 54.9 ERCs which will be reviewed every 6 months for a two year period beginning with bills rendered in October 2008 which is consistent with the terms of item 14 of the Agreement. To the extent that the actual demand for the Property in two consecutive months (calculated as follows: [((metered water use divided by number of days in billing cycle) divided by 350 gpd Agenda Item No. 10E January 13, 2009 Page 182 of 398 per ERC) = Implied ERCs for Property] exceeds 54.9 ERCs, the Developer will be responsible to pay impact fees on the number of ERCs above such amount. The new ERC value will then serve as the established ERCs during the remainder of the two year review period. 2. The Developer shall have an immediate remaining liability due to the County for unpaid impact fees of $192,112.09 which is calculated as follows: The District will allow the Developer to pay the net amount due to the County in equal installments over a 24 month period or $8,004.67 per month (with the last month adjusted for any rounding issues in collection). The District will not charge an interest cost to carry the liability but to the extent the monthly payment is overdue, the County may charge late payment fees (amount equivalent to the rate charged to its water and wastewater customers as set by policy) and may advance the full payment of the liability. Any impact fees due as a result of increased demands experienced by the Property (i.e., in excess of the 54.9 ERCs) will be due and payable within 30 days of notification by the County to the Developer. 3. To the extent that the Developer installs the irrigation meter which has been agreed by the Parties to equate to 6.1 ERCs, the District will credit the Developer $18,403.46 (6.1 ERCs multiplied by $3,016.96) for the change in service and adjust the remaining amount of the wastewater impact fee installment payments to recognize such credit. If the Developer installs the water -only meter after the two year evaluation period, no credit will be recognized by the District. 4. The Developer will acknowledge in writing to the County Manager of acceptance of the liability and terms of payment within thirty (30) days of receipt of this letter or it may petition to the Board of County Commissioners as provided in the Agreement. 6 Water wastewater Totals Total Initial ERCs per County 54.9 54.9 Average Impact Fee per ERC [11 $2,695.10 $3,016.96 Total Amount Due to County $]47,960.99 S1L5k1LiQ $313,592.09 Amount Paid by Developer Total ERCs 21.8 21.8 Amount Paid MaaM $63,_527 QO $121.480.00 Net Amount Due County 7.49 $102 104.10 S192.1 1�_U [1] Amounts shown reflect average impact fee calculated for the determination of the Developer liability by the County as shown on Exhibit 1 and was used since under the actual flow based approach, no assignment to the ERCs per a budding permit can be made (reference Exhibit 1). The District will allow the Developer to pay the net amount due to the County in equal installments over a 24 month period or $8,004.67 per month (with the last month adjusted for any rounding issues in collection). The District will not charge an interest cost to carry the liability but to the extent the monthly payment is overdue, the County may charge late payment fees (amount equivalent to the rate charged to its water and wastewater customers as set by policy) and may advance the full payment of the liability. Any impact fees due as a result of increased demands experienced by the Property (i.e., in excess of the 54.9 ERCs) will be due and payable within 30 days of notification by the County to the Developer. 3. To the extent that the Developer installs the irrigation meter which has been agreed by the Parties to equate to 6.1 ERCs, the District will credit the Developer $18,403.46 (6.1 ERCs multiplied by $3,016.96) for the change in service and adjust the remaining amount of the wastewater impact fee installment payments to recognize such credit. If the Developer installs the water -only meter after the two year evaluation period, no credit will be recognized by the District. 4. The Developer will acknowledge in writing to the County Manager of acceptance of the liability and terms of payment within thirty (30) days of receipt of this letter or it may petition to the Board of County Commissioners as provided in the Agreement. 6 Agenda Item No. 10E January 13, 2009 Page 183 of 398 Summary In summary, District staff does not accept the calculation as provided in the Developer's alternative impact fee calculation and finds that $107,526 in water impact fees and $121,714.50 in wastewater impact are immediately due and payable to the District. District staff also will accept an installment based impact fee payment approach to assist the Developer with the payment of the outstanding impact fee liability. Finally, District staff agrees that the Agreement between the Parties will remain in effect for the next two (2) years in order to validate flows and the overall impact fee liability. District Staff appreciates all the efforts of the Developer with respect to the development and submittal of the alternative impact fee calculation and trust that you will agree with District staff assessment. Of course, selection and enactment of any of the three alternative courses of resolution will require Board of County Commissioner approval. If you need any additional information from us or have any questions with regard to our review, analyses, or conclusions, please do not hesitate to give me a call. Very truly yours, Collier County Water -Sewer District Thomas G. Wides Operations Director, Public Utilities Cc: Jeff Klatzkow, County Attorney Jennifer Belpedio, Assistant County Attorney Jim Delony, Public Utilities Administrator Jim Mudd, County Manager Gilbert Moncivaiz, Operations Analyst Amia Curry, Interim Manager Operations Support Attachments: Exhibit 1 — Tamiami Square Development Spreadsheet Exhibit 2 — Unpaid Water and Wastewater Impact Fees Exhibit 3 — Historical Data Letter from Public Resources Management Group, Inc. (PRMG) OC� �m 6 -0 X LU ti 8 88888 88 -080 0808° E 1 +1+ -1726 E EQ S 0. 32 V I2 t t2 's m M co al..g 6- 6- 'ad m O1 e e E Via= J io E 1 16 0 0 .10 n E 1 +1+ -1726 E m O1 e e E Via= J io E 1 16 0 0 .10 n E EQ S 0. co m O1 e e E Via= J io E 1 16 0 0 .10 n p OO LLJ 0) N w. .O a s X W i N 3 on r- 3: m O a- L O N N r-1 v N L N O N C ci Ln > a O �p O L N N ++ v 4% U V- O. O E 0 .- O i L N aj 3 c 61 h U C V) m a o S I r All x ._.__,1 i j OU 5 _� 3 O Q- s c � v 00 z d N O a) O Ln p ro O � H IV CL u o c ar( N � + ' � N U i N 3 on r- 3: m O a- L O N N r-1 v N L N O N C ci Ln > a O �p O L N N ++ v 4% U V- O. O E 0 .- O i L N aj 3 c 61 h U C V) m a o S I r All x ._.__,1 i j Period 94 93 92 91 90 89 as 87 88 85 84 83 82 at 80 79 78 77 Agenda Item No. 10E January 13, 2009 Page 186 of 398 Exhibit 3 Tamiami Square of Naples, LLC Account# 04046017600 Meter Days ERCs Payable Read In based on Month Of: Year Water Usage (thousands) Date Cycle Actual Days August 2008 549 8/5/2008 29 54.1 July 2008 541 7/7/2008 33 46.8 June 2008 674 6/4/2008 33 58.4 May 2008 601 5/2/2008 28 613 April 2008 560 4/4/2008 29 55.2 March 2008 382 3/6/2008 30 36.4 February 2008 413 2/5/2008 32 36.9 January 2008 781 1/4/2008 35 63.8 December 2007 374 11/30/2007 29 36.8 November 2007 223 11/1/2007 28 22.8 October 2007 244 10/4/2007 28 24.9 September 2007 239 9/6/2007 31 22.0 August 2007 292 8/6/2007 31 26.9 July 2007 385 716/2007 30 36.7 June 2007 312 6/6/2007 33 27.0 May 2007 423 5/4/2007 29 41.7 April 2007 420 4/5/2007 30 40.0 March 2007 549 316/2007 29 54.1 2/512007 Number of Periods 18 Monthly Average All 442 Average ERCs (All) 41.6 Last Four Month Average 591 Four Month Average ERCs 54.9 Peak Volume 781 Agenda Item No. 10E January 13, 2009 Page 187 of 398 Public Resources Management Group, Inc. Utiliriv, Rate:, Financial and Alanagement Consultants August 26, 2008 Mr, Thomas G. Wides Operations Support Director, Public Utilities Collier County Government 3301 E. Tamiami Trail, Suite H3 Naples, FL 34112 Subject: Alternative Impact Fee Application Dear Tom; As we discussed, the Collier County Water -Sewer District (the "District ") has received an alternative impact fee calculation from Tamiami Square of Naples, LLC (the "Developer ") which is requesting a reduction in the water and wastewater impact fees that were imposed by the District on the property referred to as Tamiami Square. It is my understanding that Tamiami Square is a commercial customer serviced by one master meter at the property and will be receiving both potable water and wastewater service. As you know, the District's Impact Fees are applied to a commercial customer based on the estimated equivalent residential connections (ERC) that a specific property may be determined to include. An ERC is a unit of measure which links capacity to a given property (with individually metered residential service being equal to 1 ERC and is generally the smallest customer from a capacity allocation standpoint) which is based on a level of service equal to 350 gallons per day for water capacity and 250 gallons per day for wastewater capacity. It should be noted that this is a daily capacity allocation and not one based on an average use experienced over a period of time such as a year. Furthermore, this capacity allocation is based on the allocation of finished water produced and wastewater treated at the respective plant facilities and therefore is not based on retail use metered at the customer premise (there is an allowance for water loss as part of the normal delivery of water and normal inflow and infiltration for the collection of wastewater). The District's allocation of capacity to all commercial customers is an ERC based approach predicated on the flow (capacity) required of the property (essentially a "flow- based" allocation) which we believe to be proper in the reservation of capacity by a specific property or customer. By using this fee determination methodology, the District does recognize customer diversity in the establishment of the level of impact fees to be charged to a property to promote the fairness provisions (rational nexus) in the application of the impact fees. KADMV 129- 16%Meec Equiv Ltr Ninel,dac 341 NoR fli MAITLAND AVENUE -- SMF 300 -- MAITLAND, Ft, 32751 TELEPHONE: (407) 628-2600 • FAX: (407) 628.2610 • ENLAIL: PRMG @Pl?MGrinaccm Agenda Item No. 10E January 13, 2009 Page 188 of 398 Mr. Thomas G. Wides Collier County Government August 26, 2008 Page 2 In the alternative impact fee calculation as submitted by the Developer, a primary assumption as to why a lower impact fee should be charged to the property is that it should have been based on the "meter equivalent" approach as opposed to a flow -based approach currently used by the District. The meter equivalent approach is a method that weights the meter capacity by the maximum flow that the meter is capable of measuring to a 5/8 -inch meter (i.e., the maximum capacity for a 5/8 -inch meter is 20 gallons per minute as referenced in AW WA Manual M6 and considered as a factor of 1.0; the other meters are expressed as a multiple of this usage value based on meter size). The alternative impact fee calculation recognized this method of fee determination under the premise that "numerous cities, counties and FPSC regulated entities utilize FPSC /AWWA /FAC/F.S. Section 25- 30.055 and related sections for large service areas ..." in the determination of impact fees to be charged to a property. Although many cities and counties use meter equivalent factors for the determination of commercial property impact fees, the assertion that this is the correct method and therefore the only method to use is simply not true. With respect to the application of impact fees based on the flow or service attributes of a commercial customer, many cities, counties and other public utilities use a flow or attribute - based approach in the determination of the impact fee (attribute would be a specific component of the development such as seats in a restaurant that has a daily capacity based on flow assigned to it). The reason that these utilities use this approach is to accurately recover the cost of providing service based on the capacity requirements specific to the customer. The meter is simply used to measure daily flow and must be sized to accurately measure the flow from the property; however to say that all commercial customers have the same capacity requirement because of the meter size being the same between such customers is not correct. Simply put, a restaurant served by a 5/8 -inch meter generally would have a significantly higher demand than a real estate office served by the same meter size. Additionally, it is rare that a customer would use 100% of the maximum meter capacity and that a customer's load factor is generally less than this. The District has recognized this; for a maximum flow rate of a 5/8 -inch meter at 20 gallons per minute, the daily flow would be 28,800 gallons per day yet the approved ERC value of the District is 350 gallons per day which is my understanding is a common level of service used by the industry in Florida. There are several public utilities that use an ERC -based or flow -based approach in the determination of the impact fees and based on my experience, more are moving towards this direction due to the diversity in use experienced by the commercial class and the need to accurately recover cost. Although it is administratively easier to calculate an impact fee using meter equivalents, public utilities realize the financial benefits of calculating the commercial impact fees based on flow (or similar attribute) in order to fully recover capital costs allocable to new growth. A survey of public utilities that use a flow based approach is shown on Attachment I to this letter (this does not imply that these are the only utilities using the flow -based approach, KADM51125- 161Mety Equiv Lv RnM.doc Agenda Item No. 10E January 13, 2009 Page 189 of 398 Mr. Thomas G. Wides Collier County Government August 26, 2008 Page 3 it is simply a survey). As can be seen, there are many utilities that use the ERC -based or flow - based approach in the determination of the impact fees due from a commercial property. Additionally, the reference in the Developer's alternative impact fee calculation with respect to the FPSC using the meter based approach in our opinion is not entirely accurate. Our experience is that for general service (commercial) use, the plant capacity fees (term used by private utilities; equivalent to an impact fee) imposed by private utilities is expressed in the rate tariff on a cost per gallon basis which implies a flow based application. Based on a review of private utility rate tariffs regulated by the FPSC that are available to us and discussions with others in the industry, the following private utilities imposed a plant capacity fee based on a "per gallon of demand" basis for the general service class: • North Fort Myers Utility, Inc. • Aloha Utilities, Inc. North Sumter Utility Company, Inc. • Little Sumter Utility Company, Inc. (prior to acquisition) • Florida Water Services Corporation, Inc. (approximately 150 systems; prior to acquisition) - 0 Utilities, Inc.(approximateiy 40 systems) In the alternative impact fee calculation submitted by the Developer, reference was also made to Florida Statutes, Section 25- 30.055 with respect to private utilities. This reference provided a summary of the determination of ERCs for non - residential use and listed the meter equivalent factors assumed in the alternative fee calculation. It should be noted that this rule is associated with a capacity or proposed capacity, to serve 100 or fewer persons, which clearly does not relate to the County. Notwithstanding this service provision, the vile provides that unless the FPSC determines that valid local statistical data should be used, then the meter equivalent factors should be used. Based on my knowledge of the industry, the private utilities generally use local statistical data in the development of the plant capacity fees and for the general service class such fees apply to new customers on a flow basis. This is further evidenced by the flow -based fees being reflected in the respective company's rate tariff which have been approved by the FPSC. Finally, the alternative impact fee calculation submitted by the Developer also includes a reference to Public Resources Management Group, Inc. (PRMG) that the alternative method is consistent with the findings reflected in a recent PRMG report regarding the development of impact fees (I assume that this links to the recommendations for the use of the meter equivalency based impact fee since the PRMG report was appended to the calculation). There is no reference to the use of meter equivalents as the basis for fee determination in the report. In fact the fee was based on the total applicable capital costs and the total available flow (and the corresponding ERCs) allocable to growth based on the District's adopted level of service (i.e., flow) allocable to K %DMU 125- ]ft1wr Epp La FmdAo, Agenda Item No. 10E January 13, 2009 Page 190 of 398 Mr. Thomas G. Wides Collier County Government August 26, 2008 Page 4 growth. The only reference to meters in the report deals with the fact that an ERC is equivalent to the daily use of a typical individually metered residential customer which is generally the lowest level of use in the determination of the flow requirements included in the definition of an ERC; it has absolutely nothing to do with the application of an impact fee based on meter equivalents. In summary, we believe the District's approach to calculating an impact fee for a commercial customer based on flow which links to the District's adopted level of service is prudent, is reflective of the practices in the industry, and provides for the full recovery of expansion - related costs of the District. We do not agree with the use of meter equivalents as the basis for the determination of the impact fee to be applied to the Developer's property since it is not consistent with the County's ordinances and is not consistent with the demand requirements being imposed by the Developer's property. If you have any questions or comments relative to our opinion or need further clarification, please do not hesitate to give me a call. Very truly yours, Public Resources Management Group, Inc. Robert J. Ori President RJO /skc Attachments KADNf\1 M2 16'V&t. Epiv LV Fi.0L . Agenda Item No. 10E January 13, 2009 Page 191 of 398 Attachment 1 Collier County, Florida Samnle of Florida Utilities - Commercial Impact Fee with Flow Based Application Methodolo Line No, Utility Impact Fee Application Methodology [1] [21 1 City of Bartow Fixture Unit Based 2 Brevard County Attributes Based / Flow Based Dependent on Property Use 3 Broward County Attributes Based 4 Charlotte County Attributes Based 5 JLA Flow Based 6 Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority Fixture Unit Based 7 Fort Pierce Utilities Authority Attributes Based 8 City of Haines City Flow Based 9 Hernando County Flow Based 10 Hillsborough County Flow Based 11 Indian River County Flow Based 12 Town of Jupiter 2" or Greater, Flow Based 13 City of Lake Worth Attributes Based 14 City of Lakeland Flow Based 15 Marion County Fixture Unit Based 16 Martin County Attributes Based 17 City of Melbourne 2" or Greater, Flow Based 18 Miami -Dade County Attributes Based 19 City of Northport Fixture Unit Based 20 City of Ocala Attributes Based 21 City of Oldsmar Fixture Unit Based 22 City of Panama City Beach Fixture Unit Based 23 Polk County Attributes Based 24 City of Port St. Lucie Attributes Based 25 Sarasota County Attributes Based 26 Seminole County Attributes Based 27 St. Lucie County Attributes Based 28 St. Lucie West Services District Attributes Based 29 City of Stuart Attributes Based 30 City of Sunrise Attributes Based 31 Tohopekoliga Water Authority Attributes Based 32 City of Winter Springs Attributes Based Footnotes: [1] Attributes Based - Impact fee based on particular attributes of customer (e.g., seats in restaurant) which an ERC or flow factor per attribute is applied. [2] Flow Based -Impact fee based on flow calculated for property as generally identified during the permitting process. Agenda Item No. 10E January 13, 2009 Page 192 of 398 0 Public Resources Management Group, Inc. Utility, Rate, Financial and lfanagement Consultants August 26, 2008 Mr. Thomas G. Wides Operations Support Director, Public Utilities Collier County Government 3301 E. Tamiami Trail, Suite H3 Naples, FL 34112 Subject: Alternative Impact Fee Application Dear Tom: As we discussed, the Collier County Water -Sewer District (the "District') has received an alternative impact fee calculation from Tamiami Square of Naples, LLC (the "Developer ") which is requesting a reduction in the water and wastewater impact fees that were imposed by the District on the property referred to as Tamiamf Square. It is my understanding that Tamiami Square is a commercial customer serviced by one master meter at the property and will be receiving both potable water and wastewater service. As you know, the District's Impact Fees are applied to a commercial customer based on the estimated equivalent residential connections (ERC) that a specific property may be determined to include. An ERC is a unit of measure which links capacity to a given property (with individually metered residential service being equal to 1 ERC and is generally the smallest customer from a capacity allocation standpoint) which is based on a level of service equal to 350 gallons per day for water capacity and 250 gallons per day for wastewater capacity. It should be noted that this is a daily capacity allocation and not one based on an average use experienced over a period of time such as a year. Furthermore, this capacity allocation is based on the allocation of finished water produced and wastewater treated at the respective plant facilities and therefore is not based on retail use metered at the customer premise (there is an allowance for water loss as part of the normal delivery of water and normal inflow and infiltration for the collection of wastewater). The District's allocation of capacity to all commercial customers is an ERC based approach predicated on the flow (capacity) required of the property (essentially a "flow- based" allocation) which we believe to be proper in the reservation of capacity by a specific property or customer. By using this fee determination methodology, the District does recognize customer diversity in the establishment of the level of impact fees to be charged to a property to promote the fairness provisions (rational nexus) in the application of the impact fees. K'. DMV1125- 161Meter Equiv Lv Eival doe 341 NORTH MAI I LAND A\ E S! I I V 300 MAI I LAND. It- 327 1 11:1,H)l iONI : (407) 628 -2600 • FAX: (407) 628 -26 i 0 • EMAIL: PRMG' PRMGinc.coui Mr. Thomas G. Wides Collier County Government August 26, 2008 Page 2 Agenda Item No. 10E January 13, 2009 Page 193 of 398 In the alternative impact fee calculation as submitted by the Developer, a primary assumption as to why a lower impact fee should be charged to the property is that it should have been based on the "meter equivalent" approach as opposed to a flow -based approach currently used by the District. The meter equivalent approach is a method that weights the meter capacity by the maximum flow that the meter is capable of measuring to a 5/8 -inch meter (i.e., the maximum capacity for a 5/8 -inch meter is 20 gallons per minute as referenced in AWWA Manual M6 and considered as a factor of 1.0; the other meters are expressed as a multiple of this usage value based on meter size). The alternative impact fee calculation recognized this method of fee determination under the premise that "numerous cities, counties and FPSC regulated entities utilize FPSC /AWWA/FAC /F.S. Section 25- 30.055 and related sections for large service areas ..." in the determination of impact fees to be charged to a property. Although many cities and counties use meter equivalent factors for the determination of commercial property impact fees, the assertion that this is the correct method and therefore the only method to use is simply not true. With respect to the application of impact fees based on the flow or service attributes of a commercial customer, many cities, counties and other public utilities use a flow or attribute - based approach in the determination of the impact fee (attribute would be a specific component of the development such as seats in a restaurant that has a daily capacity based on flow assigned to it). The reason that these utilities use this approach is to accurately recover the cost of providing service based on the capacity requirements specific to the customer. The meter is simply used to measure daily flow and must be sized to accurately measure the flow from the property; however to say that all commercial customers have the same capacity requirement because of the meter size being the same between such customers is not correct. Simply put, a restaurant served by a 5/8 -inch meter generally would have a significantly higher demand than a real estate office served by the same meter size. Additionally, it is rare that a customer would use 100% of the maximum meter capacity and that a customer's load factor is generally less than this. The District has recognized this; for a maximum flow rate of a 5/8 -inch meter at 20 gallons per minute, the daily flow would be 28,800 gallons per day yet the approved ERC value of the District is 350 gallons per day which is my understanding is a common level of service used by the industry in Florida. There are several public utilities that use an ERC -based or flow -based approach in the determination of the impact fees and based on my experience, more are moving towards this direction due to the diversity in use experienced by the commercial class and the need to accurately recover cost. Although it is administratively easier to calculate an impact fee using meter equivalents, public utilities realize the financial benefits of calculating the commercial impact fees based on flow (or similar attribute) in order to fully recover capital costs allocable to new growth. A survey of public utilities that use a flow based approach is shown on Attachment 1 to this letter (this does not imply that these are the only utilities using the flow -based approach, K.ADMV1125- I6AMeter F.quiv Ur Final doc Mr. Thomas G. Wides Collier County Government August 26, 2008 Page 3 Agenda Item No. 10E January 13, 2009 Page 194 of 398 it is simply a survey). As can be seen, there are many utilities that use the ERC -based or flow - based approach in the determination of the impact fees due from a commercial property. Additionally, the reference in the Developer's alternative impact fee calculation with respect to the FPSC using the meter based approach in our opinion is not entirely accurate. Our experience is that for general service (commercial) use, the plant capacity fees (term used by private utilities; equivalent to an impact fee) imposed by private utilities is expressed in the rate tariff on a cost per gallon basis which implies a flow based application. Based on a review of private utility rate tariffs regulated by the FPSC that are available to us and discussions with others in the industry, the following private utilities imposed a plant capacity fee based on a "per gallon of demand" basis for the general service class: • North Fort Myers Utility, Inc. • Aloha Utilities, Inc. • North Sumter Utility Company, Inc. • Little Sumter Utility Company, Inc. (prior to acquisition) • Florida Water Services Corporation, Inc. (approximately 150 systems; prior to acquisition) • Utilities, Inc. (approximately 40 systems) In the alternative impact fee calculation submitted by the Developer, reference was also made to Florida Statutes, Section 25- 30.055 with respect to private utilities. This reference provided a summary of the determination of ERCs for non - residential use and listed the meter equivalent factors assumed in the alternative fee calculation. It should be noted that this rule is associated with a capacity or proposed capacity, to serve 100 or fewer persons, which clearly does not relate to the County. Notwithstanding this service provision, the rule provides that unless the FPSC determines that valid local statistical data should be used, then the meter equivalent factors should be used. Based on my knowledge of the industry, the private utilities generally use local statistical data in the development of the plant capacity fees and for the general service class such fees apply to new customers on a flow basis. This is further evidenced by the flow -based fees being reflected in the respective company's rate tariff which have been approved by the FPSC. Finally, the alternative impact fee calculation submitted by the Developer also includes a reference to Public Resources Management Group, Inc. (PRMG) that the alternative method is consistent with the findings reflected in a recent PRMG report regarding the development of impact fees (I assume that this links to the recommendations for the use of the meter equivalency based impact fee since the PRMG report was appended to the calculation). There is no reference to the use of meter equivalents as the basis for fee determination in the report. In fact the fee was based on the total applicable capital costs and the total available flow (and the corresponding ERCs) allocable to growth based on the District's adopted level of service (i.e., flow) allocable to K4DMi 1125 -f O,Me er F.quiv [.Ir FinaLdoc Mr. Thomas G. Wides Collier County Government August 26, 2008 Page 4 Agenda Item No. 10E January 13, 2009 Page 195 of 398 growth. The only reference to meters in the report deals with the fact that an ERC is equivalent to the daily use of a typical individually metered residential customer which is generally the lowest level of use in the determination of the flow requirements included in the definition of an ERC; it has absolutely nothing to do with the application of an impact fee based on meter equivalents. In summary, we believe the District's approach to calculating an impact fee for a commercial customer based on flow which links to the District's adopted level of service is prudent, is reflective of the practices in the industry, and provides for the full recovery of expansion - related costs of the District. We do not agree with the use of meter equivalents as the basis for the determination of the impact fee to be applied to the Developer's property since it is not consistent with the County's ordinances and is not consistent with the demand requirements being imposed by the Developer's property. If you have any questions or comments relative to our opinion or need further clarification, please do not hesitate to give me a call. Very truly yours, Public Resources Management Group, Inc. ��, �_ d,: Robert J. Ori President RJO /skc Attachments K: \UM \1125- 16`.Meter Equiv Ltr FinaLAoe Attachment I Collier County, Florida Agenda Item No. t0E January 13, 2009 Page 196 of 398 Sample of Florida Utilities - Commercial Impact Fee with Flow Based Application Methodoloev Line No. Utility Impact Fee Application Methodology [1] [2] 1 City of Bartow Fixture Unit Based 2 Brevard County Attributes Based / Flow Based Dependent on Property Use 3 Broward County Attributes Based 4 Charlotte County Attributes Based 5 JEA Flow Based 6 Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority Fixture Unit Based 7 Fort Pierce Utilities Authority Attributes Based 8 City of Haines City Flow Based 9 Hernando County Flow Based 10 Hillsborough County Flow Based I1 Indian River County Flow Based 12 Town of Jupiter 2" or Greater, Flow Based 13 City of Lake Worth Attributes Based 14 City of Lakeland Flow Based 15 Marion County Fixture Unit Based 16 Martin County Attributes Based 17 City of Melbourne 2" or Greater, Flow Based 18 Miami -Dade County Attributes Based 19 City of Northport Fixture Unit Based 20 City of Ocala Attributes Based 21 City of Oldsmar Fixture Unit Based 22 City of Panama City Beach Fixture Unit Based 23 Polk County Attributes Based 24 City of Port St. Lucie Attributes Based 25 Sarasota County Attributes Based 26 Seminole County Attributes Based 27 St. Lucie County Attributes Based 28 St. Lucie West Services District Attributes Based 29 City of Stuart Attributes Based 30 City of Sunrise Attributes Based 31 Tohopekoliga Water Authority Attributes Based 32 City of Winter Springs Attributes Based Footnotes: [1 ] Attributes Based - Impact fee based on particular attributes of customer (e.g., seats in restaurant) which an ERC or flow factor per attribute is applied. [2] Flow Based - Impact fee based on flow calculated for property as generally identified during the permitting process. Agenda Item No. 10E January 13, 2009 Page 197 of 398 APPEAL TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA Tamiami Square of Naples, LLC, a Florida limited liability company PETITIONER, V Vs. �C C Mr. Jim Mudd, —+ County Manager, Collier County, Florida rio M O 3. RESPONDENT. o Zrn APPEAL OF LETTER DATED AUGUST 29, 2008 FROM MR. THOMAS G. WIDES, OPERATIONS DIRECTOR, PUBLIC UTILITIES, COLLIER COUNTY WATER- SEWER DISTRICT AND REQUEST FOR ALTERNATIVE IMPACT FEE CALCULATION BASED ON PETITIONERS ALTERNATIVE IMPACT FEE STUDY Petitioner, Tamiami Square of Naples, LLC, a Florida limited liability company, by and through their undersigned counsel, file this appeal of the above referenced letter (the "Letter ") pursuant to the terms of that certain Agreement Regarding Alterative Impact Fee Calculation dated May 13, 2008 by and between Petitioner and the Collier County Board of County Commissioners acting as the governing body of the Collier County Water -Sewer District (the "Agreement") and state in support thereof as follows: Appeal 1. Petitioner, Tamiami Square of Naples, LLC, attended a pre - application meeting with County staff on Monday, May 12, 2008 to discuss the requirements, procedures and methodology of the alternative fee calculation for the Tamiami Square development, the location of which development is more particularly described in the Agreement. A copy of the 568418 % 111647.0003 Agenda Item No. 10E January 13, 2009 Page 198 of 398 Agreement is attached as Exhibit "A ". Subsequent to this pre- application meeting, Petitioner by and through its attorney proposed to County staff in writing to approach the alternative fee calculation by using a Unit Count Method. A copy of the e -mail to County staff dated May 14, 2008 containing the proposed Unit Count Method approach to the alternative fee calculation is attached as Exhibit `B ". Further, County staff received written notice from Petitioner that the alternative impact fee calculation prepared by Gerald C. Hartman, PE, BCEE, ASA of GAI Consultants Inc. would be based on the Unit Count Method and that Petitioner was proceeding to prepare the alternative impact fee calculation/report for submission to County staff. See, Exhibit `B ". At no time prior to the delivery of Petitioner's alternative impact fee calculation/report to County staff, pursuant to a letter dated August 1, 2008 and attached hereto as Exhibit "C ", did County staff object to the use of the Unit Count Method. Additionally, County staff has deemed the alternative impact fee calculation/report prepared by the Petitioner to be complete. See, Page 1 of the Letter. The Agreement does not allow for or contemplate that County staff would object to the proposed approach (e.g. the Unit Count Method) after preparation and submission of the alternative fee calculation/report based on the Unit Count Method. At this stage in the process, County staff's review of the data, analysis, and conclusions asserted in the alternative impact fee calculation/report is proper, but a wholesale rejection of the Unit Count Method methodology is not. 2. Further, the Letter (a copy of which Letter is attached as Exhibit "D ") rejects the "Meter Equivalency" approach as a methodology approach and does not specifically address, reject or challenge the Unit Count Method approach that was used by the Petitioner. See, the Letter. The Petitioner is not using a "Meter Equivalency" approach, and the Petitioner has no idea how to respond to County staffs rejection of an approach/methodology not taken by Petitioner. Additionally, the Letter provides no basis or authoritative support for rejecting the 569418 \ 111647M03 2 Agenda Item No. 10E January 13, 2009 Page 199 of 398 Unit Count Method. To the contrary, Petitioner's alternative fee calculation/report dated July 23, 2008 and prepared by Gerald C. Hartman, PE, BCEE, ASA of GAI Consultants Inc. (a copy of which is attached as Exhibit "E" and is hereinafter referred to as the "Report") provides clear support for the Unit Count Method as an accepted alternative method of impact fee calculation for commercial properties. See, Attachments F and G to the Report. In fact, Petitioner challenges the Letter as triggering the need to file a written appeal petition to the Board and respectfully requests that County staff meet with Petitioner to discuss Petitioner's alternative fee calculation/report based on the Meter Equivalency approach. 3. Petitioner's alternative fee calculation/report dated July 23, 2008 and prepared by Gerald C. Hartman, PE, BCEE, ASA of GAI Consultants Inc. (a copy of which is attached as Exhibit "E" and is hereinafter referred to as the "Report") states that 27.3 ERCs for both water and wastewater have been paid by Petitioner or will be paid prior to the issuance of Certificates of Occupancy. See, Page 2 and attachment H of the Report. Pages 2 and 3 of the Letter simply misstate representations made by Petitioner as to the number of existing ERCs. Further, Petitioner continues to request that these additional 5.5 ERCs be paid prior to the issuance of Certificate of Occupancies as no water and/or wastewater demand/use will occur until after Certificate of Occupancies have been issued by the County (hence, no impact will occur until such time) and given that County staff improperly issued the building permits without first collecting the correct amount of impact fees from such outparcel owners /tenants, it is simply unfair to punish the Petitioner for County staff's mistake, especially when no demand for water and wastewater services has occurred. If Certificate of Occupancies are not issued or if the permits expire, no demand for water and wastewater services is created and no additional impact fees for the same should be paid. 568418 \ 111647.0003 3 Agenda Item No. 10E January 13, 2009 Page 200 of 398 4. The Unit Count Method is documented and supported by the historical flow as demonstrated in the Report. The Report documents the correlation between the Unit Count methodology and historical record by looking at 2007 annual averages for water and wastewater flows. The only full calendar year with complete data. The Report concludes that the Unit Count Method is valid and approximately applied. See, Tables 1,2 and 3 of the Report. 5. At no time has Petitioner agreed to or accepted "peak flow" as the approach or methodology for the alternative fee calculation/report. To the contrary, attachments B and C to the Report support Petitioner's claim that County staff must look at "annual average daily flow," not peak flows. The Letter is silent on this issue and to date, County staff has filed to provide legal support for calculating impact fees based on peak flows. Exhibit 3 of the Letter shows 41.6 ERCs when looking at historical "monthly" average flows for water. County staff, however, is asserting that 61.4 ECRs are due for water. This is simply not supported by their own findings in the Letter when looking at annual average daily flows. With respect to wastewater, County staff provided no wastewater flow information in the Letter, and County staff failed to challenge Petitioner's wastewater flow information supporting 32 ERCs due for wastewater. As such, County staff has no basis whatsoever to support a claim that 61.4 ECRs are due for wastewater. According to the Report, on an annual average basis for wastewater, the actual flows and the paid units and the occupied units correlate exactly to 32 ERCs. See, Page 3 of the Report. 6. Further, with respect to County staff's water calculations, Table 3 of the Report and Exhibit 3 of the Letterl show combined (irrigation and water for the buildings) water flow through the meters. However, Table 2 of the Report documents the repairs to the integrated irrigation and potable water system in 2007. Petitioner further provided site photographs in the Report showing sod and landscaping needs in 2007 and 2008. Site development records show 568418 \ 111647.0003 4 Agenda Item No. 10E January 13, 2009 Page 201 of 398 that major development occurred in 2007 and that development continues in 2008. In 2008, installation of sod and landscaping created additional non - reoccurring water demand. The American Water Works Association guidelines state that non re- occurring data should be excluded from the fee calculation analysis. As such, major waterline beaks and water usage for new sod and landscaping should be excluded. Wherefore, Petitioner respectfully requests that the Board of County Commissioners reject the Letter and approve the alternative impact fee calculation/report provided by the Petitioner pursuant to the terms of the August 1, 2008 letter attached hereto as Exhibit "C" Respectfully submitted, Douglas A. Lewis, Esq. Attorney for Petitioner Florida Bar No. 0177260 Roetzel & Andress 850 Park Shore Drive, Trianon Centre, Third Floor Naples, FL 34103 (239)649 -6200 1 Such numbers have been provided by County staff and are subject to contest by Petitioner. 568418\ 111647.0003 5 Agenda Item No. 10E January 13, 2009 Page 202 of 398 Certificate of Service I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was furnished via e- mail to the following persons this I" day of October, 2008. Jeffrey A. Klatzkow, Esq. Jennifer Belpedio, Esq. Collier County Attorney's Office 3301 E. Tamiami Trail, 8a' Floor Naples, FL 34112 Mr. Joseph K. Schmitt, Administrator Community Development & Environmental Services 2800 N. Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 568418 \1116470003 Mr. Jim Mudd, Collier County Manager 3301 E. Tamiami Trail, 2nd Floor Naples, FL 34112 Douglas A. Lewis, Esq. Attorney for Petitioner Florida Bar No. 0177260 Roetzel & Andress 850 Park Shore Drive, Trianon Centre, Third Floor Naples, FL 34103 (239)649 -6200 Agenda Item No. 10E January 13, 2009 Page 203 of 398 EXHIBIT "A" Agenda Item No. 10E January 13, 2009 Page 204 of 398 AGREEMENT REGARDING ALTERNATIVE IMPACT FEE CALCULATION This Agreement is made and entered into on May, 2008 into by and between Tamiami Square of Naples, LLC, a Florida limited liability company ( "Developer "), and the Collier County Board of County Commissioners ( "BCC ") acting as the governing body of the Collier County Water -Sewer District ( "CCWSD "). WHEREAS, CCWSD has calculated $288,623.50 in water and sewer Impact fees based on the square footage and/or use of existing commercial development located on real property identified by the following Collier County tax identification numbers: (i) 00143080000; (ii) 76422000065; and (iii) 76422000049 ("Property"); and WHEREAS, Developer disputes the $288,623.50 calculation. Notwithstanding, Developer has paid $43,444.00 for water and sewer impact fees for the Property, subject to and conditioned upon Developer reserving all of its rights under the Consolidated Impact Fee Ordinance and all other applicable laws, ordinances, etc.; and WHEREAS, CCWSD and Developer desire to participate in an alternative impact fee process regarding the amount of water and sewer impact fees ( "Impact Fees ") due and owing for the Property and hereby agree to withhold the filing or initiation of any claim, action or lawsuit during the pendency of the alternative impact fee process; and WHEREAS, CCWSD has released all current Public Utilities Division holds or any other holds related to hnpact Fees on building permits and related certificates of occupancy pending on the Property as of the effective date of this Agreement as a condition of payment in the amount of $43,444.00 made by the Developer on April 3, 2007. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing premises and the following promises, the parties agree as follows: L The foregoing recitals are true and correct and are hereby incorporated herein by reference. 2. Developer has tendered a check in the amount of $43,444.00 for Impact Fees and $2,500.00 for: (i) staff to review its alternative impact fee calculation; and (ii) payment of all of Developer's fees and costs due and owing the County for the alternative impact fee process. 3. CCWSD agrees not to withhold issuance of certificates of occupancy, issue stop work orders or take any other adverse action on all issued or pending building permits for the Property based on or related to the $288,623.50 in disputed Impact Fees. 4, No later than May 13, 2008, Developer shall arrange and attend a pre - application meeting with the County Manager to discuss the requirements, procedures and methodology of the alternative fee calculation. The pre - application meeting will normally cover the following topics: (1) proposed previous studies; (2) credits; (3) proposed study sites; (4) study data elements; (5) proposed data collection methodology; and (6) report format. 5. Subsequent to the pre - application meeting, Developer shall submit three (3) copies of the proposed approach to the alternate fee calculation to the County Manager. The County Manager shall have 30 County working days to respond in writing to the proposed approach. If the County Manager concurs with the proposed approach, Developer will be notified to proceed with the alternative fee calculation. If the County Manager disagrees with the proposed approach, the County Manager shall identify the problem areas for Developer to incorporate and address in its re- submittal to the County. Developer shall be required to receive approval from the County Manager prior to proceeding with the Agenda Item No. 10E January 13, 2009 Page 205 of 398 alternative fee calculation. If the County Manager has not approved Developer's proposed approach after one re -subrr ttal, Developer may request a decision from the County Manager whereupon the County Manager shall either approve, approve with conditions, or deny the proposed approach. 6. The alternative fee calculation shall be undertaken through the submission of an impact analysis for the water and sewer facilities at issue, which shall be based on data, information, methodology and assumptions contained in Chapter 74, of the Collier County Code of Ordinances and/or the impact fee studies incorporated herein, or an independent source, including local studies for alternative impact fee calculations performed by others within the immediately preceding three (3) years, if applicable or available, provided that the independent source is a local study supported by a data base adequate for the conclusions contained in such study performed pursuant to a methodology generally accepted by professionals in the field of expertise for the water and sewer facilities at issue and based upon standard sources of information relating to facilities planning, cost analysis and demographics and generally accepted by professionals in the field of expertise for the public facilities at issue. 7. The alternative fee calculation shall be submitted by the Developer for the Property and shall be prepared and certified as accurate by persons accepted by the County as qualified professionals in the field of expertise for the public facilities at issue, and shall be submitted to the County Manager. 8. Within thirty (30) County working days of receipt of an alternative fee calculation, the County Manager shall determine if it is complete. If the County Manager determines the application is not complete, he shall send a written statement specifying the deficiencies to the person submitting the application at the address set forth in the application. The County Manager will not be required to take any further action on the alternative fee calculation until all specified deficiencies have been corrected. 9. After the County Manager determines that the alternative fee calculation is complete, he shall notify Developer of its completion within ten (10) days, and he shall, within thirty (30) County working days, complete a review of the data, analysis, and conclusions asserted in the alternative fee calculation. If this review is not completed within these time frames, and if requested by Developer, the item will be scheduled for the next available BCC meeting. 10. If the County Manager determines that in the alternative fee calculation the County's cost to accommodate the existing commercial square footage and use on the Property is statistically significantly different than the impact fee established pursuant to Section 74 -201 and the applicable Sections 74 -302 through 74 -309, of the Collier County Code of Ordinances, the amount of the impact fee invoiced Developer shall be reduced to a dollar amount consistent with the amount determined by the alternative fee calculation, subject to the BCC's approval. 11. In the event Developer disagrees with a decision of the County Manager that effectively results in a denial of the alternative fee calculation, Developer may file a written appeal petition with the BCC not later than thirty (30) days after receipt of notice of such a decision by the County Manager. In reviewing the decision, the BCC shall use the standards established or to be established hereunder. The appeal petition must advise the BCC of all issues and shall explain the precise basis Developer asserts that the decision(s) of the County Manager is/are alleged to be incorrect. 12. Developer agrees that future permits sought for the Property seeking a net increase in size or use and creating additional demand or impact on water or sewer public facilities will not be issued unless Impact Fees due for the particular unit(s) (based solely on such size or use increase creating additional demand or impact on water or sewer public facilities) are paid in full. CCWSD agrees that it will not withhold issuance of permits or certificates of occupancy, issue stop work orders, or take any adverse action relating to: (i) future permits sought for particular unit(s) within the Property that do not result in a net increase in size or use and do not create additional demand or impact on water and sewer public Agenda Item No. 10E January 13, 2009 Page 206 of 398 facilities; and (it) permits for particular unit(s) within the Property where additional Impact Fees are due (given a net increase in size or use and creating additional demand or impact on public facilities) and paid in full. 13. Should an alternative impact fee be approved by the BCC, Developer agrees to provide the CCWSD with sewer flow rates' on a monthly basis until two (2) years after the approval of the alternative impact fee. 14. At the end of each six month period within the two (2) year cycle CCWSD will analyze the water and/or sewer flows for sewer during those six month periods. CCWSD hereby acknowledges that during the two (2) year cycle the Developer will continue to lease and develop the Property and that water and sewer flows for the Property will likely increase. In the event that actual water and/or sewer flows for the Property in two consecutive months exceed the sum of water and/or sewer flows used in the alternative impact fee calculation and water and/or sewer flows accounted for in the issuance of future building permits, CCWSD can properly claim additional water and sewer Impact Fees are due and owed. CCWSD will recover additional water and sewer Impact Fees at the then in effect Impact Fee rate. During, the two (2) year cycle, and after its expiration, all additional future water and sewer Impact Fees not yet accounted for or related to the $288,623.50 in disputed impact fees will be paid at the time of the future building permit issuance. 15. For the pendency of the alternative impact fee process, the parties agree that all applicable statute of limitations as to any and all claims of the County or Developer shall be tolled and suspended. 16. Developer hereby waives any defense by way of any statute of limitations which would otherwise arise during the pendency of the alternative impact fee process. I7. This waiver shall not be construed as a waiver of any statute of limitations defense that has become established as of the effective date of this Agreement, or which would arise after the pendency of the alternative impact fee process; it only excludes the period during which this Agreement has operated to toll any applicable statute of limitations. 18. It is understood that by entering into this Agreement, neither party is waiving any claims, rights or defenses that may have accrued up to the effective date of this Agreement. 19. This Agreement shall not be offered in evidence in any action or proceeding except with respect to any action or proceeding related to this Agreement, or to enforce the terms of the Agreement, or prove that the statute of limitations was tolled for the period of time during which this Agreement was in effect. 20- The pendency of the alternative impact fee process will be deemed to have commenced upon approval of this Agreement by the BCC and full execution of the same by the parties hereto and shall be deemed to have expired upon a final determination by the BCC on Developer's alternative impact fee calculation. 21. During the pendency of the alternative impact fee process, the $288,623.50 in Impact Fees invoiced Developer shall not be deemed delinquent under Section 74 -501, of the Collier County Code of Ordinances or otherwise and no delinquency fee, interest, or other fees shall be due and owing the County with respect to said Impact Fees or any portion thereof which may be due and owing the County for the Property. 22. On or before thirty (30) days after the end of the alternative impact fee process and only in the event additional Impact Fees are due and owing the County, the County shall provide written notice to CCWSD will monitor the monthly water flows. Agenda Item No. 10E January 13, 2009 Page 207 of 398 Developer of the amount of any Impact Fees due based on the outcome of the alternative impact fee process. Developer shall have thirty (30) days from the date of said notice by the County to pay all such Impact Fees in full or enter into a binding agreement with the County to make installment payments for said Impact Fees to include the statutory interest rate which shall only commence to accrue from and after the date a final determination is made by the BCC on Developer's alternative impact fee calculation. The County Manager is hereby authorized to enter into an agreement with Developer for installment payments with a reasonable repayment period not to exceed three (3) years. If Developer fails to either pay in full all such Impact Fees and any statutory interest due and payable thereon on or before the expiration of said thirty (30) day period or enter into a binding agreement with the County regarding installment payments, the County may only thereafter deem any such Impact Fees due and owing the County for the Property delinquent under Section 74 -501, of the Collier County Code of Ordinances and proceed with its collection rights and remedies under Section 74 -501, of the Collier County Code of Ordinances. Notwithstanding anything contained in this Agreement to the contrary, it is expressly understood and agreed to by the parties hereto that Developer does not hereby waive or limit in any way any existing or future claims, rights, positions or defenses that Developer may have to seek a refund for overpayment of impact fees pursuant to Section 74 -202 or to legally challenge: (i) the alternative impact fee process, (ii) the final determination made by the BCC on Developer's alternative impact fee calculation, (iii) the Impact Fee calculation, and/or (iv) any future impact fee calculation for the Property. ATTEST: DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK ".;.0 = t >lttilo' aft s prova as b f and legal " sufficiency: W, S19anrL Jenm£erA. Be edio Assistant County Attorney DEVELOPER Tamiami Square of Naples, LLC, a Florida limited liability company By: Crifasi Enterprises, Inc., a as Manager /J BOARD O�/�O COMMISSIONERS OF COL R C , F ORIDA . By: TOM HENNING, CHAIRMAIP Agenda Item No. 10E January 13, 2009 Page 208 of 398 EXHIBIT "B" Agenda Item No. 10E January 13, 2009 Lewis, Doug Page 209 of 398 From: Lewis, Doug Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2008 2:44 PM To: 'wides —tom'; MoncivaizGilbert Cc: belpediojennifer; CrifasirealtyCo @aol.com;'Jean E. Valadez' Subject: RE: Tamiami Square of Naples Thanks for the follow -up Tom. We are following -up with J &N on your sewer flow questions and will get back to you with an answer on these items. It would be good to be done on the wastewater side. On the potable water side, we disagree with your preliminary conclusions. Based on our consultant's site inspection, the irrigation system was improperly expanded into areas not developed and is (together with other factors) a reason for the high usage. Our consultant believes that with the improvements, the irrigation meter, and correction of other factors, potable water consumption on the site will be much less. Based on what was stated at our pre - application meeting, we are proceeding with the Unit Count Method and the 2- year study to commence in July 2008, if possible. Jerry Hartman is putting together the alternative fee calculation. We look forward to meeting with you after this has been submitted to discuss the findings. Thanks for your continued assistance on this! I — Doug From: wides tom fmailto:TomWides(a )colliergov.nett Sent Tuesday, May 13, 2008 2:00 PM To: Lewis, Doug; MoncivaizGilbert Cc: belpediojennifer, CrifasirealtyCo @aol.com Subject: RE: Tamiami Square of Naples Doug, thanks for the photos. I good with one lift station; I'm interested at what point the sewer flows are being measured; the documentation that has been provided shows two pumps and their run times. I'm trying to determine the configuration into the lift station. If we can determine the configuration and confirm that there are only two pumps for the entire development (all buildings, no matter who owns them), I will be good with the Wastewater ERC's. Also, although the IQ (reclaimed) Water is available for the medians, we are not taking on additional IQ customers due to limited availability of IQ capacity at this time. The fall off in growth has not helped this situation; the Wastewater plants are running at low inflows for the last six -nine months. Finally, after we met yesterday, I was reviewing recent usage of potable water at the development. I see 55.4 ERC's of use in May, 2008 and 53.3 ERC's of use in April, 2008. At a simple average, that's 55.4 ERC's. Even if the development installs the irrigation meter, that may take off 6 ERC's maximum; still leaving a peak of 50 -ish ERC's for water. I see no indication of diminished use at the development; I will be very hard pressed to accept a proposal that is below these numbers. I see no basis to accept a lower number for water. Looking forward to our next session. Tom Wides From: Lewis, Doug [mailto:dalewis(abralaw.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2008 9:48 AM To: wides tom; MoncivaizGilbert Cc: belpediojennifer, CrifasirealtyCo @ aol.com Subject: Tamiami Square of Naples «Tamiami Square 020.jpg>> «Tamiami Square 021.jpg>> «Tamiami Square 022.jpg>> «Tamiami Square 023.jpg>> «Tamiami Square 024.jpg>> «Tamiami Square 025.jpg>> «Tamiami Square 026.jpg>> Tom & Gil, Exhibit "A" Page 1 of 2 Agenda Item No. 10E January 13, 2009 In follow -up to our meeting yesterday, Jerry Hartman and I went to the site and walked the property aftePeQerrie&tW, Mr your review and file. attached are photographs of the only lift station located on the very north end of the property. Let me know if you have any further questions related to the lift station. Also, in the right -of -way median just north of the site, we noticed that the median is being irrigated by reclaimed water. Does the site have access to reclaimed water for irrigation purposes? Let us know. Thanks!! Douglas A. Lewis Picture (Metafile) www.ralaw.com <htto: 11www.ralaw,com1> 850 Park Shore Drive Trianon Centre - 3rd Floor Naples, Florida 34103 Phone: (239) 649 -2712 Fax: (239) 261-3659 E -mail: dalewis @ralaw.com <mailto:dalewisaralaw.com> Profile: Douglas A- Lewis < http:// www .ralaw.cDm /attarney.cfm ?id =4512> Both Douglas A. Lewis and Roetzel & Andress intend that this message be used exclusively by the addressee(s). This message may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. Unauthorized disclosure or use of this information is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please permanently dispose of the original message and notify Douglas A. Lewis immediately at 1(239) 649 -2712. Thank you. Any federal tax advice contained herein or in any attachment hereto is not intended to be used, and cannot be used, to (1) avoid penalties imposed under the Internal Revenue Code or (2) support the promotion or marketing of any transaction or matter. This legend has been affixed to comply with U.S. Treasury Regulations governing tax practice. Exhibit "A" Page 2 of 2 Agenda Item No. 10E January 13, 2009 Page 211 of 398 EXHIBIT "C" { ;x R 0 E T Z E L ► V. A LEGAL PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION August 1, 2008 VIA HAND DELIVERY Jennifer L. Belpedio, Esq. Assistant County Attorney Collier County Attorney Office 3301 E. Tamiami Trail, 8th Floor Naples, FL 34112 850 PARK SnoRt D meE212 of 398 TRIANON CENTRE - THIRD FLOOR NAPLES, FL 34103 239.649.2712 DiRECr 239.649.6200 MAIN 239.261.3659 FAX dalewis@ralaw.mm Re: Agreement Regarding Alternative Impact Fee Calculation dated May 13, 2008 between Tamiami Square of Naples, LLC and Collier County Board of County Commissioners (the "Agreement') — Alternative Fee Calculation Study/Report dated July 23, 2008 and prepared by GAI Consultants, hie. (the "Study ") Dear Jennifer: Pursuant to the terms of the Agreement and Appendix H, Alternative Fee Calculation Methodology Water and Sewer Impact Fee from the Collier County Consolidated Impact Fee Administrative Procedures Manual, enclosed please find five (5) originals of the above - referenced Alternative Fee Calculation Study/Report for review by the County Manager, Collier County Public Utilities Department Administrator and Impact Fee Coordinator. The enclosed Study has been certified by Gerald C. Hartman with GAI Consultants, Inc., a professional engineer registered with the State of Florida, and the Study complies with the proposed approach and methodology that we discussed and agreed to use at the May 13, 2008 Alternative Impact Fee Study pre - application meeting. Based on the data, information, assumptions and methodology included in the Study and discussed at the pre- application meeting, the proposed alternative water and sewer impact fee calculations are as follows: 1. Water (potable service ) impact fees — unit count. 4.7 additional ERCs at $3,575 per ERC for a total of $16,803 in additional impact fees and a total of 32 potable water ERCs. 2. Wastewater impact fees — unit count. 4.7 additional ERCs at $3,495 per ERC for a total of $16,427 in additional impact fees paid to the County and a total wastewater impact fee count of 32 ERCs. Additionally, and in follow -up to the County letter dated March 31, 2008 (see Attachment H to the Study) and our pre - application meeting, our client proposes to install the requested two (2) inch irrigation meter and separate the potable water system from the water CLEVELAND TOLEDO AKRON COLUMBUS CRNCINNAII WASHINGTON, D.C. 'CALIAHASSEE ORLANDO FORTMYERS NAPLES FORTLAUDERDALE w w w. ral aw. c o m Agenda Item No. 10E January 13, 2009 Page 213 of 398 Jennifer L. Belpedio, Esq. August 1, 2008 Page 2 used to irrigate the property and re- hydrate the wetlands located along the eastern boundary of the property. A meter tapping fee of $1,140.00 plus impact fees for irrigation totaling of $22,060.59 would be paid by our client based on an ERC value of 6.1. As such and subject to approval of the Study, the total additional amount to be paid to the County by my client would be $56,430.59. Should the Study be approved, our client requests that the two (2) year monitoring period pursuant to Paragraphs 13 and 14 of the Agreement not commence until our client has sufficient time to separate the potable water lines from the lines used to irrigate and re- hydrate the wetlands and only upon written notification to the County from our client that such work has been completed and that the potable water and wastewater systems are functioning correctly. Pursuant to Paragraph 22 of the Agreement and the County letter dated March 31, 2008, our client proposes to pay the tapping fee for the two (2) inch irrigation meter and purchase an additional ERC value of 6.1 for irrigation for an amount totaling $22,060.59 on or before thirty (30) days from the date of County approval of the Study and County invoice for the same. With respect to the additional $16,803.00 in potable water impact fees and $16,427.00 in wastewater impact fees, our client is able to pay $1,000.00 per month until such balance is paid -in -full such that the repayment period for such additional impact fees will not exceed three (3) years. We look forward to hearing from you and greatly appreciate your cooperation and assistance in this matter. In the meantime should you have any questions whatsoever, please feel free to contact me. DAL/ksn Enclosures as Stated cc: Mr. Jack J. Crifasi, Jr. (w /enclosure) Mr. Gerald C. Hartman (w /o enclosure) 563300.01.111647.0003 Very truly yours, ROETZEL & AND -;SS, LPA Douglas A. Lewis For the Firm Agenda Item No. 10E January 13, 2009 Page 214 of 398 EXHIBIT "D" Agenda Item tqu. IOE -- January 13, 2009 Page 215 of 398 IAT� LIER C OUNTY . Tamiami Trail • Naplea, Florida 34112 • (239) 732 -2575 •FAX (239) 732 -2526 August 29, 2008 Mr. Douglas A. Lewis, Esquire Roetzel & Andress, P.A. 850 Park Shore Drive Trianon Centre — 3`s Floor Naples, Florida 34103 Subject: Alternative Water and Wastewater Impact Fee Calculation — Tamiami Square Dear Mr. Lewis: In accordance with the Agreement Regarding Alternative Impact Fee Calculation dated May 13, 2008 (the "Agreement") between the Collier County Water -Sewer District (the "District") and Tamiami Square of Naples, LLC (the "Developer" and collectively with the District, the "Parties"), District staff is providing a response to the alternative impact fee calculation submitted by the Developer for water and wastewater capacity for the Property as defined in the Agreement. In accordance with item 8 of the Agreement, the County Manager must respond in writing within thirty (30) days after the receipt of the alternative impact fee calculation to express that such calculation is considered as being complete. The alternative impact fee calculation was received by the County on August 1, 2008. The District staff, acting as the County Manager's designee, has prepared this letter to provide notification that the District staff does consider such submittal of the alternative impact fee calculation by the Developer as being complete. In accordance with item 9 of the Agreement, the County (through the District) must review the data, analysis, and conclusions asserted in the alternative impact fee calculation and provide the results of such review, analyses, and conclusions to the Developer within thirty (30) days after the determination that the application is complete. The remainder of this letter provides a discussion of our review and analyses of the alternative impact fee calculation submitted by the Developer and our conclusions. Developer Request Based on information contained in the alternative impact fee calculation and meetings and discussions held with the Developer, the Developer is requesting the following: 1. The Developer per the alternative impact fee calculation states that the total equivalent residential connections (ERC) [for that component of the Property which is identified in the alternative impact fee calculation as Phase 11 is 17 ERCs and is based on the meter equivalency approach that is represented by the Developer as Agenda item No. 1 Or January 13, 2009 Page 216 of 398 being used by numerous cities, counties, and private utilities regulated by the Florida Public Service Commission (FPSC). 2. The total amount of ERCs paid as of the date of this letter by the Developer for construction projects upon the Property to the District is 27.3 ERCs. 3. The total amount of ERCs to be assigned to the Property for all phases (1 through 3) of development is 32 units and was also based on the meter equivalency approach. Based on the assumed prepaid amount by the Developer of 27.3 ERCs, this would result in a remaining balance due for the development of all phases of the Property to be 4.7 ERCs (32 ERCs minus 27.3 ERCs. 4. The Developer plans to install a two -inch irrigation meter to receive water -only service and identified this service requirement to equal 6.1 ERCs; the determination of this level of ERCs was based on the County's "Water -only Meter Application (Potable)" calculation worksheet as prepared and submitted by the Developer to the District. 5. The total remaining amount due to the District for the Impact Fees attributable to all development phases (1 through 3) of the Property is as follows: District Review. Analysis, and Conclusions Based on the information contained in the alternative impact fee calculation provided by the Developer, a review of the District Uniform Billing, Operating and Regulatory Standards and Ordinances as applicable to the determination of impact fees, and our understanding of the Developer request as contained in the alternative impact fee calculation, we have performed the following analysis and are of the following opinions: The use of the meter equivalent basis as the method to determine the amount of ERCs allocable to the Property is considered incorrect and is not being relied upon by the District. Although numerous cities and counties may use this method, many cities and counties do not use this method due to the fact that this approach can understate the allocated capacity to a specific property. In many instances, the methodology for the determination of ERCs for a commercial classification such the Developer's Property is determined based on flow and a unit of measure that links to flow (e.g., average daily flow or fixture units). This approach is used to recognize the diversity in demand of the commercial class (customers with the same meter can have Impact Fee er ERC Impact Fee Amount Potable Water at 4.7 ERCs $3,575.00 $16,803.00 Wastewater at 4.7 ERCs $3,495.00 $16,427.00 Potable Irrigation at 6.1 ERCs $3,616.49 $22&60 59 Total Im act Fees Due Per Develo er District Review. Analysis, and Conclusions Based on the information contained in the alternative impact fee calculation provided by the Developer, a review of the District Uniform Billing, Operating and Regulatory Standards and Ordinances as applicable to the determination of impact fees, and our understanding of the Developer request as contained in the alternative impact fee calculation, we have performed the following analysis and are of the following opinions: The use of the meter equivalent basis as the method to determine the amount of ERCs allocable to the Property is considered incorrect and is not being relied upon by the District. Although numerous cities and counties may use this method, many cities and counties do not use this method due to the fact that this approach can understate the allocated capacity to a specific property. In many instances, the methodology for the determination of ERCs for a commercial classification such the Developer's Property is determined based on flow and a unit of measure that links to flow (e.g., average daily flow or fixture units). This approach is used to recognize the diversity in demand of the commercial class (customers with the same meter can have Agenda Item No. 10E January 13, 2009 Page 217 of 398 materially different service demands and therefore a different number of ERCs associated with servicing the customer) which is not reflected in the meter based approach. This is further supported by findings and opinion of Public Resources Management Group, Inc. (PRMG), the District's rate consultant, which is attached hereto and made a part of our response. As PRMG states in their letter to the District, the FPSC has allowed private utilities in numerous instances to use a flow based approach in the determination of the plant capacity charges (impact fees) to be paid for general service (commercial) customers for the reservation or allocation of capacity. 2. The approach reflected in the alternative impact fee calculation is not consistent the method reflected in the District's rules and ignores the diversity of the commercial class as it relates to meter size. The impact fee for commercial service recognized by the District is based on a level of service whereby one (1) ERC is equal to 350 gallons per day (gpd) for potable water and 250 gpd for wastewater which is "flow based"; such calculation is not dependant on the size of the meter(s) needed to measure flow to the Property. The County's determination of the impact fee due by an applicant such as the Developer is based on an estimated capacity (flow) approach which is used by many utilities across the state. Just because many utilities use a meter equivalency -based approach does not mean it is the correct approach to use for the Property; just as many utilities do not use this approach. As such, the basis for the Developer's alternative impact fee calculation is not accepted by the District staff. During the meetings between the Developer and the District staff, it was discussed among the Parties that the Impact Fee calculation should be based on actual flow characteristics of the Property. The alternative impact fee calculation as submitted did not reflect the use of this discussed methodology. Predicated on the above, the basis for the Developer's alternative impact fee calculation is not considered as being correct and therefore alternative impact fee calculation is not accepted by the District. 4. The District initially prepared an Impact Fee calculation that identified the water and wastewater ERCs for the Property and it was determined that the total ERCs were 61.4, a copy which is attached as Exhibit 1. The District does not agree with the Developer's alternative impact fee calculation that concludes that there are 32.0 ERCs for the property (absent irrigation demands). 5. The total amount of ERCs paid by the Developer for which the County has received payment was for 21.8 water and wastewater ERCs, not the 27.3 ERCs as stated in the Developer's alternative impact fee calculation. A review of our records indicate that 5.5 ERCs were represented on the building permits as being subject to an impact fee credit due to the Developer; however no payment was actually received (either prepaid or at time of permit issuance) by the District and therefore payment is still outstanding. Included on Exhibit 2 are copies of the respective building permits that indicate the amount due and the status of the respective permit. The permit numbers and corresponding ERCs are summarized below: Agenda Item No. 10E January 13, 2009 Page 218 of 398 Permit Number ERCs Re resented 2005121721 2.0 2005072983 3.5 6. Based on the above, the total ERCs for the Property due by the Developer is as follows: This table does not assume that the Developer may install a water -only irrigation meter in the future which will have the affect of reducing the amount of wastewater ERCs and respective impact fees due. As of the date of this letter, it is our understanding that the Developer has not installed the irrigation meter. To the extent that the water -only meter is installed in the future, the County will give the Developer consideration as to the change in wastewater ERCs for the overall development of the total wastewater impact fees due. District Historical Flow -based Impact Fee Analysis During the preparation of the Agreement, the Parties discussed that the impact fees should be based on actual flows (predicated on actual meter readings) to the Property which was not addressed in the alternative impact fee calculation. Additionally, documentation submitted in support of the alternative impact fee calculation included a summary of irrigation system repairs performed at the Property that may have resulted in water being lost due to leaks. It should be noted that the irrigation repairs are recurrent through the years and the Property did use the water; such water loss is the responsibility of the customer and not the District. As such, the County does not consider the possible water loss due to the irrigation repairs to be extraordinary. Furthermore, when establishing the level of service by the County, all water use is considered in the determination of the level of service. Water Wastewater Total Total ERCs er C—Ounty 61.4 61.4 Averse Itn act Fee per ERC 1 $2,695.10 $3,01696 Total Amount Due to County $350,720.50 Amount Paid by Developer Total ERCs 21.8 21.8 Amount Paid 121480.00 Net Amount Due Coun $101526.00 $121,714.50 $229 240 50 Ill Amounts shown reflect average impact fee calculated for the determination of the Developer liability by the County since the impact fee rate was based on time of permit application and the rates were adjusted by the County over time. This table does not assume that the Developer may install a water -only irrigation meter in the future which will have the affect of reducing the amount of wastewater ERCs and respective impact fees due. As of the date of this letter, it is our understanding that the Developer has not installed the irrigation meter. To the extent that the water -only meter is installed in the future, the County will give the Developer consideration as to the change in wastewater ERCs for the overall development of the total wastewater impact fees due. District Historical Flow -based Impact Fee Analysis During the preparation of the Agreement, the Parties discussed that the impact fees should be based on actual flows (predicated on actual meter readings) to the Property which was not addressed in the alternative impact fee calculation. Additionally, documentation submitted in support of the alternative impact fee calculation included a summary of irrigation system repairs performed at the Property that may have resulted in water being lost due to leaks. It should be noted that the irrigation repairs are recurrent through the years and the Property did use the water; such water loss is the responsibility of the customer and not the District. As such, the County does not consider the possible water loss due to the irrigation repairs to be extraordinary. Furthermore, when establishing the level of service by the County, all water use is considered in the determination of the level of service. Agenda Item No. 10E January 13, 2009 Page 219 of 398 As part of the review process by the District, an evaluation of the actual metered water use at the Property for the eighteen (18) month period ended August 2008 (billing period for July 2008 usage) was conducted. This analysis is shown on Exhibit 3 to this letter. As can be seen on Exhibit 3, the average monthly metered water use is actually approximating the ERC estimate developed in the District's impact fee calculation as shown on Exhibit 1. For the past four most recent months, the implied ERCs based on i) the metered water use at the property; ii) an assumed level of service equal to 350 gallons per day per ERC, and iii) the billing days reflected in the usage cycle result in a ERC value of 61.3 ERCs on a peak monthly use basis and 54.9 ERCs on an average monthly usage period. Furthermore, the ERC value based on the peak month use during the review period as shown on Exhibit 3 was 63.8 ERCs which essentially equates to the amount reflected on the District's initial impact fee calculation as shown on Exhibit 1. As evidenced by the most recent actual water sales as registered by metering at the premise, the Property is requiring the capacity (demand) that the District calculated for the Property as part of the impact fee calculation. This further supports that the Developer's alternative impact fee calculation as received by the District is not accurate and therefore is not being considered by the District. District Conclusion and Recommendation Based on the information submitted in the alternative impact fee calculation, the District review and analysis as presented herein, the actual demands being experienced by the Property, and the estimated use of the Property as reflected on the permits for which the fees were initially based, the District has identified three alternatives for consideration by the Developer. These three alternatives include: 1, Recognize that the demand and the associated impact fee liability of the Developer are based on 64.1 ERCs as initially calculated by the District as shown on Exhibit 1. 2. Recognize that the initial demand and the associated impact fee liability of the developer are 54.9 ERCs which will be subject to adjustment in accordance with the terms of item 14 of the Agreement. 3. The Developer does not agree with the District staff and shall exercise it rights under item 11 of the Agreement by filing a written appeal petition with the Board of County Commissioners not less than thirty (30) days after documented receipt of this letter. Recognizing the above and in order to close this issue relative to the impact fee liability of the Developer, the District staff offers the following as it pertains to alternative 2 (listed above): 1. The initial ERCs established for the property is 54.9 ERCs which will be reviewed every 6 months for a two year period beginning with bills rendered in October 2008 which is consistent with the terms of item 14 of the Agreement. To the extent that the actual demand for the Property in two consecutive months (calculated as follows: (((metered water use divided by number of days in billing cycle) divided by 350 gpd - Agenda Item No. 10E January 13, 2009 Page 220 of 398 per ERC) = Implied ERCs for Property] exceeds 54.9 ERCs, the Developer will be responsible to pay impact fees on the number of ERCs above such amount. The new ERC value will then serve as the established ERCs during the remainder of the two year review period. 2. The Developer shall have an immediate remaining liability due to the County for unpaid impact fees of $192,112.09 which is calculated as follows: The District will allow the Developer to pay the net amount due to the County in equal installments over a 24 month period or $8,004.67 per month (with the last month adjusted for any rounding issues in collection). The District will not charge an interest cost to carry the liability but to the extent the monthly payment is overdue, the County may charge late payment fees (amount equivalent to the rate charged to its water and wastewater customers as set by policy) and may advance the full payment of the liability. Any impact fees due as a result of increased demands experienced by the Property (i.e., in excess of the 54.9 ERCs) will be due and payable within 30 days of notification by the County to the Developer. To the extent that the Developer installs the irrigation meter which has been agreed by the Parties to equate to 6.1 ERCs, the District will credit the Developer $18,403.46 (6.1 ERCs multiplied by $3,016.96) for the change in service and adjust the remaining amount of the wastewater impact fee installment payments to recognize such credit. If the Developer installs the water -only meter after the two year evaluation period, no credit will be recognized by the District. 4, The Developer will acknowledge in writing to the County Manager of acceptance of the liability and terms of payment within thirty (30) days of receipt of this letter or it may petition to the Board of County Commissioners as provided in the Agreement. Water wastewater Totals Total Initial ERCs r County 54.9 54.9 Average Impact Fee per ERC 1 $2,695.10 $3,016.96 Total Amount Due to County $313,592.09 Amount Paid byDeveloper Total ERCs 21.8 21.8 Amount Paid 480.00 Net Amount Due County 9 [11 Amounts shown reflect average impact fee calculated for the determination of the Developer liability by the County as shown on Exhibit 1 and was used since under the actual flow based approach, no assignment to the ERCs per a building permit can be made reference Exhibit 1). The District will allow the Developer to pay the net amount due to the County in equal installments over a 24 month period or $8,004.67 per month (with the last month adjusted for any rounding issues in collection). The District will not charge an interest cost to carry the liability but to the extent the monthly payment is overdue, the County may charge late payment fees (amount equivalent to the rate charged to its water and wastewater customers as set by policy) and may advance the full payment of the liability. Any impact fees due as a result of increased demands experienced by the Property (i.e., in excess of the 54.9 ERCs) will be due and payable within 30 days of notification by the County to the Developer. To the extent that the Developer installs the irrigation meter which has been agreed by the Parties to equate to 6.1 ERCs, the District will credit the Developer $18,403.46 (6.1 ERCs multiplied by $3,016.96) for the change in service and adjust the remaining amount of the wastewater impact fee installment payments to recognize such credit. If the Developer installs the water -only meter after the two year evaluation period, no credit will be recognized by the District. 4, The Developer will acknowledge in writing to the County Manager of acceptance of the liability and terms of payment within thirty (30) days of receipt of this letter or it may petition to the Board of County Commissioners as provided in the Agreement. Agenda Item No. 10E January 13, 2009 Page 221 of 398 Summary In summary, District staff does not accept the calculation as provided in the Developer's alternative impact fee calculation and finds that $107,526 in water impact fees and $121,714.50 in wastewater impact are immediately due and payable to the District. District staff also will accept an installment based impact fee payment approach to assist the Developer with the payment of the outstanding impact fee liability. Finally, District staff agrees that the Agreement between the Parties will remain in effect for the next two (2) years in order to validate flows and the overall impact fee liability. District Staff appreciates all the efforts of the Developer with respect to the development and submittal of the alternative impact fee calculation and trust that you will agree with District staff assessment. Of course, selection and enactment of any of the three alternative courses of resolution will require Board of County Commissioner approval. I€ you need any additional information from us or have any questions with regard to our review, analyses, or conclusions, please do not hesitate to give me a call. Very truly yours, Collier County Water -Sewer District 'Thomas G. Wides Operations Director, Public Utilities Cc: Jeff Klatzkow, County Attorney Jennifer Belpedio, Assistant County Attorney Jim Delony, Public Utilities Administrator Jim Mudd, County Manager Gilbert Moncivaiz, Operations Analyst Amia Curry, Interim Manager Operations Support Attachments: Exhibit 1— Tamiami Square Development Spreadsheet Exhibit 2 — Unpaid Water and Wastewater Impact Fees Exhibit 3 — Historical Data Letter from Public Resources Management Group, Inc. (PRMG) a X LU ���qq E 8 d 88858 o^owiw _ g ev. 88,888 oN ;'o 8888° NO ocoo Ci � N un ". 6 N ry SFdLL u� S o 888,88 oao'o •eig 8.8 e.y+ uSS 888 c�c $8888 ooeciq c d v63 € �gg85 mnlmi � <- ^ N `o N v u� V V a R 8 88 W 8 �� K' 8 gggg 00' 00 hw W6 is •Nw ry �e N gMNgw yro�$ppjl wN w•�N HtyiD - m pN mmumi6 m 3ELLa m E^ vi u vir �: w wwwww W ww wwN wNw wlq }, °o o p 3rnZS WiC m o a '0 ew q� 2 vn I �1oi . N 'm �as E I°° i N 1i i eRYwi Ii w w www Nqq ww jj� 8 88880 BS SSB S8 ym y vni ��C4Nn nnq as C31L¢ >S C N N NN N N N C4 Ci li a w x111 j i a i 5 i i .i s� ,E a i� 8 m { 'v i.3 :m ;m S i� ry 1L 6 t 8 is 1°OV 6 C�� m 5 i�r n o Y Y - m i H OWN. O ° Agenda Item No. 10E January 13, 2009 Page 222 of 398 R _ g Ci f � Y nW °�yv un ". 6 N EwEm gyp{ N fwN (0 NO- c d ^C^ mnlmi wYimw 'w� ^ N `o v u� V V a R �°MM8 88 W SW w K' 00000 00' 00 hw W6 is ry �e o yro�$ppjl -8E Y - m mmumi6 m $i� E^ u Vim. W m j i a i 5 i i .i s� ,E a i� 8 m { 'v i.3 :m ;m S i� ry 1L 6 t 8 is 1°OV 6 C�� m 5 i�r n o Y Y - m i H OWN. O ° Agenda Item No. 10E January 13, 2009 Page 222 of 398 R _ g Ci nW °�yv un ". 6 N gyp{ N fwN (0 NO- 5 T� `"1 'w� ^ N `o v °gym m R �°MM8 88 SW �e o yro�$ppjl -8E Y 6��F mmumi6 m $i� E^ u Vim. z i A ry j i a i 5 i i .i s� ,E a i� 8 m { 'v i.3 :m ;m S i� ry 1L 6 t 8 is 1°OV 6 C�� m 5 i�r n o Y Y - m i H OWN. O ° Agenda Item No. 10E January 13, 2009 Page 222 of 398 R _ g Ci z j i a i 5 i i .i s� ,E a i� 8 m { 'v i.3 :m ;m S i� ry 1L 6 t 8 is 1°OV 6 C�� m 5 i�r n o Y Y - m i H OWN. O ° Agenda Item No. 10E January 13, 2009 Page 222 of 398 � % � k C }CL J \R � CD E \7 % \ \\ )/ ) Es %E § \ \« /\ % ( 0 ; § \\ , 7 7 . _ _. ® : » » :: °«b \ +&.< ! /I)~ \� ! )C\ Agenda Item No. 13 January Rz , Page 223 of Agenda Item No. 10E January 13, 2009 Page 224 of 398 Exhibit 3 Tamiami Square of Naples, LLC Account # 04046017600 Meter Days ERCs Payable Read In based on Period Month Of. Year Water Usage (thousands) Date Cycle Actual Days 94 August 2008 549 8/5/2008 29 54.1 93 July 2008 541 7/7/2008 33 46.8 92 June 2008 674 614/2008 33 58.4 91 May 2008 601 512/2008 28 61.3 90 April 2008 560 4/4/2008 29 55.2 89 March 2D08 382 316/2008 30 $6.4 as February 2008 413 2/5/2008 32 36.9 87 January 2008 _ .. - 781 1/4/2008 35' - 63.8 86 December 2007 374 11/30/2007 29 36.8 95 November 2007 223 11/112007 28 22.8 84 October 2007 244 1014/2007 28 24.9 83 September 2007 239 9/6/2007 31 22.0 82 August 2007 292 8/6/2007 31 26.9 81 July 2007 385 7/6/2007 30 36.7 80 June 2007 312 6/6/2007 33 27.0 79 May 2007 423 5/4/2007 29 41.7 78 April 2007 420 4/5/2007 30 40.0 77 March 2007 549 3/5/2007 29 54.1 2/5/2007 NumberofPeriods 1B Month) Avera a All 442 Average ERCs (A- 41,6 Last FourMonihAvera a 591 Four Month Average ERCs 54.9 Peak Volume 761 g's Agenda Item No. 10E January 13, 2009 Page 225 of 398 Public Resources Management Group, Inc. Utilitu, Rate, Financial and Management Consultants August 26, 2008 Mr. Thomas G. Wides Operations Support Director, Public Utilities Collier County Government 3301 E. Tamiami Trail, Suite H3 Naples, FL 34112 Subject: Alternative Impact Fee Application Dear Tom: As we discussed, the Collier County Water -Sewer District (the "District ") has received an alternative impact fee calculation from Tamiami Square of Naples, LLC (the "Developer ") which is requesting a reduction in the water and wastewater impact fees that were imposed by the District on the property referred to as Tamiami Square. It is my understanding that Tamiami Square is a commercial customer serviced by one master meter at the property and will be receiving both potable water and wastewater service. As you know, the District's Impact Fees are applied to a commercial customer based on the estimated equivalent residential connections (ERC) that a specific property may be determined to include. An ERC is a unit of measure which links capacity to a given property (with individually metered residential service being equal to l ERC and is generally the smallest customer from a capacity allocation standpoint) which is based on a level of service equal to 350 gallons per day for water capacity and 250 gallons per day for wastewater capacity. It should be noted that this is a daily capacity allocation and not one based on an average use experienced over a period of time such as a year. Furthermore, this capacity allocation is based on the allocation of finished water produced and wastewater treated at the respective plant facilities and therefore is not based on retail use metered at the customer premise (there is an allowance for water loss as part of the normal delivery of water and normal inflow and infiltration for the collection of wastewater). The District's allocation of capacity to all commercial customers is an ERC based approach predicated on the flow (capacity) required of the property (essentially a "flow- based" allocation) which we believe to be proper in the reservation of capacity by a specific property or customer. By using this fee determination methodology, the District does recognize customer diversity in the establishment of the level of impact fees to be charged to a property to promote the fairness provisions (rational nexus) in the application of the impact fees. KADW 125. L6Wehr Egdv L" Finatdue 341 NORTH MAITLAND AVENUE - SUITE 300 -- M.AITLAND, PL 32751 TELEPHONE: (407) 628 -2600 e PAX: (407) 628 -2610 • ENLML: PRMG @PRMGinc.cam Agenda Item No. 10E January 13, 2009 Page 226 of 398 Mr. Thomas G. Wides Collier County Government August 26, 2008 Page 2 In the alternative impact fee calculation as submitted by the Developer, a primary assumption as to why a lower impact fee should be charged to the property is that it should have been based on the "meter equivalent" approach as opposed to a flow -based approach currently used by the District. The meter equivalent approach is a method that weights the meter capacity by the maximum flow that the meter is capable of measuring to a 5/8 -inch meter (i.e., the maximum capacity for a 5/8 -inch meter is 20 gallons per minute as referenced in AW WA Manual M6 and considered as a factor of 1.0; the other meters are expressed as a multiple of this usage value based on meter size). The alternative impact fee calculation recognized this method of fee determination under the premise that "numerous cities, counties and FPSC regulated entities utilize FPSC /AWWA/FAC/F.S. Section 25- 30.055 and related sections for large service areas ..." in the determination of impact fees to be charged to a property. Although many cities and counties use meter equivalent factors for the determination of commercial property impact fees, the assertion that this is the correct method and therefore the only method to use is simply not true. With respect to the application of impact fees based on the flow or service attributes of a commercial customer, many cities, counties and other public utilities use a flow or attribute - based approach in the determination of the impact fee (attribute would be a specific component of the development such as seats in a restaurant that has a daily capacity based on flow assigned to it). The reason that these utilities use this approach is to accurately recover the cost of providing service based on the capacity requirements specific to the customer. The meter is simply used to measure daily flow and must be sized to accurately measure the flow from the property; however to say that all commercial customers have the same capacity requirement because of the meter size being the same between such customers is not correct. Simply put, a restaurant served by a 5/8 -inch meter generally would have a significantly higher demand than a real estate office served by the same meter size. Additionally, it is rare that a customer would use 100% of the maximum meter capacity and that a customer's load factor is generally less than this. The District has recognized this; for a maximum flow rate of a 5/8 -inch meter at 20 gallons per minute, the daily flow would be 28,800 gallons per day yet the approved ERC value of the District is 350 gallons per day which is my understanding is a common level of service used by the industry in Florida. There are several public utilities that use an ERC -based or flow -based approach in the determination of the impact fees and based on my experience, more are moving towards this direction due to the diversity in use experienced by the commercial class and the need to accurately recover cost. Although it is administratively easier to calculate an impact fee using meter equivalents, public utilities realize the financial benefits of calculating the commercial impact fees based on flow (or similar attribute) in order to fully recover capital costs allocable to new growth. A survey of public utilities that use a flow based approach is shown on Attachment I to this letter (this does not imply that these are the only utilities using the flow -based approach, KADM11 Lv Fi.a .d.e Agenda Item No. 10E January 13, 2009 Page 227 of 398 Mr. Thomas G. Wides Collier County Government August 26, 2008 Page 3 it is simply a survey). As can be seen, there are many utilities that use the ERC -based or flow - based approach in the determination of the impact fees due from a commercial property. Additionally, the reference in the Developer's alternative impact fee calculation with respect to the FPSC using the meter based approach in our opinion is not entirely accurate. Our experience is that for general service (commercial) use, the plant capacity fees (term used by private utilities; equivalent to an impact fee) imposed by private utilities is expressed in the rate tariff on a cost per gallon basis which implies a flow based application. Based on a review of private utility rate tariffs regulated by the FPSC that are available to us and discussions with others in the industry, the following private utilities imposed a plant capacity fee based on a "per gallon of demand" basis for the general service class: • North Fort Myers Utility, Inc. • Aloha Utilities, Inc. • North Sumter Utility Company, Inc. • Little Sumter Utility Company, Inc. (prior to acquisition) • Florida Water Services Corporation, Inc. (approximately 150 systems; prior to acquisition) • Utilities, Inc.(approximately 40 systems) hi the alternative impact fee calculation submitted by the Developer, reference was also made to Florida Statutes, Section 25- 30.055 with respect to private utilities. This reference provided a summary of the determination of ERCs for non - residential use and listed the meter equivalent factors assumed in the alternative fee calculation. It should be noted that this rule is associated with a capacity or proposed capacity, to serve 100 or fewer persons, which clearly does not relate to the County. Notwithstanding this service provision, the rule provides that unless the FPSC determines that valid local statistical data should be used, then the meter equivalent factors should be used. Based on my knowledge of the industry, the private utilities generally use local statistical data in the development of the plant capacity fees and for the general service class such fees apply to new customers on a flow basis. This is further evidenced by the flow -based fees being reflected in the respective company's rate tariff which have been approved by the FPSC. Finally, the alternative impact fee calculation submitted by the Developer also includes a reference to Public Resources Management Group, Inc. (PRMG) that the alternative method is consistent with the findings reflected in a recent PRMG report regarding the development of impact fees (I assume that this links to the recommendations for the use of the meter equivalency based impact fee since the PRMG report was appended to the calculation). There is no reference to the use of meter equivalents as the basis for fee determination in the report. In fact the fee was based on the total applicable capital costs and the total available flow (and the corresponding ERCs) allocable to growth based on the District's adopted level of service (i.e., flow) allocable to K:I W125 -16 MM rE,w L"Fmd.dx Agenda Item No. 10E January 13, 2009 Page 228 of 398 Mr. Thomas G. Wides Collier County Government August 26, 2008 Page 4 growth. The only reference to meters in the report deals with the fact that an ERC is equivalent to the daily use of a typical individually metered residential customer which is generally the lowest level of use in the determination of the flow requirements included in the definition of an ERC; it has absolutely nothing to do with the application of an impact fee based on meter equivalents. In summary, we believe the District's approach to calculating an impact fee for a commercial customer based on flow which links to the District's adopted level of service is prudent, is reflective of the practices in the industry, and provides for the full recovery of expansion - related costs of the District. We do not agree with the use of meter equivalents as the basis for the determination of the impact fee to be applied to the Developer's property since it is not consistent with the County's ordinances and is not consistent with the demand requirements being imposed by the Developer's property. If you have any questions or comments relative to our opinion or need further clarification, please do not hesitate to give me a call. Very truly yours, Public Resources Management Group, Inc. Robert J. Ori President RJO /skc Attachments KADA[125- 16%Mct r Egniv Ur Fina[, oc Agenda Item No. 10E January 13, 2009 Page 229 of 398 Attachment 1 Collier County, Florida Sample of Florida Utilities - Commercial Impact Fee with Flow Based Application Methodolo" Line No, Utility Impact Fee Application Methodology [1] [2] 1 City of Bartow Fixture Unit Based 2 Brevard County Attributes Based / Flow Based Dependent on Property Use 3 Broward County Attributes Based 4 Charlotte County Attributes Based 5 JEA F1owBased 6 Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority Fixture Unit Based 7 Fort Pierce Utilities Authority Attributes Based 8 City of Haines City Flow Based 9 Hernando County Flow Based 10 Hillsborough County Flow Based 11 Indian River County Flow Based 12 Town of Jupiter 2" or Greater, Flow Based 13 City of Lake Worth Attributes Based 14 City of Lakeland Flow Based 15 Marion County Fixture Unit Based 16 Martin County Attributes Based 17 City of Melbourne 2" or Greater, Flow Based 18 Miami -Dade County Attributes Based 19 City ofNorthport Fixture Unit Based 20 City of Ocala Attributes Based 21 City of Oldsmar Fixture Unit Based 22 City of Panama City Beach Fixture Unit Based 23 Polk County Attributes Based 24 City of Port St. Lucie Attributes Based 25 Sarasota County Attributes Based 26 Seminole County Attributes Based 27 St. Lucie County Attributes Based 28 St. Lucie West Services District Attributes Based 29 City of Stuart Attributes Based 30 City of Sunrise Attributes Based 31 Tohopekollga Water Authority Attributes Based 32 City of Winter Springs Attributes Based Footnotes: [1] Attributes Based -Impact fee based on particular attributes of customer (e.g., seats in restaurant) which an ERC or flow factor per attribute is applied. [2] Flow Based - Impact fee based on flow calculated for property as generally identified during the permitting process. Agenda Item No. 10E January 13, 2009 Page 230 of 398 EXHIBIT "E" Agenda Item No. 10E gai CW&AwS transforminq ideas into reailty., July 23, 2008 GAI Proj. # A080376.00 Douglas A. Lewis, Esquire Roetzel & Andress, P.A. 850 Park Shore Drive Trianon Centre — 3rd Floor Naples, FL 34103 Re: Tamiami Square — Collier County Water and Sewer Facilities Proposed Alternative Fee Calculation Methodology Dear Mr. Lewis: In accordance with the "Agreement Regarding Alternative Impact Fee Calculation" (May 2008), Appendix H "Water and Sewer Facilities Proposed Alternate Fee Calculation Methodology" (June 2001), and the pre - application meeting (May 2008); this letter with its Exhibits and Attachments represents the "Study Report" certified by a Florida Professional Engineer qualified in this area of work for consideration by Collier County Utilities Department Impact Fee Coordinator. Attachment A provides Appendix H. Attachment B presents clearly the 1.) Level of Service (LOS) standards for water at 350 gallons per day annual average daily flow per Equivalent Residential Connection (ERC) and the water peaking factor of 1.2, 2.) the LOS for wastewater at 250 gallons per day annual average daily flow (AADF) per ERC and the wastewater peaking factor of 1.3, the basis of determining the respective impact fee for water or the sewer system as well as other items. Attachment C provides the older County Ordinance Nos. 2007 -52, 2007 -57 and and latest Resolution 2008 -200 and Article VI. for the Water -Sewer District Uniform Billing which establishes 1.) the level of the impact fees at $3,575 per ERC for water and $3,495 per ERC for wastewater, 2.) that the subject property is a non - residential use, and 3.) that a unit within the subject property is at one ERC each. Attachment D shows site photos which clearly show that 1.) there is only one lift station on -site such that run time analysis is appropriate and includes all flows, 2.) the major building construction was recently completed by 5/12/08 the date the photographs were taken, 3.) the irrigation system is connected and that landscaping is still underway and irrigation to assure plantisod survival was practiced, and 4,) the repairs to the water system were completed. Orlando office 301 E. Pine Street, Suite 1020 Orlando, Florida 32801 T 407.423.8398 F 407.843.1070 www.gaiconsultants.com Agenda Item No. 10E January 13, 2009 Page 232 of 398 Douglas A. Lewis, Esquire July 23, 2008 Page 2 Attachment E documents the responsiveness of the developer to the County's request for information. Attachment F provides excerpts which document the practice of using units when within the ERC LOS, which Tamiami Square is, as an Alternate Method Impact of Fee Calculation for commercial properties. Attachment G provides excerpts from M1 (Manual of Practice) AWWA again confirming the methodology. Attachment H summarizes key points in the pre - application meeting. The County's rejection of FPSC meter equivalencies. This attachment includes the County's offer which was accepted in May and pending approval of this Study /Report payment will be made for the two (2) two -inch water irrigation meters at 6.1 ERCs (water only) and the tap -in cost (3/31/08 County letter). The Developer has agreed and paid or will be paid by time of C.O. some 27.3 ERCs for both water and wastewater. Attachment H page 2 of 3 and the attachments thereto which drawings show the buildout of the site in the three (3) phases including some 32 units. A unit in Phase 1 was approximately an estimated average of 1,900 ft2, in Phase 2 similarly approximately 1,950 ft2 and Phase 3 approximately 1,200 ft2. These sized units are consistent with the PRMG Study of 2006 and the County Ordinance of 2007 for one (1) ERC each. Page 3 of 3 of Attachment H provides that after the separation of the irrigation system from the potable system which the developer has agreed to do, that the agreed audit/two (2) year study between the County and Developer would thereafter for potable (non- irrigation) water and sewage AADF of 11,200 gpd and 8,000 gpd, respectively. The two (2) month average peak would be 13,440 gpd for water and 10,400 gpd for sewage. Using the Unit Count Method (number of units in the structure) for which the unit sizing is consistent with one ERC each results in 32 units and ERCs. The items listed below summarize the Professional Engineer's findings following receipt of comments from those attending the pre - application meeting: 1. Vested Flow Rates for Study /Audit (a) 32 ERCs (Potable Only) Water and Wastewater a.) Water LOS 350 gpd AADF (i) Annual Average Daily Flow through potable (non irrigation meters) = 32 x 350 gpd AADF or 11,200 gpd (ii) 2 month peak factor (see page 29 Table 1 PRMG 40.00 33.33 = ® gai consultants transforming ideas into reality® Agenda Item No. 10E January 13, 2009 Page 233 of 398 Douglas A. Lewis, Esquire July 23, 2008 Page 3 (iii) 2 month audit use on average day of that period limit is 11,200 gpd x 1.2 or 13,440 gpd for test period. b.) Wastewater LOS 250 gpd AADF (i) Annual Average (12 month period) Daily Flow = 32 x 250 = 8,000 gpd AADF (ii) 2 month peak factor (see page 32 Table 2 PRMG) 40.100 r 30.846 = 1.3 (iii) 2 month audit of use on average day for that period is 8,000 gpd x 1.3 or 10,400 gpd. 2. Proposed Additional Payments a.) Irrigation meters 3/3/1/08 (i) Tapping fee $ 1,140.00 (ii) ERCs irrigation $22,060.59 b.) Water potable service) impact fees — unit count (i) 4.7 ERCs x $3,575 $16,803.00 c.) Wastewater impact fees — unit count (i) 4.7 ERCs x $3,495 $16,427.00 Total Amount Due (following approval) $56.430.59 3. Consensus of Follow -up (following pre - application meeting) a.) Answer, questions and requests for information by County. This activity is complete. b.) Submit alternative methodology signed and sealed by engineer. This letter report and attachments satisfies this final item. Typically, Alternative Methodologies, if possible, are documented by the historical record. Table 1 presents the sewage flow records for Tamiami Square for 2007 for the occupied 18 units on average for the year. On an annual average basis the actual flows and the paid units and the occupied units correlate exactly. On a peaking basis the correlation is within 6.1% (six point one percent) which following the manual of practice for the smaller demand center of Tamiami Square versus the entire Collier County wastewater system is expected and appropriate (size /population peaking factor adjustments pursuant to FDEP, 10- States Standards and WEF MOPs). I conclude and have verified that the unit count method is valid and approximately applied. ® gai consultants transfbrming ideas Into reality® Agenda Item No. 10E January 13, 2009 Page 234 of 398 Douglas A. Lewis, Esquire July 23, 2008 Page 4 Table 1 is supported by Exhibit A. Table 2 documents the repairs to the integrated irrigation and potable water system in 2007. Site photographs illustrate the new landscaping needs in 2007. Site development records illustrate that major construction of structures occurred in 2007. Since May of 2008, the amount of irrigation and conservation practices in the commercial establishments were emphasized. Although both the irrigation and potable use were integrated at the customer side of the meters (both types of flow through the meters) and therefore irrigation and repairs to that system would skew the historical record; the same documentation analysis was conducted. Table 3 presents the combined water flow through the meters. AWWA guidelines state that where major breaks have occurred that data is not re- occurring and therefore should be excluded from the analysis. Considering the occupancy of 18 units and the County 6.1 ERCs for irrigation a conservative weighted average of 24.1 ERCs is obtained. The skewed data (as a result of sod establishment, construction, minor breaks, irrigation use) results is a comparable 30.8 ERCs AADF. The correlation is within AWWA standards to the 24.1 ERCs. Nonetheless, it is the metered data as shown on Exhibit B supporting Table 3, which confirms the agreed two year audit and true -up. As a Florida Professional Engineer qualified and accepted in Civil Court mediation and FPSC expert testimony for such cases /proceedings and due to my over 30 years experience, training, and practice in Florida on many such impact fee matters (see Attachment 1), 1 do hereby certify and conclude that the Alternative Methodology as the unit count method is appropriate for the Tamiami Square project taken in conjunction with the reasonable assurance from an agreed two (2) year Study /Audit of the use. Very truly yours, GAI Consultants, Ir e d C. Hartman, Vice President Florida P.E. 27703 GCH/1ev 1A080376.00 /Reports /R -1 Cvr Itr GAI Consultants, Inc. 301 E. Pine St., Suite 102 Orlando, FL 3 $ Engineer' r art P.E. CEE, ASA to da R s ration 427703 ASA Registration #7542 ® gai consultants transforming ideas Into reality® Qmax Mo. = 6,220 gpd + (250 x 1.3) = 19.0 ERCs tt� Q AADF 1,626,544 _ 365 + 250 = 18 ERCs 0 Good correlation of omax month @ 19.1 ERCs, °aadf @ 18 ERCs and occupancy @ 18 units or ERCs as averaged for period. 0 Note 32 ERCs to be purchased (1) 1.3 peak factor for sewage Flor per PRMG 2007 report - impact fees P: \ORL \HCD \Word Proc \2008VA080376.00 \Report \R- 1 \Tables.xlsx Agenda Item No. 10E January 13, 2009 Page 235 of 398 Table 1 Tamiami Square 2007 Data Run Times - Sewage Flow Actual Use Date Flow Days ADF /Month 1/07 192825 + 31 6,220 gpd 2/07 164346 + 28 5,870 gpd 3/07 188906 - 31 6,094 gpd 4/07 144349 - 30 4,812 gpd 5/07 118168 + 31 3,812 gpd 6/07 110295 + 30 3,677 gpd 7/07 101769 - 31 3,283 gpd 8/07 93103 + 31 3,003 gpd 9107 103676 - 30 3,456 gpd 10/07 130074 - 31 4,196 gpd 11/07 139200 + 30 4,640 gpd 12/07 139833 + 31 4,511 gpd Qmax Mo. = 6,220 gpd + (250 x 1.3) = 19.0 ERCs tt� Q AADF 1,626,544 _ 365 + 250 = 18 ERCs 0 Good correlation of omax month @ 19.1 ERCs, °aadf @ 18 ERCs and occupancy @ 18 units or ERCs as averaged for period. 0 Note 32 ERCs to be purchased (1) 1.3 peak factor for sewage Flor per PRMG 2007 report - impact fees P: \ORL \HCD \Word Proc \2008VA080376.00 \Report \R- 1 \Tables.xlsx Agenda Item No. 10E January 13, 2009 Page 236 of 398 Exhibit A Actual Sewage Flows 2007 Agenda Item No. 10E January 13, 2009 Page 237 of 398 TAMIAMI SQUARE MONTH: January 2007 Flow per Min /Hr DATE TIME PUMP 91 HRS. RUN PUMP #2 HRS. RUN MAINTENANCE 31 0.7 0.6 30 0.7 0.6 29 0901 719.7 0.7 173.6 0.6 28 0.5 0.6 27 0.5 0.6 26 0.5 0.6 25 1356 717.7 0.5 171.4 0.6 24 0.6 0.6 23 0.6 0.6 22 0957 715.9 0.6 169.5 0.6 21 0.6 0.6 20 0.6 0.6 19 0.6 0.6 18 1127 713.5 0.6 167.1 0.6 17 0.5 0.4 16 0.5 0.4 15 0938 712.0 0.5 165.9 0.4 14 0.5 0.6 13 0.5 0.6 12 0.5 0.6 11 1021 709.9 0.5 163.5 0.6 10 0.4 0.5 9 0.4 0.5 8 1112 708.7 0.4 162.0 0.5 7 0.6 0.6 6 0.6 0.6 5 0.6 0.6 4 0857 706.2 0.6 159.6 0.6 3 0.5 0.5 2 1214 705.2 0.5 158.6 0.5 1 0.6 0.6 17.2 98865.6 17.4 93959.46 total flow for month 192825.06 Agenda Item No. 10E January 13, 2009 Page 238 of 398 TAMIAMI SQUARE MONTH: February 2007 Flow per Min /Hr DATE TIME PUMP #1 HRS. RUN PUMP #2 HRS. RUN MAINTENANCE 31 30 29 28 0.6 0.6 27 0.6 0.6 26 0941 734.5 0.5 188.6 0.6 25 0.5 0.5 24 0.5 0.5 23 0.5 0.5 22 1120 732.5 0.5 186.6 0.5 21 0.5 0.5 20 0.5 0.5 19 0920 731.0 0.5 185.1 0.5 18 0.5 0.6 17 0.5 0.6 16 0.5 0.6 15 0938 729.0 0.5 182.7 0.6 14 0.6 0.5 13 0.6 0.5 12 0938 727.2 0.5 181.2 0.5 11 0.5 0.5 10 0.5 0.5 9 0.5 0.5 8 1135 7252 0.5 179.2 0.5 7 D.6 0.6 6 0.6 0.6 5 1134 723.4 0.6 177.4 0.6 4 D.4 0.5 3 0.4 0.5 2 0.4 0.5 1 1013 721.8 0.4 175.4 0.5 14.5 83346 15 81000 total flow for month 164346 Agenda Item No. 10E January 13, 2009 Page 239 of 398 TAMIAMI SQUARE MONTH: MARCH 2007 Flow per Min /Hr DATE TIME PUMP #1 HRS. RUN PUMP #2 HRS. RUN MAINTENANCE 31 0.4 0.5 30 0.4 0.5 29 0309 751.9 0.4 206.0 0.5 28 0.5 0.5 27 0.5 0.5 26 D922 750.4 0.5 204.5 0.5 25 0.6 0.6 24 0.6 0.6 23 0.6 0.6 22 0912 748.0 0.6 202.1 0.6 21 0.5 0.5 20 0.5 0.5 19 1248 746.5 0.5 200.6 0.5 18 0.6 0.6 17 0.6 0.6 16 0.6 0.6 15 0927 744.1 0.6 198.2 0.6 14 0.5 0.5 13 0.5 0.5 12 1043 742.6 0.5 196.7 0.5 11 0.6 0.6 10 0.6 0.6 9 0.6 0.6 8 0945 740.2 0.6 194.3 0.6 7 0.5 0.5 6 0.5 0.5 5 0938 738.7 0.5 192.8 0.5 4 0.6 0.6 3 0.6 0.6 2 0.6 0.6 1 1111 736.3 D.6 190.4 0.6 16.8 96566.4 17.1 92340 total flow for month 188906.4 Agenda Item No. 10E January 13, 2009 Page 240 of 398 TAMIAMI SQUARE MONTH: APRIL 2007 Flow per Min /Hr DATE TIME PUMP #1 HRS. RUN PUMP #2 HRS. RUN MAINTENANCE 31 30 0909 765.8 0.2 220.4 0.1 29 0.4 0.4 28 0.4 0.4 27 0.4 0.4 26 0917 764.2 0.4 21 B.8 0.4 25 0.3 0.3 24 0.3 0.3 23 1428 763.3 0.3 217.9 0.3 22 0.6 0.6 21 0.6 0.6 20 0.6 0.6 19 1030 760.9 0.6 215.5 0.6 18 0.4 0.5 17 0.4 0.5 16 1127 759.7 0.4 214.0 0.5 15 0.4 0.4 14 0.4 0.4 13 0.4 0.4 12 1021 758.2 0.4 212.4 0.4 11 0.4 0.4 10 0.4 0.4 9 1057 757.0 0.4 211.2 0.4 8 0.5 0.5 7 0.5 0.5 g 1 0.5 0.5 5 0920 755.0 0.5 209.2 0.5 4 0.5 0.4 3 0.5 0.4 2 1226 753.5 0.5 208.0 0.4 1 0.4 0.5 12.9 74149.2 13 70200 total flow for month 144349.2 Agenda Item No. 10E January 13, 2009 Page 241 of 398 TAMIAMI SQUARE MONTH: MAY 2007 Flow per Min /Hr DATE TIME PUMP #1 HRS. RUN PUMP #2 HRS. RUN MAINTENANCE 31 0936 776.8 0.4 231.7 0.4 30 0.4 0.5 29 1021 776.0 0.4 230.7 0.5 28 0.3 0.3 27 0.3 0.3 26 0.3 0.3 25 0.3 0.3 24 1224 774.5 0.3 229.2 0.3 23 0.3 0.3 22 0.3 0.3 21 1046 773.6 0.3 226.3 0.3 20 0.4 0.4 19 0.4 0.4 18 0.4 0.4 17 1117 772.0 0.4 226.7 0.4 16 0.3 0.3 15 0.3 0.3 14 1130 771.1 0.3 225.8 0.3 13 0.4 0.4 12 0.4 0.4 11 0.4 0.4 10 1130 769.5 0.4 224.2 0.4 9 0.4 0.3 8 0.4 0.3 7 1110 768.4 0.4 223.3 0.3 6 0.3 0.4 5 0.3 0.4 4 0.3 0.4 3 1025 767.2 0.3 221.7 0.4 2 0.3 0.1 1 0.3 0.1 10.5998 60927.6504 10.6 57240 total flow for month 118167.6504 Agenda Item No. 10E January 13, 2009 Page 242 of 398 TAMIAMI SQUARE MONTH: JUNE 2007 Flow per Min /Hr DATE TIME PUMP #1 HRS. RUN PUMP #2 HRS. RUN MAINTENANCE 31 30 0.3 0.4 29 0.3 0.4 28 1249 786.0 0.3 241.0 0.4 27 0.3 0.3 26 0.3 0.3 25 1313 785.1 0.3 240.1 0.3 24 0.3 0.3 23 0.3 0.3 22 0.3 1 0.3 21 1258 783.9 0.3 238.9 0.3 20 1 0.4 0.4 19 0.4 0.4 1 B 1057 782.7 0.4 237.7 0.4 17 0.3 0.3 16 0.3 1 0.3 15 0.3 0.3 14 1357 781.5 0.3 236.5 0.3 13 0.3 0.3 12 0.3 0.3 11 D908 780.6 0.3 235.6 0.3 10 DA 0.4 9 0.4 0.4 8 0.4 0.4 7 1105 779.0 0.4 1 233.9 0.4 6 0.2 0.2 5 0.2 0.2 4 1107 778.4 0.2 233.3 0.2 3 0.4 0.4 2 0.4 0.4 1 0.4 0.4 9.7 55755.6 10.1 54540 total flow for month 110295.6 Agenda Item No. 10E January 13, 2009 Page 243 of 398 TAMIAMI SQUARE MONTH: JULY 2007 Flow per Min /Hr DATE TIME PUMP #1 HRS. RUN PUMP #2 HRS. RUN MAINTENANCE 31 0.3 0.3 30 1116 795.3 0.3 250.6 0.3 29 0.4 0.4 28 0.4 0.4 27 0.4 0.4 26 1331 793.7 0.4 249.0 0.4 25 0.2 0.3 24 1030 793.3 0.2 248.4 0.3 23 0.3 0.2 22 0.3 0.2 21 0.3 0.2 20 0.3 0.2 19 1133 792.3 0.3 247.4 0.2 18 0.3 0.3 17 0.3 0.3 16 1254 791.4 0.3 246.5 0.3 15 0.3 0.3 14 0.3 0.3 13 0.3 0.3 12 1113 790.2 0.3 245.3 0.3 11 0.3 0.3 10 0.3 0.3 9 1126 789.3 0.3 244.4 0.3 8 0.3 0.3 7 0.3 0.3 6 0.3 0.3 5 1026 788.1 0.3 243.2 0.3 4 0.3 0.2 3 0.3 0.2 2 1154 787.2 0.3 242.6 0.2 1 0.3 0.4 9.25 53169 9 48500 total flow for month 101769 Agenda Item No. 10E January 13, 2009 Page 244 of 398 TAMIAMI SQUARE MONTH: AUGUST 2007 Flow per Min /Hr DATE TIME PUMP #1 HRS. RUN PUMP #2 HRS. RUN MAINTENANCE 31 0.3 0.3 30 0929 803.7 0.3 258.9 0.3 29 0.2 0.1 28 0.2 0.1 27 1051 803.1 0.2 258.6 0.1 26 0.3 0.3 25 0.3 0.3 24 0.3 0.3 23 1200 801.9 0.3 257.4 0.3 22 0.2 0.3 21 0.2 0.3 20 1045 801.3 0.2 256.5 0.3 19 0.3 0.3 18 0.3 0.3 17 0.3 0.3 16 1102 800.1 0.3 255.3 0.3 15 0.3 0.4 14 0.3 0.4 13 1414 799.2 0.3 254.1 0.4 12 0.3 0.2 11 0.3 0.2 10 0.3 0.2 9 1150 798.0 0.3 253.3 0.2 8 0.2 0.2 7 0.2 0.2 6 1039 797.4 0.2 252.7 0.2 5 0.3 0.3 4 0.3 0.3 3 0.3 0.3 2 1454 796.2 0.3 251.5 0.3 1 0.3 0.3 8.4 48283.2 8.3 44820 total flow for month 93103.2 Agenda Item No. 10E January 13, 2009 Page 245 of 398 TAMIAMI SQUARE MONTH: SEPTEMBER 2007 Flow per Min /Hr DATE TIME PUMP #1 HRS. RUN PUMP #2 HRS. RUN MAINTENANCE 31 30 0.3 0.3 29 0.3 0.3 28 0.3 0.3 27 1028 812.4 0.3 267.6 0.3 26 0.4 0.4 25 0.4 0.4 24 0950 811.2 0.4 266.4 0.4 23 0.3 0.3 22 0.3 0.3 21 0.3 0.3 20 0820 810.0 0.3 265.2 0.3 19 0.3 0.3 18 0.3 0.3 17 1142 809.1 0.3 264.3 0.3 16 0.3 0.3 15 0.3 0.3 14 0.3 0.3 13 0848 807.9 0.3 2631 0.3 12 0.3 0.3 11 0.3 0.3 10 1309 807.0 0.3 262.2 0.3 9 0.3 0.3 8 0.3 0.3 7 0.3 0.3 6 1040 805.8 0.3 261.0 0.3 5 0.3 0.3 4 1226+ 805.2 0.3 260.4 0.3 3 0.3 0.3 2 0.3 0.3 1 0.3 0.3 9.3 53456.4 9.3 50220 total flow for month 103676.4 Agenda Item No. 10E January 13, 2009 Page 246 of 398 TAMIAMI SQUARE MONTH: OCTOBER 2007 Flow per Min /Hr DATE TIME PUMP #1 HRS. RUN PUMP #2 HRS. RUN MAINTENANCE 31 0.5 0.5 30 0.5 0.5 29 0832 824.2 0.5 278.5 0.5 28 0.4 0.4 27 0.4 0.4 26 0.4 0.4 25 1244 822.6 0.4 276.9 0.4 24 0.3 0.4 23 0.3 0.4 22 0902 821.7 0.3 275.7 0.4 21 0.5 0.4 20 0.5 0.4 19 0.5 0.4 18 0939 819.7 0.5 274.1 0.4 7 DA 0.5 6 0.4 0.5 5 rl 0840 818.5 0.4 272.6 0.5 4 0 .3 0.3 13 0.3 0.3 12 0.3 0.3 11 0930 817.3 0.3 271.4 0.3 10 0.4 0.3 9 0.4 0.3 8 1123 816.1 0.4 270.5 0.3 7 0.4 0.4 6 0.4 0.4 5 0.4 0.4 4 0917 814.5 0.4 268.9 0.4 3 0,3 0.0 2 0.3 0.0 1 1004 813.6 0.3 268.8 0 .D 12.1 69550.8 11.208 60523.2 total flow for month 130074 Agenda Item No. 10E January 13, 2009 Page 247 of 398 TAMIAMI SQUARE MONTH: NOVEMBER 2007 Flow per Min /Hr DATE TIME PUMP #1 HRS. RUN PUMP #2 HRS. RUN MAINTENANCE 31 30 0.4 0.4 29 1152 837.3 0.4 292.8 0.4 28 0.4 0.3 27 DA 0.3 26 1104 836.2 0.4 291.9 0.3 25 0.3 0.4 24 0.3 0.4 23 0.3 0.4 22 0.3 0.4 21 1126 834.7 0.3 289.9 0.4 20 0.7 0.6 19 1027 833.3 0.7 288.7 0.6 18 0.5 0.5 17 0.5 0.5 16 0.5 0.5 15 0905 831.3 0.5 286.7 0.5 14 0.3 0.3 13 0.3 0.3 12 1408 830.4 0.3 265.8 0.3 11 0.5 0.5 10 0.5 0.5 9 0.5 0.5 8 1000 828.5 0.5 283.8 0.5 7 0.4 0.4 6 0.4 0.4 5 1003 827.3 CIA 282.6 0.4 4 0.4 0.4 3 0.4 DA 2 0.4 0.4 1 1208 825.7 0.4 281.0 0.4 12.38 71160.24 12.6 68040 total flow for month 139200.24 Agenda Item No. 10E January 13, 2009 Page 248 of 398 TAMIAMI SQUARE MONTH: DECEMBER 2007 Flow per Min /Hr DATE TIME PUMP #1 HRS. RUN PUMP #2 HRS. RUN MAINTENANCE 31 0935 850.2 0.4 305.6 0.4 30 0.5 0.5 29 0.5 0.5 2$ 0.5 0.5 27 1207 848.2 0.5 303.6 0.5 26 0.2 0.3 2$ D.2 0.3 24 0842 847.6 0.2 302.7 0.3 23 0.6 0.5 22 0.6 0.5 21 0.6 0.5 20 1156 845.2 0.6 300.7 0.5 19 0.3 0.3 1 g 0.3 0.3 17 0901 844.3 0.3 299.8 0.3 16 0.4 CIA 15 0.4 0.4 14 0.4 0.4 13 0954 842.7 0.4 298.2 0.4 12 0.3 0.4 11 0.3 0.4 10 0941 841.8 0.3 297.0 0.4 9 0.4 0.4 B 0.4 0.4 7 0.4 0.4 6 0819 840.2 0.4 295.4 0.4 $ 0.4 0.4 4 0.4 0.4 3 1249 838.9 0.4 294.2 0.4 2 0.4 0.4 1 0.4 0.4 12.49 71792.52 12.6 68040 total flow for month 139832.52 Agenda Item No. 10E January 13, 2009 Page 249 of 398 Table 2 Tamiami Square Irrigation Repairs 2005 12/15/2004 Zone had 4 & 5 crushed valves. 2006 3/23/2006 By entrance - there was a 3" main line break. 5/11/2006 South exit - there were 4 rotors and 6 mist heads that had been run over. 11/29/2006 Zone 2 - the valve was stuck on. Replaced solenoid. 12/28/2006 Zones 1 & 3 - crushed 2" valve. 2007 1/18/2007 3" main line separated. 2/3/2007 Zone 4 - cut 1 -1/4 pipe to irrigation rotors. 3/7/2007 Cement truck ran over 8 heads. 7/3/2007 Crack in line due to construction digging. 11 /13/2007 Main ine break due to electrical work. 12/15/2007 Zone 1 - 2" main line break. Also, 4" main line break (system ran for 9 hours). 2008 3/5/2008 Repaired line and pressured it up to check for leaks. Agenda Item No. 10E January 13, 2009 Page 250 of 398 Table 3 Tamiami Square Irrigation and Potable Use Combined 2007 Period Flow (1,000) Days ADF /Month 1/05/07- 2/5/07 652 + 31 21,030 I'> 215/07- 3/6107 549 + 29 18,930 ('> 3/6107- 4/5/07 420 + 30 14,000 4/5/07 - 5/4/07 423 + 30 14,100 5/4/07- 6/6/07 312 - 32 9,750 616/07 - 7/6/07 385 + 30 12,830 7/6107 - 8/6/07 292 + 31 9,420 8/6/07 - 916107 249 + 31 8,030 9/6/07- 10/4/07 244 30 8,710 1014/07- 11/1/07 223 + 28 7,960 11/1107- 11/30/07 374 29 12,900 11/30/07- 1/4108 781 + 34 22,970 I') 4,904 13,440 I'> Q AADF = 2,922 kgal + 271 + 350 = 30.812) ERCs Q AADF = 13,440 + 350 = 38(l) ERCs Q 2 MMo = 39,960 + (350 x 1.213 x 2) = 47.6 ERCs Q 2 MMo = 26,100 + (350 x 1.213 x 2) = 33.5(2) ERCs 18 ERCs Weighted Average plus 6_1 ERCs Irrigation ERCs 24.1 ERCs Weighted Average versus 30.8 or 33.5 ERCs in period Note 4 items occurring - a.) Sod establishment b.) Construction G.) Minor breaks d.) Irrigation use Reasonable to allow 6.7 ERCs during sod, construction, damage, and irrigation use - see SFWMD provisions and FAC. Some correlation, these results drive the need for a 2 year audit Final note: Total purchased ERCs at buiidout is 38.1 ERCs with 32 ERCs as potable and 6.1 ERCs as irrigation. (1) Includes major main breaks as shown in Table 2 (2) Excludes major breaks, still includes minor breaks (3) 1.2 peak factor for water flow per PRMG 2006 report P: \ORL \HCD \Word Proc \2008\A080376.00 \Report \R- 1 \Tables.xls Agenda Item No. 10E January 13, 2009 Page 251 of 398 Exhibit B Metered Water Use 2007 Agenda Item No. 10E COL, .2 COUNTY UTILITIES BILLING 13, 2009 4420 MERCANTILE AVE • NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 • (239) 403- 2380�� gE 252 Of 398 b ATE BILLED TA.MIA.MI SQ OF NAPLES LLC 02/12/07 C/O CPIFASI MA.NAGMENT INC ACCOUNT NUMBER RATE CLASS STS 208C 04046017600 CO 2375 TAMIA.MI TRL N SERVICE ADDRESS NAPLES FL 34103 -4438 14700 TAMIAMI TR N METER NUM BER METER I ) I W'1 ?,1U1�' dTEn?4Zi^3'_ -"3T31 i'iIR -�- j:y(r� SIZE DATE ' READING I DATE READING 21443635 5/811 01/05/07 2335 - 02/05/07 2506 21637090 31, 01/05/07 7440 02/05/07 7921 CODE I AMOUNT 481 NA 2,928.06 SM 2,328.00 NARNING: THIS BILL BECOMES DELINQUENT IF THE TOTAL AMOUNT DUE IS NOT PAID BY 02/27/07 ' 'AYMENTS RECEIVED AFTER THIS DATE SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PENALTY CHARGES AND FAILURE TO PAY BY THIS DATE ALSO SHALL WBJECT THE PROPERTY TO SHUTOFF OF WATER SERVICE AND AUTOMATIC LIENS WITHOUT FURTHER NOTICE. IF YOU DISPUTE THIS . 5,256.06 iM. OR BELIEVE THAT 17 IS INACCURATE IN ANY WAY, YOU FAUST CONTACT THE COLLIER COUNTY UTILITY BILLING AND CUSTOMER SERVICE )EPT. AT 1239) 6032380 DURING BUSINESS HOURS (]:30 A.M. 5:30 P.M., M -F) BEFORE THE DELINQUENT DATE. SEE BACK OF BILL FOR ADDITIONAL BILL INFORMATION MAKE CHECKS PAYABLE TO: -- DETACH HERE' P COLLIER COUNTY UTILITIES BILLING BTAMIAMIR T 14700`TAMIAML-TR N (239) 403 -2380 ACCOUNT NUMBER DATE BILLED 04046017600 02/12/07 02/27/07 5,256.06 TAMIAMI SQ OF 14APLES LLC (' III I I II I II C/O CRIFASI MA.NAGMENT INC fl 11 STS 208C 2375 TILMIA.MI TRL N NAPLES FL 34103 -4438 0000004046017L0D00525606 MAIL THE LOWER PORTION WITH YOUR PAYMENT IN U.S. FUNDS TO: COLLIER COUNTY UTILITIES BILLING P.O. BOX 3369 NAPLES, FLORIDA 34106 -3359 Agenda Item No. 10E COL :R COUNTY UTILITIES BILLING ,w ary 13, 2009 4420 MERCANTILE AVE • NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 • (239) 403-23y u U ge 253 of 398 TP- MT—kMI SQ OF NAPLES LLC DATE BILLED C/O CRIFASI MANAGI'MNT INC 03/08/07 ACCOUNT NUMBER RATE CLASS 237 208( 7 M 04046017600 CO 2375 TP.MIAMI TRL N J �" —� SERVICE ADDRESS NAPLES FL 34103 -4438 14700 T_.MIAM2 TR N METER NUMBER SIZE DATE REAli -III TE a - -'� 186Y+giNG';' - 'CONSUMPTION CODE I AMOUNT 214.3635 5/8 02/05/07 2506 03/06/07 2673 167 21637090 3" 02/05/07 7921 03/06/07 8303 382 'WA 2,334.78 SM 2,005.61 IP 36.00 WARNING: THIS BILL BECOMES DELINQUENT IF THE TOTAL AMOUNT DUE IS NOT PAID BY 03/23/07 PAYMENTS RECEIVED AFTER THIS DATE SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PENALTY CHARGES AND FAILURE TO PAY BY THIS DATE ALSO SHALL 3UBJECT THE PROPERTY TO SHUTOFF OF WATER SERVICE AND AUTOMATIC LIENS WITHOUT FURTHER NOTICE. IF VOU DISPUTE THIS 4 , 376.39 31LL OR BELIEVE THAT IT IS INACCURATE IN ANY WAY, VOU MUST CONTACT THE COLLIER COUNTY UTILITY BILLING AND CUSTOMER SERVICE )EPT. AT (239) 4W 2380 DURING BUSINESS HOURS p:3D A.M. - 5:30 P.M., M -F) BEFOR THE DELINOUENT DATE. SEE BACK OF BILL FOR ADDITIONAL BILL INFORMATION MAKE CHECKS PAYABLE TO: , QETACH HERE jz� SERVICE'ADDRESS- COLLIER COUNTY UTILITIES BILLING 14700'TAMIAMI TR` 2i (239) 403 -2380 ACCOUNTNUMBER- ,D4T@'BILLEq'- i a , 0404601.7600' 03/08/07 ,4,376.39 TP.MIAMS SQ OF NAPLES LLC C/0 CRIFASI MANAGMENT INC STE 208C 2375 TAMSA 41 T-R.L N NAPLES FL 34103 -4438 MAIL THE LOWER PORTION WITH YOUR II 1 111111 I IIIIII IIIII II . PAYMENT IN U.S. FUNDS TO: COL�IEA COUNTY {UTILITIES BILLING P-0: PDX ' -3369 NAPLES FLpFi& -34106 -3369 5 al 000000404601760000437639 Agenda Item No. 10E 2 January 13, 2009 COLi-IER COUNTY' UTILITIES BILLING Page 254 of 398 4420 MERCANTILE AVE • NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 • (2%9) 403- 2323(1 DATE BILLED TAMIA.MI SQ OF NA -:'LES LLC Rp [�({ly�`If�j l 04111/07 C/0 CRIFASI PIANAGMENT INC LL UI�4 ACCOUNT NUMBER RATE CLASS STE 208C I 04046017600 CO 2375 TAMIAMI TRL N -- ���- -�7/^^ .:r SERVICE ADDRESS N ?PLES FL' 34103-4438 / ` �� � 14700 TAMIAMI TR N METER NUMBER I SIZE DATE READING DATE ^ `'- I �_' 'AEADINGr . "" CONSUMPTNNi. .CODE - AMOUNT 21443635 5/8" 03/06/07 2673 04/05/07 2842 169 21637090 3" 03/06/07 8303 04/05/07 8554 251 WA 1,649.34 SM 1,601.84 - _ IP,,:, ^G'. 36.00 WARNING: THIS BILL BECOMES DELINQUENT IF THE TOTAL AMOUNT DUE IS NOT PAID BY 04/26/07 3;287.18 DEPT. AT (239) 4032380 DURING BUSINESS HOURS (7;30 A.M. - 5:30 P.M., M -F) BEFORE THE DELINQUENT DATE, SEE BACK OF BILL FOR ADDITIONAL BILL INFORMATION -� DETACH HERE'.' MAKE CHECKS PAYABLE TO: seavlcE ADDRESS COLLIER COUNTY UTILITIES BILLING 14700 TAMIAMI TR N (239) 403 -2380 ACCOUNT NUMBER DATE BILLED 04046017600 04/11/07 04/26/07 3,287.18 II MAIL THE LOWER ?P.OPTON. WITH YOUR TAMMMI SQ OF NAPLES L S LC I I III IIII 1111111111111 PAYMENT IN U. FUNDS TO: C/O CRIFASI MANAGMENT INC STE 208C - COLLIER COUNTY- UjRITIES� BILLING . 2375 TAMIAMI TRL N - P.O. 6094'3369 -% -, :;. NAPLES FL 34103 -4438 NAPLES, FLORIDA 34106 -3369 00000D404601760000328718 L. Agenda Item No. 10E UCC Ell UUUNI'Y UflLlll{ S BILLING January 13, 2009 4420 MERCANTILE AVE • NAPLES. FLORIDA 34104 • (239) 403 -2380 Page 255 of 398 TAMIAMI SQ OF NAPLES LLC ATE BILLED C/O CRIFASI nANAGMENT INC D ' ~ 05/10/07 r 5•iJl •� ACCOUNT NUMBER RATE CLASS STE 208C VI 04046017600 CO 2375 TAMIAMI TRL N SERVICE ADDRESS NAPLES FL 34103 -4438 7Yi!j /�� �J 14700 TAMIAMI TR N METER NUMBER SIZE TE ...,.. READING DATE READING CONSUMPTION CODE I AMOUNT 21443635 5/8'I 04/05/07 2842 05/04/D7 2994 152 . 21637090 311 04/05/07 8554 05/04/D7 8825 271 WA 1,663.74 SM 1,611 -23 IF 36.00 WARNING: THIS BILL BECOMES DELINQUENT IF THE TOTAL AMOUNT DUE IS NOT PAID BY 05/25/07 PAYMENTS RECEIVED AFTER THIS DATE SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PENALTY CHARGES AND FAILURE TO PAY BY THIS DATE ALSO SHALL SUBJECT THE PROPERTY TO SHUTOFF OF WATER SERVICE AND AUTOMATIC LIENS WITHOUT FURTHER NOTICE. IF YOU DISPUTE THIS 3, 310.97 BILL OR BELIEVE THAT IT 15 INACCURATE IN ANY WAY, YOU MUST CONTACT THE COLLIER COUNTY UTILITY BILLING AND CUSTOMER SERVICE DEPT AT (239) 403 2380 OUR114G BUSINESS HOURS (7:30 A J. 5:30 P.M., 10 FI BEFORE THE DELINQUENT DATE. SEE BACK OF BILL FOR ADDITIONAL BILL INFORMATION � DETACH HERE MAKE CHECKS PAYABLE TO: 1 COLLIER COUNTY UTILITIES BILLING 10700 SERVIC TAMIAMIE TR N (239) 403-2380 ACCOUNT NUMBER DATE BILL TAMIAMI SQ OF NAPLES LLC C/O CRIFASI MANAGMENT INC STE 208C 2375 TAMIAMI TRL N NAPLES FL 34103 -4438 A ED 04046017600 05/10/07 05/25/071 3,310 - MAIL THE LOWER PORTION WITH YOUR I I II I� I I II'I� II PAYMENT IN U.S. FUNDS TO: COLLIER COUNTY UTILITIES BILLING P.O. BOX 3369 NAPLES, FLORIDA 34106.3369 000000404601760000331097 COL--R COUNTY UTILITIES BILLING 4420 MERCANTILE AVE • NAPLES. FLORIDA 34104 • (239) 4D3.2380 TAMIAMI SO OF NP -PLES LLC /�{y C/0 CRIFASI MANAGMENT INC Agenda Item No. 10E January 13, 2009 Page 256 of 398 DATE BILLED 06/12/07 DUE TO SEVERE DROUGHT, SFWMD PHASE II WATER RESTRICTIONS ARE IN EFFECT! THIS BILL MAY INCLUDE A 15& SURCHARGE DEPENDING ON TOTAL USAGE. PRACTICE WATER CONSERVATION DAILY TO PROTECT FLORIDA'S WATER RESOURCES. FOR INFO VISIT WWW.COLLIERGOV.NET, UTILITY BILLING\CUSTOMER SERVICE. VARNING: THIS BILL BECOMES DELINQUENT IF THE TOTAL AMOUNT DUE IS NOT PAID BY 06/27/07 AYMENTS REC AFTER THIS DATE SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PENALTY CHARGES AND FAILURE TO PAY BY THIS DATE - UBJECT THE EIVED PROPERTY TO SHUT ALSO SHALL OFF OF WATER SERVICE AND AUTOMATIC LIENS WITH FURTHER NOTICE. IF YOU DISPUTE THIS 2, 560.53 ALL OR BELIEVE THAT IT IS INACCURATE IN ANY WAY, YOU MUST CONTACT THE COLLIER COUNTY UTILITY BILLING AND CUSTOMER SERVICE DEPT AT 12391 4032380 DURING BUSINESS HOURS (7:30 AM. 5:30 PM., M F) BEFORE THE DEUNOUENT DATE. SEE BACK OF BILL FOR ADDITIONAL BILL INFORMATION P ^^ MAKE CHECKS PAYABLE TO: COLLIER COUNTY UTILITIES BILLING (239) 403 -2380 TP.MIAMI SO OF NAPLES LLC C/O CRIFASI MANAGMENT INC STE 208C 2375 TAMIAMI TRL N NAPLES FL 34103 -4438 DETACH HERE SERVICE ADDRESS 14700 TAMIAMI TR N ACCOUNT NUMBER DATE BILLED P�Mmlm� 04046017600 06/12/07 06/27/07 2,560.53 MAIL THE LOWER PORTION WITH YOUR I I II �II I�IIIIIIIIII�II PAYMENT IN U.S. FUNDS TO: COLLIER COUNTY UTILITIES BILLING P.O. BOX 3369 NAPLES, FLORIDA 34106 -3369 000000404601760000256053 r\ ACCOUNT NUMBER RATE CLASS STS 208C I _ 04046017600 CO 2375 TAMIAMI TRL N SERVICE ADDRESS NPPLES FL 34103 -4438 ^ q TJ 0 �` �� / 14700 TAMIAMI TR N METER NUMBER METER " R c ..rq > , r - ' CODE AMOUNT SIZE DATE READING I DATE READING CONSUMPTION 21443635 5/8" 05/04/07 2994 06/06/07 3162 168 21637090 3" 05/04/07 8825 06/DG/07 8969 144 WA 1,138.62 WS 122.11 SM 1,263.80 IP 36.00 DUE TO SEVERE DROUGHT, SFWMD PHASE II WATER RESTRICTIONS ARE IN EFFECT! THIS BILL MAY INCLUDE A 15& SURCHARGE DEPENDING ON TOTAL USAGE. PRACTICE WATER CONSERVATION DAILY TO PROTECT FLORIDA'S WATER RESOURCES. FOR INFO VISIT WWW.COLLIERGOV.NET, UTILITY BILLING\CUSTOMER SERVICE. VARNING: THIS BILL BECOMES DELINQUENT IF THE TOTAL AMOUNT DUE IS NOT PAID BY 06/27/07 AYMENTS REC AFTER THIS DATE SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PENALTY CHARGES AND FAILURE TO PAY BY THIS DATE - UBJECT THE EIVED PROPERTY TO SHUT ALSO SHALL OFF OF WATER SERVICE AND AUTOMATIC LIENS WITH FURTHER NOTICE. IF YOU DISPUTE THIS 2, 560.53 ALL OR BELIEVE THAT IT IS INACCURATE IN ANY WAY, YOU MUST CONTACT THE COLLIER COUNTY UTILITY BILLING AND CUSTOMER SERVICE DEPT AT 12391 4032380 DURING BUSINESS HOURS (7:30 AM. 5:30 PM., M F) BEFORE THE DEUNOUENT DATE. SEE BACK OF BILL FOR ADDITIONAL BILL INFORMATION P ^^ MAKE CHECKS PAYABLE TO: COLLIER COUNTY UTILITIES BILLING (239) 403 -2380 TP.MIAMI SO OF NAPLES LLC C/O CRIFASI MANAGMENT INC STE 208C 2375 TAMIAMI TRL N NAPLES FL 34103 -4438 DETACH HERE SERVICE ADDRESS 14700 TAMIAMI TR N ACCOUNT NUMBER DATE BILLED P�Mmlm� 04046017600 06/12/07 06/27/07 2,560.53 MAIL THE LOWER PORTION WITH YOUR I I II �II I�IIIIIIIIII�II PAYMENT IN U.S. FUNDS TO: COLLIER COUNTY UTILITIES BILLING P.O. BOX 3369 NAPLES, FLORIDA 34106 -3369 000000404601760000256053 wL Il �, OUIVI Y 01ILIIIES BILLING _u� IQg�c ,Item No. 10E iS J�{ary 13, 2009 4420 MERCANTILE AVE •NAPLES. FLORIDA 34104. (239) 403 -2360 ����iEBf 398 TAMIAMI SQ OF NAPLES LLC 07/16/07 C/O CRIFASI MANAGMENT INC ACCOUNT NUMBER RATE CLASS STE 208C 04046017600 CO 2375 TAMIAMI TRL N SERVICE ADORERS q NAPLES FL 34103 -4438 T�� �lJ )4 14700 TAMIAMI TR N METER NVt.1RER h:ETER . SIZE rV�r'. lr�tlh !. DATE °I& i�Yv�ll_[ri117S_$1 READING DATE - READING , ).. CDNSUIhPT10N 1. CODE a1dOUIJT 21443635 5/8" 06/06/07 3162 07/06/07 3355 193 2 16 37 09 0 3" 06/06/07 8969 07/06/D7 9161 192 WA 1,481.34 WS 173.52 SM 1,492.29 IP 36.00 BL 7.93CR DUE TO SEVERE DROUGHT, SFWMD PHASE II WATER RESTRICTIONS ARE IN EFFECTI THIS BILL MAY INCLUDE A 1596 SURCHARGE DEPENDING ON TOTAL USAGE. PRACTICE WATER CONSERVATION DAILY TO PROTECT FLORIDA'S WATER RESOURCES. FOR INFO VISIT WWW.COLLIERGOV.NET, UTILITY BILLING \CUSTOMER SERVICE. NARNING: THIS BILL BECOMES DELINQUENT IF THE TOTAL AMOUNT DUE IS NOT PAID BY 07/31/07 'AYMENTS RECEry ED AFTER THIS GATE SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PENALTY CHARGES AND FAILURE TO PAY BY THIS DATE ALSO SHALL IUd!ECi THE PROPERTY TO SHUTOFF Of WATER SERVICE AND AUTOMATIC LIENS WITHOUT FURTHER NOTICE. IF YOU DISPUTE THIS 3, 175.22 !LL Ofl SELIE`IC HAT IT IS IIJACCURATE IN ANY WAY, YOU MUST CONTACT THE COLLIER COUNTY UTILITY BILLING AND CUSTOMER SERVICE IEPT AT 3391 =<0 23BO DURING BUSINESS HOURS (7:30 A.M. 5:30 P.M.. M.F) REFORE THE DELINQUENT DATE t *" SEE BACK OF BILL FOR ADDITIONAL BILL INFORMATION I ' -per MAKE CHECKS PAYABLE TO: DETACH HERE SERVICE ADDRESS COLLIER COUNTY UTILITIES BILLING 14700 TAMIAMI TR N (239) 403 -2380 ACCOUNT NUMBER DATE BILLED , 04046017600 07/16/07 07/31/07 3,175.22 TAPIIAMI SQ OF NAPLES LLC II I�I �IIIIII IIIII�(I C/O CRIFASI MA-NAGMENT INC I STE 208C 2375 TAMIAMI TRL N NAPLES FL 34103 -4438 000000404601760000317522 MAIL THE LOWER PORTION WITH YOUR PAYMENT IN U.S. FUNDS TO: COLLIER COUNTY UTILITIES BILLING P.O. BOX 3369 NAPLES, FLORIDA 34106 -3369 7� G 3DV G LC', Agenda Item No. 10E January 13, 2009 -IEiR COUNTY UTILITIES BILLING Page 258 of 398 ITILE AVE • NAPLES. FLORIDA 34104 • (239) 403 -2380 DATE BILLED 08/14/07 ACCOUNT NUMBER RATE CLASS 04046017600 CO SERVICE ADDRESS — /0/v % ^ 14700 TAMIAMI TR N READING I DATE 111111 .1 lill READING R CODE I AMOUNT 55 08/06/07 3502 147 61 08/06/07 9306 145 WA 1,061.82 WS 110.59 SM 1,201.20 IF 36.00 DUE TO SEVERE DROUGHT, SFWMID PHASE II WATER RESTRICTIONS ARE IN EFFECT THIS BILL MAY INCLUDE A 1516 SURCHARGE DEPENDING ON TOTAL USAGE. PRACTICE WATER CONSERVATION DAILY TO PROTECT FLORIDA'S WATER RESOURCES. FOR INFO VISIT WWW.COLLIERGOV.NET, UTILITY BILLING\CUSTOMER SERVICE. IARNING: THIS BILL BECOMES DELINQUENT IF THE TOTAL AMOUNT DUE IS NOT PAID BY 08/29/07 iYMENTS RECEIVED AFTER THIS DATE SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PENALTY CHARGES AND FAILURE TO PAY BY THIS DATE ALSO SHALL JSJECT THE PROPERTY TO SHUTOFF OF WATER SERVICE AND AUTOMATIC LIENS WITHOUT FURTHER NOTICE. IF YOU DISPUTE THIS 2, 409.61 LL OR BCLIEVE THAT IT IS INACCURATE IN ANY WAY, YOU MUST CONTACT THE COLLIER COUNTY UTILITY BILLING AND CUSTOMER SERVICE EPT AT (23G) 403 2330 DURING BUSINESS HOURS (7:30 A.M. - 5:30 P.M.. M -F) BEFORE THE DELINOUE14T DATE. SEE BACK OF BILL FOR ADDITIONAL BILL INFORMATION MAKE CHECKS PAYABLE TO: COLLIER COUNTY UTILITIES BILLING (239) 403 -2380 T4MIA.MI SQ OF NAPLES LLC C/O CRIFASI MANAGMENT INC STE 208 2375 TA.MIA14I TRL N NAPLES FL 34103 -4439 tDETACH HERE SERVICE ADDRESS 14700 TAMIAMITR!}N� ACCOU14T NUMBER DATE BILLED , , 04046017600 08/14/07` 08/29/0 2,409.61 MAIL THE LOWER PORTION WITH YOUR II I I I II I �I �� II I I I II PAYMENT IN U.S. FUNDS TO: COLLIER COUNTY UTILITIES BILLING P.O. BOX 3369 NAPLES, FLORIDA 34106 -3369 nnnnnnunuLni.')LnnnnauncLT. I _I 4420 MERCAN, TAMIAMI SQ OF NAPLES LLC C/O CRIFASI MANAGNIENT INC STE 208 2375 TAMIAMI TRL N NAPLES FL 34103 -4439 METER NUMBER I SIZER SIZE 21637090 3" 08/06/07 9306 7.��ensYa Item No. 10E AVE •'NAPLES. FLORIDA 34104 . (239) 403 -2380 Y�n'ua �1g3, 2009 /J-rs1 C,21 al: bS Pi-pf 398 ACCOUNT NUMBER RATE CLASS 04046017600 CO SERVICE ADDRESS 14700 TAMIAMI TR N DATE I READING I CONSUMPTION ---- CODE I AMOUNT 09/06/07 3652 150 09/06/07 9395 89 WA 85B.30 WS 80.06 SM 1,035.31 IP 36.00 S4, DUE TO SEVERE DROUGHT, SFWMD PHASE II WATER RESTRICTIONS ARE IN EFFECTI ` THIS BILL MAY INCLUDE A 15$ SURCHARGE DEPENDING ON TOTAL USAGE. PRACTICE WATER CONSERVATION DAILY TO PROTECT FLORIDA'S WATER RESOURCES. FOR INFO VISIT WWW.COLLIERGOV.NET, UTILITY BILLING\CUSTOMER SERVICE. VARNING: THIS BILL BECOMES DELINQUENT IF THE TOTAL AMOUNT DUE IS NOT PAID BY 09/27/07 AYMENTS RECEIVED AFTER THIS DATE SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PENALTY CHARGES AND FAIT URF Tn PAY RV THM IATF nl m AT (239) 403.2380 DURING A M. - 5:30 P. M.. M FI BEFORE THE SEE BACK OF BILL FOR ADDITIONAL BILL INFORMATION L MAKE CHECKS PAYABLE TO: DETACH HERE COLLIER COUNTY UTILITIES BILLING 147005 TVAMIAAMIE TR N (239) 403 -2380 ACCOUNT NUMBER DATE BILLED , I . a , . men um 04046017600 09/12/07 09/27/07 2,009.67 TAMIAMI SQ OF NAPLES LLC IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIillll C/0 CRIFASI MANAGMENT INC STE 208 2375 TAMIAMI TRL N NAPLES FL 34103 -4439 000000404601760000200967 MAIL THE LOWER PORTION WITH YOUR PAYMENT IN U.S. FUNDS TO: COLLIER COUNTY UTILITIES BILLING P.O. BOX 3369 NAPLES, FLORIDA 34106 -3369 Agenda Item No. 10E - - -_. . L,:' .Le r,vc • NAPLES, hLCIMA 34104 . (239) 403 -23 January 13. i2009 P R TAY. I SQ OF NAPLES LLC r ;398 / ,E C/O CRIFASI MA.NAGMENT INC � ACCOUNT NUMBER RATE CLASS STE 208 04046017600 CO 2375 TAMIAhII TRL N SERVICE ADDRESS NAPLES FL 34103 -4439 /��� j / J" LL'79''L6 14700 TAMIAMI TR N METER NUMBER METER 512E • READING DATE ' READING CODE CONSUMPTION AMOUNT DATE 21443635 5/8" 10/04/07 3795 11/01/07 3953 158 21637090 3" 10/04/07 9496 11/01/07 9561 65 WA 912.92 WS 81.18 SM 1,083.08 IP 36.00 COLLIER COUNTY UTILITIES RATE INCREASE The Water, Sewer & Effluent rates will be increasing October 1, 2007. The new rates are effective with your November 2007 utility bills. A rate increase flyer is enclosed with your utility bill also. WARNING: THIS BILL BECOMES DELINQUENT IF THE TOTAL AMOUNT DUE IS NOT PAID BY 12/01/07 =AYMENTS RECEIVED AFTER THIS DATE SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PENALTY CHARGES AND FAILURE TO PAV SY THIS DATE ALSO SHALL SUBJECT THE PROPERTY TO SHUTOFF OF WATER SERVICE AND AUTOMATIC LIENS WITHOUT FURTHER NOTICE. IF YOU DISPUTE THIS 2, 113.18 31LL OR BELIEVE THAT H IS INACCURATE IN ANYWAY, YOU MUST CONTACT THE COLLIER COUNTY UTILITY BILLING AND CUSTOMER SERVICE )EPT. AT 12391 4032380 DURING BUSINESS HOURS (7:3D A M- )1I0 P M., M -r) BEFORE THE DELINOUENT DATE SEE BACK OF BILL FOR ADDITIONAL BILL INFORMATION MAKE CHECKS PAYABLE TO: DETACH HERE SERVICE ADDRESS COLLIER COUNTY UTILITIES BILLING ago. o..:TnMZAtii; TR N (239) 403 -2380 ACCOUNT NUMBER. DATE BILLED 04046017600 11/16/07 12/01/071 •2,113.18 MAIL THE LOWER PORTION WITH YOUR TAMIAMI SQ OF NAPLES LLC PAYMENT IN U.S. FUNDS TO: C/O CRIFASI MANP_GP'ENT INC I II III (I(� III II STE 208 ,COLLIER COUNTY UTILITIES BILLING 2375 TAMIAMI TRL N - - P.O. BOX 3369 NAPLES FL 34103 -4439 _ NAPLES',. FLORIDA 34106 -3369 000000404601760000211318 Agenda Item No. 10E t_ � _ SFWMD PHASE II WATER RESTRICTIONS ARE IN EFFECT I This bill may include a 15% surcharge depending on total usage. Practice water conservation daily to protect Florida's water resources. For info visit www.colliergov.net, Utility Billing \Customer Service. NARNING: THIS BILL BECOMES DELINQUENT IF THE TOTAL AMOUNT DUE IS NOT PAID BY 12/27/07 'AYMENTS RECEIVED AFTER THIS DATE SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PENALTY CHARGES AND FAILURE TO PAY BY THIS DATE ALSO SHALL IUBJECT THE PROPERTY TO SHUTOFF OF \HATER SERVICE AND AUTOMATIC LIENS WITHOUT FURTHER NOTICE. IF YOU DISPUTE THIS j, 464:99 IILL OR BELIEVE THAT IT IS INACCURATE IN ANY YJAY. YOU MUST CONTACT THE COLLIER COUNTY UTILITY BILLING AND CUSTOMER SERVICE )EPT AT (239) 403 -2380 DURING BUSINESS HOURS 17:30 A.M. -A30 P 14., M -F) BEFORE THE DELINOUENT DATE. SEE BACK OF BILL FOR ADDITIONAL BILL INFORMATION �_ MAKE CHECKS PAYABLE TO: DETACH HERE SERVICE ADDRESS COLLIER COUNTY UTILITIES BILLING 14700 TAMIAMB,:TR N (239) 403 -2380 ACCOUNT NUMBER DATE BILLED" 04046017600 12/12/07. 12/27/07 3,464.99 TAMIAMI SQ OF NAPLES LLC C/O CRIFASI NLIVNAGMENT INC STE 206 2375 TAMIAI4I TRL N NAPLES FL 34103 -4439 000000404601760000346499 MAIL THE LOWER PORTION WITH YOUR PAYMENT IN U.S. FUNDS TO: COLLIER COUNTY UTILITIES BILLING P.O. BOX 3369 NAPLES, FLORIDA 34106 -3369 . . —.,—,,__. —", — January 13, 2009 -1420 MERCANTILE AVE • NAPLES. FLORIDA 34104 • (239) 403 -2380 Page 261 Of 398 DA E BILLED TAMIAIdI SQ OF NAPLES LLC 12/12/07 C/O CRIFASI P.N ��V��_ MAGI -ENT INC RD ACCOUNT ACCOUNT NUMBER RATE CLASS STE 208a'�4 04046017600 CO 2375 TP.MIAMI TRL N --�- / �C..,�� n SERVICE ADDRESS 14700 TP.MIAMI TR N NAPLES FL 34103 -4439 /V /T� METER NUMBER METER ' :: I i • 1 - - CODE AMOUNT DATE READING DATE READING CONSUMPTION 21443635 5/B" 11/01/07 3953 11/313/07 4107 154 21637090 3" 11/01/07 9561 11/30/07 9781 220 WA 1,636.72 WS 189.75 SM 1,602.52 IP 36.00 t_ � _ SFWMD PHASE II WATER RESTRICTIONS ARE IN EFFECT I This bill may include a 15% surcharge depending on total usage. Practice water conservation daily to protect Florida's water resources. For info visit www.colliergov.net, Utility Billing \Customer Service. NARNING: THIS BILL BECOMES DELINQUENT IF THE TOTAL AMOUNT DUE IS NOT PAID BY 12/27/07 'AYMENTS RECEIVED AFTER THIS DATE SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PENALTY CHARGES AND FAILURE TO PAY BY THIS DATE ALSO SHALL IUBJECT THE PROPERTY TO SHUTOFF OF \HATER SERVICE AND AUTOMATIC LIENS WITHOUT FURTHER NOTICE. IF YOU DISPUTE THIS j, 464:99 IILL OR BELIEVE THAT IT IS INACCURATE IN ANY YJAY. YOU MUST CONTACT THE COLLIER COUNTY UTILITY BILLING AND CUSTOMER SERVICE )EPT AT (239) 403 -2380 DURING BUSINESS HOURS 17:30 A.M. -A30 P 14., M -F) BEFORE THE DELINOUENT DATE. SEE BACK OF BILL FOR ADDITIONAL BILL INFORMATION �_ MAKE CHECKS PAYABLE TO: DETACH HERE SERVICE ADDRESS COLLIER COUNTY UTILITIES BILLING 14700 TAMIAMB,:TR N (239) 403 -2380 ACCOUNT NUMBER DATE BILLED" 04046017600 12/12/07. 12/27/07 3,464.99 TAMIAMI SQ OF NAPLES LLC C/O CRIFASI NLIVNAGMENT INC STE 206 2375 TAMIAI4I TRL N NAPLES FL 34103 -4439 000000404601760000346499 MAIL THE LOWER PORTION WITH YOUR PAYMENT IN U.S. FUNDS TO: COLLIER COUNTY UTILITIES BILLING P.O. BOX 3369 NAPLES, FLORIDA 34106 -3369 I . LILT\ �.vl�IVl I VIILIIILJ LIL.i VV Agenda Item No. 10E 4420 MEI, JILE AVE • NAPLES. FLORIDA 34104 • (239) 403- J January 13, 2009 TAMIAMI SQ OF NAPLES LLC Pag es 09 C/O CRIFASI MANAGMENT INC D D O1 /15 /DB 1 ACCOUNT NUMBER RATE GLASS STE 208 J-11 `r"� 04046017600 CO 2375 TAMIAPa TRL N SERVICE ADDRESS NAPLES FL 34103 -4439 /cjQ ecn44 .Z-- 14700 TAMIAMI TR N METER NUMBER METER SIZE DATE • READING c DATE READING [CONSUMPTION CODE AMOUNT 21443635 5/811 11/30/07 4107 01/04/08 4286 179 _ 21637090 3" 11/30/07 9781 01/04/08 10383 602 WA 4,203.31 WS 574.74 SM 3,002.60 IP 36.00 SFWMD PHASE II WATER RESTRICTIONS ARE IN EFFECT I This bill may include a 1ST surcharge depending on total usage. Practice water conservation daily to protect Florida's water resources. For info visit www.colliergov.net, utility Billing \Customer Service. WARNING: THIS BILL BECOMES DELINQUENT IF THE TOTAL AMOUNT DUE IS NOT PAID BY 01/30/08 PAYMENTS RECEIVED AFTER THIS DATE SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PENALTY CHARGES AND FAILURE TO PAY BY THIS DATE ALSO SHALL SUBJECT THE PROPERTY TO SHUTOFF OF WATER SERVICE AND AUTOMATIC LIE14S WITHOUT FURTHER NOTICE. IF YOU DISPUTE THIS 7, 616.69 BILL OR BELIEVE THAT IT IS INACCURATE IN ANY WAY, YOU MUST CONTACT THE COLLIER COUNTY UTILITY BILLING AND CUSTOMER SERVICE DEPT. AT (239) 403.2380 DURING BUSINESS HOURS Q:30 A.M. - 5:30 P.M.. M -F; BEFORE THE DEUNOUENT DATE. ` SEE BACK OF BILL FOR ADDITIONAL BILL INFORMATION MAKE CHECKS PAYABLE TO: COLLIER COUNTY UTILITIES BILLING (239) 403 -2380 TA.MLAMI SQ OF NAPLES LLC C/0 CRIFASI MANAGMENT INC STE 208 2375 TAMIAMI TRL N NAPLES FL 34103 -4439 'n 4� DETACHH SERVICE ADDRESS 14700 TAMIAMI TR N ACCOUNT NUMBER DATE BILLED , 04046017600 01/15/08 01/30/081 •7,816.65; MAIL THE LOWER PORTION WITH YOUR I I III II I I Il All II III PAYMENT IN U.S. FUNDS TO: I COLLIER COUNTY UTILITIES BILLING P.O. BOX 3369 NAPLES, FLORIDA 34106 -3369 000000404601760000781665 Agenda Item No. 10E January 13, 2009 Page 263 of 398 ATTACHMENTS CONTENTS Attachment Description A Appendix H Water and Sewer Facilities Proposed Alternate Fee Calculation Methodology B PRMG — Relative Items Collier County Water and Wastewater Impact Fee Study , C -1 County Ordinance No. 2007 -53 C -2 Article VI. Water -Sewer District Uniform Billing, Operating and Regulatory Standards D Site Photos E Pre - Application Meeting Follow -up F Excerpts from System Development Charges for Water, Wastewater and Stormwater Facilities by Arthur C. Nelson G Excerpts from AWWA Principles of Water Rates. Fees and Charges H Pre - Application Meeting with Tamiami Square and Collier County Utilities I Gerald C. Hartman, PE, ASA Resume Agenda Item No. 10E January 13, 2009 Page 264 of 398 Attachment A Appendix H Water and Sewer Facilities Proposed Alternate Fee Calculation Methodology e Agenda Item No. 10E January 13, 2009 Page 265 of 398 Appendix H Water and Sewer Facilities Proposed Alternative Fee Calculation Methodology Agenda Item No. 10E January 13, 2009 Page 266 of 398 Appendix H Alternative Fee Calculation Methodology Water and Sewer Impact Fee This section of the appendix presents a proposed methodology for conducting an Alternative Fee Calculation for Water and Sewer Impact Fees. It contains the requirements, procedures and methodology for preparation, performance, and submission of an Alternative Fee Calculation Study. 1. Pre - application Meeting - Before beginning the Alternative Fee Calculation Study, the applicant or applicant's representative shall arrange and attend a pre - application meeting jointly with the Impact Fee Coordinator and the Public Utilities Department Administrator to discuss the requirements, procedures, and methodology of the Alternative Fee Calculation. Subsequent to the pre - application meeting, the applicant shall submit three copies of the proposed approach to the study to the Collier County Public Utilities Department Administrator. County staff has five (5) working days to respond in writing to the proposed approach. If County Staff concurs with the proposed approach, the applicant will be notified to proceed with the study. If County staff disagrees with the proposed approach, County staff will identify the problem areas for the applicant. The applicant must receive approval from County staff before proceeding with the study. 2. Methodology - The Alternative Fee Calculation shall follow the prescribed methodologies and formats of the Water and Sewer Impact Fee Study, prepared by Agnoli, Barber, and Brundage, Inc. (1997), as amended, the Consolidated Impact Fee Ordinance, and the Administrative Procedures Manual. The results of the Alternative Fee Calculation shall be submitted to both the Impact Fee Coordinator and Public Utilities Department. The Alternative Water and/or Sewer Systems Impact Fee calculations shall be based on data, information, or assumptions included in the Water and Sewer Impact Fee Study (identified above) and as agreed upon at the Pre - application Meeting. 3. Guidelines - The applicant will use the information derived from the study to calculate an alternative impact fee. The results of the Alternative Fee Calculation study shall be submitted to both the Impact Fee Coordinator and the Public Utilities Department. 4. Submitting the Study Report - The applicant shall submit five (5) copies of the study report to the Collier County Public Utilities Department Administrator. The study must be certified by a Professional Engineer who is registered in the State of Florida. Tindale- Oliver and Associates, Inc. Collier County Consolidated Impact Fee June 1, 2001 H -1 Administrative Procedures Manual Agenda Item No. 10E January 13, 2009 Page 267 of 398 ( 5. Sufficiency Determination - The Impact Fee Coordinator and the Public Utilities Department Administrator will review the Alternative Fee Calculation for sufficiency methodology, technical accuracy, and findings and will make recommendations concerning the amount of the impact fee to the Impact Fee Coordinator. 6. Determination of Fee - The Public Utilities Department Administrator and the Impact Fee Coordinator will make the final determination of the impact fee amount. G:40T3121d ocsVnanuallappendiceslapndxh. doc Tindale- Oliver and Associates, Inc. Collier County Consolidated Impact Fee June 1, 2001 H -2 Administrative Procedures Manual Agenda Item No. 10E January 13, 2009 Page 268 of 398 Attachment B PRMG — Relative Items Collier County Water and Wastewater Impact Fee Study Agenda Item No. 10E January 13, 2009 Page 269 of 398 Public Resources Management Group, Inc. Utility, Rate, Financial and Management Consulu May 4, 2006 PRMG #1125 -12 Board of County Commissioners of Collier County 3301 Tamiami Trail East Naples, FL 34112 Subject: Water and Wastewater Impact Fee Study Ladies and Gentlemen: We have completed our update of the Water and Wastewater Impact Fee Study for the Collier County (the "County ") Water -Sewer District's (the "District") water and wastewater system (the "System "), and have summarized the results of our analyses, assumptions, and conclusions in this letter report, which is submitted for your consideration. The purpose of our analysis was to review the existing impact fees and make recommendations as to the level of charges that should reasonably be in effect consistent with the capital expenditure requirements as identified in the District's 2005 Water and Wastewater Master Plan Updates (the "2005 Master Plan Updates "). Based on the findings presented in the District's Master Plan Updates, Public Resources Management Group, Inc. (PRMG) is recommending that the water system impact fee be increased from $2,760 to $3,415 per Equivalent Residential Connection (ERC). For the wastewater system, we are recommending an increase in the impact fee from $3,125 to $3,515 per ERC. The combined water and wastewater fee with the proposed rate adjustments would be $6,930, an increase of $1,045 or 17.8% over the existing combined fee of $5,885. The rate schedule for the proposed impact fees is shown on Table ES -1 following this letter. At the outset of the study, it was determined that the proposed impact fees should meet a number of goals and objectives. These goals and objectives dealt primarily with criteria related to fee sufficiency and level. Specifically, the major objectives considered in this study included: • Existing customers, to the extent practical, should not finance or be impacted by the cost of financing and constructing water and wastewater infrastructure to serve new growth; • The impact fees should be sufficient to fund the pro rata cost of the projected capital requirements associated with providing water and wastewater service to new development; • To the extent practical, the impact fees should not be used to fund deficiencies in the capital needs of the water and wastewater utility systems (i.e., no expenditures for renewal and replacement or upgrade of facilities serving existing customers); • The impact fees should be based upon reasonable level of service standards that meet the needs of the District, should be indicative of the criteria used for long -term infrastructure planning, and should be consistent with industry standards; Agenda Item No. 10E January 13, 2009 Page 270 of 398 Board of County Commissioners of Collier County May 4, 2006 Page 2 • The proposed impact fees should be based on cost of service principles; • The proposed impact fees should take into consideration the comparable fees charged by neighboring utility systems; and New development, to the extent practical, should fund the cost of financing the construction of System infrastructure specifically allocated to expansion; the proposed carrying charge provides a basis of recovering such costs and further shifts the burden of expansion- related capital to new growth. The proposed water and wastewater impact fees presented in this report have been structured to meet these objectives. The impact fees we calculated during the course of our analyses were based on the recovery of capital - related costs anticipated to be incurred by the District to expand water and wastewater service to meet the needs of anticipated population growth within the utility service area. As previously mentioned, the capital- related costs were identified in the 2005 Master Plan Updates prepared by the District's Consulting Engineers that documented the capital improvement plan for the fiscal year period of 2006 to 2015, which is the capital needs period reflected in the Impact Fee Report. In addition to the proposed impact fees for the System, PRMG is recommending the imposition of a "carrying charge" to recover certain costs associated with providing capacity to new development. The proposed carrying charges (Allowance for Funds Prudently Invested or "AFPI Fees ") reflect the cost of financing the expansion- related infrastructure until the impact fees are received by the District and have been structured to meet the service / rate objectives outlined above. A summary of the proposed AFPI Fees is shown on Table ES -2 at the end of this letter. Based on the information provided by the District and prepared by its Consulting Engineers and the assumptions and considerations outlined in this report, which should be read in its entirety, PRMG considers the proposed Impact Fees to be cost - based, reasonable, and representative of the identified capital expenditure needs of the District as identified in the Master Plan Updates. Additionally, the proposed AFPI fees are considered by PRMG to be reasonable and comparable with similar charges imposed by other Florida utilities. Moreover, such fees provide a basis for the recovery of the cost of capital associated with constructing expansion - related infrastructure. 1125- 12\Letter Agenda Item No. 10E January 13, 2009 Page 271 of 398 Board of County Commissioners of Collier County May 4, 2006 Page 3 We appreciate the opportunity to be of service to the County and would like to thank the County's staff for their assistance and cooperation during the course of this study. Respectfully submitted, Public Resources Management Group, Inc. Robert J. Ori President Bryan A. Mantz Senior Consultant 1125- 121Letter # ) f! }� Agenda Item No. sE !ra> Sz , Page 3398 § B ) § ! 4 § (P 2 } § } } } } 0� |) | § § 7 7 § \ u \b� !§ !I § § Uj / \| !! `\ LU ` - ( 2 2 &} & @` (§ z z \ § ) §§ ( } / »} 0 \; & .0\ ` \ ( / § Agenda Item No. sE !ra> Sz , Page 3398 Z k\ }/ {k \\ )! » Agenda Item No. 10E ,lanuary 3z n Page 273 of Xrk 7 } } § � } § i ■ } 2 } } ƒ } ƒ k ( § | IW � $ ] i . ■ } } } } ƒ } $ /* « ; © ; § ) )\ 14 z § §� \ § \2 2 Agenda Item No. 10E ,lanuary 3z n Page 273 of Agenda Item No. 1OE January 13, 2009 Page 274 of 398 Table ES -2 Collier County Water -Sewer District Water and Wastewater Impact Fee Study Proposed Allowance for Funds Prudently Invested fAFPD Schedule ( -) Assumes that the AFPI fee is initiated on October 1, 2006. AFPI Schedule Per ERC- Wastewater System (" AFPI Schedule Per ERC- Water System " Paymem Payment Calendar Year Calendar Year Month 2006 Month 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 January $0.00 January $O.DO $58.69 $234.76 $410.84 $586.91 $762.98 $939.05 February 0.00 73.36 249.44 425.51 601.58 777.65 953.72 March 0.00 88.04 264.11 440.18 616.25 792.33 968.40 April 0.00 102.71 278.78 454.85 630.93 807.00 983.07 May 0.00 117.38 293,45 469.53 645.60 821.67 997.74 June 0.00 132.05 308.13 484.20 66D.27 836.34 1,012.42 July 0.00 146.73 322.80 498.87 674.94 851.02 1,027.09 August 0,00 161.40 337.47 513.54 689.62 865.69 1,041.76 September O.OD 176.07 352.14 528.22 704.29 880.36 1,056.43 October 14.67 190.74 366.82 542.89 718.96 895.03 1,056.43 November 29.35 205.42 381.49 557.56 733,63 909.71 1,056.43 December 44.02 220.09 396.16 572.23 748.31 924.38 1,056.43 ( -) Assumes that the AFPI fee is initiated on October 1, 2006. AFPI Schedule Per ERC- Wastewater System (" Paymem Calendar Year Month 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 January $0.00 $38.24 $152.94 $267,65 $382.36 $497.06 $611.77 February 0.00 47.79 162.50 277.21 391.92 506.62 621.33 March 0.00 57.35 172.06 286.77 401.47 516.18 630.89 April 0.00 66.91 181.62 296.33 411.03 525.74 640.45 May 0.00 76.47 191.18 305.89 420.59 535.30 650.01 June 0.00 86.03 200.74 315.44 430.15 544.86 659.57 July 0.00 95.59 210.30 325,00 439.71 554.42 669.12 August 0.00 105.15 219.86 334.56 449.27 563.98 678.68 September 0.00 114.71 229.41 34412 458.83 573.53 688.24 October 9.56 - 12427 238.97 353.68 468,39 583.09 688.24 November 19.12 133.82 248.53 363.24 477.95 592.65 688.24 December 28.68 143,38 258.09 372.80 487.50 602.21 688.24 ( -) Assumes that the AFPI fee is initiated on October 1, 2006. Agenda Item No. 10E January 13, 2009 Page 275 of 398 COLLIER COUNTY WATER -SEWER DISTRICT WATER AND WASTEWATER IMPACT FEE STUDY TABLE OF CONTENTS Title Page No. Letter of Transmittal Tableof Contents ................................................................................................... ............................... i List of Tables ..... ..............................: Listof Figures ......:...................... ............................... List of Appendices ............. ............................... ........ ............................ ............................... Introduction.................................:............................................ ............................... . l ................... Purpose of Water and Wastewater Impact Fees .................................................... ............................... l Existing Impact Fees ..................... ............................... ImpactFee Methodology ....................................................................................... ..............................4 Level of Service Requirements .................................... ............................... 5 .......................... Existing Plant in Service ...................................... ............................... 6 Additional Capital Investment .......................... 9 ............................... ............................... Designof Water Impact Fee ........................ ............................... ...... .............................13 Design of Wastewater hnpact Fee .................... ................ ..............16 .................... ............................... Impact Fee Comparisons ................................... I....... ......................19 .................... ..........:.................... Sufficiencyof Impact Fees .................................................................................... .............................20 Allowance for Funds Prudently Invested (AFPI) Fee .................. ......................,......21 Conclusions and Recommendations .............................................................. ........ .............................25 Acknowledgements...................... ............................... ................... .............................28 K:\Dl&l 125- 12\Reports\Report i Agenda Item No. 10E January 13, 2009 Page 276 of 398 The current study employed the same methodology, and the impact fees were calculated on an ERC basis. The capital - related costs were identified in the 2005 Master Plan Update reports prepared by the County's Consulting Engineers, which documented the capital improvement plan for Fiscal Years 2006 through 2015 (the "CIP Planning Period ") which was relied upon in the preparation of this report. Level of Service Requirements In the evaluation of the capital facility needs for providing water and wastewater utility services, it is critical that a level of service (LOS) standard be developed. Pursuant to Chapter 9J -5, Florida Administrative Code, the "level of service" means an indicator of the extent or degrees of service provided by, or proposed to be provided by a facility, based on and related to the operational characteristics of the facility. Level of service shall indicate the capacity per unit of demand for each public facility or service. Essentially, the level of service standards are established in order to ensure that adequate facility capacity will be provided for future development and for purposes of issuing development orders or permits, pursuant to Section 163.3202(2)(g) of the Florida Statutes. As further stated in the Administrative Code, each local government shall establish a LOS standard for each public facility located within the boundary for which such local government has authority to issue development orders or permits. Such LOS standards are set for each individual facility or facility type or class and not on a system wide basis. For water and wastewater service, the level of service that is commonly used in the industry is the amount of capacity (service) allocable to an ERC expressed as the amount of usage (gallons) allocated on an average daily basis. This allocation of capacity would generally represent the amount of capacity allowable to an ERC, whether or not such capacity is actually used (commonly referred to as "readiness to serve "). As previously mentioned, an ERC — sometimes known as an Equivalent Residential Unit (ERU) — is representative of the average capacity required to service a typical individually- metered or single - family residential account. This class of users represents the largest amount of customers served by a public utility such as the District and generally the lowest level of usage requirements for a specifically metered account. For the purposes of calculating water and wastewater system Impact Fees, PRMG utilized LOS standards of 350 gallons per day (gpd) expressed on an average annual daily flow basis per water ERC. The wastewater LOS standard used in the study was 250 gpd expressed on an average annual daily flow basis per wastewater ERC. These LOS standards were reviewed in previous studies for the District and discussed with District staff and its Consulting Engineers. In the development of the level of service standards the following reference sources were considered: • 2005 Water and Wastewater Master Plan Updates prepared by the District's Consulting Engineers, Greeley and Hansen LLC; • Collier County Growth Management Plan adopted on October 28, 1997; • Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) general design standards; • Florida Public Service Commission (FPSC) capacity relationships for private utilities; and • Actual water production and wastewater flow data reported by the District over the past several years. Agenda Item No. t0E January 13, 2009 Page 277 of 398 As a result, the following level of service standards were assumed for impact fee detennination purposes: Level of Service Water System 350 gpd per ERC Wastewater System 250 gpd per ERC These level of service standards have been utilized in previous impact fee studies performed on behalf of the District, and are consistent with those utilized by other utilities throughout the State of Florida. Existing Plant in Service In the determination of the Impact Fee associated with the servicing of future customers, any excess capacity of the existing utility system available to serve such growth was considered. Since this capacity is available to serve the near -term incremental growth of the utility system, it would be appropriate to evaluate the capacity availability of such facilities. In order to evaluate the availability of the existing utility plant -in- service to meet or provide for near -term future capacity needs, it was necessary to functionalize the plant by specific plant requirement. The "f nictionalization" of the existing plant is necessary to: i) identify those assets which should be included in the determination of the capital facilities fees; and ii) match existing plant type to the capital improvements to meet future service needs. The functional cost categories are based on the purpose of the assets and the service that such assets served. The following is a summary of the functional cost categories for the utility plant -in- service identified in this report. Functional Plant Categories Water Service Wastewater Service Other Plant Supply Treatment General Plant Treatment Effluent/Reclaimed Transmission Transmission Distribution Collection Fire Hydrants Meters and Services It was necessary to functionalize the utility plant into these cost categories so that a proper fee could be developed. Generally, the costs of on -site facilities which serve a specific development or customer such as water distribution and wastewater collection lines, meters and services, and fire hydrants are usually: i) donated by a developer as part of the City's utility extension program (a contribution of the plant); ii) recovered from the individual properties through an assessment program based on those properties which receive special benefit from such facilities or from the application of a main line extension fee to recover the specific cost of such facilities; or iii) funded from the customer directly (e.g., by a "front- foot" charge where the on -site lines were initially financed by the utility and then paid by the customer or an installation charge to recover the cost of a new service line and/or the potable water meter). Agenda Item No. 10E January 13, 2009 Page 278 of 398 Abior Protect Costs InOP That Primarily Benefit Edstin Customers (Fund 412 and Fund 414 Projects) Design of Water Impact Fee As shown on Table 7, the calculated impact fee for the water system is $3,415 per ERC. This represents an increase in the fee of $655 or 23.7% higher than the current fee of $2,760 per ERC. The reason for this increase is: i) an increase in the number of growth- driven (Fund 411) projects than what was shown in the 2003 Master Plan Update which was relied upon to develop the previously calculated impact fees; and ii) a higher cost per unit of capacity being added than what was calculated in the last impact fee study. For example and with respect to the inflationary impact on the cost of new construction, over the past five years, the Construction Cost Index published by Eneineering News - Record (ENR), which measures the inflation in the prices of construction labor and materials, increased by approximately 21% (this would not take into account any effects of regulatory process changes associated with treatment standards). During the impact fee analysis, several assumptions were utilized or incorporated. The major assumptions utilized in the design of the calculated impact fees are: 1. The existing water supply and treatment facilities have an estimated available capacity margin to serve new growth of approximately 22.51% of the average daily capacity of the facilities based on: i) the firm design capacity of the existing water treatment plant facilities; ii) actual maximum month daily demand to annual average daily demand relationships recently experienced by the water system, including a review of the actual demand 13 Project Cost Water Treatment Protects NCRW TP - New Hawthorne (Zone 1) W ellfield (Well Nos.: 101,102,114,115,116, 109,117,118,119,120) $14,300,000 NCRWTPRO Wellfield Reliability (North Hawthorn Wells 18 -20) 12,547,617 Hawthorn Future Reliability Wells (3 wells by 2012,3 wells by 2015,3 wells by 2018, 3 wells by 2021, 3 wells by 2024) 12,069,800 South Hawthorn Reliability /Replacement Wells (Well Nos.: 39S-42S) 8,500,000 NCRWTP Emergency Generator Switchgear Upgrades 5,343,514 Tamiami Well Replacement Program (Well Nos.: 38-42) 5,175,000 Lune Softening Upgrade at SCRWTP 3,885,915 SCRWTP One RO Reliability Well 2,600,000 Water Transmission Proiects Replace Water Main US 41 from Rattlesnake Hammock Road to Barefoot Williams Road 3,900,000 Wastewater Treatment Proiects IQ Water ASR 11,200,000 NCWRF Bleach System 3,000,000 Wastewater Transmission Projects Future Pump /Lift Station Rehab 5,100,000 Design of Water Impact Fee As shown on Table 7, the calculated impact fee for the water system is $3,415 per ERC. This represents an increase in the fee of $655 or 23.7% higher than the current fee of $2,760 per ERC. The reason for this increase is: i) an increase in the number of growth- driven (Fund 411) projects than what was shown in the 2003 Master Plan Update which was relied upon to develop the previously calculated impact fees; and ii) a higher cost per unit of capacity being added than what was calculated in the last impact fee study. For example and with respect to the inflationary impact on the cost of new construction, over the past five years, the Construction Cost Index published by Eneineering News - Record (ENR), which measures the inflation in the prices of construction labor and materials, increased by approximately 21% (this would not take into account any effects of regulatory process changes associated with treatment standards). During the impact fee analysis, several assumptions were utilized or incorporated. The major assumptions utilized in the design of the calculated impact fees are: 1. The existing water supply and treatment facilities have an estimated available capacity margin to serve new growth of approximately 22.51% of the average daily capacity of the facilities based on: i) the firm design capacity of the existing water treatment plant facilities; ii) actual maximum month daily demand to annual average daily demand relationships recently experienced by the water system, including a review of the actual demand 13 Agenda Item No. 10E January 13, 2009 Page 279 of 398 requirements for the ten fiscal year period ended 2005; and iii) the capacity factors reflected in the 2005 Master Plan Updates. The analysis is included on Table 1 herein. 2. The capital improvement program as identified in the County's 2005 Master Plan Updates was reviewed and the capital costs were apportioned: i) by functional category; and ii) to existing and future users in the determination of the water impact fee. Those facilities that were considered to be entirely allocable to growth were included in the fee determination at full cost (i.e., 100% of the total cost). For facilities that would provide an improvement to existing utility plant assets that had available capacity to service future growth, a portion of the impact fee was reflected in the fee determination since such new growth will benefit from such improvements. For capital expenditures which were solely for the replacement of existing assets which would directly benefit existing customers or were considered as an on- site cost (provide service to a local area such as a development which would normally be constructed and subsequently contributed to the District System by a developer), such amounts were not reflected as an appropriate cost to be recovered from the application of the water impact fees. A summary of the capital costs recognized in the impact fee analysis is shown on Table 4 and as follows (differences due to rounding): Project Costs ($ Mil lotss) - FY 2006 to FY 2015 Water Expansion / Impact Fee Eligible Costs to Be $89.8 Expansion /Impact Fee Recognized m Funnc Total Expansion/ Eligible Costs Study (e.g., Provide Total Impact Fee Eligible Recognized in Current Benefit Beyond Ten- Project Costs (Cu cut and Existing Smdy You Window) Costs Future Studies) Water Treatment $89.8 $245.9 $211.6 $547.2 $457.4 Transmission 14.2 46.2 68.2 128.6 114A Total $104.0 $292.0 $279.8 $675.8 $571.8 For the capital improvements identified as transmission system upgrades which would benefit both existing and future users, the total cost of such improvements has been recognized in the analysis. Since the transmission function capacity is difficult to ascertain except at "build -out" conditions, the total existing (expressed at original cost and not on a replacement or current cost basis) and anticipated capital costs to serve the total capacity of the water system through 2015 was recognized, thus calculating a new users per ERC "buy - in" cost for this functional component of the system. Therefore, the cost of certain capital expenditures shown on Table 4 that was fully recognized in the fee determination will not be fully recovered by growth since the "unit cost" of this function includes existing ERCs. 4. With respect to those capital projects which have been allocated to existing users that may include a capacity increment associated with serving new development, an adjustment to the reported plant -in- service balances has been made in order to not double -count plant -in- service (recognized a retirement of plant associated with the addition of the new facilities as identified in the 2005 Master Plan Update). Since a match of the facility upgrade to the existing plant -in- service balances as reported on the County's Fixed Asset Records was not possible, the adjustment was based on: i) an average in- service date based on the weighted in- service date of all functional assets in service as reported on the Fixed Asset Records; and 14 Agenda Item No. 10E January 13, 2009 Page 280 of 398 ii) the estimated replacement cost of the asset being placed in service as identified in the 2005 Master Plan Update, based on an analysis of historical and projected inflation as measured by the Construction Cost Index as measured by Engineering News - Record. It was considered that the use of the replacement cost of the assets, which would generally include an upgrade to the facilities and probably result in a higher cost due to such factors as restoration expenses, would be conservative in the evaluation of the capital costs recognized in the determination of the fee. It was assumed that approximately $32,163,106 of existing water system assets would be retired as a result of the implementation of the County's identified capital improvement program. No capital facility expansion costs associated with distribution facilities have been included in the calculation of the water impact fees since the County generally requires the developer to contribute such facilities or the County has adopted a separate fee (e.g., water meter installation fee) on behalf of the District to recover the cost of such capital additions (contribution in aid of construction). The level of service for a water ERC was assumed to be 350 gallons per day (gpd) expressed on an average daily flow basis. This level of service represents no change from the previous impact fee study. The level of service was predicated on the level of service requirements as contained in the County's Growth Management Plan (potable water sub - element); discussions with the County's Consulting Engineers regarding capacity planning statistics as reflected in the 2005 Master Plan Update; Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) general design standards for water use analysis; Florida Public Service Commission (FPSC) capacity relationships for private utilities (Florida Administrative Code Rule 25- 30.020); and discussions with the District. No grant funds have been or are expected to be received by the District relative to the funding of the water capital improvement program, and none of the existing water treatment and transmission assets were assumed to have been funded from grants. 8. Based on discussions with the County and as part of the review of the monthly rates for water service (a separate study of the District), it was determined that the lowest overall cost to the existing ratepayer (in terms of rates to be charged and financial health of the District System) was to use impact fees first for capital project funding as opposed to the payment of debt service. Because of this benefit and the need to recover the full capital cost assigned to growth, no rate adjustment was reflected in the determination of the fee. All impact fee funds remain in the system and the long -term financing costs are mitigated by using the fees for capital project financing. Although a new rate payer will potentially pay debt service on expansion- related financing, the overall cost to the ratepayer is less by not applying impact fees to current year debt and the additional customers to the system actually tend to maintain or reduce the debt service component built into the rates for service. Thus there appears to be no justification to continue to have a debt service adjustment in the determination of the impact fees. The water system impact fee was calculated utilizing estimated capital costs for the water supply /treatment/transmission system, ERC service requirements, and current fixed asset and plant capacity data available to PRMG regarding the water system. By designing the water system impact fee to recover costs on a prospective basis, an attempt is made to design a charge that will 15 Agenda Item No. t0E January 13, 2009 Page 281 of 398 provide funds on a reasonable basis in order to meet the future needs of the water system. It should be noted that in the event the construction costs, capacity requirements, or utility service area materially change from what is reflected on Table 7, the water impact fee might need to be adjusted accordingly. As shown on Table 7, the calculated water impact fee is $3,685 per ERC, which is $925 or 33.5% higher than the existing water impact fee of $2,760 per ERC. This fee would be applied to a standard individually- metered residential customer. Based on the capital facilities associated with the determination of the fee, the functional breakdown of the components of the rate is as follows: Rounded Cost Per ERC Water Supply/Treatment $2,865 Water Transmission 550 Total Proposed Water Impact Fee $4 Design of Wastewater Impact Fee As shown on Table 8, the calculated impact fee for the wastewater system is $3,515 per ERC. This represents an increase in the fee of $390 or 12.5% above the current fee of $3,125 per ERC. The reason for this increase is a rise in the cost per unit of additional capacity from the costs assumed in the previous impact fee study. As previously mentioned, with respect to the inflationary impact on the cost of new construction, over the past five years, the Construction Cost Index published by Engineering News- Record .(ENR), which measures the inflation in the prices of construction labor and materials, increased by approximately 21% (this would not take into account any effects of regulatory process changes associated with wastewater treatment standards). In the development of the proposed wastewater impact fees, several assumptions were utilized or incorporated in the analysis. The major assumptions utilized in the design of the proposed wastewater impact fees are: 1. The existing wastewater treatment and effluent disposal facilities have an estimated available capacity margin to serve new growth of approximately 47.08% of the average daily capacity of the facilities based on: i) the firm design capacity of the existing wastewater treatment plant facilities; ii) actual maximum month average daily flow to annual average daily flow relationships recently experienced by the wastewater system, including a review of the actual flow requirements for the ten fiscal year period ended 2005; and iii) the capacity factors reflected in the 2005 Master Plan Update. The analysis is included on Table 2 herein. 2. Based on discussions with the County, the cost of treatment and effluent disposal includes the direct system - related cost of expanding the reclaimed water system. As shown on Table 6, the following capital costs were reflected in the analysis: (Remainder of Page Left Blank Intentionally) 16 Expansion - Related Facilities (New and Future) Facilities Allocated to Existing Capacity Total Reclaimed Water Capital Expenditures Recognized Capital Expenditures Reflected in Analysis $21,113,958 17.280.000 Agenda Item No. 10E January 13, 2009 Page 282 of 398 3. The capital improvement program as identified in the County's 2005 Master Plan Update was reviewed and the capital costs were apportioned: i) by functional category and ii) to existing and future users in the determination of the wastewater impact fee. Those facilities that were considered to be entirely allocable to growth were included in the fee determination at full cost (i.e., 100% of the total cost). For facilities that would provide an improvement to existing utility plant assets that had available capacity to service future growth, a portion of the capacity fee was reflected in the fee determination since such new growth will benefit from such improvements. For capital expenditures which were solely for the replacement of existing assets which would directly benefit existing customers or were considered as an on -site cost (provide service to a local area such as a development which would normally be constructed and subsequently contributed to the District System by a developer), such amounts were not reflected as an appropriate cost to be recovered from the application of the wastewater impact fees. A summary of the capital costs recognized in the wastewater impact fee analysis is shown on Table 6 and as follows: Project Costs ($ Millions) - FY 2006 to FY 2075 Expansion / Impact Fee Eligible Costs to Be Expansion /Impact Fee Recognized in Future Total Expansion / Impact Eligible Costs Study (e.g., Provide Fee Eligible Costs - Recognized in Current Benefit Beyond Ten -Year Total Project (Current and Future Existing Study Window) Costs Studies) Wastewater Treatment $20.9 $270.7 $8.9 $300.5 $279.6 Transmission 10.5 25.5 19.3 55.2 44.7 Reclaimed Water 17.3 11.3 9.8 38.4 21.1 Total $48.7 $307.5 - $37.9 $394.1 $345.4 4. For the capital improvements identified as transmission system upgrades which would benefit both existing and future users, the total cost of such improvements has been recognized in the analysis. Since the transmission function capacity is difficult to ascertain except at "build -out' conditions, the total existing (expressed at original cost and not on a replacement or current cost basis) and anticipated capital costs to serve the total capacity of the wastewater system through 2015 was recognized, thus calculating a new users per ERC "buy -in" cost for this functional component of the system. Therefore, the cost of certain capital expenditures shown on Table 6 that was fully recognized in the fee determination will not be fully recovered by growth since the "unit cost' of this function includes existing ERCs. With respect to those capital projects which have been allocated to existing users which may include a capacity increment associated with serving new development, an adjustment to the 17 Agenda Item No. 10E January 13, 2009 Page 283 of 398 reported plant -in- service balances has been made in order to not double -count plant -in- service (recognized a retirement of plant associated with the addition of the new facilities as identified in the 2005 Master Plan Update). Since a match of the facility upgrade to the existing plant -in- service balances as reported on the District's Fixed Asset Records was not possible, the adjustment was based on: i) an average in- service date based on the weighted in- service date of all functional assets in service as reported on the Fixed Asset Records; and ii) the estimated replacement cost of the asset being placed in service as identified in the 2005 Master Plan Update, based on an analysis of historical and projected inflation as measured by the Construction Cost Index as measured by Engineering News - Record It was considered that the use of the replacement cost of the assets, which would generally include an upgrade to the facilities and probably result in a higher cost due to such factors as restoration expenses, would be conservative in the evaluation of the capital costs recognized in the determination of the fee. It was assumed that approximately $16,415,000 of existing wastewater and reclaimed water system assets would be retired as a result of the implementation of the County's identified capital improvement program. 6. No capital facility costs associated with the existing collection facilities - including local lift stations, manholes, and on -site collection facilities - have been included in the calculation of the wastewater impact fees since the County generally requires the developer to contribute such facilities, or the County has adopted a separate fee (e.g., wastewater tap -fee) on behalf of the District to recover such capital additions (contributions in aid of construction). All capital improvements to such respective facilities as recognized in the 2005 Master Plan Update were also not recognized in the wastewater impact fee analysis. The level of service for a wastewater ERC was assumed to be 250 gallons per day (gpd) expressed on an average daily flow basis. This level of service represents no change from the previous impact fee study. The level of service was predicated on the level of service requirements as contained in the County's Growth Management Plan (sanitary sewer sub - element); information contained in the 2005 Master Plan Update regarding wastewater capacity; FDEP flow standards as reported in FAC Rule 64E- 6.008; FPSC capacity relationships for private utilities (FAC Rule 25- 30.020); and discussions with the District. No grant funds have been or are expected to be received by the District relative to the funding of the wastewater capital improvement program, and none of the existing wastewater treatment and transmission assets were assumed to have been funded from grants. 9. Based on discussions with the County and as part of the review of the monthly rates for wastewater service (a separate study of the District), it was determined that the lowest overall cost to the existing ratepayer (in terms of rates to be charged and financial health of the District System) was to use impact fees first for capital project funding as opposed to the payment of debt service. Because of this benefit and the need to recover the full capital cost assigned to growth, no rate adjustment was reflected in the determination of the fee. All impact fee funds remain in the system and the long -term financing costs are mitigated by using the fees for capital project financing. Although a new rate payer will potentially pay debt service on expansion - related financing, the overall cost to the ratepayer is less by not applying impact fees to current year debt and the additional customers to the system actually tend to maintain or reduce the debt service component built into the rates for service. Thus 18 Agenda Item No. 10E January 13, 2009 Page 284 of 398 there appears to be no justification to continue to have a debt service adjustment in the determination of the impact fees. The wastewater system impact fee was calculated utilizing estimated capital costs for the wastewater transmission/treatment/disposal system, ERC service requirements, and current fixed asset and plant capacity data available to PRMG regarding the wastewater system. By designing the wastewater system impact fee to recover costs on a prospective basis, an attempt is made to design a charge that will provide funds on a reasonable basis in order to meet the future needs of the wastewater system. It should be noted that in the event the construction costs, capacity requirements, or utility service area materially change from what was reflected on Table 8, the wastewater impact fee might need to be adjusted accordingly. As shown on Table 8, the calculated wastewater impact fee is $3,515 per ERC, which is $390 or 12.5% higher than the existing wastewater impact fee of $3,125 per ERC. This fee would be applied to a standard individually- metered residential customer. Based on the capital facilities associated with the determination of the fee, the functional breakdown of the components of the rate is as follows: Rounded Cost Per ERC Wastewater Treatment/Disposal $3,200 Wastewater Transmission 315 Total Proposed Wastewater Impact Fee $3.515 Impact Fee Comparisons In order to provide additional information to the County regarding the existing and calculated impact fees, a comparison of the existing and calculated fees for the District with other Florida jurisdictions was prepared. This comparison is summarized on Table 9 and provides a comparison of the existing and proposed District impact fees for single - family residential connections (i.e., one ERC) relative to the impact fees or comparable charges currently imposed by other municipal/governmental water and wastewater systems located primarily in the southwest Florida region. Figure 1 shows a graphical representation of the comparison. It is important to note that the reader must view the comparison with caution as no in -depth analysis has been performed to determine the methods used in the development of the water and wastewater impact fees imposed by others, nor has any analysis been made to determine whether 100% of the cost of new facilities is recovered from system capacity charges, or some percentage less than 100% with the balance recovered through the user charges. Additionally, no analysis was conducted as to the rate of capital facilities currently in service or planned for the utility. For example, the costs of wastewater effluent disposal utilizing a deep injection well system generally has a higher capital cost per unit of capacity than percolation ponds. (Remainder of Page Left Blank Intentionally) 19 Agenda Item No. 10E' January 13, 2009 Page 285 of 398 Table 1 Collier County Water -Sewer District Water and Wastewater Impact Fee Study Development of Existing Water Production/Treatment Facility Capacity Available to Serve Customer Growth Line No. Water System 1 Existing Permitted Plant Capacity of system (MMDD -MGD) (1) 40.000 Adjustment to Reflect Annual Average Daily Demand 2 of Water Treatment System (MGD) (2) (6.667) 3 Adjusted Treatment Plant Capacity (AADD) 33.333 4 Annual Average Daily Demand - Existing System (3) 25.830 5 Remaining Capacity (AADD) at Existing Plant 7.503 6 Percent of Total Capacity Remaining 22.51% 7 Percent of Total Capacity Recognized 22.51% Capital Costs of Existing Facilities 8 Existing Facility Costs (4) $ 111,40Q,959 9 Additional Costs (5) 89,761,032 10 Less Assumed Retirements (6) (25,243,690) 11 Less Grant Funds and Other Contributions (7) (969,055) 12 Total Applicable Capital Costs of Existing Facilities $ 174,949,246 13 Estimated Amount Allocable to Future Growth $ 39,381,075 MGD = Million Gallons Per Day MhIDD - Maximum Month Daily Demand AADD = Annual Average Daily Demand Footnotes start on page 30. 29 Agenda Item No. 10E January 13, 2009 Page 286 of 398 Table 2 Collier County Water -Sewer District Water and Wastewater Impact Fee Study Development of Existing Wastewater Treatment Facility Capacity Available to Serve Customer Growth Line No. Wastewater System 1 Existing Plant Capacity of System ( &,fADF -MGD) (1) 40.100 2 Adjustment to Reflect Capacity on Annual Average Daily Flow Basis (2) (9.254) 3 Adjusted Treatment Plant Capacity ® AADF 30.846 4 5 6 7 Annual Average Daily Flow - Existing System (3) Remaining Capacity (AADF) at Existing Plant Percent of Total Capacity Remaining Percent of Total System Capitalization Recognized 16.323 14.523 47.08% 47.08% Capital Costs of Existing Facilities 8 9 10 11 Existing Facility Costs (4) Additional Costs (5) Less Assumed Retirements (6) Less Grant Funds and Other Contributions (7) $ 157,420,647 38,212,595 (11,080,708) (1,753,062) 12 Total Applicable Capital Costs of Existing Facilities $ 182,799,472 13 Estimated Amount Allocable to Future Growth $ 86,061,991 MGD = Million Gallons Per Day MMADF= Maximum Month Average Daily Flow AADF = Annual Average Daily Flow Footnotes start on page 33. 32 Agenda Item No. 10E January 13, 2009 Page 287 of 398 Attachment C -1 County Ordinance No. 2007 -52 County Ordinance No. 2007 -57 County Resolution 2008 -202 Agenda Item No. 10E 6 3 % JD January 13, 2009 •s' '�y;. Page 288 of 398 r N, mI 1 ORDINANCE NO. 2007- 5y_ AN ORD y CE OF COLLIER CO FLORIDA, AMENDING SUBSECTION i lid rt31S6�ECTION 74303 OF AR ICLE III IN ORDINANCE NO, 2001 -13 (THE �L DATED IMPACT FEE ORDINANCE), TO SPECIFY THAT WATER AND SEWER IMPACT FEES FOR NON - RESIDENTIAL USES AND FOR RESIDENTIAL LIVING AREA GREATER THAN 5,000 SQUARE FEET (OR HAVING MORE THAN FOUR TOILETS) SHALL BE DETERMPMD BY PROJECTING AVERAGE DAILY FLOWS AND NO LONGER BY THE SIZE OF THE SERVICE METER; AMENDING. SCHEDULE TWO IN APPENDIX A TO THE ORDINANCE; PROVIDING FOR CONFLICT AND SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION IN THE CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, on March 13, 7001, the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County adopted Ordinance 2001 -13, the "Consolidated Impact Fee Ordinance" repealing and superseding all of the County's then existing impact fee regulations and consolidating all of the County's impact fee regulations into that Ordinance, codified as Chapter 74 of the Collier County Code of laws and Ordinances (the "Code "); and WHEREAS, the Collier County Water -Sewer District contracted with Malcolm Pirnie and with the URS Corporation regarding these impactfees, and both consultingfirms have recommended to staff that water and wastewater impact fees that apply to non - residential uses, or that apply to residential uses that have either living amaof 5,000 or more square feet, orirrespective ofithe square footage will have mote than four toilets, no longer be detcunined by the size of the applicable service meter, but shall be detemdned by the ERC value that results from applicable projected average daijy flows; and WHEREAS, having reviewed the Consultant! stecommendations , staff concurs andtterefrne -' is recommending that the Hoard of County Commissioners adopt the attached Ordinance to amend the current Ordinance and the attached Impact Fee Schedule, both of which will accomplish the results recommended by the consultants. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that: �N DN ONE. Subsection (d)(2)(g) in Section 74303 of Article III of Chapter 74 of the Collier Code of Laws and Ordinances (the same being Ordinance No. 2001 -13, as amended), is upended to read as follows: `g. Mi31 le�efflaifiBd by b —pas ffia- -Fiditional units am issued by the saitaty within that develeptaefit. Staff is aasiisfize" . Water and wastewater( sewer) impact fees forindividually metered water and/or sewer service to residential use of less than 5,000 square feet living space and which will have less than five toilets shall have an ERC value of one. Master metered serviceto residential Underlined text is added; s6uek Owaagh text is deleted. Agenda Item No. 10E January 13, 2009 Page 289 of 398 these impact fee calculations." SECTION TWO. CONFLICT AND SEVERABILITY. In the event this Ordinance conflicts with any other Ordinance of Collier County or other applicable law, the more restrictive shall apply. If any phrase or portion of this Ordinance is held invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct, and independent provision and such holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions. SECTION THREE. INCLUSION IN THE CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES. The provisions of this Ordinance shall be made a part of the Code of Laws and Ordinances of Collier County, Florida. The sections of the Ordinance may be renumbered or re- lettered and internal cross - references amended throughout to accomplish such, and the word "ordinance' may be changed to "section," "article," or any other appropriate word. SECTIONFOUR. EFFECTIVEDATE. This Ordinance shall become effective upon filing with the Florida Department of State. PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED by the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida this QLD� day of 2007. ATTEST: DWIGHT. E. BRQ K,,CLERK - Att%Ru` Ate tt�aa t 'signature ooj: Approved as to form and legal sufficiency: OF • t COUNTY, • • I• A. r . • By: f—ou'. Thomas C. Palmer, Assistant County Attorney U eAi kxt ¢added; kxt k detekd. Page 2 of 4 This ordinance filed with the C^ td,ayy S s C. the 0-.A ncknowtadoemu.t thot f,11 ve ^ -ived this iel - doY CWt Agenda Item No. 10E January 13, 2009 Page 290 of 398 APPENDIX A SCHEDULE TWO: WATER AND kI4 TEW-A IF SEWER SYSTEM IMPACT FEE n • Rm crrmmtr v Undedteed tec[ to added, Swale- Ihwugk mxt is deleted. Page 3 of 4 V Agenda Item No. 10E January 13, 2009 Page 291 of 398 INDIVIDUALLY METERED SERVICE LIVING SPACE (SO.FT) ERC VALUE VALUE O WATER IMPACT FEES SEWER IMPACT FEES FEE Ecuivalent Residential Connection D TO 4.999 (AND MAXIMUM OF 4 TOILETS) 1 . Per ERC $3.415 $3,515. 5,000 OR GREATER pDF! 350 Per ERC ERC VALUE x $415 (minimum value 3 515 (OR MORE THAN 4 TOILETS )min value of (rounded to Non- Residenfial ERC VALUE x the neatest $3,415) $3.515 (minimum value 53.515) tenM) MASTER METERED SERVICE LIVING SPACE /SO.FT.) ERC VALUE BASIS OF WATER IMPACT FEES SEWER IMPACT FEES ResidentlalUnrc- 0TO750 0.33 PerUn $1.125.00 $1,160.00 Residential Unit -751 TO Q,67 — Per Unit $2.29D.00 $2.355.00 t.soo Residential Unit -1.501 TO 1 Per Unit $3.415.00 $3,515.0 0 4.999 Residential Unit– 5,000 OR ADF/ 350 Per ER ERC VALUE x $3.515 GREATER (OR MORE THAN 4 TOILETS) fmin value of 1-01 (rounded $3.415 lmnnmmum Non - Residential to the neare st value $3.4751 ERC VALUE x 3 515 �— (minimum value tenth $3,515) ACRONYM KEY• ADF - — Average Daily Flows for Proposed use as provided by FOR or Authorized Re resentetive FOR - En lneer of Record for act ERC - Ecuivalent Residential Connection ndcrlined rext is added; 9wvl- aaaegk uric &let.L Page 4 Df 4 WHEREAS, Collier County has used impact fees as a funding source for growth- related capital improvements for various facilities since 1978; and WHEREAS, on March 13, 20D1, the Board of County Commissioners adopted Ordinance No. 2001 -13, the Collier County Consolidated Impact Fee Ordinance, repealing and superseding all of the County's then existing impact fee regulations, and consolidating all of the County's impact fee regulations into that one Ordinance, codified in Chapter 74 of the Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances (the "Code'; and WHEREAS, in October of 2002 the Board of County Commissioners directed that during the upcoming required three -year updates of the individual impact fees that methodology also be developed to provide for the annual indexing of the fees in the years between the formal updates; and WHEREAS, on February 28, 2006, the Board of County Commissioners directed that the indexing methodology for each of the impact fees be reviewed and revised, as appropriate, to reflect localized information; and WHEREAS, Section 163.31801, Florida Statutes, which is the Florida impact Fee Act, requires the most recent and localized data be used in impact fee calculations; and WHEREAS, Collier County, retained 'findale- Oliver & Associates, Inc. (the "Consultant'), to complete the study to localize the indexing methodologies; and WHEREAS, the Consultant worked in association with Robert W. Burchell, Ph.D. from the Center for Urban Policy Research, Bloustein School of Planning/Public Policy at Rutgers, to develop a legally defensible indexing program, specific to Collier County; and WHEREAS, the Consultant has prepared an impact fee study entitled "Collier County Impact Fee Indexing Study" dated June 11, 2007 (the "Study'); and WHEREAS, Collier County uses impact fees to supplement die funding of necessary capital improvements required to provide public facilities to serve new population and related development that is necessitated by growth in Collier County; and WHEREAS, the Study recommends four revised measures to be used, alone or in combination, to calculate the annual index for each of Collier County's impact fees; and 49Q{11�Q m.t is addCd: 9fFo8k,,a 1x. is ddktc A em N0. 10E 13, 2009 �o23Ja�i6 �+ P,$2e of 398 9 'Al 201 ORDINANCE NO. 2007- 57 AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE IMPACT FEE a2£2,tztzolell RATE SCHEDULES OF APPENDIX A OF ORDINANCE NO. 2001-13, AS AMENDED, KNOWN AS THE COLLIER COUNTY CONSOLIDATED IMPACT FEE ORDINANCE; INCORPORATING BY REFERENCE THE IMPACT FEE STUDY ENTITLED "COLLIER .; COUNTY IMPACT FEE INDEXING STUDY;" DELETING THE REQUIRED USE OF INCOME DERIVED FROM THE INTEREST ' - BEARING IMPACT FEE TRUST FUNDS; PROVIDING FOR -' CHANGES TO THE PROVISIONS RELATED TO IMPACT FEE WAIVERS AND DEFERRALS FOR SPECIFIED CHARITABLE ORGANIZATIONS; AMENDING THE SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS FOR EACH OF THE INDIVIDUAL IMPACT FEES; PROVIDING FOR CONFLICT AND SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION IN THE COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES; AND PROVIDING FOR A DELAYED EFFECTIVE DATE OF JANUARY 1, 2008. WHEREAS, Collier County has used impact fees as a funding source for growth- related capital improvements for various facilities since 1978; and WHEREAS, on March 13, 20D1, the Board of County Commissioners adopted Ordinance No. 2001 -13, the Collier County Consolidated Impact Fee Ordinance, repealing and superseding all of the County's then existing impact fee regulations, and consolidating all of the County's impact fee regulations into that one Ordinance, codified in Chapter 74 of the Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances (the "Code'; and WHEREAS, in October of 2002 the Board of County Commissioners directed that during the upcoming required three -year updates of the individual impact fees that methodology also be developed to provide for the annual indexing of the fees in the years between the formal updates; and WHEREAS, on February 28, 2006, the Board of County Commissioners directed that the indexing methodology for each of the impact fees be reviewed and revised, as appropriate, to reflect localized information; and WHEREAS, Section 163.31801, Florida Statutes, which is the Florida impact Fee Act, requires the most recent and localized data be used in impact fee calculations; and WHEREAS, Collier County, retained 'findale- Oliver & Associates, Inc. (the "Consultant'), to complete the study to localize the indexing methodologies; and WHEREAS, the Consultant worked in association with Robert W. Burchell, Ph.D. from the Center for Urban Policy Research, Bloustein School of Planning/Public Policy at Rutgers, to develop a legally defensible indexing program, specific to Collier County; and WHEREAS, the Consultant has prepared an impact fee study entitled "Collier County Impact Fee Indexing Study" dated June 11, 2007 (the "Study'); and WHEREAS, Collier County uses impact fees to supplement die funding of necessary capital improvements required to provide public facilities to serve new population and related development that is necessitated by growth in Collier County; and WHEREAS, the Study recommends four revised measures to be used, alone or in combination, to calculate the annual index for each of Collier County's impact fees; and 49Q{11�Q m.t is addCd: 9fFo8k,,a 1x. is ddktc Agenda Item No. 10E January 13, 2009 Page 293 of 398 -- WHEREAS, the recommended measures and corresponding percentages of increase, in combination with the adopted indexing methodology provide the basis for the annual index for each of Collier County's impact fees; and WHEREAS, the proposed revised fees are incorporated in Schedules One through Ten of Appendix A of Chapter 74 of the Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinance (attached); and WHEREAS, the study methodology has been reviewed and agreed to by Collier County's outside legal counsel, Nabors, Giblin and Nickerson, P.A.; and WHEREAS, staff has thoroughly reviewed the calculations and findings and concurs with the results of the study, and recommends that the Board of County Commissioners adopt this Ordinance to implement the recommended changes; and WHEREAS, on April 10, 2007 the Board of County Commissioners directed that the provisions related to impact fee waivers for specified charitable organizations be amended to instead provide deferrals to such charitable organizations; and - WHEREAS, the adoption of this Ordinance incorporates provisions that amend Section 74- 203(1) of the Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances related to charitable organizations by providing impact fee deferrals to qualified entities and requiring that deferred impact fees be paid to Collier County upon such time that the premises is no longer utilized by the qualified entity or the entity ceases to operate in the specified charitable capacity. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that: SECTION ONE. Article L General, Section 74 -106, Adoption of impact fee studies, of the Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances is hereby amended to read as follows: Section 74 -106. Adoption of impact fee studies. The board hereby adopts and incorporates by reference the following studies with regard to the respective public facilities: I1 Indezine: "Collier County Impact Fee Indexing Study" dated June 11 2007 Prepared by Tindale - Oliver and Associates. Inc.. in association with Robert W Burchell. Ph.D . to be updated annually. Fkt SECTION TWO. Article II, Impact Fees, Section 74 -203, Use offunds, subsection (e) and (i) of the Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances is hereby amended to read as follows: Section 74 -203. Use of funds. k!! (e) All funds on deposit which are not then immediately necessary for expenditures shall be invested by the county in compound- interest bearing trust fund(s). fun U_uderlipM mat is,dded; 9 ..k -91. 4 411 is delved P., 2 urB Agenda Item No. 10E January 13, 2009 Page 294 of 398 - 111..1... ..A in the 'per, i iot,AeShall 198 rsv-M5' [:nor fer- c n c Wild --Gd" ..Lwitable impaA fees . Assie.ed intsFast irs, ..r Q...A .5..11 -..1 bs esitity A....1....A in 1119- ..H-Wen r.. F 1.A r11-se "Fie; A...... fit .. 16..1.. than an legal charitable that interest weivers unless legally be mists actual pfahibitian fund the Feiive9t-d w.i—.Fq wheireby waieued erier:iet uged to xf+ (i) Impact fee waivers or - deferrals available to charitable organizations and charitable trusts. These impact fees waivers deferrals are available only to eligible to not - for - profit, charitable entities as specified herein. The cumulative total of all not - for -profit waivers deferrals in each of the county's fiscal years shall not exceed $200,000.00. If the total amount of impact fees waived deferred pursuant to these provisions in a fiscal year is less than $200,000.00 (or is less than the higher total in the funding account for that fiscal year because of prior cash carrying - forward) some or all of the sum of money not waived deferred can be carried forward and thereby be added to the $200,000.00, to a maximum balance of $500,000.00 funding for the next fiscal year. Neisthe ilmpaet fees collected by the county for water, wastewater, educational facilities ner and fire impact fees shall not be waived deferred under these provisions. (1) Entities eligible for waivers deferrals. These waivers deferrals are available only to charitable, not - For -profit entities that provide services of substantial benefit to low income or very low income residents of the county at no charge or at reasonable, reduced rates, and no pail of the net earnings of the entity shall inure to the benefit of any private shareholder or individual, and the entity complies with at least one of the following; a. The entity is described in subsection 501(C)(3) of Chapter 26 of the United States Internal Revenue Code as a corporation, a community chest, a fund, or a foundation, organized and operated exclusively for charitable purposes, or for prevention of cruelty to children, and is then exempt from taxes under Section 501(a) therein; or b. The entity is described in Subsections 501(C)(4)(A) and (B) of Chapter 26 of the United States Internal Revenue Code as either a Civic League or an organization not organized for profit, is operated exclusively for the promotion of social welfare, and is exempt from taxes under Section 501(a), therein; or c. The entity is described in Subsection 501(C)(20) of Chapter 26 of the United States Internal Revenue Code as an organization or trust, the exclusive function of which is to form part of a qualified group legal services plan or plans within the meaning of Section 120 as referenced therein; or Un�icad text is added; saV.w- a,a»gx m.t„ddmw F., 3 orb Agenda Item No. 10E January 13, 2009 Page 295 of 398 d. The entity is a hospital, a cooperative hospital service organization, a medical research organization, or similar organization under any provision within (or referenced) in Section 501 of Chapter 26 of the United States Internal Revenue Code and the entity is exempt from federal income taxation; or e. The entity is then exempt from Florida's annual and nonrecurring intangible taxes pursuant to F.S. § 199.185(4), as a "Charitable Trust" and at least 95 percent of its income is paid to one or more of the above - listed federal tax exempt entities. (2) Amount of waivers deferrals available to applicants. Subject to not exceeding the amount of impact fees paid (or to be paid) by the applicant to the county, the applicant may request waivers deferrals of all impact fees that are weivable eligible for deferral under these provisions, but no applicant shall be granted more than $100,000.00, or 50 percent of the available funding, which ever is less, of not - for -profit waivers deferrals. (3) No construction that has obtained an affordable housing deferral under this article shall be eligible for any wawsr deferral under these provisions. No construction that has been granted a wewee deferral under these provisions shall be eligible for any county affordable housing deferrals. (4) v4pheatian5 Requests for waivers deferrals pursuant to this section 74.203. a. Except as specified in this subparagraph a., the applicant must file a written waiver request for deferral applieatien to the county manager not later than concurrently with payment of the respective impact fees. The county shall not accept any such spglisatiens requests after the respective impact fees have been paid to the county except in those instances when the Collier County building permit that authorized the respective waiver eligible development was issued after September 7, 2001 and before October 13, 2001 and the development paid the applicable impact fees in full. The applicant can avoid payment of impact fees (up to the maximum amount of impact fees that may possibly be waived deferred for that applicant) only when it is possible that the board may grant the requested waive e deferral before the respective impact fees become due and payable to the county. The sppiisado written request must prove all of the applicable above - specified elements that render the entity eligible for the requested waivers deferrals, including the required tax exemption(s). The county manager may request additional information deemed appropriate to ascertain the applicant's eligibility for the requested waivers deferrals, including criteria noted in F.S. §§ 196.195 and/or 196.196. b. No pFiarii5, shall be givea te my applioalien based an any "finit some, first sewed'- basis. The county manager shall review each applicatien written reouest to determine eligibility for the requested waivers deferrals. Within 30 days after receipt of the applioatien request the county manager sheald shall inform the applicant in writing whether the app4satien reouest is complete. If the applieatien request is incomplete, the °,a) be retained to the applicant, shall be notified spesi€ ing in writing why the appHsntiert written regpest fails to prove that the entity is eligible for the requested waivers deferrals. After receipt of such Uad�llf.9 mxt iv.aeed:6wwk@rwgp mn iv dde�ea P., 4 or25 Agenda Item No. 10E January 13, 2009 Page 296 of 398 notice, the applicant shall have an additional 30 days to ro- submit an amended apglieatien request. Failure to meet this deadline shall. void the applicant's eligibility for the requested waivers deferrals unless an extension is granted for good cause at the county manager's discretion. c. After an-applisatien a written request is determined by the county manager to meet the above - specified minimum filing requirements, the county manager shall promptly place the appliestisn request on the county's manager portion of the board's agenda. The fiscal year in which the waive f deferral applisstiea is granted or denied by the board shall be the fiscal year that applies to the applieatien request. The executive summary shall specify the criteria deemed by the county manager to render the applicant eligible (or ineligible) for the requested waivers deferrals, and shall include the county manager's recommendations whether the board should grant the request in whole or in part, or should deny the request, along with a proposed aeselutie» agreement that may be adapted executed by the board that 9antains sposifis findings the; the applisant is (9F is net) eligible f9f the eequested— waivers. No reselstisn agreement shall apply to more than one applicant. the roselutien. The agreement shall be prepared by the County Attorney's Office consistent with this chanter. (5) Not- for -profit wsi -vets deferrals are discretionary and the board's decisions are final. At the conclusion of the deferral period the subject impact fees for the then - current use are due and navable. (6) The county manager may adopt additional generally applicable procedural rules with regard to applisatise requests provided those rules apply to all similarly situated applicants and do not impose additional mandatory eligibility requirements upon any applicant. (7) No construction that has applied for or obtained Fee Payment Assistance Pfunding under Chapter 49 of the Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances shall be eligible for any waiver deferral under these provisions. No construction that has been granted a w;aiveF deferral under these provisions shall be eligible for any county Wee pPayment aAssistance funding. SECTION THREE. Article III, Special Requirements for Specific 7jvpes of Impact Fees, Section 74 -302, Special requirements for road impact fee, subsection (g) of the Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances, is hereby amended to read as follows: Section 74 -302. Special requirements for road impact fee. (g) Annual mid -cycle road impact fee rate indexing. Beginning November 1, 2002, the county shall commence a three -year road impact fee update cycle pursuant to subsections 74- 201(6) and 74- 502(a) of this chapter. , ef During each of the two mid -years between updates, the county shall implement indexed Page 5 of 25 Agenda Item No. 10E January 13, 2009 Page 297 of 398 adjustments to the cost components of design, utilities, mitigation, interchange, carrying cost, construction, engineering, inspection and, the non -land components of right -of -way acquisition costs based an the Fietida Depaftmeat 9C TranspaAagan Mee and the land value component of rights -of -way costs shell -be based on 74 210(b) of this shapta� the percentages of increase set forth in the adopted "Collier County Impact Fee Indexing Study" prepared by Tindale- Oliver and Associates Inc in association with Robert W. Burchell PhD as undated annually and in accordant with the indexing methodology specified in the current and adopted road impact fee study. SECTION FOUR Article Ill, Special Requirements for Specific Types oflmpact Fees, Section 74 -303, Special requirements for Water and /or sewer impact fee, subsection (g) of the Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances is hereby amended to read as follows: I Section 74 -303. Special requirements for Water and/or sewer impact fee. (g) Annual mid -cycle water and sewer impact fee rate indexing. Beginning January 1, 2005, the county shall commence a three -year water and sewer (wastewater) impact fee update cycle pursuant to subsections 74- 201(b) and 74- 502(a) of this article. In each of the two mid -cycle years (between the formal three -year updates) and b'"u"`ng Bn or about ;"e 1, 2005, the county shall implement indexing adjustments to each water and sewer impact fee amount by fee rates x,.., ci.,e__ the n.._,u .._ of whieh shall the Percentages of increase set forth in the adopted "Collier County hnnact Fee Indexing Study" Prepared by Tindale- Oliver and Associates, Inc., in association with Robert W Burehell PhD as updated annually, and in accordance with the index stated in the board resolution (or ordinance) that implements that indexing --a the efdinsnse(a). Water and wastewatee sewer impact fees shall be increased by indexing only to the extent that increases resulting from indexing exceed the assumed inflation rate used to calculate the then applicable impact fees. SECTION FIVE. Article III, Special Requirements for Specific Types of Impact Fees, Section 74 -304, Special requirements far Parks and recreation impact fee, subsection (g) of the Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances is hereby amended to read as follows: Underlined text is added: 9. c` 1., la.( is delebad Page 6 of 25 Section 74 -304. Special requirements for Parks and recreation impact fee. +•w Agenda Item No, 10E January 13, 2009 Page 298 of 398 (g) Annual mid -cycle parks and recreational facilities impact fee rate indexing. Collier County Resolution No. 2002 -304, adopted June 25, 2D02, established a parks and recreational facilities impact fee rate schedule three -year update program, which commenced on June 25, 2002, pursuant to subsections 74- 201(b) and 74- 502(a) of this chapter. Ga of eis out May 6 aa° During each of the two mid -years between updates, the county shall implement indexing adjustments to each park impact fee amount —The development east sanapenent of the fee, Mdbeieh is 38 pepeout efthe total saffeeatep&y parle fee and seven iseFeent of t4o tetat _egienal ___v e__ _ball be -d:.. -tad by the eha.._e:_ tt,. national gagi_..e_:. g AI.....- D__.. -d ftma;tnustigu Cost lade* e a- the .....nt -.eae_♦ 12 ffian�h pefied IbF Whisk the data is wailable The lani east Bempenent of the fee, vAtis shall be adj;dasted based en the PeFeentage ehango in the eaunty wide just land values Be'af based upon the percentages of increase set forth in the adopted "Collier County Impact Fee Indexing Study" Prepared by Tindale -Oliver and Associates. Inc.. in association with Robert W. Burchell Ph.D. , as updated annually, and in accordance with the indexing methodolo specified in the current and adopted narks and recreation impact fee study. SECTION SIX. Article III, Special Requirements for Specific Ijtpes of Impact Fees, Section 74 -305, Special requirements for Library impact fee, subsection (g) of the Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances is hereby amended to read as follows: Section 74 -305. Special requirements for Library impact fee. ,.+,. (g) Annual mid -cycle library impact fee rate indexing. Beginning on May 1, 2004 the county shall commence a three -year library system impact fee update cycle pursuant to subsections 74- 2D1(b) and 74.502(x) of the Code. On eF abant —May I o During each of the two mid -years between updates, the county shall implement adjustments to building oe t- based iipen the bail4i.a east :_d--. _ ea,i4ed by £he ., based an the ne.,a.__ -n.t_e ;.ales. f _ the e�. r„ uderdale area pro�tided by the n. _e -. ..!rat_., ctatistie. weighted as 27 pere�t of the inch.. plus the tea puies�ant to s .b- e,.ren 74 201'b` of this sha-te-. based upon the Percentages of increase JLdcr� 1caL is added: 9t 14 e.rab text a dcleiea Page 7 of 25 Agenda Item No. 10E January 13, 2009 Page 299 of 398 set forth in the adopted "Collier County impact Fee Indexing Studv" prepared by Tindale-Oliver and Associates Inc in association with Robert W BuTchell, PhD as undated annually- and in accordance with the indexing methodology specified in the current and adopted library impact fee study. SECTION SEVEN. Article III, Special Requirements for Specific Types of Impact Fees, Section 74 -306, Special requirements for Emergency medical services impact fee, subsection (g) of the Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances is hereby amended to read as follows: Section 74 -306. Special requirements for Emergency medical services impact fee. (g) Annual Mid -Cycle Emergency Medical Services Impact Fee Rate Indexing. Beginning on February 28, 2006 the county shall commence a three -year emergency medical services impact fee update cycle pursuant to subsections 74- 201(b) and 74. 502(a) of the Code. In each of the two mid -cycle years (between the formal three -year updates) ° °e' - -'-^ ^- ^- -� ^- • - =� ,the county shall implement adjustments to the emergency medical services impact fee rates th ••gh AdjwfitmeSt_ to i ^_a b RAeerd, and the QeRs .05 as spealfied in the irapaetm� i ,...r-s-st:_., 74 POI .h. _khk abased upon the percentages of increase set forth in the adopted "Collier County Impact Fee lndexin tudv" o aced by Tindale Oliver and Associates Inc., in association with Robert W urchell Ph.D., as updated annually, and in accordance with the indexing methodology specified in the current and adopted emergency medical services impact fee study. SECTION EIGHT. Article III, Special Requirements for Specific Types of Impact Fees, Section 74 -307, Special requirements for Educational facilities impact fee, subsection (g) of the Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances is hereby amended to read as follows: Section 74 -307. Special requirements for Educational facilities impact fee. + ++ (g) Annual mid -cycle educational facilities impact fee rate indexing. Beginning on May 9, 2006, the county shall commence a three -year educational facilities impact fee update cycle pursuant to subsections 74-201(b) and 74- 502(a) of this chapter. On- a"beut A4ay -1 of During each of the two mid -years between updates, the county shall implement adjustments Engin..FiRg News Rea aftd v8hiele GARt , uz � f..ddm: swwi« m. ".'h'�g j, da"ma Pe6e 8 oR5 Agenda Item No. 10E January 13, 2009 Page 300 of 398 based upon the Percentages of increase set forth in the adopted "Collier County Impact Fee Indexing Study" prepared by Tindalc- Oliver and Associates. Inc.. in association with Robert W Bumhell PhD as updated annually, and in accordance with the indexing methodology specified in the current and adopted educational facilities impact fee study, SECTION NINE. Article III, Special Requirements for Specific Types of Impact Fees, Section 74 -308, Special requirements far Correctional impact fee, subsection (g) of the Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances is hereby amended to read as follows: Section 74 -308. Special requirements for Correctional impact fee. (g) Annual Mid -Cycle Correctional Impact Fee Rate Indexing. Beginning on November 1, 2005, the county shall commence a three-yen Correctional Impact Fee update cycle pursuant to subsections 74- 201(b) and 74- 502(a) of the Code. In each of the two mid -cycle years (between the formal three -year updates) 1, 2086, the county shall implement adjustments to the correctional impact fee rates based upon the building cost index inde*ed rate Ghniga aE�yostments will be adopted by a Feselutien afthe bond pufsHant ta subsection 74 20)(b) 4this . percentage set forth in the adopted "Collier County Impact Fee Indexing Study" prepared by Tindale- Oliver and Associates Inc in association with Robert W Borchelt, Ph.D. , as updated annually, and in accordance with the indexing methodology specified in the current and adopted correctional imuaet fee stud) SECTION TEN, Article III, Special Requirements for Specific Types of Impact Fees, Section 74 -309, Special requirements for Fire impact fee, subsection (g) of the Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances is hereby amended to read as follows: Section 74 -309. Special requirements for Fire impact fee. +++ (g) Annual Mid -Cycle Fire Impact Fee Rate Indexing. Beginning on February 28, 2006, the county shall commence a three -year fire impact fee update cycle pursuant to subsections 74- 201(b) and 74- 502(a) of the Code. In each of the two mid -cycle years (between the formal three -year updates) b ogirining on _f about ""^5 -1`, 2 007, the county shall implement adjustments to the fire impact fee rates tlifeugh aiijtistments to eE�iiilim.._ costs based _n the Consumer Pfiee index published L. the r r O T epw4-......, a Und,dz,n .1 a ddm; 9W. I lb."„ 01=.l a d.k" d Page 9 or25 Agenda Item No. 10E January 13, 2009 Page 301 of 398 t...,_tinn nd 206b. ..r his , hapt._ based upon the percentages of increase set forth in the adopted "Collier County Impact Fee Indexing Study" prepared by Tindale- Oliver and Associates. Inc., in association with Robert W. Burchell, Ph.D . as updated annually, and in accordance with the indexing methodology specified in the current and adopted fire impact fee study, SECTION ELEVEN. Article III, Special Requirements for Specific Types of Impact Fees, Section 74 -310, Special requirements for General government building impact fee, subsection (g) of the Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances is hereby amended to read as follows: Section 74 -310. Special requirements for General government building impact fee. kkk (g) Annual mid -cycle general government building impact fee rate indexing. Beginning February 10, 2004, the county shall commence a three -year general government building impact fee update cycle pursuant to subsections 74- 201(b) and 74- 502(a) of this chapter. During each of the two mid -years between updates, the county shall implement adjustments to land and building sests baged an just PFBPBFt5, values published by the Cell-of J pmperty rr QfAse and building Best indeli piablished J b n b eJ°e° indexed Fate ehange adjuslnaenls�e adapted by a Feselatien oftlie be-r4 based upon the percentages of increase set forth in the adopted "Collier County Impact Fee Indexing Study" prepared by Tindale- Oliver and Associates. Inc.. in association with Robert W Burclidl Ph.D., as updated annually, and in accordance with the indexing methodology specified in the current and adopted general government building impact fee study. SECTION TWELVE. Article III, Special Requirements for Specific Types of Impact Fees, Section 74 -311, Special requirements for Law enforcement impact fee, subsection (g) of the Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances is hereby amended to read as follows: Section 74 -311. Special requirements for Law enforcement impact fee. kkk (g) Annual mid -cycle law enforcement impact fee rate indexing. Beginning June 14, 2005, the county shall commence a three -year law enforcement impact fee update cycle pursuant to subsections 74- 201(b) and 74- 502(a) of this article. In each of the two mid -cycle years (between the formal three -year updates)';4naiRg on er -x-- � August , ._ 29M the county shall implement adjustments to land, Office, building sest iHgm published by the Engineering News kesefd, and th Undo ined bxl is added; 6rnWw,ewgA mxt is dcle¢d Page 10 of 8 Agenda Item No. 10E January 13, 2009 Page 302 of 398 Lie be�d pufstimt to subsBrition 74 201(b) of this ishaptff. based upon the Percentages of increase set forth in the adopted "Collier County Impact Fee Indexing Study" Prepared by Tindale- Oliver and Associates. Inc., in association with Robert W. Burchell, Ph.D., as updated annually, and in accordance with the indexing methodology specified in the current and adopted law enforcement impact fee study. SECTION THIRTEEN, CONFLICT AND SEVERABILITY. In the event this Ordinance conflicts with any other Ordinance of Collier County or other applicable law, the more restrictive shall apply. If any phrase or portion of this Ordinance is held invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct, and independent provision and such holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions. SECTION FOURTEEN. INCLUSION IN THE CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES. The provisions of this Ordinance shall be made a part of the Code of Laws and Ordinances of Collier County, Florida The sections of the Ordinance may be renumbered or re- lettered and internal cross - references amended throughout to accomplish such, and the word "ordinance" may be changed to "section, "article;' or any other appropriate word. SECTION FIFTEEN. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance shall become effective on January 1, 2008. PASSED AND DULY DULY AD m OPTED by the Board of County Commissioners of Collier { County, Florida this � day of V O UYt C 12007. ATTEST Dwight E. $ruck; dfetk. By: Ott a' ss*fas6&ial n. eputy Clerk "ivna Lore onl+ ed as t form t A. RI ow ng As 'start County Attorney BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA NEW L!'1 1 sSsrliecdroxtis+ddm;Ra Asn„»gn¢.s;sdcieled Page 11 of 25 This ordinance filed with the Secretory of State's Office the °"'i day of and acknowledgement of that tiliaQQrec�ived this day of 'J � dc,c'7- Art,, j I o..P rLtLR'It o' cb.k APPENDIX A SCHEDULE ONE: ROAD IMPACT FEE RATE SCHEDULE EFFECTIVE JANUARY 1. 1008 Residential Rate Single Family Detached House Less than 1,500 sq. fL ems^ ^ ^^ 420.19 /dwelling unit (Annual Household Income 5 Poverty Level) Less than 1,500 sq. ft. ;37747;08 4 872.83 /dwelling unit (Annual Household Income 5 50% of Collier County Median Annual Houschold Incorne) Less than 1,500 sq. R 1,500 to 2,499 sq. ft. 2,500 sq. ft. or larger Multi - Family (1 -2 Stories) Multi - Family (3 -9 Stories) Multi- Family (Above 10 Stories Assisted Living Facility (ALF) Condominium/Townhouse Mobile Home Retirement Community High -Rise Condominium Lodging $633400 8 247.62 /dwelling unit $8;88400$)1.522.55 /dwelling unit S9 ;884:80$12.8 )9.55 /dwelling unit $631480 8 054.37 dwelling unit ;6;338,08 8 2$ ' 20.39/ dwelling unit $3;&3498 $4,954.5 dwelling unit ;;96 -00 1 032.41/ dwelling unit $(;049:66 7 8$ , 58.521 dwelling unit ;4,}3440 5 361.80/ dwelling unit &2, -14o< ^^ 2 913.06/ dwelling unit 488.90 /dwelling unit Hotel $6;957:00$7.765.14 per room Motel ;3;8;28:89 4 964.92 per room Resort Hotel ;3, ..00 6 81 .03 per room RV Park ;3300A8 4 260.10 site Recreation Golf Course $804-066,88$1.043.392.40 / 18 Holes Movie Theaters $42,389,00^ ^$54.978.53 per screen Marina ;3,350:89 4 643.26/ boat berth Institutional Hospital Nursing Home Church Elementary School Middle School High School # College Lkn�*eFgity University /Jr. Colleee <7.501 Students University /Jr. Colleee >7.500 Students Day Care &14,488:88$18.414.81 /1,000 sq. ft. $1,146.0 1$ .486.36perbed O P ^mo 0'249,^ ^^ 10 404.53/1,000 sq. ft. ;837:80 1$ .111.53 per student &l4 1&&.80 1 540.84 per student A1342.0 $1,740.57 per student S2 71 n ^ - o^ nm -�.,. a,.... $2,926.03 per student $2.153.02 per student 940:08 1 232.15 per student } dQhnad m"1 ie.dded; Swa4iMeeah W, ii d.j,r P.3. t2 or IS Agenda Item No. 10E January 13, 2009 Page 303 of 398 Agenda Item No. 10E January 13, 2009 Page 304 of 398 Office Office 50,OOOSq Ft or less 843;479:00$20,074.97 / 1,000 sq. ft. Office 50,001- 100,000Sq Ft or less S,1- 22--9@ 17.019.23/ 1,000 sq. ft. Office 100,001- 200,000Sq Ft or less ` "�,- '- r1T'.w ^$14.413.56/1,000 sq. ft. Office 200,001- 400,000Sq Ft or less 89-0k4:O0$12.206.07/1,000 sq. ft. Office Greater than 400,0OOSq Ft 98523 . nn $11,054,33 1,000 sq. fL Medical Office $36,689 -00 47 585.63/1,000 sq. ft. Retail Specialty Retail 7.14/1,000sq.ft. Retail 50,000Sq Ft. or less °'" 9&3-W 18 097.04/1,000 sq. ft. Retail 50,001- 100,000Sq Ft 843498.09$17.117.81/1,000sq. ft. Retail 100,001- 150,OOOSq Ft 912,711.9 $16.486.17/1,000 sq. fL Retail 150,001- 200,000Sq Ft 842;633,09$16.385.00 /1,000 sq. ft. Retail 200,001- 400,000Sq Ft $14,74- 6,00-$15,195.65 /1,000 Sq, Ft. Retail 400,001- 600,000SgFt $12,712.0 $16,487.46/ 1,000 sq. ft. Retail 600,001- 1,000,00OSq Ft $13,976.0 $17,608.07 1,000 sq. fL Retail greater than I,000,00OSq Ft 846;383430$21.508.15 /1,000 sq. ft. Pharmacy/Drug Store w/Drive -Thm _ &I- ,30 &.A0- $12260.48/1,000 sq. ft. Home Improvement Superstore PO ^&,��`. ^ ^ ^^ 517.141.15 /1,000 sq. ft. Restaurant: High Turnover 85-5,73500$72.288.301,000 sq. ft. Restaurant: Low Turnover 844864-00$58.188.61 /1,000 sq. ft. Restaurant: Drive -in $131,915.0 $171,093.76/1,000 sq. ft. Gasoline/Service Station 87349,09$9.791.05 per fuel position Supermarket 7.08 / 1,000 sq. ft. 84H ;741-00$21. 13 Quick Lube 843,486.90$17,491.34 per bay Convenience Store 889$43,00$116,656.07 / 1,000 sq. ft. Convenience Store w /Gas Pumps $37,57- 5,09$48,734.78 per fuel position Services Tire Store $-1- 0;93&09 13$ 045.23 per bay New/Used Auto Sales $25,93 n -5.0 ^$33,637.70/ 1,000 sq. ft. Luxury Auto Sales & T °�,- T�',-'.^^$17.920.65/1,000 sq. ft. Bank/Savings: Walk -in $4 _700-0 ^$55.381.90/1,000 sq, ft. Bank/Savings: Drive -in $83494.-WjL 8.545.93 /1,000 sq. ft. Car Wash 833;906:00$43.976.08 per bay Industrial and Agricultural General Industrial 87;075.00 9 1$ , 76.28/ 1,000 sq. ft. Business Park (Flex - space) "12,996 9 0$16,855.81 /1,000 sq. ft. Mini - Warehouse 84;363:00 1 770.4 / 1,000 sq, ft. Underlined teat is added: bxueksh.euen text is ddmed Ps, 13 d25 Agenda Item No. 10E January 13, 2009 Page 305 of 398 APPENDIX A SCHEDULE TWO: WATER AND SEWER SYSTEM IMPACT FEE RATE SCHEDULE EFFECTIVE JANUARY L 2008 INDIVIDUALLY METERED SERVICE LIVING SPACE (SQ.FT.) ERC METER WATER SEWER VALUE SIZE IMPACTFEES IMPACTFEES 0 TO 4,999 $ (AND NO MORE THAN 4 1 314' 3 6 16 49 3 9 BATHROOMS) 5,000 OR MORE ADF I (OR MORE THAN 4 350 ERC VALUE z $315 $3,722.39 BATHROOMS) value nf 1.0) PER FOR $3-045 $3,616.49 ERG VALUE x (rounded (minimum value $3515 Non - Residential to the SttA44423 616.46 $3,722.39 nearest (minimum value tenth) SaA45 $3,722,39) MASTER METERED SERVICE LIVING SPACE (SQ.FT.) ERC FREQUENCY WATER SEWER VALUE OF FEE IMPACTFEES IMPACTFEES Residential Unit- 070750 0.33 Per Unit $1.191,38 $1,22B.44 Residential Unit -751 TO 1,500 0.67 Per Unit $2-,29498 $2,425.11 $2.355.00 $2,493.95 Residential Unit- 1,501 TO 1 Per Unit $3,4-15:00 $3'31 -5'98 4,999 $3,616.49 $3,72239 Residential Unit - 5,000 OR ADF I MORE (OR MORE THAN 4 350 ERC VALUE X d $3,722.39 BATHROOMS) (min value of 1.0) $3,41S $3,616.49 ERC VALUE x (rounded (minimum value $3,645 Non - Residential to the $3415 $3,616,49) $3,722.39 nearest tenth) (minimum value $2,515 _$3,722.39) ACRONYM KEY: ADF - Average Daily Flows for proposed use as provided by FOR £OR - Engineer of Record for project ERC - Equivalent Residential Connection (1 ERC = 350 gallons per day) ,Underlined mm is added: SIR A i F 91 in, is delded Peg, 14 V 25 Agenda Item No. 10E January 13, 2009 Page 306 of 398 APPENDIX A SCHEDULE THREE: PARKS AND RECREATIONAL FACILITIES IMPACT FEE RATESCHEDULE EFFECTIVE JANUARY 1, 2008 COMMUNITY PARKS (Calculated on Living Area): LAND USE: SINGLE - FAMILY DETACHED: Less than 1,500 sq. ft. 1,500 to 2,499 sq. R 2.500 sq. ft. or more MULTI - FAMILY MOBILE HOME/RV PARK HOTEL/MOTEL RATE PER $933.00 $1,075.25 Dwelling Unit 92,272.0 12,612.8 ^ 2 612.80 Dwelling Unit $H- 19.00 1 2$ . 86.85 Dwelling Unit $�30 -00 862.50 Dwelling Unit $934 -W 1$ .062.60 Pad $503:00 5$ 78.45 Room REGIONAL PARKS (Calculated on Living Area): LAND USE: SINGLE - FAMILY DETACHED: Less than 1,500 sq. ft. 1,500 to 2,499 sq. ft. 2,500 sq. ft. or more MULTI- FAMILY MOBILE HOME(RV PARK HOTEL/MOTEL RATE PER $2069.00 2$ .378.20 Dwelling Unit 92,272.0 12,612.8 ^ 2 612.80 Dwelling Unit row- g6-Q0- $2.647.40 Dwelling Unit $, -659.^ ^$1.907.85 Dwelling Unit $2,045.09 $2,351.75 Pad $1,113.0 $1.279.95 Room Note: Community Parks Impact Fees do not apply to the City of Naples, City of Marco Island and Everglades City. 11> der msd mn is "&d; •_.- F, i g', icm is dNeiW Page 15 .!'25 APPENDIX A SCHEDULE FOUR: CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES IMPACT FEE RATE SCHEDULE EFFECTIVE JANUARY 1, 2008 Land Use Single - Family Detached Other Residential/Nursing Home Non- Residential: Lodging Hotel/ Motel Medical Hospital Commercial Office Retail/Commercial/Recreation Restaurant/Bar/Lounge Industrial /Manufacturing Leisure/Outdoor Agenda Item No. 10E January 13, 2009 Page 307 of 398 Correctional Facilities Impact Fee Per Square Foot $9. 19674$.115 per square foot* 90-958410- 063ner square foot *" 99-34-941Q 346 per square foot $8339980.367 per square foot 58:224480.240 per square foot 583643 0$�i. 11 per square foot 583643 0.617 per square foot $0.0309$0.033 per square foot 5&.3644 0.611 per square foot • The Correctional Facilities Impact Fee is capped based upon the fee applicable to a 4,000 square foot (living area) Single•Farruy Detached dwelling unit. •- The Correctional FaciLities Impact Fee is capped based upon the fee applicable to a 4,000 square foot (living area) Other Residential dwelling unit. The cap does not apply to the square footage of Nursing Homes. Underla d ¢zt is eddcd; 9"..44 ..0 eezt Is ddmcd Pvac 16 of35 Agenda Item No. 10E January 13, 2009 Page 308 of 398 APPENDIX A -- SCHEDULE FIVE: FIRE IMPACT FEE RATE SCHEDULE EEFECTWE JANUARY 1, 2009 Ochopee Fire Control and Rescue District Residential: &040 $0.74 oer square foot' Non - Residential: $028 $0.21 Der square foot Isles of Capri Fire Control and Rescue District Residential: $0-4 $Q.43er square foot" /T R..... �...� 1......0 PI 6491"1 Non - Residential: " $1.14 per square foot ' The Ochopee Fire Control and Rescue District Impact Fee is capped based upon the fee applicable to a 4,000 square foot dwelling unit " The Isles of Capri Fire Control and Rescue District Impact Fee is capped based upon the fee applicable to a 4,000 square foot dwelling unit Jlndt0ined text is added: 6ajaWhroepk 1W is deleted P., 17 or15 Agenda Item No. 10E January 13, 2009 Page 309 of 398 APPENDIX A SCHEDULE SIX: EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES IMPACT FEE RATE SCHEDULE EFFECTIVE JANUARY 1, 2008 Housing Type Single- Family Less than 1,500 square feet 1,500 — 2,499 square feet 2,500 square feet or larger Multi - Family Mobile Home Impact Fee Rate (per dwelling unit) $8,,228.00 59.026.12 $9,21)6.0 $10,099.98 $- 1&Oi -7.Q0 $10,988.65 $ 3 ,139.61 $6,279.23 olJ dert'eed ¢xt is added: Rte' Ith-A gh text is defend F., 13 of 25 Agenda Item No. 10E January 13, 2009 Page 310 of 398 APPENDIX A SCHEDULE SEVEN: EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES IMPACT FEE RATE SCHEDULE EFFECTIVE JANUARY 1. 2006 Impact Fee Land Use Category Residential: Less than 1,500 square feet 1,500 to 2,499 square feet 2,500 square feet or more Transient, Assisted, Group: Hotel/ Motel Nursing home Recreational: Marina Golf Course Movie Theater with Matinee Institutions: Hospital Elementary School Middle School High School Junior /Community College University /College Church Day Care Center Office and Financial: Office 50,000 sq. ft. or less Office 50,001 - 100,000 sq. ft. Office 100,001 - 200,000 sq. ft. Office 200,001 - 400,000 sq. ft. Office greater than 400,000 sq. ft. Medical Office Retail (Gross Square Feet) Specialty Retail Retail 50,000 sq, ft. or less Retail 50,001 - 100,000 sq. ft. Retail 100,001 - 150,000 sq. ft. Retail 150,001 - 200,000 sq. ft. Retail 200,001 - 400,000 sq. ft. Retail 400,001 - 600,000 sq. ft. Retail 600,001 - 1,000,000 sq. ft. Retail over 1,000,000 sq. ft. Pharmacy/Drug Store w/Drive -Thru Home Improvement Superstore Quality Restaurant High - Tumover Restaurant Fast Food Rest. w/Drive -thin Gas /Service Station Quick Lube Supermarket Convenience Store Convenience Store w /Gas Impact Fee Rate $18&39 I$ 12.46 per dwelling unit 9112.94 $125.26 per dwelling unit 9122:47 $137.15 per dwelling unit 946.61 $52.11 per room $79.51 $87.77 per bed $;6.36 $18.29 yer berth $4,7;0.97 $5,289.22 per IS boles $783 -31 $786.3 0 per screen $134.94 $150.86 per 1,000 sq. ft. $4.91 $5.49 per student $5.72 $6.39 per student $6.54 $7.31 per student $4-9 -1 $5.49 per student $10.63 $11.88 per student $46,641 $52.11 per 1,000 sq. $. $4.91 $5.49 per student $136:33 $15169 per 1,D00 sq. ft. $105.5 $117.95 per 1,000 sq. ft. $89.96 S 100.58 per 1,000 sq. ft. $74-87 $55.94 per 1,000 sq, ft. $65-02 7$ 3.14 per 1,000 sq. ft. $14 -1,48 $158.17 per 1,000 sq, ft. $1-23 7 1$ 37.15 per 1,000 sq. ft. $234.71 $262.41 per 1,000 sq. ft. $245.09 $240.46 per 1,000 sq. ft $191:37 $213.95 per 1,000 sq. ft. $233.07 $260.57 per 1,000 sq. ft 1204,45 $228.58 per 1,000 sq. ft. $208.54 $233.15 per 1,000 sq. ft. $288 -34 233.15 per 1,000 sq. ft. $170.92 $191.09 per 1,000 sq. ft. $1 -33.73 $171.89 per 1,000 sq. ft. $143.5 1$ 62.75 per 1,000 sq. ft. $543.65 $619.98 per 1,000 sq. ft. $57942 $649.2 4 per 1,000 sq. ft. $715.59 $800.02 per 1,000 sq. ft. $141.92 $181,03 per fuel position $94.86 $106.05 Per service bay $166.91 $195.6 0 per 1,000 sq. ft. $346.75 $387,67 er 1,000 sq. ft. $333.74 $397.72 per fuel position S)nderl'ned ��.� k edd.d: i. ddllw N, 19 of25 Auto Repair Tire Store New and Used Car Sales Self Service Car Wash Bank/Savings Walk -in Bank/Savings Drive -in Industrial: General Industrial Business park Mini - warehouse $369.88 $291.66 per 1,000 sq. ft $;27.59 $142.63 per service bay $141.49 $159.17 per 1,000 sq. ft. $154.56 $172.80 per service bay $240:1? $234.97 per 1,D00 sq. ft. $-1 -69.28 $189.26 per 1,000 sq, fL $36.43 6$ 3.09 per 1,000 sq. fL $91.75 91.43 per 1,000 sq. ft. $5.73 $6.39 per 1,000 sq. ft. l ind rl ined mxl is sddsd; 1. d' 11,-, 1p text is deleted P., 20 arts Agenda Item No. 10E January 13, 2009 Page 311 of 398 APPENDIX A SCHEDULE EIGHT: LIBRARY IMPACT FEE RATE SCHEDULE EFFECTIVE JANUARY t, 2009 Land Use Category Single - Family Detached: Less than 1,500 square feet 1,500 to 2,499 square feet 2,500 square feet or more Multi - Family Mobile Home Impact Fee Rate ;46&4a15 03.49 oer dwelling unit &SQ6,24 553.84 per dwelling unit S349.-39 60$ 0.16 oer dwelling unit &34&-1-9-$4()2-79 per dwelling unit $434.70 497.44 per dwelling urtit Underline text is added; ✓;isid44itwug4 text is deleted F., 21 of25 Agenda Item No. 10E January 13, 2009 Page 312 of 398 APPENDIX A SCHEDULE NINE: GENERAL GOVERNMENT BUILDING IMPACT FEE SCHEDULE EFFECTIVE JANUARY 1, 2008 Land Use Residential: Single Family: Less than 1,500 sq ft 1,500 to 2,499 sq ft 2,500 sq ft or more Multi Family Mobile Home Traasieu4 Assisted, Group Hotel/Motel Nursing Home/ALP Recreational Marina Golf Course Movie Theater with Matinee Inslitutlom Hospital Elementary School Middle School High School Junior /Community College University /College Church Day Care Center Office and Financial Office 50,000 sq. ft. or less Office 50,001- 100,000 sq. ft. or less Office 100,001 - 200,000 sq. ft. or less Office 200,001- 400,000 sq. ft. or less Office Greater than 400,000 sq. ft. Medical Office Retail Specialty Retail Retail 50,000 sq ft or less Retail 50,001-100,000 sq. ft. Retail 100,001- 150,000 sq. ft. Retail 150,001- 200,000 sq. ft, Retail 200,001- 400,000 sq. fL Retail 400,001- 600,000 sq. ft. Rate W26.9 $796.0S S807.0 $886.0 9 5881 -00 $967.3 4 54IDA $450.18 $583.0 $640.13 $3i -1:00 341.48/Roorn $414.9 1454 .57Bed $86 -.00 9$ 4.43Bwth $8;391.00 $9.213.32 /19 Holes 53;71100 4 075.7 /Screen $7420 $781.7 8/1,000 sq. ft. $26.00 2$ 8.55 /Student $30.9 $32.9 4 /Student $35:80 38.43 /Student $26:00 128 _55/Student $36-00 6S 1.49 /Student $246.0 $270.11 /1,000 sq. ft. $26,00 2$ 8.55 /Student S72 -1,00 791.66/1,000 sq. ft. $657'0 $611.59 11,000 sq. ft. $47500 521.55/1,000 sq. ft. $406:00 $445.7 9/1,000 sq. ft. $345,00 378.81/1,000 sq. ft. $747.00 $820.21 /1,000 sq. ft. $647.00 $710.41 /1,000 sq. ft. W, s' ''- 39.90 $1,360.42 /1,000 sq. ft. $1,246.23 1,000 sq. ft. Us0io.9 $1,108.98 /1,000 sq. ft. X;1,230.0 $1,350.5 4!1,000 sq. ft. $1,079-0 $1,194.7 4/1,000 sq. ft. $1301.00 $1,208.9 0/1,000 sq. ft. Underlined uxt is addcd; 2tw -1,4, gb text 4 dckad Np 22 of 2s Agenda Item No. 10E January 13, 2009 Page 313 of 398 Agenda Item No. 10E January 13, 2009 Page 314 of 398 Retail 600,001- 1,000,000 sq. ft. $1,101.9 $1208.90 /1,000 sq. ft. Retail greater than 1,000,000 sq. ft. $982•:09 $990.4 0/1,000 sq. ft. Pharmacy/Drug Store w/Drive -Thm WW.09 8$ 91.58 /1,000 sq. ft. Home Improvement Superstore $768.09 $843.26 /1,000 sq. ft. Quality Restaurant $2,p'c922.0 $3,208.3 6/1,000 sq. ft. High Turnover Restaurant $3,960.0 $3,359.88 /1,000 sq. ft. Fast Food Rest. w/Drive -Thm 0,777.9 $4,147.15 !1,000 sq. ft. Gas/Service Station $955.0 $938,79 /fuel position Quick Lube M)i.O9 5$ 50.10/hay Supermarket $876.0 5961.85/1,000 sq, ft. Convenience Store $2,009.34 1,000 sq. ft. Convenience Store w /Gas $k;Y,73 -08 $2,062.04 fuel position Tire Store $673.0 ID 8.95/bay New/Uscd Auto Sales $747.09 $820.21 /1,000 sq. ft. Self Service Car Wash $916..0 M-5 Bank/Savings: Walk -in $1,109.0 $1,217.68 /1,000 sq. ft. Bank/Savings: Drive -in $894.9 $981.61 /1,000 sq. ft. Industrial General Industrial $299.0 $327.20 /1,000 sq. ft. Business Park $432.0 $474.34 /1,000 sq. R Mini - Warehouse $30:80 $32.9 4/1,000 sq. ft. Undvlin pd text is ad &d; sack- W.eugw tnt is ddemd Page 23 o1`25 APPENDIX A SCHEDULE TEN: LAW ENFORCEMENT IMPACT FEE RATE SCHEDULE EFFECT11VE JANUARY 1. 2008 Land Use Residential: Single - Family: Less than 1,500 square feet 1,500 to 2,499 square feet 2,500 square feet or more Multi- Family Mobile Home Transient, Assisted, Group HoteVMotei Nursing Home/ALF Recreational Marina Golf Course Movie Theater with Matinee Institutions Hospital Elementary School Middle School High School Jr. /Community College University /College Church Day Cue Center Office and Financial Office 50,000 sq. ft. or less Office 50,001 - 100,000 sq. ft. or less Office 100,001- 200,000 sq. ft. or less Office 200,001 - 400,000 sq. ft. or less Office Greater than 400,000 sq. ft. Medical Office Retail Specialty Retail Retail 50,000 sq. ft. or less Retail 50,001- 100,000 sq. ft. Retail 100,001- 150,000 sq, ft. Retail 150,001- 200,000 sq. ft. Retail 200,001- 400,000 sq, ft. Rate $285-.48 309.75 /dwelling unit $31-7.35 $344.5 4 /dwelling unit $346.43 375.87 /dwelling unit $171-61 ILL6.201dwelling unit $2.37.36 $257.54 /dwelling unit $9141 52L1 9/Room $133.96 167.0511led $2?26 2$ 9.58Berth $3,374.40 53,661.2 2/18 Holes $867.6 $941.41 /Screen $30:14 346.29/1,000 sq, ft. $14.43 §15.66/Student $17.64 $19.14/Student $1433 $21.18 /Student $2-2.45 24.36 /Student MIA2 55.68 /Student $8-199 $88.7 4(1,000 sq. ft. $8.4a X8.10 /Student $202.08 $219.26 /1,000 sq. ft. $173.21 $197.93 /1,000 sq. ft. $14735 $160.09 /1,000 sq. ft. 1$ $123, -18 35.73/1,000 sq. ft. $113.87 JLZ3.55/1,000 sq, ft. $25;.4 $274.94 /1,000 sq. ft. $314.34 341.06/1,000 sq. ft. $50849 551.61/1,000 sq. ft. $477.93 518.55 1,00D sq. ft. $31&.03 1562.06 /1,000 sq. R $485.95 5527.26 /1,000 sq. ft. $421 -;89 $457.65/1,000 sq. ft. nee 'pod 1W m d&d; SttudFlbreugi, Ytt k deIC Past 24 of 25 Agenda Item No. 10E January 13, 2009 Page 315 of 398 Retail 400,001- 600,000 sq. ft. Retail 600,001 4,000,000 sq. ft. Retail greater than 1,000,000 sq. ft. Pharmacy/Drug Store w/Drive -Thru Home Improvement Superstore Quality Restaurant High Turnover Restaurant Fast Food Rest. w /Drive -Thru Gas/Service Station Quick Lube Supermarket Convenience Store Convenience Store w /Gas Tire Store New /Used Auto Sales Self Service Car Wash Bank/Savings: Walk -in Bank/Savings: Drive -in Industrial General Industrial Business Park Mini - Warehouse $437.84 $475.06 /1,000 sq, ft. $434.63 $471.57 /1,000 sq. ft. $381, 4$ -78 14.14/1,000 sq. ft. $379.48 $401.97 /1,000 sq. ft. $429.29 $455.92 /1,000 sq. ft. $4;283:94 $1.392.10 /1,000 sq. ft. $- 1X374.46 1 4$ 91.29/1,000 sq. ft. $4;777,93 1 9$ . 28.06/1,000 sq. ft. $392-93 426.33/Fue] Position $176.42 1191.42/Bay $364:96 3$ 95.01/1,000 sq. ft. $774:64 $840.48/1,000 sq. ft. 51p,�12�-'� 66 1.2$ 18.09/Fuel Position $261A2 1283,64/Bay $304.72 330.62/1,000 sq. R 93;2.71 1239.32/Bay $332.94 M2.83 sq. ft. $28a -98 $311.48/1,000 sq. ft. $99-44 $107.89 /1,000 sq. ft. $44434 156.61/1,000 sq. ft. $311 21 $12.18/1,000 sq. ft. �d�be d :en u adecd; 90, A rergh tm is dNi kC P,, 25 of 25 Agenda Item No. 10E January 13, 2009 Page 316 of 398 Agenda Item No. t0E January 13, 2009 Page 317 of 398 STATE OF FLORIDA) COUNTY OF COLLIER) I, DWIGHT E. BROCK, Clerk of Courts in and for the Twentieth Judicial Circuit, Collier County, Florida, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of: ORDINANCE 2007 -57 Which was adopted by the Board of County Commissioners on the 26th day of June, 2007, during Regular Session. WITNESS my hand and the official seal of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, this 28th day of June, 2007. DWIGHT E. BROCK Clerk of Courts and Clerk Ex- officio to Board' of "'> , County Commissioners B Teresa PolaSTti� „ }� ; ` Deputy Clerk Agenda Item No. 10E January 13, 2009 Page 318 of 398 RESOLUTION NO. 2008- 202 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE IMPACT FEE RATES ESTABLISHED BY ORDINANCE NO. 2007-57. WHEREAS, on March 13, 2001, the Board of County Commissioners adopted Ordinance No. 2001 -13, the Collier County Consolidated Impact Fee Ordinance, repealing and superceding all of the County's then existing impact fee regulations, and consolidating all of the County's impact fee regulations into that one Ordinance, codified in Chapter 74 of the Collier County Code of Law and Ordinances (the Code), and incorporating the water and sewer impact fee rates established by the adoption of Ordinance No. 98 -69; and WHEREAS, on December 11, 2001, the Board of County Commissioners ( "Board's adopted Resolution No. 2001 -488 thereby amending Schedule Two of Appendix A of Chapter 74 of the Code, as amended, the same being the Collier County Consolidated Impact Fee Ordinance; increasing the Water and Sewer Impact Fec rates and directed staff to update the Impact Fee after one year, and WHEREAS, in accordance with that direction, the County has retained Public Resources Management Group, Inc. ("the Consultant') to review the existing water and sewer impact fees and to recommend changes to those fees if appropriate; and WHEREAS, on February 12, 2002, the Board adopted Resolution No. 2002 -88 to correct Scrivener's errors, and to correct the water impact fee downward by $50 per Equivalent Residential Unit (ERC), and to amend Schedule Two of Appendix A of Chapter 74 of the Code, as amended, the same being the Collier County Consolidated Impact Fee Ordinance; thereby increasing the Water and Sewer Impact Fee rates; and WHEREAS, on June 6, 2006, the Board adopted Ordinance No. 2006 -26 amending Ordinance No. 2001 -13 changing the impact fee rate; and WHEREAS, on June 26, 2007, the Board adopted Ordinance No. 2007 -57 amending Ordinance No. 2006 -26 changing the impact fee rate and to include Annual Mid -Cycle water and sewer impact fee rate indexing; and WHEREAS, the County uses impact fees to supplement the funding of necessary capital improvements required to provide public facilities to serve new population and related development that is necessitated by growth in Collier County; and WHEREAS, the Consultant has estimated the cost to future utility system users of approximately five- hundred and three million ($503 million) in the next ten (10) years; and WHEREAS, the Consultant has recommended a water impact fee rate decrease from $3,616.49 per ERC to $3,575 per ERC, a decrease of $41.49 and a sewer impact fee rate decrease from 53,722.39 per ERC to $3,495 per ERC, a decrease of $277.39 for all customer classes based on their ERC's equivalents; and Agenda Item No. 10E January 13, 2009 Page 319 of 398 WHEREAS, the above recommended rate decrease for water and rate decrease for sewer establish these rates at the maximum levels allowed in accordance with equity tests established and existing pursuant to Florida law; and WHEREAS, staff has thoroughly reviewed the Consultant's findings and recommendations and staff concurs with the recommended decrease to water and the recommended decrease to sewer impact fee rate changes, and staff recommends that the Board adopt this Resolution to implement these recommended changes; and WHEREAS, the Board finds that it is in the health, safety and welfare to accept the recommendations of the Consultant and from staff. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that: The Board of County Commissioners hereby declares, after advertised public hearing, that the water and sewer impact fee rates set forth in the revised Schedule Two of Appendix A of Ordinance No. 2007 -57, as amended, the Collier County Consolidated Impact Fee Ordinance, the same being Schedule Two of Appendix A of Chapter 74 of the Collier County Code of Law and Ordinances, attached hereto, and incorporated be reference herein as Exhibit "A" are fair and reasonable and are to be assessed to those who receive or will receive benefits from increased water facilities capacity, increased sewer public facilities capacity, or from both, which. increased capacity is necessitated by increased population and related growth driven development. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that these revised water and sewer impact fees will take> effect as of 8:00 A.M. on Wednesday, October 1, 2008. This Resolution is adopted after motion; second and majority vote favoring adoption this `l~ day _-'\_, 2008. DW HT E. BROOK, CLERK b `^ w _ -i figneturl on) Approval as to form and legal Sufficiency: lennifbOA. Belpedi0 Assistant County Attorn BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA By. lOrL—� TOM H$NNINa, C i$ }� !} �} Agenda Item No. er :eery R 2009 Page 320 of ! |(! |§ }�|�) !! ||! il•,� § - �7 |!)} K •! . §� ,{ .| ,_ _, � \ !! \| 1 ® §|i ; } Agenda Item No. er :eery R 2009 Page 320 of ! |(! |§ }�|�) !! ||! il•,� Agenda Item No. 10E January 13, 2009 Page 321 of 398 Attachment C -2 Article VI. Water -Sewer District Uniform Billing, Operating and Regulatory Standards ARTICLE VI. WATER -SEWER DISTRICT UNIFORM BILLING, OPERATING AR WdPPl � bfPg Janua 13, 2009 Page 322 of 398 ARTICLE VI. WATER -SEWER DISTRICT UNIFORM BILLING, OPERATING AND REGULATORY STANDARDS* *Editor's note: Ord. No. 01 -73, §§ 1.1 - -1.4, adopted Dec. 11, 2001, did not specifically amend this Code but is treated as superseding § §134 -171 -- 134 -174 in their entirety at the discretion of the editor. Further, said ordinance §§ 2.1 - -7 provided additional regulations included as §§ 134- 175 -- 134 -180 at the discretion of the editor to read as herein set out. Section 11 of said ordinance states that the revised rates shall not go into effect until April 1, 2002. See the Code Comparative Table -- Ordinance Disposition Table. DIVISION 1. DISTRICT RATES FEES CHARGES AND REGULATIONS Sec. 134 -171. Definitions. Unless specifically provided otherwise these definitions shall apply to this section. District shall refer to th Collier County Water -Sewer District. Equivalent dwelling unit shall mean the equivalent usage requirements of an average single - family residential connection. It is used as a factor to convert a given average daily water or wastewater requirement to the equivalent number of single - family residential connections. Equivalent residential connection shall mean 350 gallons of water per day and is 250 gallons of sewerage treatment per day. Goodland shall mean the Goodland Service Area is classified as a subdistrict of the Collier County Water -Sewer District as the service is dependent on a bulk purchase with a private entity and therefore has a rate structure that is different from the major district rate structure. Service availability charge shall mean a monthly charge per dwelling unit or equivalent dwelling unit for residential and non - residential users with no usage included. "Sewer only use" shall be defined as the connection of drains for all faucets and facilities on the property where well water or potable water from a non - district water supply or where no water (leachate) is used. Sewer use shall be defined as the connection of drains for all faucets and facilities on the property, where potable water is used in connection with sanitary purposes from the potable water system. Such usages shall include, but not be limited to, sinks, showers, bathtubs, commodes, urinals, bidets, dishwashers, washers, and other such facilities. "Sewer use" shall specifically not include runoff water being allowed to enter the district sanitary sewer system. Use shall mean with respect to "water use" on the district's water system, which is a potable water system, shall mean the sole utilization of water from the district system through all fixtures and pipelines on the property except where a separately metered system is available solely for outside irrigation. Any such irrigation shall require an approved backflow prevention device and a physical separation from the remaining potable water system. "Water use" shall specifically include, but not be limited to, the flow of water to all sinks, dishwashers, commodes, urinals, showers, hot water heaters, washers, drinking water coolers and drinking water machines. Such facilities shall also drain to the district's sanitary sewer system, where available, in conformance with other applicable sections of this httn:// librarvl .munioode.com /default/DocView /l 0578/1/305/311 4/17/2008 ARTICLE VI. WATER -SEWER DIgTRICT UNIFORM BILLING, OPERATING ANDmdP&tM2v9'26E January 13, 2009 Page 323 of 398 article as well as other ordinances adopted by the county, or applicable state and federal laws, rules or regulations. (Ord. No. 01 -73, § 1. 1, 12- 11 -01; Ord. No. 2006 -27, § 3) Sec. 134 -172. Monthly rates, fees and charges. Monthly rates, fees and charges for water, sewer, or effluent irrigation, and fire meter services provided by or made available by the district shall be sufficient to recover system operation, maintenance, renewal enhancement, replacement and debt service costs and shall be proportionally distributed among system users and customers receiving the benefits as follows: (1) Monthly user fees for the Collier County Water -Sewer District. Residential and non- residential properties within the boundaries of the county water -sewer district shall pay the rates, fees and charges for service provided by the county water -sewer district in accordance with Appendix A-- Schedule 1. (2) Monthly user fees for the Goodland Water Subdistrict. The rates for service to residential and non - residential properties within the Goodland Water Subdistrict shall be in accordance with Appendix A-- Schedule 2. (3) Monthly user fees for effluent irrigation usage in the district shall be in accordance with Appendix A— Schedule 3. Except in cases where a written agreement between the district and the property owner establishes a minimum gallonage monthly effluent rate that cannot be changed unilaterally by the district, all golf course and other bulk sales of effluent shall be sold and billed in accordance with this section. (4) Accounts and bill delivery addresses. a. Accounts shall be established in the name of the property owner. b. Monthly bills will be sent to the address requested in the service application. c. Changes of address for billing purposes must be approved by the property owner. Approval can be by letter, district change of address form or by e-mail, d. Duplicate bills may be requested by letter or district change of address form /or e-mail. e. A duplicate bill processing fee (Appendix A-- Schedule 6) will be placed on the account for billing purposes. (5) Methods of payment. a. Cash, check, direct debit and /or credit card (when available), and electronic transfer are available methods to pay monthly bills. b. Cash, check and credit card payments may be made at the billing office address. c. Check payments can be made through the U.S. mail to the lockbox facility in the envelope provided with the bill to the P.O. box. d. Credit card payments (when available) can be made telephonically. e. Direct debit payments are available. Requires processing of a direct debit approvalform. f. Non - sufficient funds (NSF) checks returned by the district bank or banks will not be reprocessed for payment. The amount of the NSF check plus an appropriate NSF charge (Appendix A-- Schedule 6) and where applicable any other fees and charges will be placed on the account for rebilling. htto: / /Iibrary l .municode.com/default/DocView/ 10578/l /305/311 4/17/2008 ARTICLE VI. WATER -SEWER FUSTRICT UNIFORM BILLING, OPERATING AWgiiftge 13 aP29 January 13, 2009 Page 324 of 398 (Ord. No. 01 -73, § 1.2, 12- 11 -01) Sec. 134 -173. District rates, fees and charges other than monthly user fees. (a) Meter installation charges for meters and for backflow devices two inches or smaller in size are to be paid to the district in accordance with Appendix A— Schedule 4. The fees in this subsection are based upon meter installation costs for a typical single - family residential street. (1) All meters two inches or smaller will be installed by the district and shall remain the property of the district. (2) For meters larger than two inches, the materials and labor for installation of such meters shall be furnished by the developer in accordance with district requirements and specifications and dedicated to the district in accordance with county ordinances, at no cost to the district. (3) Meters must be left accessible to district employees at all times. Dangerous and /or dense underbrush will be trimmed to a "margin of safety" by district employees. (4) When any property owner, who has a water meter, makes application to the district for the installation of a larger meter to replace a smaller meter, and such installation is approved, a tapping fee for the larger meter is required and no credit shall be given for tapping charges paid on the smaller meter. The difference in impact fees between the smaller meter and the larger meter must be paid before a work order will be issued for the installation of the larger meter. There shall be no refunds or credits of tapping fees or impact fees given to any property owner requesting a smaller meter. (b) Temporary meters. (1) Temporary meters may be installed and removed by the district. The fee for such installation and removal shall be based upon the district's actual costs for time, equipment and material, as appropriate, in accordance with Appendix A -- Schedule 5. (2) The temporary meter monthly charge for service shall be based upon the non- residential monthly availability and volume charges. (3) A work order for the installation of a temporary meter will be issued upon receipt of an executed temporary meter application. (4) A refundable temporary meter deposit (Appendix A -- Schedule 6) must be paid concurrently with the temporary meter application. The deposit may be used to offset costs for repair and /or replacement to district assets. If damages and repair costs are greater than the deposit, the applicant will be invoiced for the remainder. (c) District rates, fees, and charges other than monthly user fees, meter tapping fees, time and material fees, temporary meter fees, impact fees, industrial sewer use fees, backflow prevention service fees and development/permitting related fees. The rates, fees and charges established by this section include but are not limited to the services listed below. The actual charge rate for the service is in accordance with Appendix A -- Schedule 6. (1) New accounts -- Change of ownership. (2) Turn - off /turn -on at owner's request. (3) Meter re -read. (4) Meter test. (5) Meter lock. httn: / /Iibraivl. municode. com /default/DoeView /10578/l/305/311 4/17/2008 ARTICLE VI. WATER -SEWER DTSTRICT UNIFORM BILLING, OPERATING ANW.0 ge 41:029 January 13, 2009 Page 325 of 398 (6) Unlock after hours. (7) Meter removal. (8) Illegal connection. (9) Credit card handling charge. (10) Temporary meter deposit. (11) Duplicate processing fee. (12) Non - sufficient funds (NSF) processing charge. (13) Late payment charge. (d) Late payments for monthly user fees are subject to a late payment charge (Appendix A— Schedule 6) on the unpaid balance after the due data on the bill. (e) The rates, fees and charges as established in this section shall be reviewed on an annual basis to ensure adequate revenues for district system operation, maintenance, renewal, replacement, enhancement and debt service costs. (f) Reasonable pay plan arrangements may be used at the discretion of the district for delinquent accounts. All pay plan arrangements must provide for the full and timely payment of future consumption. (g) Adjustments. (1) Any debit or credit adjustments for any district service can only be made as the result of a documented and approved procedure. For example: The procedure for adjusting customer accounts for unexplained loss of metered water was approved in updated form on January 3, 2001. (2) Debit and credit adjustments identified in documented and approved procedures shall be approved by the public utilities division administrator or designee before processing. (3) Debit and /or credit adjustments for district errors and omissions should be applied to the account or refunded, if appropriate, and are subject to appropriate review and authorization. (h) Refund of credit balances /final bills. (1) Refunds of credit balances for a continuing account shall be processed and forwarded to finance for disbursement on a weekly basis. (2) Refunds of credit balances as a result of final bills shall be processed and forwarded to finance for disbursement on a monthly basis. (3) In no event, shall refunds be processed for credit balances which are less than $5.00. (4) In no event, shall final bills less than $5.00 be processed and mailed. (i) Allowance for funds prudently invested (AFPI) fee. (1) The board of county commissioners as ex- officio board of the Collier County Water- Sewer District hereby adopts allowance for funds prudently invested (AFPI) fees, as set forth in Schedule 7 hereby appended as part of Appendix A to this ordinance. The AFPI charges may be changed from time -to -time by Collier County Ordinance, or by resolution of the board of county commissioners, always acting as ex- officio board of the Collier County Water -Sewer District, provided the board publishes notice of one scheduledpublic hearing with regard to all such then proposed changes. The proposed htti)://Iibraryl.murticode.com/default/DocView/I0578/l/305/311 4/17/2008 ARTICLE VI. WATER -SEWER DTQTRICT UNIFORM BILLING, OPERATING A XITLUM8A Page 326 of 398 resolution or ordinance can be agendized on the board's regular agenda or on its summary agenda. (2) Allowance for funds prudently invested (AFPI) fees afford the district an opportunity to earn up to a fair rate of return on the district's investment in water and /or wastewater plant that has been constructed but is not yet used and useful. Such non -used and useful plant is by definition held for future use by the district's future water and /or wastewater customers. Such non -used and useful plant incurs costs such as, but not limited to, the district's embedded costs of borrowed money, investment of the district's money in such plant, as well as operation and maintenance expenses between the time the plant is constructed and the time all of the respective equivalent residential connections (ERCs) are connected to the district's respective utility system by means of an "active connection." Calculation of the AFPI charges excludes plant paid from impact fees, which are classified in law as "contributions -in -aid of construction" ( "CIAO "). (3) The amount of the applicable AFPI charge is controlled (determined) by the month when the related impact fee (a) to pay for the respective ERCs is received by county staff. Each AFPI charge is calculated for one equivalent residential connection (ERC) on a month -to -month basis. In this context there is no distinction between an ERC for residential use, industrial use, commercial use or any other uses. (4) These AFPI charges apply only to ERCs reserved by payment of the relevant water and /or wastewater impact fees actually received by county staff subsequent to October 1, 2006 and these AFPI charges shall cease to apply to ERCS reserved by staffs receipt of these impact fee payments subsequent to December 31, 2012. (5) All water AFPI charges shall be accounted for in a separate account for the subject water treatment facilities. Ail wastewater AFPI charges shall be accounted for in a separate account for the subject wastewater treatment facilities. (Ord. No. 01 -73, § 1.3,12-11-01; Ord. No. 2006 -27, § 1) Sec. 134 -174. District regulation. (a) Application for service. (1) To obtain service, application must be made at the office(s) of the district. Applications are accepted by the district with the understanding that there is no obligation on the part of the district to render service other than that which is then available from its existing facilities. The district reserves the right to refuse service from its transmission mains or to accept service to its collection system. (2) Utility service is furnished only upon signed application of the property owner, accepted by the district, and the conditions of such application or agreement are binding upon the property owner as well as the district. A copy of each application or agreement for utility service accepted by the district will be furnished to the property owner, (3) The applicant shall furnish to the district the correct name, street address and legal description at which service is to be rendered at the time of the application for service. All system development charges, impact fees, connection and installation fees, and any other fees, rates and charges established by the district shall be paid in full at the time of application for service. (4) Application for service requested by firms, partnerships, associations, corporations and others, shall be tendered only by duly authorized individuals. When service is rendered under agreement or agreements entered into between the district and an agent of the property owner, the use of such service by the property owner shall constitute full and complete ratification by the property owner of the agreement or agreements entered hth,• / /13hrarvl mrnnicnde.cnm /default /17ocView /1 0578/1/305/3 1 1 .4/17/2008 ARTICLE VI. WATER -SEWER DISTRICT UNIFORM BILLING, OPERATING A)GAnclPtiigm6vbf 2& January 13, 2009 Page 327 of 398 into between agent and the district under which such service is rendered. A tenant of property shall not be construed to be an agent. (5) Where the district's water or sewer main is accessible to render service no county building permit may be issued until such time as proper application shall have been made for service and all fees necessary for the rendering of such service shall have been paid to the district. (6) The district may withhold or discontinue service rendered under application made by a property owner, or the property owner's agent, unless all prior indebtedness to the district of such property for utility service has been settled in full. Service may be withheld or discontinued for non - payment of bills and /or non - compliance with rules and regulations in connection with the same or any different class of service furnished to the same property owner at the same premises, or for non - payment of any account for service to the property. (b) Limitation of use, continuity of service. (1) Unless authorized by the district, water and /or sewer service purchased from the district shall be used by the consumer only for the purposes specified in the application for service, and the property owner shall not sell or otherwise dispose of such service supplied by the district. Unless authorized by the district, service furnished to the property owner shall be rendered directly to the property owner through the district's connection, and under no circumstances shall be property owner or property owner's agent or any other individual, association, or corporation install equipment for the purpose of disposing of said service. In no case shall a property owner, except with the written consent from the district, extend their installation across a street, alley, lane, court, property line, avenue, or any other way, in order to furnish service for adjacent property, even though such adjacent property is owned by them. In the event there is an unauthorized extension, sale or disposition of service, the property owner's service will be subject to discontinuance until such unauthorized extension, sale or disposition is discontinued and full payment is made of bills for service, calculated on proper classification and rate schedules and reimbursements in full are made to the district for all extra expenses incurred for clerical work, testing and inspections. (2) The district will at all times use reasonable diligence to provide continuous service, and having used reasonable diligence shall not be liable to the property owner or occupants for failure or interruption of continuous water service. The district shall not be liable for any act or omission caused directly by strikes, labor troubles, accident, litigation, breakdowns, shutdowns for emergency repairs, or adjustment, acts of sabotage, enemies of the united states, wars, state, municipal or other govern mentalinterference, acts of God or other causes beyond its control. (3) Property owners shall maintain that portion of the water lines on their property located beyond the district service connection, and all loss of water through breaks or leakage to the premises will be paid by the property owner. The property owner shall maintain that portion of the sewer line located on their property. (c) Property owner's liability for damage to equipment. The property owner is liable to the district for any damage done to the district's equipment used in providing service to the property owner, except damage done by district employees. (d) Security deposits on water account. Security deposits normally are not required on district customer accounts for water service. However, the district may require a deposit equivalent to two months average service when an account has been shut: -off for non - payment more than two times in any six month concurrent period. These deposits may be returned after six months of timely payments. (e) Security deposits on sewer accounts. Security deposits, are normally not required on http:// Iibraryl. niunicode. com/ default/D66View /10578/l/305/311 4/17/2008 ARTICLE VI. WATER -SEWER DISTRICT UNIFORM BILLING, OPERATING ANPndzPg4p o�lof2% January 13, 2009 Page 328 of 398 district customer accounts for sewer service. However, the district may require a deposit equivalent to two months average service when an account has been shut off for non - payment more than two times in any six month concurrent period. These deposits will be returned after six months of timely payments. (f) Property owner's responsibility for water service; bad debts. (1) The property owner is responsible for all water, and /or sewer service and /or other district services provided to the property. In the event service is discontinued for non- payment, service will be restored only after property owner has fully complied with provisions of section 134 -174, subsection (g)(2) and (g)(3), of this article. (2) Unpaid fees constitute a lien against the property (see section 134- 174(p) of this article). In the event water, and /or sewer service and /or other district services have been discontinued for non - payment and any or all services are requested to be reinstated for the property in the future, this back debt plus associated charges must be paid before water and /or sewer service will be furnished. (3) Bad debts as a result of bankruptcy or court actions will be written off in accordance with applicable laws, rules and regulations. (g) Dates bills due and delinquent; discontinuance of service for non - payment, reinstatement following discontinued service. (1) Bills for service are due by the date set forth on the bill from the district and are delinquent thereafter. Service will be discontinued when delinquent for non - payment of bills. (2) When service has been discontinued for non - payment of bills, service will be renewed upon payment of all unpaid bills, plus a shut -off lock fee and a late payment fee (Appendix A— Schedule 6). (3) If the lock has been tampered with and the street cock has been turned on prior to full payment of all fees the meter may be removed from the property. Should the property owner request renewal of service for the property, service will be restored upon full payment of 1) all past due bills plus a late payment fee where applicable, and (2) a meter removal fee (Appendix A— Schedule 6). (4) If service has been discontinued for non - payment of bills and an illegal water connection is made, service will be renewed upon payment of all unpaid bills, time and material cost to remove the illegal connection, the cost of the estimated amount of water consumption loss, plus the fine specified in Appendix A— Schedule 6. (5) Billing for potable water service or effluent irrigation service shall begin upon registration of consumption on the meter, or 90 days from date of meter installation, whichever occurs first. Billing for sewer service shall commence upon the issuance of a certificate of occupancy or 90 days following the issuance of a notice to connect to the sewer system, whichever occurs first. (6) The property owner shall immediately notify the district of any additional dwelling units connected to the district's service lines if the dwelling units have not been included in previous applications. For violation of this section, the district's service may be discontinued. (h) Billing payment when meter becomes defective; right of entry of authorized agents or employees. (1) Should the meter on any premises become defective, so that the amount delivered for the current month cannot be ascertained, the property owner shall pay for that month an amount equal to the average amount charged for the four preceding months unless the actual amount of water can be determined. http:// Iibraryl. municode. com/ default/DoeView /10578/l/305/311 1 4/17/2008 ARTICLE VI. WATER -SEWER DJSTRICT UNIFORM BILLING, OPERATING Ald- .la's "1209 Page 329 of 398 (2) Duly authorized agents and employees of the district shall, during daylight hours or if called out after dark for emergency service, have access to any property for the purpose of examining the condition of fixture, service pipe installation and such other purposes as may be proper to protect the interest of the district, reading or repairing the water meters located thereon, or turning the supply of such water service to the premises off or on. (i) Water bill complaints. Normally, high water bill complaints will not be accepted for inspection by the district unless all plumbing fixtures, piping and outlets have been examined by a licensed plumber who has certified that there are no leaks. If an investigation is made by the district and the findings reveal the initial meter reading was accurate and the meter is functioning properly, a re -read charge (Appendix A-- Schedule 6) will be assessed against the property owner. The property owner shall be charged (Appendix A-- Schedule 6) for meter tests which show the meter is functioning properly. Q) Meters, location and charge for moving. Meters shall be placed when possible just within the property line at the property corner at the nearest point to the tap -in main. If a meter is moved at the request of the property owner, the property owner shall pay a fee equal to the district's cost in accordance with Appendix A-- Schedule 5. (k) Connections with water and sewer required. The owner of each lot or parcel of land within the district where any improvement is now situated or shall hereafter be situated, shall, if the district operates and maintains water distribution and/or sewer collection facilities along the frontage of their property, connect or cause such improvement to be connected with the water and /or sewer facilities of the district. The usage of such facilities shall, at a minimum, be used for all indoor usage and shall be connected within 90 days following notification to do so by the district. Connection to the reuse system shall only be required if the development order and /or property purchase agreements require such connection. All such connections shall be made in accordance with rules and regulations which may be adopted from time to time by the district, which rules and regulations shall provide for a charge for making any such connection in such reasonable amount as the governing board of the district may fix and determine. No connection or connections shall berequired where the water or sewer system or line is more than 200 feet from such property line. (1) Exceptions To connections. This article shall not be construed to require or entitle any person to cross the private property of another in order to connect to the district's water and /or sewer service. (m) Connections may be made by district. If any property owner of any lot or parcel of land within the district shall fail or refuse to connect to and use the water and/or sewer facilities of the district after notification, as provided herein, then the district shall be authorized to make such connections, entering on or upon any such property for the purpose of making such connection. The district shall thereupon be entitled to recover the cost (Appendix A-- Schedule 5) of making such connection, together with reasonable penalties and interest and attorney's fees, by suit in any court of component jurisdiction. In addition and as an alternative means of collecting such costs of making such connections, the district shall have a lien on such property for such cost; which lien shall be equal dignity with the lien of state and county taxes. Such lien may be foreclosed by the county in the same manner provided by the laws of Florida for the foreclosure of mortgages upon real estate. (n) Unlawful connection prohibited. No person shall be allowed to connect into any water or sewer line owned by the district without written consent of the district. The connection with such line shall be made only under the direction and supervision of the district. Any property owner or plumber who shall make any connection without such consent of the county shall, upon conviction be subject to the penalties hereinafter provided. (o) Failure to maintain plumbing system. The property owner shall be responsible for maintaining and keeping free from obstruction the water and sewer pipes leading to and hftn: / /IibrarvI.mur / code. com/ default/DoeView /10578/l/305/311 4/17/2008 ARTICLE VI. WATER -SEWER DISTRICT UNIFORM BILLING, OPERATING ANEJ1e-ndBagm9 of $ ®E January 13, 2009 Page 330 of 398 connecting from the plumbing system to the district's water and sewers mains, and failure to keep the water and sewer pipes, free from obstructions and maintained in a proper manner. (p) Unpaid fees to constitute a lien. In the event that the fees, rates or charges for the services and facilities of any water or sewer system shall not be paid as and when due, any unpaid balance thereof and all interest accruing thereon shall be an automatic lien on any parcel or property affected thereby. Such liens shall be superior and paramount to the interest on such parcel or property of any owner, lessee, tenant, mortgagor or other person except the lien of county taxes and shall be on a parity with the lien of any such county taxes.in the event that any such fees, rates or charges Shall not be paid as and when due and shall be in default for 30 days or more the unpaid balance thereof and all interest accrued thereon, together with attorneys fees and costs, may be recovered by the district in a civil action, and any such lien and accrued interest may be foreclosed or otherwise enforced by the district by action or suit in equity as for the foreclosure of a mortgage on real property. (q) No free service. No water or sewage disposal service shall be furnished or rendered free of charge to any person, firm, corporation or governmental body. Each and every county agency, department, or instrumentality which uses such service shall pay therefore at the rates fixed by this article. (r) Separate connections for each separate unit. Unless authorized by the district, each dwelling unit whether occupying one or more lots and whether it shall occupy any lot or parcel jointly with any other dwelling unit shall be considered a separate unit for the payment of the water and sewage disposal rates and charges, and separate connections will be required for each of such dwelling units. (Ord. No. 01 -73, § 1.4, 12- 11 -01; Ord. No. 2006 -27, § 4) Sec. 134 -175. Submetering. (a) A landlord who is a customer of the district and who provides water and /or sewer service to rental units through a single master water meter shall, under any of the following three circumstances, be exempt from the prohibitions contained in section 134 -174, paragraph (b)(1) against the sale or disposition of district water and /or sewer service: (1) A landlord may apportion the monthly charge for district water and /or sewer service through the master meter equally among all rental units provided that the total monthly charge to all rental units shall not exceed the landlord's actual cost for district water and /or sewer service; or (2) A landlord may install submeters for each rental unit to track each unit's usage of water service and then charge each unit according to its exact usage. A landlord who installs submeters shall comply with the requirements of subsection (d), below and shall not recover more than his actual cost for district water and /or sewer service through the master meter and shall not pass on to his tenants any of the capital or administrative cost incurred in the installation and monitoring of the submeters or the billing of tenants for their water and /or sewer service usage; or, (3) A landlord may also provide water and /or sewer service to rental units through a single master water meter for no specific compensation provided that in no event shall any landlord recover more than his actual cost for district water and /or sewer service from his tenants. (b) For any rental units which are under lease agreement as of the effective date of this article [April 1, 2002], a landlord choosing to install submeters as provided in section 134 -174, paragraph (b) above, shall not begin monitoring a rental unit's water usage for the purposes of charging a unit according to its actual water usage until the expiration of the then existing term under such lease agreement. Upon renewing an expired lease, or upon entering any new lease http:// Iibraryl. niunicode. com /default/DoeView /10578/l/305/311 4/17/2008 ARTICLE VI. WATER -SEWER DISTRICT UNIFORM BILLING, OPERATING ANgenRagodO& 28E January 13, 2009 Page 331 of 398 agreement with a tenant subsequent to theeffective date of this article, a landlord choosing to submeter shall fully disclose to the tenant the landlord's ability to separately charge each rental unit according to its exact water usage. Such disclosure shall be in both of the following forms: (1) oral representations by the landlord to the tenant at the time of negotiating the lease and before either party has signed the lease agreement, and (2) by a conspicuously printed disclosure provision in the lease agreement specifically referencing the landlord's ability to submeter pursuant to the terms of this article and initialed by the tenant. (c) Upon a tenant's written request, any landlord who exercises his privilege to recover his actual cost for county water and /or sewer service shall provide to the tenant documentation of the landlord's actual cost for district water and/or sewer service as well as documentation and a written explanation of the basis for any costs charged to the tenant for water and /or sewer service. Such documentation and written explanation shall be provided within five business days from receipt of the written request. (d) Furthermore, upon dispute of a water bill by a tenant in person, in writing, by telephone, or in any other manner, a landlord shall, within five business days of receiving notice of the tenant's dispute, pursue all of the following remedies in an effort to resolve the dispute: (1) Reread the master meter and /or any submeter to verify the accuracy of the meter reading process and the working condition of the meter(s); (2) If the working condition or accuracy of the master meter or any submeter is in question after being reread, the landlord shall have the meter tested; (3) If after being tested the master meter or any submeter is found to be inaccurate or otherwise defective, the district or the landlord, as the case may be, shall immediately repair or replace the meter. (4) Provide documentation of current and past billing practices with respect to the applicable rental unit for the period of the requesting tenant's occupancy; (5) Arrange a meeting with the tenant and the property manager or some other representative of the landlord to discuss the billing process; and (6) Any tenant whose request is unsatisfactorily addressed or who has exhausted the above options without redress may bring suit in a court of competent jurisdiction to obtain relief under F.S. ch. 83, the Landlord Tenant Act. (e) All submeters must achieve no less than the accuracy standards as currently met by the district for its own water meters. In addition, any landlord installing submeters shall provide, where applicable, the following services, at the landlord's expense, which either meet or exceed the level of service currently provided by the district with respect to its water meters: (1) The landlord shall promptly, upon receiving notice, repair all submeter leaks; (2) The landlord shall promptly, upon receiving notice, replace any failed service lines or associated components; (3) The landlord shall promptly, upon receiving notice, replace damaged or deteriorated submeter boxes or lids, and shall, where applicable, lower or raise a submeter box to grade as necessary; (4) The landlord shall, upon receiving a water quality complaint, check applicable connections and flush applicable service lines; (5) The landlord shall, upon receiving a low pressure complaint, check and test the system to ensure proper operation: (6) The landlord shall locate and provide the location of all submeters and service lines upon reasonable request by a tenant; http: //Iihraiyl. municode. com/ default/DocView /10578/l/305/311 4/17/2008 ARTICLE VI. WATER -SEWER DJSTRICT UNIFORM BILLING, OPERATING AAger agt l41Wi ®E January 13, 2009 Page 332 of 398 (7) The landlord shall turn off applicable submeters in emergency situations; (8) The landlord shall read all submeters no less frequently than once a month; (9) The landlord shall replace all submeters that become stuck or difficult to read; and (10) The landlord shall notify the tenant of a potential leak upon reading a submeter that reflects an unusually high usage. (f) The provision of water service through a single master meter by a landlord as described in this section is deemed not to constitute the sale or disposition of water service. The provision of sewer service as described in this section is deemed not to constitute the sale or disposition of sewer service. (g) Any condominium association that is a customer of the district and provides water and /or sewer service to condominium units through a single master meter may allocate the cost for such water service among its members either by equal apportionment, installation of submeters, or otherwise provided that such allocation of cost is restricted to recovery of the condominium association's actual cost for district water and /or sewer service and directly. related administrative or capital expenses incurred in recovering that cost. Upon a member's written request, any condominium association that exercises its privilege under this exemption from the prohibitions in section 134 -174, paragraph (b)(1) to recover its actual cost for district water and /or sewer service and directly related administrative and capital expenses incurred in recovering that cost shall provide to the member documentation for the condominium association's actual cost for district water and /or sewer service as well as documentation and a written explanation of the basis for any costs charged to the member for water service. Such documentation and written explanation shall be provided with five business days from receipt of the written request. The provision of water service through a single master water meter by a condominium association as described in this section is deemed not to constitute the sale or disposition of water service. The provision of sewer service as described in this section is deemed not to constitute the sale or disposition of sewer service. (h) Any landlord or condominium association that elects to install submeters shall not charge a security deposit. (Ord. No. 01 -73, § 2.1 - -2.8, 12- 11 -01) Sec. 134 -176. City of Naples service area. (a) No extension of existing distribution water mains of the water system of the City of Naples may be made within the county water -sewer district, without the prior, written consent and approval of the governing board of the district, except that this article shall not apply to the lands described in subsection (d). (b) All applications for said distribution water main extensions shall be made in writing to district staff who shall present said requests to the governing board of the district within 30 days of receipt thereof. (c) The governing board of the district may attach reasonable conditions to the issuance of permits for distribution water main extensions which conditions may include, but not be limited to, provisions for payment of system development charges or impact fees which are, or may be enacted by the county. (d) The City of Naples water service area boundaries are as follows: Beginning at the intersection of the easterly shoreline of the Gulf of Mexico with the southerly city limit line of the City of Naples; thence easterly along said southerly city along the easterly city limit line to the northeast corner of said Section 27; thence westerly along the north line of http: / /Iibraryl.municode. coin/ default/DoeView /10578/l/305/311 4/17/2008 ARTICLE VI. WATER -SEWER DISTRICT UNIFORM BILLING, OPERATING AXgen &gerJNof 2K January 13, 2009 Page 333 of 398 Section 26, Township 50 south, Range 25 east to the northeast corner of said Section 26; thence northerly along the east line of Section 23, Township 50 south, Range 25 east to its intersection with the southerly right -of -way line of Thomasson Drive; thence easterly along said southerly right -of -way of Thomasson Drive to its intersection with the range line lying between Range 25 east and Range 26 east; thence northerly along said range line lying between Range 25 east and Range 26 east to the northeast corner of Section 13, Township 49 south, Range 25 east; thence westerly along the north line of Sections 13, 14, 15, 16 and 17, Township 49 south, Range 25 east to the intersection of the north line of said Section 17with the easterly shoreline of the Gulf of Mexico; thence southerly along the meanders of the easterly shoreline of the Gulf of Mexico to the point of beginning. (Ord. No. 01 -73, §§ 3.1 -3.4, 12- 11 -01) Sec. 134 -177. Appendices for rates, fees and charges. The board of county commissioners as ex- officio board of the Collier County Water -Sewer District hereby adopts the rates, fees, and charges as set forth in schedule I[11 through 7; inclusive, appended hereto as Appendix A, which as of October 1, 2006, shall be imposed upon all users of the county water -sewer district's services within the district's boundaries and outside the district's boundaries subject to appropriate mutual agreements. The AFPI charges shall apply only to the respective ERCs reserved bypayment of the related water and /or wastewater impact fees subsequent to October 1, 2006, and these AFPI charges shall not apply to ERCs reserved by payment for the ERCs received by staff subsequent to December 31, 2012. These rates, fees and charges may be changed from time to time by ordinances or by resolutions of the board of county commissioners as ex- officio board of the Collier County Water -Sewer District, provided the board publishes, in a newspaper of general circulation in Collier County, notice of an advertised public hearing with regard to the then proposed schedule amendments. The proposed amendments (by county ordinances or board resolutions) can be agendized on the board's regular agenda, or on the board's summary agenda subject to removal to the board's regular agenda. (Ord. No. 01 -73, § 4, 12- 11 -01; Ord. No. 2006 -27, § 2) Sec. 134 -178. Penalties. Unless another penalty is specifically provided for, any person who violates any section or provision of this article shall be prosecuted and punished as provided by F.S. § 125.69. Each day the violation continues shall constitute a separate offense. Additionally, the board may bring suit for damages or to restrain, enjoin or otherwise prevent the violation of this article in the Circuit Court of Collier County. (Ord. No. 01 -73, § 5, 12- 11 -01) Sec. 134 -179. Confidentiality. Confidential information. (1) Information and data on a user obtained from reports, questionnaires, applications, and other material provided shall be available to the public or other governmental agency without restriction unless the user specifically requests and is able to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the district and county that the information is not "public record" under then applicable law, and is clearly within an exemption outlined in the Florida Public Record Law of the State of Florida, F.S. ch. 119, or its successor infunction. http:// Iibraryl. municode. com/ default/DocView /10578/l/305/311 4/17/2008 ARTICLE VI. WATER -SEWER DISTRICT UNIFORM BILLING, OPERATING ARg9nan ry i3 bb9 Page 334 of 398 (_011 Ilet <our, +y (2) Notwithstanding any of the provisions of this article, nothing shall be construed or interpreted to require the county or the district to violate any of the applicable public records law(s). Any release of information or disclosure made by the county or district in order to comply with such law should not give rise to a claim whatsoever. (Ord. No. 01 -73, §6, 12- 11 -01) Sec. 134 -180. Declaration of exclusion from the Administrator Procedures Act. The county water -sewer district board shall exercise jurisdiction over the provision of water and sewer services within the boundaries as hereinafter provided for, and shall be exempt from the provisions of F.S. ch. 120. No privately owned water or sewer utility shall be abandoned without adequate provision for continuance of service and the prior approval of the board. (Ord. No. 01 -73, § 7, 12- 11 -01) Secs. 134 - 181 -- 134 -185. Reserved. PUBLIC UTILITIES DIVISION COLLIER COUNTY WATER -SEWER DISTRICT UNIFORM BILLING, OPERATING AND REGULATORY STANDARDS ORDINANCE APPENDIX A- -FEES, RATES AND CHARGES SCHEDULE 1 -- DISTRICT -WIDE WATER and WASTEWATER RATES Effective October 1, 2006 Water Wastewater Fire Meter Rates and Water Surcharges 1. Wafer., (a) Service availability charge for individually metered residential, non - residential and irrigation: TABLE INSET: Size Effective Oct. Effective Oct. Size Effective Oct. Effective Oct. 1, 2006 1, 2007 1, 2006 1, 2007 518" inch $14.00 per $16.03 per 3" inch $170.94 per $195.72 per meter month month meter month month 3 /4" inch 14.00 per 16.03 per 4" inch 282.98 per 324.00 per meter month month meter month month 1" inch 30.90 per 35.38 per 6" inch 563.08 per 644.70 per meter month month meter month month 1- 1/4" inch 39.12 per 44.79 per 8" inch 899.20 per 1,029.53 per meter month month meter month month 1- 1/2" inch 58.91 per 67.45 per 10" inch 1,627.44 per 1,863.33 per meter month month meter month month 2" inch 92.47 per 105.88 per 12" inch 2,198.07 per 2,516.69 per meter month month meter month month (b) Volume charge per 1,000 gallons: (i) Individually metered residential, non - residential and multi - family residential: httn: //Iibrarvl. municode. com /defaulUlloeView /10578/l/305/311 4/17/2008 ARTICLE VI. WATER -SEWER DISTRICT UNIFORM BILLING, OPERATING A4bndzP" KoRO January 13, 2009 Page 335 of 398 TABLE INSET: (c) Block rate structure. Consumption Blocks in Gallons - -Up To Or Next TABLE INSET: Meter Size Effective Oct. 1, 2006 Effective Oct. 1, 2007 Block 1 $1.92 $2.20 Block 2 2.88 3.30 Block 3 3.84 4.40 Block 4 4.80 5.50 Block 5 5.76 6.59 Block 6 1 7.68 8.79 (c) Block rate structure. Consumption Blocks in Gallons - -Up To Or Next TABLE INSET: Meter Size Block 1 Block 2 Block 3 Block 4 Block 5 Block 6 5/8" 1, 2007 1, 2006 1, 2007 and 5,000 10,000 20,000 30,000 50,000 Over 50,000 3/4" 1" 12,000 25,000 50,000 75,000 120,000 Over 120,000 1- 1/4" 20,000 40,000 80,000 120,000 200,000 Over 200,000 1- 1/2 25,000 50,000 100,000 150,000 250,000 Over 250,000 2" 40,000 80,000 160,000 240,000 400,000 Over 400,000 3" 80,000 160,000 320,000 480,000 800,000 Over 800,000 4" 120,000 250,000 500,000 800,000 1,200,000 Over 1,200,000 6" 250,000 500,000 1,000,000 1,500,000 2,500,000 Over 2,500,000 8" 450,000 900,000 1,800,000 2,700,000 4,500,000 Over 4,500,000 10" 700,000 1,450,000 2,900,000 4,300,000 7,000,000 Over 7,000,000 12" 1,075,000 2,150,000 4,300,000 1 6,450,000 11,000,000 Over 11,000,000 2. Wastewater: (a) Wastewater service availability charge for individually metered residential, non- residential, and multi - family: TABLE INSET: Size Effective Oct. Effective Oct. 1 Size Effective Oct. Effective Oct. 1 1, 2006 1, 2007 1, 2006 1, 2007 http: // libraryl .municode.com /default/DocView /10578/l/305/311 4/17/2008 ARTICLE VI. WATER -SEWER DISTRICT UNIFORM BILLING, OPERATING ANendVhgaif oof H January 13, 2009 Page 336 of 398 5/8 inch $22.26 per $24.49 per 3 inch $287.24 per $315.96 per meter month month meter month month 314 inch 22.26 per 24.49 per 4 inch 476.32 per 523.93 per meter month month meter month month 1 inch 50.61 per 55.67 per 6 inch 949.23 per 1,044.12 per meter month month meter month month 1 1/4 inch 64.90 per 71.38 per 8 inch 1,516.92 per 1,668.55 per meter month month meter month month 1 1/2 inch 97.93 per 107.72 per 10 inch 2,719.65 per 2,991.50 per meter month month meter month month 2 inch 154.75 per 170.22 per 12 inch 4,030.95 per 4,433.89 per meter month month meter month I month (b) Volume charge per 1,000 gallons: TABLE INSET: 3. Fire systems (dedicated and compound): (a) Fire meter. (i) Fire service meter size will refer to the largest diameter meter register installed for fire protection. (ii) Fire service meter connections that have consumption registered for three consecutive billing periods are deemed to have provided domestic or other water usage shall be billed according to regular water monthly availability and usage charges as described herein. (b) Volume charge: (i) Per 1,000 gallons. 4. Water restriction surcharge: TABLL INSET: Water Shortage Phase` Percent Reduction In Overall Demand Effective Oct. 1, 2006 Effective Oct. 1, 2007 @ All Metered Usage $3.13 $3.44 (ii) Individually Metered Residential Maximum: The maximum volumetric charge for individually metered residential property shall be 15,000 gallons per month. 3. Fire systems (dedicated and compound): (a) Fire meter. (i) Fire service meter size will refer to the largest diameter meter register installed for fire protection. (ii) Fire service meter connections that have consumption registered for three consecutive billing periods are deemed to have provided domestic or other water usage shall be billed according to regular water monthly availability and usage charges as described herein. (b) Volume charge: (i) Per 1,000 gallons. 4. Water restriction surcharge: TABLL INSET: Water Shortage Phase` Percent Reduction In Overall Demand Flow Charge Rate Adjustment Percentage Phase 1 -- Moderate Less Than 15% 15% Phase 2 -- Severe Less Than 30% 30% Phase 3-- Extreme Less Than 40% 40% Phase 4-- Critical Less Than 60% 60% PUBLIC UTILITIES DIVISION COLLIER COUNTY WATER -SEWER DISTRICT UNIFORM BILLING, OPERATING AND REGULATORY STANDARDS ORDINANCE httD://Iibraryl.munic,ode.com/default/DocView/10578/l/305/311 4/17/2008 ARTICLE VI. WATER -SEWER DISTRICT UNIFORM BILLING, OPERATING Adtfiencigagsnl( (of2t. _ January 13, 2009 Page 337 of 398 APPENDIX A —FEES, RATES AND CHARGES SCHEDULE 2-- GOODLAND SUB - DISTRICT WATER Effective October 1. 2006 Providing monthly user fees for residential, non - residential and multi - family properties in the Goodland Water Sub - district as follows: 1. Water. (a) Service availability charge: (i) Individual metered residential, non - residential and multi - family properties: TABLE INSET: Meter Size Effective Oct. 1, 2006 3/4 inch $25.00 per month 1 inch 58.00 per month 1 1/2 inch 113.00 per month 2 inch 178.00 per month 3 inch 353.00 per month 4 inch 548.00 per month 6 inch 1,095.00 per month 8 inch 1,967.00 per month (b) Volume charge per one thousand gallons ($ /Mgal) of usage: (i) Individual metered residential, non - residential and multi - family properties: TABLE INSET: Block Proposed Oct. 1, 2006 Block 1 (1) $4.30 Block 1 (1) $5.30 Block 1 (1) $6.40 Block 1 (1) $7.40 Block 1 (1) $8.50 Block 1 (1) $10.60 (1) Same Block Rate Structure as that of Collier County Water -Sewer District. (c) Block rate structure: Consumption blocks in gallons —Up to or next TABLE INSET: Meter Block 1 Block 2 Block 3 Block 4 Block 5 Block 6 Size 5 /8" and 5,000 10,000 20,000 30,000 50,000 Over 50,000 3/4" http: / /Iibraryl. municode .cc)m /default/DoeView /10578/l /305/311 4/17/2008 ARTICLE VI. WATER -SEWER DISTRICT UNIFORM BILLING, OPERATING AMA n&� %96fx Janu ry 13, 2009 Page 338 of 398 1" 12,000 25,000 50,000 75,000 120,000 Over 120,000 1-11411 20,000 40,000 80,000 120,000 200,000 Over 200,000 1- 1/2" 25,000 50,000 100,000 150,000 250,000 Over 250,000 2" 40,000 80,000 160,000 240,000 400,000 Over 400,000 3" 80,000 160,000 320,000 480,000 800,000 Over 800,000 4„ 120,000 250,000 500,000 800,000 1,200,000 Over 1,200,000 250,000 500,000 1,000,000 1,500,000 2,500,000 Over 6„ 2,500,000 450,000 900,000 1,800,000 2,700,000 4,500,000 Over 6„ 1 1 1 4,500,000 (2) The usage charge shall be adjusted based on the following formula: Purchased Water Adjustment Clause (PWAC) - Existing Rates (New City of Marco Island Volume Charge - Old City of Marco Island Volume Charge)/ $0.75 = Adder Existing Goodland $ /Mgal + Adder = New Goodland $ /Mgal The purpose of the 0.75 factor is needed to adjust for unaccounted for water and the change in the monthly fixed charges from the City of Marco Island. For Each Rate Block: Existing Rate Block $ /Mgal + Adder = New Rate $ /Mgal PUBLC UTILITIES DIVISION COLLIER COUNTY WATER -SEWER DISTRICT UNIFORM BILLING, OPERATING AND REGULATORY STANDARDS ORDINANCE APPENDIX A- -FEES, RATES AND CHARGES SCHEDULE 3-- IRRIGATION QUALITY WATER RATES Effective October 1, 2006 Irrigation Quality (Reuse) Rates 1. Irrigation quality water usage in the district shall be at the following schedule: (a) Service availability charge: Individually metered irrigation: TABLE INSET: Meter Size Effective October 1, 2006 5/8 and 3/4 inch $5.00 1 inch 11.00 1.5 inch 23.00 hffn- 1/Ahrarv1 mimimde. rnm /defaultfDocView /10578/1/305/311 4/17/2008 ARTICLE VI. WATER -SEWER DISTRICT UNIFORM BILLING, OPERATING A3+§ericTu 18ceBe January 13, 2009 Page 339 of 398 2 inch 46.00 3 inch 91.00 4 inch 182.00 6 inch 346.00 8 inch 628.00 10 inch 1,005.00 12 inch 1,497.00 (b) Volume charge per 1,000 gallons: TABLE INSET: Type of Service Effective October 1, 2006 (i) Pressurized and distributed $0.75 (ii) Pressurized 0.39 (iii) Bulk 0.30 PUBLIC UTILITIES DIVISION COLLIER COUNTY WATER -SEWER DISTRICT UNIFORM BILLING, OPERATING AND REGULATORY STANDARDS ORDINANCE APPENDIX A- -FEES, RATES AND CHARGES SCHEDULE 4- -METER TAPPING CHARGES AND BACKFLOW DEVICE CHARGES Effective October 1. 2006 Meter Installation Charges (Tapping Fees) 1. Meter Installation charges to be paid to the District shall be as follows: Meter size meter tapping charges: TABLE INSET: Meter Meter Tapping Charges With Meter Meter Tapping Charges Without Size Service Line Installation Charge Size Service Line Installation Charge Effective Oct. 1, 2006 Effective Oct. 1, 2006 314 inch $676.00 3/4 inch $248.00 1 inch 738.00 1 inch 282.00 1.5 inch 1,012.00 1.5 inch 493.00 _ 2 inch 1,140.00 2 inch 618.00 The fees are based upon meter installation for a typical single - family residence. In all other circumstances, the meter installation fee shall be based upon the district's actual cost for time, equipment and materials. Backflow device charges (1) Backflow device charges to be paid to the District shall be as follows: TABLE INSET: httn: / /Iihrarvl. municode. com/ default/DocView /10578/l/305/311 4/17/2008 ARTICLE VI. WATER -SEWER DISTRICT UNIFORM BILLING, OPERATING AMpncRaW%4f1M January 13, 2009 Page 340 of 398 Meter Size Reduced Pressure Backflow Prevention Assembly Charge Meter Size Double Check Valve Backflow Prevention Assembly Charge $75.00 Effective Oct. 1, 2006 50.00 Effective Oct. 1, 2006 3/4 inch $214.OD 3/4 inch $108.00 1 inch 237.00 1 inch 116.00 1.5 inch 345.00 1.5 inch 294.00 2 inch 412.00 2 inch 342.00 PUBLIC UTILITIES DIVISION COLLIER COUNTY WATER -SEWER DISTRICT UNIFORM BILLING, OPERATING AND REGULATORY STANDARDS ORDINANCE APPENDIX A- -FEES, RATES AND CHARGES SCHEDULE 5— EQUIPMENT, LABOR AND ADMINISTRATION CHARGES Effective October 1, 2006 TABLE INSET: DESCRIPTION EFFECTIVE OCT. 1, 2006 (1) Equipment (Per Hour Rates): Rehab & Electrician's Truck $75.00 Crew Trucks 50.00 Vector Truck 200.00 Camera Truck 150.00 Boom Truck 100.00 20 Yard Dump Truck 70.00 10 Yard Dump Truck 40.00 Pumper Truck 200.00 Track Hoe (Big or Small) 50.00 Back Hoe 65.00 Olympian Generators 60.00 Dewatering System 40.00 4" Trash Pump 10.00 Mud Hog 15.00 Trailer 45.00 Signs, Barricades and /or Traffic Board 100.00 Road Saw and /or Compactor 15.00 Miscellaneous Small Equipment 5.00 (2) Labor (Per Hour Rates): Tech 1 & 2 30.00 Supervisors 40.00 (3) Administration (per incident): 15% or $300.00; Whichever is smaller. httn:// Iibrarvl .municode.com/default/DoeView /10578/1/305/311 4/17/2008 ARTICLE VI. WATER -SEWER DISTRICT UNIFORM BILLING, OPERATING ,68qe�ap#R17pp2b03 Page 341 of 398 1 (4) Parts and Sub - contractors I Actual Cost PUBLIC UTILITIES DIVISION COLLIER COUNTY WATER -SEWER DISTRICT UNIFORM BILLING, OPERATING AND REGULATORY STANDARDS ORDINANCE APPENDIX A- -FEES, RATES AND CHARGES SCHEDULE 6— MISCELLANEOUS CHARGES Effective October 1, 2006 TABLE INSET: DESCRIPTION EFFECTIVE OCT. 1, 2006 New Accounts - Change of Ownership $25.00 Turn Off/Turn On at Owner's Request 38.00 Meter Re -Read (If Different -- Charge is 0.00) 38.00 Meter Test: Onsite Test (More than 3% Error— 80.00 Charge is 0.00) Offsite Bench Test (More than 3 % 215.00 Error -- Charge is 0.00) Meter Lock 55.00 Meter Unlock, 2nd and Subsequent Events 55:00 Unlock After Hours 100.00 Meter Removal 160.00 Illegal Connection Actual Time And Material Cost, Plus Average Consumption, Plus a $300.00 Fine Convenience Fee - Credit Card 5.00 Temporary Meter Deposit 1,000.00 Duplicate Bill Processing Fee 2.00 Non - Sufficient Funds (NSF) 15% of the Amount or $100.00, Whichever is Processing Charge Smaller Late Payment Charge 5% of Unpaid Balance Vehicle Over Meter Charge 55.00 Removal of Landscaping to Access 7 5.00 Meter Septage Processing Charge /1,000 31.00 Gallons Grease Trap Waste Charge /11000 42.00 Gallons PUBLIC UTILITIES DIVISION COLLIER COUNTY WATER -SEWER DISTRICT littn:// Iibrarvl. municode. cornJdefault/DoeView /10578/l/305/311 4/17/2008 ARTICLE VI. WATER -SEWER DTRTRICT UNIFORM BILLING, OPERATING A24genMogtjl`i9f p�E January 13, 2009 Page 342 of 398 UNIFORM BILLING, OPERATING AND REGULATORY STANDARDS ORDINANCE APPENDIX A -FEES, RATES AND CHARGES SCHEDULE 7-- ALLOWANCE FOR FUNDS PRUDENTLY INVESTED (AFPI) Effective October 1, 2006 AFPI Schedule Per ERC- -Wafer System ( *) TABLE INSET: Payment Calendar Year Month 2008 2009 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 January $0.00 $58.69 $234.76 $410.84 $586.91 $762.98 $939.05 February 0.00 73.36 249.44 425.51 601.58 777.65 953.72 March 0.00 88.04 264.11 440.18 616.25 792.33 968.40 April 0.00 102.71 278.78 454.85 630.93 807.00 983.07 May 0.00 117.38 293.45 469.53 645.60 821.67 997.74 June 0.00 132.05 308.13 484.20 660.27 836.34 1,012.42 July 0.00 146.73 322.80 498.87 674.94 851.02 1,027.09 August 0.00 161.40 337.47 513.54 689.62 865.69 1,041.76 September. .0.00 176.07 352.14 528.22 704.29 880.36 1,056.43 October 14:67 190.74 366.82 542.89 718.96 895.03 1,056.43 November 29.35 205.42 381.49 557.56 733.63 909.71 1,056.43 December 44.02 220.09 396.16 572.23 748.31 924.38 1,056.43 AFPI Schedule Per ERC -- Wastewater System ( ") TABLEINSET: http: / /Iibraryl. municode. com/ default/DooView /10578/l/305/311 4/17/2008 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 January $0.00 $38.24 $152.94 $267.65 $382.36 $497.06 $611.77 February 0.00 47.79 162.50 277.21 391.92 506.62 621.33 March 0.00 57.35 172.06 286.77 401.47 516.18 630.89 April 0.00 66.91 181.62 296.33 411.03 525.74 640.45 May 0.00 76.47 191.18 305.89 420.59 535.30 650.01 June 0.00 86.03 200.74 315.44 430.15 544.86 659.57 July 0.00 95.59 210.30 325.00 439.71 554.42 669.12 http: / /Iibraryl. municode. com/ default/DooView /10578/l/305/311 4/17/2008 ARTICLE VI. WATER -SEWER DISTRICT UNIFORM BILLING, OPERATING A]%end&keria 2jofZ8: January 13, 2009 Page 343 of 398 August 0.00 105.15 219.85 334.56 449.27 563.98 678.68 September 0 00 114.71 229.41 344.12 458.83 573.53 688.24 October 9.56 124.27 238.97 353.68 468.39 583.09 688.24 November 19.12 133.87 248.53 363.24 477.95 592.65 688.24 December 28.68 143.38 258.09 372.80 487.50 602.21 688.24 ( *) AFPI fee is initiated on October 1, 2006. DIVISION 2. COLLIER COUNTY WATER -SEWER DISTRICT* *Editor's note: Ord. No. 04 -55, § 2.13., provided for the relocation of LDC section 1.5.7. to be included as § 134 -186. Sec. 134 -186. Provision of water, sewer, and reuse irrigation water within the Collier County Water -Sewer District; applicability to special purpose independent governments. (a). The. Collier County Water -Sewer District is a dependent special district created by the Florida legislature, Its governing body is ex officio the board of county commissioners. The . Collier County Water -Sewer District has been charged by the legislature with the overall responsibility for the provision of water and sewer services within the boundaries of the Collier County Water -Sewer District, which are more particularly described in chapter 88 -499, Laws of Florida. (b) This legislative charge is consistent with the goals and policies of the state comprehensive plan and the Collier County Growth Management Plan in that a regional utility system like that operated by the Collier County Water -Sewer District (1) fulfills the goal of assuring the ability of an adequate supply of water among competing uses by requiring development to be compatible with existing local and regional water supplies, (2) fulfills the goals of protecting the county's substantial investments in regional public utility facilities by maximizing the use of such existing public facilities, (3) fulfills the goal of economic and efficient provision of quality public services which eliminates needless duplication of public facilities and instead employs the use of regional facilities as opposed to multiple or smaller scale and less efficient local, public or private utility facilities. (c) The provision and treatment of water, sewer and reuse irrigation water within the Collier County Water -Sewer District as a matter of local land development policy and regulation shall be provided by Collier County Water -Sewer District facilities in conformance with this Code and all other applicable county ordinances, regulations and policies relative to the provision of such utility facilities and services. (d) The provisions of this Code and all other applicable ordinances, regulations and policies of the county shall be construed as applicable planning and permitting laws, rules, regulations, and policies which control development of lands within the Collier County Water -Sewer District to be httD://Iibraryl.municode.com/default/DoeView/I 0578/1/305/311 447/2008 ARTICLE VI. WATER -SEWER DISTRICT UNIFORM BILLING, OPERATING ANAgeja�`y81�3g2009 Page 344 of 398 serviced by a special - purpose government such as a community development district. (Ord. No. 04 -55, § 2.13.) Secs. 134- 187 -- 134 -200. Reserved. DIVISION 3. RESERVED* *Editor's note: Ord. No. 01 -73, § 8, adopted Dec. 11, 2001, repealed §§ 134 - 201 - -134 -204, in their entirety. Formerly, said sections pertained to extension of existing distribution water mains, applications for distribution water main extensions, permits for distribution water main extensions, conditions, water service area boundaries as related to the City of Naples Service Area. See the Code Comparative Table. Secs. 134 -201 -- 134 -215. Reserved. DIVISION 4. RESERVED* *Editor's note: Ord. No. 01 -73, § 8, adopted Dec. 11, 2001, repealed §§ 134 - 216 - 134 -219, in their entirety. Formerly, said sections pertained to general regulations, definitions, abbreviations, and supplemental service charge as related to sewer use restrictions. See the Code Comparative Table. Secs. 134 - 216 -- 134 -225. Reserved. DIVISION 5. RESERVED* *Editor's note: Ord. No. 01 -73, § 8, adopted Dec. 11, 2001, repealed §§ 134 - 226- -134 -250, in their entirety. Formerly, said sections pertained to general provisions, discharge of industrial waste, effluent quality bond, use of public wastewater system, general discharge prohibitions, maximum concentrations allowed, approval of pretreatment facilities, maintenance of pretreatment facilities, use of interceptors (traps), use of control manhole, measurements, tests, special arrangements, special arrangements; determination ofacceptability, national categorical pretreatment standards, alternative discharge limits, state requirements, county's and district's right of revision, excessive discharge, pretreatment standards, slug discharges, reasonable service conditions, baseline report, compliance schedule, compliance date report, and periodic compliance reports as related to rules and regulations of the uniform utility operating and regulatory standards and procedures. See the Code Comparative Table. 1,ttn• / /lihrRr l.mnnicode.com/default/DocView /10578/1/305/311 4/17/2008 ARTICLE VI. WATER -SEWER DTSTRICT UNIFORM BILLING, OPERA TING AXgenP ger244of 12E January 13, 2009 Page 345 of 398 Secs. 134 - 226 -- 134 -255. Reserved. DIVISION 6. RESERVED* *Editor's note: Ord. No. 01 -73, § 8, adopted Dec. 11, 2001, repealed §§ 134 - 256 -134 -258, in their entirety. Formerly, said sections pertained to monitoring facilities, inspection and sampling and powers and authority of inspectors as related to monitoring and inspections. See the Code Comparative Table. Secs. 134 - 256 -- 134 -258. Reserved. DIVISION 7. RESERVED* *Editor's note: Ord. No. 01 -73, § 8, adopted Dec. 11, 2001, repealed §§ 134 -261 -- 134 -265, in their entirety. Formerly, said sections pertained to penalties, authority to disconnect service, suspension of service, revocation of permit, and notice of disconnection, suspension, revocation as related to confidential information. See the Code Comparative Table. Secs. 134 - 261 -- 134 -270. Reserved. DIVISION 8. RESERVED* *Editor's note: Ord. No. 01 -73, § 8, adopted Dec. 11, 2001, repealed §§ 134 -271, 134 -272, in their entirety. Formerly, said sections pertained to confidential information and disclosure laws as related to confidential information. See the Code Comparative Table. Secs. 134 - 271 -- 134 -275. Reserved. DIVISION 9. RESERVED* *Editor's note: Ord. No. 01 -73, § 8, adopted Dec. 11, 2001, repealed §§ 134 - 276 -- 134 -278 in their entirety. Formerly, said sections pertained to purpose, service charges and charges and fees as related to service charges and fees. See the Code Comparative Table. http:// Iibraryl. municode. com/ default/DoeView /10578/l/305/311 4/17/2008 ARTICLE VI. WATER -SEWER DTSTRICT UNIFORM BILLING, OPERATING ARancBdWu72t9cofl29 January 13, 2009 Page 346 of 398 Secs. 134- 276 -- 134 -285. Reserved. DIVISION 10. WATER IRRIGATION* *Editor's note: Ord. No. 00 -61, §§ 1 -8, adopted Sept. 26, 2000, did not specifically amend this Code. Hence its inclusion as §§ 134- 286- 134 -293 was at the discretion of the editor. See the Code Comparative Table. Sec. 134 -286. Title and applicability. This division is entitled "The Collier County Water Irrigation Ordinance." This division shall apply only within unincorporated Collier County. (Ord. No. 00 -61, § 1, 9- 26 -00) Sec. 134 -287. Findings. The board of county commissioners hereby makes the following findings: (1) That irrigation by water during the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. increases water loss to evaporation and reduces the beneficial use of water resources; (2) That adopting an ordinance to limit irrigation between 5:00 p.m. and 9:00 a.m. will raise public awareness and promote conservation; and (3) That restricting irrigation during the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. will not create a hardship on residents of the county. (Ord. No. 00 -61, § 2, 9- 26 -00) Sec. 134 -288. Purpose. The primary purpose of this division is to provide a regulatory framework to assist in conservation of water resources through consistent and uniform use for landscape irrigation in specified geographic areas. (Ord. No. 00 -61, § 3, 9- 26 -00) Sec. 134 -289. Definitions. The following definitions shall apply throughout this division: Agriculture means the growing of farm products including, but not limited to, sugar cane, vegetables, citrus and other fruits, pasture lands, sod or nursery stock, including, but not limited to, ornamental foliage and greenhouse plants. County means Collier County, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, by and through its http:// Iibraryl. municode. com/ default/DoeView /10578/l/305/311 4/17/2008 ARTICLE VI. WATER -SEWER DISTRICT UNIFORM BILLING, OPERA TING Aagendp 1P�po fN Janu ry 13, 2009 Page 347 of 398 board of county commissioners and as Ex- Officio the Governing Board of the Collier County Water -Sewer District and Goodland Water District. Code enforcement officer means any authorized agent or employee of the county whose duty it is to enforce most of the county's codes. County water /sewer district means the service boundaries as established in Collier County Water -Sewer District, Special Act Chapter 88 -499, Laws of Florida, as now or hereafter amended. Goodland Water District means the service boundaries as established in Goodland Water District, Ordinance No. 80-43, or its successor ordinance. Impervious means land surfaces that do not allow penetration of water, including paved roads, paved sidewalks, paved driveways, paved parking lots, or highly compacted areas, including with shell or with clay. Irrigation means the application of water from surface water or ground water sources or aquifers. Irrigation systems means equipment and /or devices which deliver water to landscaping being irrigated including, but not limited to, pipelines, control structures, pipes, ditches, pumping stations, emitters, valves and fittings, but excluding the transfer of water through water management systems from one location to another. Person means natural person, public or private corporation, firm, association, joint venture, partnership, municipality, government or governmental agency, political subdivision, and any other entity whatsoever, or any combination of same, jointly or severally. Waterresources means surface and groundwater sources and aquifers. Water utility service means water service provided by a public or private utility. (Ord. No. 00 -61, § 4, 9- 26 -00) Sec. 134 -290. Irrigation hours; operational prohibitions. (a) All water irrigation activities within those areas and boundaries as designated in section 134 -291, and which are not exempted by section 134 -292, shall be restricted to the hours between 5:00 p.m. and 9:00 a.m., seven days each week. Subject to the exceptions specified in this division, irrigation by water in those areas is prohibited between the hours of 9:00 a.m., and 5:00 p.m., seven days each week. (b) All water irrigation activities within those areas and boundaries as designated in section 134 -291, and which are not exempted by section 134 -292, shall be operated in an effective manner so as to not allow water to be applied continuously or primarily to any impervious surface. (c) All water irrigation activities prohibited or restricted from time -to -time by emergency orders declared by the South Florida Water Management District and published in a newspaper of general circulation in Collier County pursuant to F.S. § 373.175. Each such order shall apply to such geographic areas in the county as are specified in the respective order or, if not specified, as otherwise provided by law. Each such order shall be subject only to such exceptions as specified in the respective order, and if not specified therein, as otherwise provided by law. (Ord. No. 00 -61, § 5, 9- 26 -00; Ord. No. 00 -86, § 1, 12- 12 -00) Sec. 134 -291. Irrigation restriction affected areas. (a) The provisions of this division shall apply immediately on its effective date to landscape htto:// Iibrarvl. municode. com /default/DDCView /10578/l/305/311 4/17/2008 ARTICLE VI. WATER -SEWER DISTRICT UNIFORM BILLING, OPERATING AA4enckla vi?f1Za January 13, 2009 Page 348 of 398 irrigation within the boundaries of the Collier County Water /Sewer District and within the boundaries of the Goodland Water District. (b) This division shall hereafter be applicable to other geographic areas of unincorporated Collier County if and when the respective geographic area is classified, by resolution(s) adopted by the board of county commissioners after public hearing, as a water irrigation restricted area, which may include areas served by private utility water service. (Ord. No. 00 -61, § 6, 9- 26 -OD) Sec. 134 -292. Exemptions; variances. (a) The following activities are exempt from all provisions of this division: (1) Landscape irrigation by hand watering using only a self - canceling nozzle. (2) Landscape irrigation from which the water source is only treated wastewater effluent. (3) The short-term operation of irrigation systems only for system repair and maintenance, which shall be limited to a maximum of ten minutes per zone per week and there must be a person present and working on the system during each such operation. (4) Landscape irrigation for purposes of watering in fungicides, insecticides and herbicides as required by the manufacturer of the product, or by federal or Florida law. This exemption, however, applies only to then licensed pest control operators and is limited to the amounts of "watering in" water specified by the manufacturer's recommendations. (5) For the first 90 days after initial installation, landscape irrigation for the purpose of "watering in" newly planted grass and foliage that constitutes a major portion of the landscaping. (6) Agricultural irrigation to the extent permitted by a consumptive or water use permit issued by the South Florida Water Management District. (b) Any person whose irrigation is affected by this division may make application to the county water director for a variance if strict compliance with this division will impose a unique, unnecessary and inequitable hardship on such service. Relief may be granted only upon submitted proof that such hardship is peculiar to that person or that affected property, the problem is not self- imposed, and that the granting of the variance would be consistent with the general intent and purpose of this division and the variance is the minimum variance necessary to eliminate the hardship. (1) The county water director is the only person authorized to grant or deny variances for irrigation activities that utilize water provided by the county water /sewer district or the Goodland Water District. The water director should render a decision on the variance request within ten working days after actual receipt of a complete application. Denial of a variance request may be appealed to the public works administrator within ten days of actual receipt by the applicant of the water director's decision on the initial request. . (2) An application for variance, and /or the granting of a variance, shall operate prospectively and shall not affect any then pending enforcement action against the property owner pursuant to the provisions of this division or otherwise. (c) Should the board of county commissioners extend the provisions of this division to any other areas (only in unincorporated Collier County), the county manager shall designate a county employee who will be responsible to act on behalf of the county to approve, in whole or http: / /libraryl.municode. col/ default/DocView /10578/l/305/311 4/17/2008 ARTICLE VI. WATER -SEWER DTSTRICT UNIFORM BILLING, OPERATING A,%en&99rA@fA January 13, 2009 Page 349 of 398 in part, or to disapprove, variance requests within any such designated area(s). This person may also be the county's water director. (Ord. No. 00 -61, § 7, 9- 26 -00) Sec. 134 -293. Penalties. (a) Violators of this division shall be issued a $25.00 citation pursuant to the county's citation ordinance. Persons who commit repeat violations may also be punished pursuant to F.S. § 162.21, as a civil infraction with a maximum civil penalty not to exceed $500.00. Any person who violates any provision of this division shall also be subject to the county's remedies as authorized in F.S. § 125.69, and /or section 1 -6 of the county's Code of Ordinances. (1) Each day (or part thereof) that there is a violation of this division by the same person or entity shall constitute a separate offense. (2) All monies collected pursuant to this division shall be used by the code enforcement department to fund continued and enhanced enforcement of this division and /or other county ordinances under its jurisdiction. (Ord. No. 00 -61, § 8, 9- 26 -00) Secs. 134 -294 -- 134 -310. Reserved. //Collier County, Florida /CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES County of COLLIER, FLORIDA Codified through Ord. No. 07 -45, enacted May 22, 2007. (Supplement No. 22) /Chapter 134 UTILITIES * /ARTICLE VI. WATER -SEWER DISTRICT UNIFORM BILLING, OPERATING AND REGULATORY STANDARDS* http:// libraryl.inunicode .com/default/DocView /10578/1/305/311 4/17/2008 Agenda Item No. 10E January 13, 2009 Page 350 of 398 Attachment Site Photos Agenda Item No. 10E January 13, 2009 Jean E. Valadez Page 351 of 398 From: Lewis, Doug [dalewis @ralaw.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2008 9:48 AM To: Jean E. Valadez Subject: FW: Tamlam! Square of Naples Attachments: Tamiami Square 020.jpg; Tamlami Square 021.jpg; Tamlami Square 022.jpg; Tamiami Square 023.jpg; Tamiami Square 024.jpg; Tamlami Square 025.jpg; Tamlami Square 026.jpg Fyi -- for your file. From: Lewis, Doug Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2008 9:48 AM To: Wides_ tom';' GilbertMoncivaiz @colliergov.nee Cc: ' belpediojennifee ;'CrifaslrealtyCo @aol.mm' Subject: Tamlaml Square of Naples «Tamlami Square 020.jpg>> «Tamiami Square 021.jpg>> «Tamiami Square 022.jpg>> «Tamiami Square 023.jpg>> «Tamiami Square 024.jpg>> «Tamiami Square 025.jpg>> «Tamiami Square 026.jpg>> Tom & Gil, In follow -up to our meeting yesterday, Jerry Hartman and I went to the site and walked the property after our meeting. For your review and file. attached are photographs of the only lift station located on the very north end of the property. Let me know if you have any further questions related to the lift station. Also, in the right -of -way median just north of the site, we noticed that the median is being irrigated by reclaimed water. Does the site have access to reclaimed water for irrigation purposes? Let us know. Thanks!! Douglas A. Lewis ANDMSs A LEGAL PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION www.ralaw.com 850 Park Shore Drive Trianon Centre - 3rd Floor Naples, Florida 34103 Phone: (239) 649 -2712 Fax: (239) 261 -3659 E -mail: dalewis(c)ralaw.com Profile: Douglas A. Lewis Bosh Douglas A. Lewis and Roetzel & Andress intend that this message be used exclusively by the addressee(s). This message may courain inl'nrmation that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. Ihmuthorizcd disclosure or use of this information. is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please permanently dispose of the original message and notify Douglas A. Lewis immediately at ] (239) 649 -2712. "thank you. Any federal tax advice contained herein or in any attachment hereto is not intended to be used, and cannot be used, to (1) avoid penalties imposed under the Internal Revenue Code or (2) support the promotion or marketing of any transaction or matter. This legend has been affixed to comply with U.S. Treasury Regulations governing tax practice. E. �t At�S I 4 5 1 4 5 �,� �� �...: .�; .. ,a. � T41 f �x p..' y., , y,�; ���� h` '' '� f i � }, •,�' e.i P '� h � �+';;. ti �, .� i l\ ,� �,� �� �...: .�; .. ,a. s � � }: ! . �� . s � . /� ~ \ � � . � � .� § � � .: y � z� � . � y� �( J \� � 2 , � / . 2� � \� / � . . ©� � : « \� � \ � � - � \ : � � �/ \ � � . ( \ /§y , - �! \ . `� \ � \ © � . � : _. �� . i � d■ � z ,: \ \.. »: � &� : � ° � \ � !�. . - .� ? j . ol ........... 1-3 4 PINT! n �� 4 �; Pr, t 4�1 f� A 4� � � vt` ���. P �� 9 (� � � �� { ��' I i � � ,� - �.; r �- � %T fi - _-, � w �` � 1 p 6 1i � j�,: , - l ,' - i 4� [ i k,+¢� �� � r ;� �� �� � k 4` •�I �i ..r.�ii � /'J ®1�� � l�` !1. > �'. ... � �� Y�� i �' �� � � � n� � ,�. 1 II �. 1 � t .� �' i ;: ��, �. :� � � -, i .; !,�- n'. �11j4114111h,1j1, 1111 rl 11111111111111 1 11 }11 I II 111 111 111111 1111111 . Vi 1, 111i111111111 . 11 I 11 11 11111111!11 '1111 1 I1 f id Agenda Item No. 10E January 13, 2009 Page 359 of 398 Attachment E Pre - Application Meeting Follow -up FW: Taaliami Square -- Pre - Application Meeting with the County on W &S Impact Fmigenda P9gCvb.Oa_ January 13, 2009 Page 360 of 398 FW: Tamiami Square -- Pre - Application Meeting with the County on W &S Impact Fees Jean E. Valadez Sent, Thursday, May 22, 2008 2:35 PM To: Gerry Hartman Attachments: Document.pdf (SO KB) FYI. Jean E. Valadez Senior Office Coordinator GAI Orlando has moved! Please note our new address below: GAI Consultants, Inc. 301 East Pine Street, Suite 1020 Orlando, Florida 32801 T 407.423.8398 ext. 3126 F 407.843.1070 www.gaiconsuItants.com GAI C6NeaL7ANTS r n fr r ng IdF s inn r -I ty Im )o r 51, years G Is a 600-r r eh, e Nrvpe'-vT:ed en'aii.ve ing rtl nnn urmg tl n. ccr eng `fur rhns aoi laidz •' n uhcui rgy' vn c"3b-' irfnsLia- anj goo rnm ntAl marit 1= roe. Ce fc Jv..�g9. ^eL rL._ 7r,[Y.! ud, P, L. weJ., and S.,uS�_a_If_,u JBiI_7 _LateS, ixhns Or 5ER1'YCE CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE The documents and materials transmitted herewith contain confidential and proprietary information belongingto the sender and are legally privileged. They are solely for the use of their intended recipient. If you are not the intended recipient or the person responsible for delivering e-mail to the intended recipient, you have received this e-mail in error. Inform the sender of the error and remove this e-mail from your system. If this transmission includes design data and recommendations, they are provided only as a matter of convenience and should not be used forfinal design and /or construction. From: Lewis, Doug [mai Ito: dalewis@ralaw.com] Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2008 2:25 PM To: CrifasirealtyCo @aol.com Cc: Jean E. Valadez; Nelson, Karen Subject: RE: Tamiami Square -- Pre - Application Meeting with the County on W&S Impact Fees <<Document.pdf>> Jack, In follow -up to the below, I will follow -up on items 1 & 2 below. You are handling #3 below directly with the consultant, correct? Also, the County asked who is Sunwest plumbing and if they work for you? They work for you correct? The County said that the irrigation meter information provided to the County seemed incorrect. Jerry is going to review this information and provide follow -up to you and the County on this. bttps : / /webmail.gaiconsultants.coln/O WA/ ?ae= Item &a = Print &t= IPMNote &id= RgAAAA... 5/27/2008 FW: Tamiami Square -- Pre - Application Meeting with the County on W &S Impact Fertgenda PapN-bofoF January 13, 2009 Page 361 of 398 Finally, please review the attached and confirm with Jerry and I whether it is correct and that the ERC calculation reflects what you are showing based on issued permits for the project. Thanksll Douglas A. Lewis NUO `__ ANDRESS A LEGAL PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION! www.ralaw.com 850 Park Shore Drive Trianon Centre - 3rd Floor Naples, Florida 34103 Phone: (239) 649-2712 Fax: (239) 261-3659 E -mail: dalewis 2 ralaw.com Profile: Douglas A Lewis Both Douglas A. Lewis and Roetzel & Andress intend that this message be used exclusively by the addressee(s). This message may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. Unauthorized disclosure or use of this information is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please permanently dispose of the original message and notify Douglas A. Lewis immediately at 1(239) 649 -2712. Thank you. From: Lewis, Doug Sent: Monday, May 12, 2008 6:03 PM To: 'CrifasirealtyCo @aol.com' Cc: Nelson, Karen Subject: Tamiami Square -- Pre - Application Meeting with the County on W &S Impact Fees Importance: High Jack, In follow -up to the pre - application meeting today, the County is asking for the following items 1. Sewer flows for February, March and April '08 (Shall I follow -up with J &N on this or can someone in your office track this down ?); 2. The number of sewer pumps on the property, where located and how are they configured — e.g. will these pumps or single pump service all of the sewer flows for the entire project (Shall I follow -up with J &N on this or can someone in your office track this down?); 3. Copy of the utility plan showing location of potable water and irrigation lines (if you go with a separate irrigation meter, you'll need to have a separate irrigation line and the county will want controllers on the irrigation lines to limit to 60 gpm at peak); Also, the County asked who is Sunwest plumbing and if they work for you? They said that the irrigation meter information provided to the County seemed incorrect. Jerry is going to review this information and provide follow- https : / /webmail.galconsultants.comlO WA/ ?ae--Item &a = Print &t= IPM.Note &i d= RgAAAA... 5/27/2008 FW: Tamiami Square -- Pre - Application Meeting with the County on W &S Impact Fe"endaRWN300�5E January 13, 2009 Page 362 of 398 up to the County on this. Finally, please review the attached and confirm whether it is correct and that the ERC calculation reflects what you are showing based on issued permits for the project Thanksll << File: Document.pdf>> Douglas A. Lewis << OLE Object Picture (Metafile) >> www.ralaw.com <htto: / /www.ralaw.com /> 850 Park Shore Drive Trianon Centre - 3rd Floor Naples, Florida 34103 Phone: (239) 649 -2712 Fax: (239) 261 -3659 E -mail: dalewis@ralaw.com Profile: Douglas A. Lewis <http:f/www.ralaw.com/attorney.cfm?id=4512> Both Douglas A. Lewis and Roetzel & Andress intend that this message be used exclusively by the addressee (s). This message may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. Unauthorized disclosure or use of this information is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please permanently dispose of the original message and notify Douglas A. Lewis immediately at 1(239) 649 -2712. Thank you. Any federal tax advice contained herein or in any attachment hereto is not intended to be used, and cannot be used, to (1) avoid penalties imposed under the Internal Revenue Code or (2) support the promotion or marketing of any transaction or matter. This legend has been affixed to comply with U.S. Treasury Regulations governing tax practice. https : / /webmail.gaiconsultants.com/0 WA/ ?ae= Item &a = Print &t= IPM.Note &id= RgAAAA... 5/27/2008 FW: Tamiami Square of Naples FW: Tamiami Square of Naples Jean E. Valadez Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2008 2:34 PM To: Gerry Hartman FYI. Jean E. Valadez Senior Office Coordinator GAI Orlando has moved! Please note our new address below: GAI Consultants, Inc. 301 East Pine Street, Suite 1020 Orlando, Florida 32801 T 407.423.8398 ext. 3126 F 407.843.1070 www.gaiconsultants.com CAI CQUSULTANTS fff T Yxni ng Ideas iun'Hty fx n t rU year G4I i a 6uO E I5d as '9 - 1ulUUlZp'Ii d �- fvoy envy *:�7, ntal et ig aao . nvron t ntrl mmulung firm SAeil mg out cis ns vicu dva]e m h lictgg U ra a =011 eat ate, ndUSUIM and gu ernmen:.zl a,ar a -ts from rzMzes ShccugZ;uuI Use Pd�.CS.*nag[, 9.11dwc5!, and `xsutt easieen United :Yates. CcWV,KTMG FSF1Y YEki!.S of SEf viCE Agenda I (N1.QfA January 13, 2009 Page 363 of 398 CONFIDENTIAnY NOTICE The documents and materials transmitted herewith contain confidential and proprietary Information belongingto the senderand are legally privileged. They are solely for the use of their Intended recipient. If you are not the intended recipient or the person responsible for delivering a -mail to the intended recipient, you have received this e-mail in error. Inform the sender of the error and remove this e-mail from your system. If this transmission Includes design data and recommendations, they are provided only as a matter of convenience and should not be used for final design and /or construction. From: Lewis, Doug [mailto:dalewis @ralaw.com] Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2008 2:14 PM To: Lewis, Doug; CrifasirealtyCo @aol.com Cc: Jean E. Valadez; Nelson, Karen Subject: RE: Tamiami Square of Naples Jack, Have you provided a copy of the utility plan showing location of potable water and irrigation lines to the consultant? If not, can you follow -up with Jean on this. See her contact information below. - -Doug From: Lewis, Doug Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2008 10:17 AM To: 'Jean E. Valadez' Cc: 'CrifasirealtyCo @aol.com' Subject: RE: Tamiami Square of Naples https : / /webmail.gaiconsultants.coml0 WA/ ?ae= Item &a = Print &t= IPM.Note &id= RgAAAA... 5/27/2008 FW: Tamiami Square of Naples Yes, Thank you. I have an inquiry into the client requesting this. -- Doug From: Jean E. Valadez [ mailto :j.valadez @gaiconsultants.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2008 10:09 AM To: Lewis, Doug Subject: RE: Tamiami Square of Naples Thanks! Agenda Ftggel2oof gE January 13, 2009 Page 364 of 398 Gerry asked me to remind you that you were going to send us the plans and drawings for Tamiami Square. Jean E. Valadez Senior Office Coordinator GAI Orlando has moved! Please note our new address below: GAI Consultants, Inc. 301 East Pine Street, Suite 1020 Orlando, Florida 32801 T 407.423.8398 ext. 3126 F 407.843.1070 www.gaiconsultants.com GAI qG}t °ULTfiffiT$ Br T n lure g la m o ..aabtr to oval SU v t' . ;;Ct is a tLO II r nRlcl�;�f - -:A n3; .�.Ing vnd m &nr :nvl ulsulung firm rving �n �. as i.,rl^Ir,i9t in I CuFr]}' lr It pr' Gnn, r A e to in f, l la and gu r NIT - I - !�t.,a orn clioc� JI U, �. OIL ne luK ..sL, Alai gad cuumeastcm Jn I_7 ..t.:..�. CE=P1nnita F TTY yEkps OF SEkvrce CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE The documents and materials transmitted herewith contain confidential and proprietary information belongingto the sender and are legally privileged. They are solely for the use of their intended recipient. If you are not the intended recipient or the person responsible for delivering e-mail to the intended recipient, you have received this e-mail in error. Inform the sender of the error and remove this e-mail from your system. If this transmission includes design data and recommendations, they are provided only as a matter of convenience and should not be used for final design and /or construction. From: Lewis, Doug [mailto:dalewis @ralaw.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2008 9:48 AM To: Jean E. Valadez Subject: FW: Tamiami Square of Naples Fyi — for your file. From: Lewis, Doug Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2008 9:48 AM To: 'wides_ tom'; 'GilbertMoncivalz @colliergov.net Cc: ' belpedlojennifer ';'CrifasirealtyCo @aol,com' Subject: Tamiami Square of Naples https: / /webmail. gaiconsultants.comlO WA/ ?ae= Item &a = Print &t= IPM.Note &id= RgAAAA... 5/27/2008 FW: Tamiami Square of Naples AgendaRage ®mfW January 13, 2009 Page 365 of 398 «Tamiami Square 020.jpg>> «Tamiami Square 021.jpg>> «Tamiami Square 022.jpg>> «Tamiami Square 023.jpg>> «Tamiami Square 024.jpg>> «Tamiami Square 025.jpg>> «Tamiami Square 026.jpg>> Tom & Gil, In follow -up to our meeting yesterday, Jerry Hartman and I went to the site and walked the property after our meeting. For your review and file. attached are photographs of the only lift station located on the very north end of the property. Let me know if you have any further questions related to the lift station. Also, in the right -of -way median just north of the site, we noticed that the median is being irrigated by reclaimed water. Does the site have access to reclaimed water for irrigation purposes? Let us know. Thanksll Douglas A. Lewis WQANDRESS A LEGAL PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION www.ralaw.com 850 Park Shore Drive Trianon Centre - 3rd Floor Naples, Florida 34103 Phone: (239) 649-2712 Fax: (239) 261-3659 E -mail: dalewis@,,ralaw.com Profile: Douglas A. Lewis Both Douglas A. Lewis and Roetzel & Andress intend that this message be used exclusively by the addressee(s). This message may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. Unauthorized disclosure or use of this information is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please permanently dispose of the original message and notify Douglas A. Lewis immediately at 1(239) 649 -2712. Thank you. Any federal tax advice contained herein or in any attachment hereto is not intended to be used, and cannot be used, to (1) avoid penalties imposed under the Internal Revenue Code or (2) support the promotion or marketing of any transaction or matter. This legend has been affixed to comply with U.S. Treasury Regulations governing tax practice. Any federal tax advice contained herein or in any attachment hereto is not intended to be used, and cannot be used, to (1) avoid penalties imposed under the Internal Revenue Code or (2) support the promotion or marketing of any transaction or https: / /webmail. gaiconsultants.comlO WA/ ?ae= Item &a = Print &t= IPM.Note &id= RgAAAA... 5/27/2008 FW: Tamiami Square of Naples matter. This legend has been affixed to comply with U.S. Treasury Regulations governing tax practice. Agenda ]Rage t4co8 dE January 13, 2009 Page 366 of 398 https: / /webmail. gaiconsultants.com/O WA I ?ae= Item &a = Print &t= IPM.Note &id= RgAAAA... 5/27/2008 Agenda Item No. 10E January 13, 2009 Page 367 of 398 Attachment F Excerpts from System Development Charges for Water, Wastewater, and Stormwater Facilities by Arthur C. Nelson �Oc��°cd4�ca A Agenda Item No. 10E January 13, 2009 Page 368 of 398 0 zo J V ° 0 O to CD r Z L CO p V V C MU CD 1—= qh *, CD c CL E O U Q- N O M H Agenda Item No. t0E January 13, 2009 Page 369 of 398 oab ° abi p o d �- � ..`�. Cy •.. o Pr w q b '^ y> c1 N 7 U ctl N 44 > eqqu Od . cl o g b d d Q s 0 U v p a Ca woo, 0,0o b^' '5 y q N ami b � `° ° .M -t3 tzl ts p�p > o v v oo aq 3 3 a o o o y q m a y a o •E w ° o a°i a C5 U 42 b ° b °n. ° A v a' -ci R V7 111 U O� N M A a _Q U m q on W ca. >C � w b a Q � w 1OV � 1 y H rM O 0 Q U Agenda Item No. 1OE January 13, 2009 Page 370 of 398 s7 'no ,>�, Q b d .+9 m •n° v ° o a>i d> a° O° o .� °° v p a end ai 3 U H 3 0 U v .8 o 0 , w h y m 3 q 7 .� 0 4 O y 3 0 '� n7 •� °' .." a .`q 14 q o. n, a. m ° v; o ❑ .o O o° a�i .Q. 0 3 °' ° o m `� d o.'�jr o, B b 0 �; .� E, A 2 v To .p 0 T $ 0 a Jr, i >° o°op � � � � � w o o � o � � .v � w.� U ° w U o a 0 LO V3 u O m a d u v is 0 ti o o d no oba 'zi0 w yo�U ti3 v3SN N ' R o 0 O O / O > O ep � w p O °° 0 p 3 .y° '3 0 3 0 o o .� o]. o o° q 0 a T ae 9 3 0 o c4 qu° d >g 0 0 to bp cl 0 o° a�i 0 Agenda Item No. 10E January 13, 2009 Page 371 of 398 W p w y •° p chi o n (F� ri 4ti � y 0 0 3iG ° o A g y °3 w > ' °° w 9 ° .o a . '+ 4 >' ° d .5 .0 q . o al D .i . U 0 U ti E° b o y w m b° b 0 0 o Q y q m o0 o > o o 0 0 on y 'o en w ai v ° y 3 a y o o q>' o y o u. .� o y o w o y o -N L-4 C' y °A a > P w o U G U U w w a p v b v q d a 0 b . y y— 0 to p bS` . '� N 2 g ov b° q � ° d o b Q n U . >, CO d ° aUi o 0 Ca o 9 W >° o 'o a+ S h a o 'S o y '3 •� q •� o b a w R co o o ti-5 b 8 ❑ �°� A °o o t O 7 C P N .a > CC+tl S .° N 's W o 0 y a ., Pb ,d .''fin O tl y a b > aqN W ca i .iO yp� cad d J S °' ° � °?, 8 a.> qq .� � � y a .� a„ •� � aa.�� � a��i 00 >e °> °qJ :: '> .� � Q .y ° ° � ❑ aJ � �. ° �.� o.� J °i ¢' rn�w °._°.J 3 � K v m y p .(% i+ •'y w id U O C i ty�' y O .V+ itl C N ate N [7 41 ❑± GL'L7 Cf �i v� C .� '� w c> w M i7 w m q n o b >° 3 .n b Ov Q P,y.°J., U z F .� ° m .�' C7 a; cn 3 '� 'ti y w q b..S. �.°..b LC'�'^ " �d � •O m w '7 v1 y y w T ,p � �d �+ 'd v�i w ay ° N a �% .Ny vi b °M ..�.. b /�• O J; ryp N a U O w A w C 1 10 ta W 3 aqi � .n F � � o � � �_ o °�' � ° b❑ � a v � O V U O `� td �' zj C DD id Y N N ,3 U '� n p n ER a o a b 'zj a .ZJ q O O OUP V FWi p �° .� •d W °m Agenda Item No. 10E January 13, 2009 Page 372 of 398 h U O b p z a a U�� N �•, •b g y m C q O A o F y cy q it Q 00 N U ^0 G 3 V�1 3 rUJ°� N CN p q O\ C o b m Ly n - a en to N b o o p w v a. 0 43 0 F a 3 v .7 A Agenda Item No. 10E January 13, 2009 Page 373 of 398 Attachment G Excerpts from AWWA Principles of Water Rates, Fees, and Charges Agenda Item No. 10E January 13, 2009 Page 374 of 398 Principles ®f Water Rates, Fees, and charges AWWA MANUAL M1 Fifth Edition American Water Works Association Agenda Item No. 10E January 13, 2009 Page 375 of 398 LOW -INCOME AFFORDABILITY RATES 131 government provides assistance to less affluent countries to make water service available at more affordable prices. Within North America, an increasing number of water utilities have adopted affordability programs. It is not uncommon to find some elements of affordability rates in many major cities. POLICY ISSUES Low - income affordability alternatives are intended to address social issues, and utility involvement in such issues may be controversial. Although each utility needs to decide whether or not it will participate in such programs, an increasing number of utilities are addressing water affordability in their rates. These types of rate alternatives should be considered when a utility's cost of water is high and some customers have problems paying their bill. Indications of this scenario can include rising arrearages, higher collection costs, and more frequent shutoffs for nonpayment. In making this determination, the cost -of- service analysis should be done first without any affordability considerations. During the rate design portion of the analysis, affordability considerations can be taken into account. The rate analyst then can measure the effects of affordability alternatives and better quantify any discounts and subsidies involved. Low - income rates typically require some degree of subsidy. The question of which customer groups should provide the subsidy needs to be addressed. Utilities should recognize that adopting more affordable rates can reduce the utility's costs if the low- income rates result in increased collections and reduced collection costs. The first issue to consider is at what point a water bill becomes unaffordable. While there is no clear answer to this question, the following guidelines can help utilities make such a determination: The Safe Drinking Water Act (S. 1547) established special assistance in communities where the average residential water bill exceeds 2 percent of median income. • The US Department of Agriculture has a program to provide funds for water and wastewater systems. Loans are made for projects where the residential water bills are 1.5 percent of the community's median income. Grants are awarded for costs in excess of 1.5 percent. �i • The AW WARF report, Water Affordability Programs, suggests that programs should not be based on median income but on rates that cause water bills to Rexceed 2 percent of income for impoverished households. Because of the focus on impoverished households, a measure of 2 percent was selected to determine if water service costs were burdensome. Different measures of poverty can be used to determine eligibility. These include Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC), Supplemental Social Security Income (SSI), minimum wage incomes, and US poverty level. Many of these measures vary with family size. Based on the results of national water and wastewater rate surveys, bills have become unaffordable for low- income households in some of our major cities. For those living on SSI, water and wastewater bills exceeded 5 percent of income for these households in a number of cities. Perhaps the biggest issue involved with affordable rate programs is how to determine eligibility. Utilities are often uneasy about gathering, administering, and verifying income data. Fortunately, a number of existing programs can help. H Agenda Item No. 10E January 13, 2009 Page 376 of 398 SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGES 205 amount of available capacity and investment of these existing facilities should be documented to substantiate the actual cost and value of the facilities. Determining development units. To calculate the SDC, the projected system growth in demand must be converted into common units. Units used to establish the SDC will vary with available information, timing of the SDC assessment and collection, and the billing practices used by the utility. Units may be derived from the i system growth analysis and capital improvements planning. 1 Most SDC - related facilities are, designed on the basis of annual average day j use, maximum day demand, or maximum hour demand. After the SDC - related f capital investment is determined, it must be divided by the applicable design capacity to obtain a cost per unit of capacity. Each type of customer (i.e., residential, commercial, or industrial) has a particular demand or capacity requirement that, V when applied to the unit cost of SDC facilities, provides a measure of the investment l in SDC facilities applicable to that type of customer. It is common to develop an SDC f for a residential customer, or equivalent residential unit, using this unit cost approach, then develop a schedule of SDCs using common billing determinants that relate potential demands of other types of customers to that of the base, or residential, demand. Among the more frequently used units for this purpose are meter size, fixture units, and land area with associated land -use characteristics. Meter size is the most common determinant for assessing SDCs, and the capacity factors developed in Table 28 -2 often are used to establish charges for customers with meters greater than 5/8-in. When charges are collected at the time of service initiation, meter size is often used as a basis for computing SDCs although many utilities use alternative approaches in defining the base service unit, including equivalent residential units (ERUs) or fixture units. Usually, equivalent service units are developed for customers with more intense uses or potential demand. For example, charges for larger meters may be based on AW WA -rated meter capacity using a 5 /8 -in. meter as the base service unit. Total overall premise use, facility size, capacity requirement, and number of fixtures also are used with ERU -based charges. The meter size approach may be easiest to explain to customers. It is based on the potential maximum demand that the customer may put on the system, but it does not consider patterns or intensities of customer usage. Meter sizes are expressed in terms of equivalent meters, generally based on the relative capacity of various meter sizes. The ERU approach differentiates among customer classes, but it can be difficult to explain and, in some situations, difficult to determine and apply consistently. The ERU approach is often directly related to the number of fixture units and is based on the potential loading of various fixtures. As a result, the charge for each new customer must be computed individually, which is a disadvantage to this approach. If collection of the SDC is made at the time of platting, the service unit usually is based on an equivalent dwelling unit. The equivalent dwelling unit is based on the estimated demand of a single - family residential unit in the service area. The charge 1 is then based on the size of the dwelling, the types and number of fixtures, or both. Utility billing records are a data source related to system utilization. Water demand characteristics are normally expressed in terms of equivalent units to y p q quantify the capacities of system expansion projects. si An example of the calculation of an SDC on an incremental cost basis is shown`I in Table 28 -4. For purposes of the example in Table 28 -4, it is assumed that all local, 1 on -site facilities, such as distribution mains, meter, services, and hydrants, are contributed by the developer through charges and assessments other than the SDC. Agenda Item No. 10E January 13, 2009 Page 377 of 398 Attachment H Pre - Application Meeting with Tamiami Square and Collier County Utilities Agenda Item No. 10E January 13, 2009 Page 378 of 398 Attachment H Pre - Application Meeting with Tamiami Square and Collier County Utilities A pre - application meeting was held in accordance with the agreement between Collier County and Tamiami Square developers. 1. Tamiami Square Initial Suggestion Numerous cities, counties and FPSC regulated entities utilize FPSC /AWWA/FAC /F.S. section 25- 30.055 and related similar sections for larger service areas which involve the methodology of meter equivalency factors. Since Tamiami Square is served by one 5/8" x 3/:' meter and one 3" meter, as approved by the County and installed and in operation and form the basis of the monthly billing Mr. Hartman initially suggested the consideration of that method. Using the meter equivalency factor methodology the resulting ERCs for the non- residential customer would be: 5/8" x 3/4" = 1 ERG 3" = 16 ERCs Total 17 ERCs See pg. 3 -2 and Section 25- 30.055 2. Public Utilities Response a.) Rejected due to ERC /unit approach pursuant to Ordinances 2007 -52 and 2007 -57 and water and wastewater impact fee study by PRMG. b.) Provided 3/31/087 letter from Gilbert Monciviaz of the County suggesting two @ 2 -inch potable irrigation meters for the irrigation meters for the irrigation water demand @ 6.1 ERCs, meter tapping fee of $1,140 and water impact fee of $22,060.59. See letter attached. In the future, if and when non - potable water is available then reuse water could be substituted. It was pointed out that reuse mains and service to the landscaped medians adjacent and north of the project are served by reclaimed water. GCH /jev /A080376.00 /corresp /Attach H Page 1 of 3 072305 Agenda Item No. 10E January 13, 2009 Page 379 of 398 customer billing data for 12 consecutive months and accumulates by customer clas e number of ERCs and flows at incremental usage levels, in this case 1,0 gallon increments. The City provided detailed customer and monthly billing infor on for the fiscal year 2005/06. The data received was sorted first by customer s then by meter size into subclasses of users pursuant to meter size and servic eceived in order to determine the number of ERCs and flow for each of thKduring er classes. To verify the results, the existing rates were applied to the calcul and flow data and the resulting revenues reconciled to the reported reven e same time period. The details of the Billing Fre in Appendix A, B, and C for 3.4 ACCOUNT 0/Analysis and Revenue Reconciliation are provided , wastewater, and reclaimed water respectively. AND FLOWS X sed herein, consists of a single connection regardless of customer ze, metered flow, or location. An ERC for water represents a level of on the connection's water meter size as compared to the standard water /8" x 3/4" for a single family connection. The factors associated with the provided in Table 3 -1, as developed from the AWWA standards. Table 3 -1 AWWA Meter Equivalency Factors Meter Size ERC Factor_ 5/8" x 3/4" 2.0" 3.0" 4.0" 6.0" 8.0" 10.0" 1.00 2.50 5.00 8.00 16.00 25.00 50.00 80.00 115.00 TLH /jev /Reports /R -1 /Sec 3 HCD # A070299.00 3 -2 112907 Agenda Item No. 10E January 13, 2009 Page 380 of 398 25- 30.055 Systems with a Capacity or Proposed Capacity to Serve 100 or Fewer Persons. (1) A water or wastewater system is exempt under Section 367.022(6), F.S., if its current or proposed water or wastewater treatment facilities and distribution or collection system have and will have a capacity, excluding fire flow capacity, of no greater than 10,000 gallons per day or if the entire system is designed to serve no greater than 40 equivalent residential connections (ERCs). For purposes of this rule only, one ERC equals 250 gallons per day. (a) Unless the Commission determines that valid local statistical data should be used, ERCs for residential use are as follows: Single family detached dwellings 1 ERC per unit Multiple family dwellings .8 ERC per unit Mobile homes .8 ERC per unit (b) ERCs for nonresidential use shall be based on meter size and type as follows: 1. For Water Systems . Meter Size Meter Type ERCs 5/8" Displacement 1.0 3/4" Displacement 1.5 1" Displacement 2.5 11/2" Displacement or Turbine 5.0 2" Displacement, Compound or Turbine 8.0 3" Displacement 15.0 3" Compound 16.0 T' - Turbine 17.5 4v Displacement or Compound 25.0 4" Turbine 30.0 6" Displacement or Compound 50.0 6v Turbine 62.5 8" Compound 80.0 8" Turbine 90.0 10" Compound 115.0 10" Turbine 145.0 12" Turbine 215.0 2. For Wastewater Systems Meter Size Meter Type ERCs 5/8" Displacement 1.0 3/4" Displacement 1.5 1" Displacement 2.5 11/2" Displacement or Turbine 5.0 2" Displacement, Compound or Turbine 8.0 3" Displacement 15.0 3" Compound 16.0 3" Turbine 17.5 4" Displacement or Compound 25.0 4" Turbine 30.0 6" Displacement or Compound 50.0 6" Turbine 62.5 8" Compound 80.0 8" Turbine 90.0 10" Compound 115.0 10" Turbine 145.0 Agenda Item No. 10E January 13, 2009 Page 381 of 398 12" Turbine 215.0 (c) Where undeveloped land is adjacent to a system or proposed system the Commission may, where appropriate, estimate ERCs for service to future development on the adjacent undeveloped land. Unless the Commission determines that valid local statistical data should be used, ERCs for residential acreage should be estimated as follows: Residential Use ERCs /Acre Mobile home 4.8 Detached single family 4.0 Estimates for other types of residential acreage and for commercial and industrial uses shall be made on a case by case basis. Specifu Authority 350.127(2), 367.121(1)(9 FS. Law Implemented 367.022(6) FS. Histor)—New 1 -5 -84, Formerly 25- 10.10, 25- 10.010, Amended 11- 10 -86. E)3/31/2008 07:15 9417322585 CC ENG PLAN ROOM Agenda Itp %�lo.fJ1 January C 266 Page 382 of 398 COLLIER COT -NTY PUBLIC UTILITIES DIVISION 3301 East Tamiami Tail ` Nakge5. Fkuri& 34112 • (2a9) 732 -257S • Pax (239) 732 -2524 March 31, 2008 Ms. Stacey Morales Sunwest Plumbing, LLC 4376 1" Ave NV✓ Naples, PL 34119 Subject: Potable Irrigation Meter 14700 Tamiami Trail North — Tamiami Square Dear Ms. Morales Our office has reviewed the preliminary water -o:ily meter sizing information for the above - referenced address. Based on the information that you supplied to our office, the requested two inch (2 ") meter meets our minimum requiremen s and is therefore acceptable with certain conditions placed on the meter. This does not consider any continuous load demind. Since our review is for the minimum size requirement, the engineer should consider all relrvant factors before approving the final meter size. You should apply for the meter with the Public Utilities Customer Service Department located at 4420 Mercantile Avenue. A. meter tapping fee o£ $1,140 and a water impact fee of $22,060.59 will be charged based on an ERC value of 6.1. Please bring this letter with you at time of payment. The fees quoted in this letter are valid for 90 days from the date of this letter. If you have any further questions or concerns regarding the information contained in this letter or in the attachments, please feel free to contact me at (239) 252 -4215. Sincerely, Gilbert Moncivaiz Operations Analyst ce: Pam Libby, Water Distribution )weather Sweet, Customer Service Supervisor Craig Callis, Engineering Services Diane Dross, Utility Billing Supervisor C Te W.'SIzY1y /Projtttxllrtimatlx h felt May -16 -07 08:26 CriPasti Real Estate FACIMILE TO: FROM: Agenda Item No. 10E January 13, 2009 Page 383 of 398 239 261 5775 P.01 10',10 A! i MEN' �j 00 - Diane Hall, Administrative Assistant, Property Mntrt. Phone: 239 -594 -7000 Fax: 239 -261 -5775 DATE: May 16, 2007 Pages (with cover sheet): 3 SUBJECT: Potable Irrigation Meter Applications — Piper's Crossine and Tomiami Square ❑ lJrgcnt L7—'For Review ❑ Please Comment ❑ Please Reply Pain: Please find attached the completed information with regard to the applications for potable irrigation for Piper's Crossing and Tatniami Square. Thank you, again, for your help in this mutter. If you should have any questions, please give me a call, Diane Hal l /3 / e -Xr _ e' _17 u r e< . Property Management Assistant Off: 239- 594-7000 "` f �`�° `� .r �, CIL, Cell: 239- 877 -1556r /dh Attachment 'Comments: Tire information contained herrin in client priviiry,rd ».W ronaQential infnreentiun intrndrd ..qty for the use of thc individual or entity earned ubotn if the render or this message is not the Intended recipient, yna are hereby notirietl that airy unauthnrl>ed dissemination, distribution, or ropy of tills rnmmuniration h strictly pmhibited. if you have reerived this enmmuairatiou In error, pieasr nalify no immodiatrly by telephone. I tract, you. Crifasi Management, Inc. 2375 Tamiaml Trail North ` Suite 208 C . Naples, Florida 34103 Pk: 233 - 5444600 a Fax: 239 - 267- 5775Emaii: Crlfaslreaitycogaol.com Agenda Item No. 10E January 13, 2009 Page 384 of 398 "A C OLUER C 3301 EL%Tamiarr4 Mary 17, 2007 Ms. Diane Hall Crifasi Management, Inc. 2375 Tamiami Trail North, Suite 208 C Naples, Florida 34103 Napla, Acrid* 341,12 Subject: 14700 Tamiami Trail North / Tamiami Square Potable Irrigation Meter Sizing Dear Ms. Hall: Our office has reviewed the preliminary irrigation meter sizing information for the above - referenced address. Based on the information that you supplied to our office, a irrigation meter meets our minimum requirement and is therefore acceptable with certain conditions placed on the meter. This does not consider any continuous load demand. Since our review is for the minimum size requirement, the engineer should consider all relevant factors before approving the final meter size. You should apply for the meter with the Public Utilities Customer Service Department located at 4420 Mercantile Avenue. A meter tapping fee of $ and a water impact fee of $ will be charged, based upon an ERC value of These fees are in addition to the fees paid on the domestic meter. If you have any further questions or concerns regarding the information contained in this letter or in the attachments, please feel free to contact me at (239) 732 -2575. Sincerely, Pamela Eck Engineering Technician cc: Pam Libby, Water Distribution Heather Sweet, Utility Billing and Customer Service Wes Hill, Engineering Services Jacquelyn De.Sear, Impact Fee Coordinator -- May -15 -07 08:26 Crifasi Real Estates Agenda Item No. 10E January 13, 2009 Page 385 of 398 239 261 5775 P_02 POTABLE IRRIGATION TTFjg AYPLICATI( i SILO Addrur 00 Applicant's Name TN4110.su Apgeatn�Ie/ Tale b at sF: Fax Mailing ddrtstC 3 �r rjjY( i L 1'enrue Number (rr.pr4=wx): Rwriaeaed Mettr Sizm ro SUW- 1ARY0b•11GU iLTIONSYSTEMCALCULATIO)VS: Tool rF orzunae: 11_ Tat• 1 Gallons 1•er Minute (01-M) Pur Zono ZONE 1:_ q0 ZONE 7: 74 ZONE 3: 60 ZONE a: loci ZOM S tic:' ZORR LD: 90 Alf MOM than ten (10) zoncS, plCase zZUrb additional sheet . . z.ONB l i iSJOni� ?vfulmum 1\'umtxr ufZaaer RutuJng at Once: �_ �o Na )'.�. �Jn i %+w+�' -.-•�— P7 AXZSPPdrrr COV=TED FOAMLVtl Et S" !1"pRgtvtNG SNpx7NG7 .4GaYYONOFFRtlYa:7CTYn.Vp REQUESTED LOC 77ON OFPROPOSEO YARI(zsTIONkBrPA 70: to f scrrine Tec►dciaa P004 t)atlaci OgaradoW ]latYu.uw Tr.a F., Lidr H Naphi' M 74112 ftaw pll) = -x771 "LMRoff fees Will aptity 10 ALLpotabtt mctrr5•. Slze Ttppine fea L C Ranet Slza Tultpinr Fte ERC Rnnxe .75^ 5696 -00, I LS" 53,012.00 Z. &S i" S738.00 1114.5 &. 41,140.00 5.1 -8 :S'ater Impart Fee +� S3,tt1SJII2G EIiC+1 +[(pt�ak GPbI- 24},2p] Mlrtbnum Impaa Fees a 1 F:RC Pf1b"f1L' r!YlLITIPS UStt OAZF PeaLOPMiror Pro poredSyctenit _ HLterImpactFaa: 1,41nlmum Mawr Slza Rsqulrta: Tapping Charge: Approved: Total: Datc Initials of reviovew. t !% t 521519 ?( tS6 ?SSP6f ?) cr•cn ��a ,.. .. , gam.,. ZON$ 7: 4t5 20NE 2: g A ZONX 9.. 90 ZOM S tic:' ZORR LD: 90 Alf MOM than ten (10) zoncS, plCase zZUrb additional sheet . . z.ONB l i iSJOni� ?vfulmum 1\'umtxr ufZaaer RutuJng at Once: �_ �o Na )'.�. �Jn i %+w+�' -.-•�— P7 AXZSPPdrrr COV=TED FOAMLVtl Et S" !1"pRgtvtNG SNpx7NG7 .4GaYYONOFFRtlYa:7CTYn.Vp REQUESTED LOC 77ON OFPROPOSEO YARI(zsTIONkBrPA 70: to f scrrine Tec►dciaa P004 t)atlaci OgaradoW ]latYu.uw Tr.a F., Lidr H Naphi' M 74112 ftaw pll) = -x771 "LMRoff fees Will aptity 10 ALLpotabtt mctrr5•. Slze Ttppine fea L C Ranet Slza Tultpinr Fte ERC Rnnxe .75^ 5696 -00, I LS" 53,012.00 Z. &S i" S738.00 1114.5 &. 41,140.00 5.1 -8 :S'ater Impart Fee +� S3,tt1SJII2G EIiC+1 +[(pt�ak GPbI- 24},2p] Mlrtbnum Impaa Fees a 1 F:RC Pf1b"f1L' r!YlLITIPS UStt OAZF PeaLOPMiror Pro poredSyctenit _ HLterImpactFaa: 1,41nlmum Mawr Slza Rsqulrta: Tapping Charge: Approved: Total: Datc Initials of reviovew. t !% t 521519 ?( tS6 ?SSP6f ?) cr•cn ��a ,.. .. , gam.,. Agenda Item No. 10E January 13, 2009 Page 386 of 398 3. Developer Comments on Payments Doug Lewis summarized the payments and water and wastewater ERCs vested for the project as: Permit # ERCs Paid 2003092564 7.5 2007080564 4.5 2003092564 1.9 2005121723 5.6 Caf6 Italia 2.3 2005121721 2.0* 2005072983 3.5* Total 27.3 " Before C.O 4. Consensus on irrigation Meters Developer agreed with the County 3/31/08 letter and committed to install the two (2) irrigation two (2) inch meters as stated. The above plus the agreement between the parties for the 2 -year audit/study following County acceptance provides for reasonable assurance on the irrigation portion of the service. 5. General Discussion Proposed Alternate Methodology by Developer Mr. Hartman proposed the M -1 AWWA, Impact fee book, and consistent with PRMG and County ordinance unit county approach per ERC. Phase 1 17 units Phase 2 10 units Phase 3 5 units (Bldg 100) Total 32 units See units and tenant information attached dated 5/6/08. 6. Meeting Result Alternate Methodology A.) Water and Wastewater Total Units Paid Units Payment Due 32 ERCs 27.3 ERCs 4.7 ERCs B.) Irrigation Meters (2) @ 2" (3/31/08) Total ERCs 6.1 Water Only GCH /jev /A080376.00 /corresp /Attach H Page 2 of 3 072308 ° 0 ti w Y U A� N 4] w U Y q 0 N H dd U Pr a 2 W N Agenda Item No. 10E January 13, 2009 Page 387 of 398 'Lf w � O z b o o N C Y 1p o n C' 0 0 0 0 o C� o U N L C9 O O Vl Vl 'n W O'� O\ O O O O O O O O O N It N N Cl N N O 0 [— N rl N [� O O d- o l— ,-. n .-� N �D N � N I'D N �D N \D N lO N b N � N �D �D. 7 7, W 0\ .. 'J\ ON 01 01 N Vl Frr m M .--, .. M 00 M M N 2: a� rb ❑y ❑y ❑y ��y+ Ld W rn h y � U h y ti � ,. N N �v3 oo^.NMMV '. i 00 0\ o� -+NMd� C d 7 7 �o d' It 7 r- 0 0 0 Cl O O O O 0 0 O °� c7 H is Vl 0 �n 0 V'1 0 l� 0 ' Vl 0 N�� ' ' 'n O "D O� ' 07 O ' N O O ' � ' N ' O N ' O N ' O N .. .. .. .. N O N N N N N N y U y � •�" y-, 4." y O s. Q O 3 O H W w ° H D° rn oy L1 F4 yC7 ✓ t.0 U U 1 'A .d zP,z ?U U FW P. P. DO C]��Ul W 0 O N Agenda Item No. 10E January 13, 2009 Page 388 of 398 w a o d b m q m x, .+ Q eE xa r.. b R R �✓ Q L O CO N CO b Y Y U U d Ux »> it F7 N N N a V d g O A V Q H I-� � d R R 8 oa. �a a C h UON UON.K Agenda Item No. 10E January 13, 2009 Page 388 of 398 N BUILDING KEY Agenda Item No. 10E January 13, 2009 Page 389 of 398 PHASE I Tim fNM k %LEA p'E 14-7 00 7-4M TkL, No. il�flFt�.S,l }�. 34(ld 1 - I I —n �I Unit 6 3,179 It, q sq. II li •'1 unit? 1,629 sq. ft. , Unit 0 1,620 sq, ft. _q Unit 9 i 1,620 sq. t4 Unit 10 1,620 sq. ft. Unit 11 1,620 sq. ft. Unit 12 1,620 sq. ft. — Unit 13 1,620 sq. R _ Unit 1! 1,620 sq. it. ' Unit ti -- - .___. 1,620 sq. IL . -- Unit 16 - 9 1,620 sq. ft. —:— 70.8"---1---_ - Unit t 17 1,602 sq. it, Agenda Item No. 10E January 13, 2009 Page 390 of 398 .�'�. i•-.�. -.I. .'I'- Ir t1A'1 t• °I•- .L -.I. I °.I.-'16iZr rL {LI L- .L- •L-.1. -. 1 I 1 I 1 I r 1 I 1 I I r I I 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 r I 1 1 1 1 r 1 I 1 1 I r 1 1 I 1 I p r i I 1 .f 1 L1 t i I I ' Ir I 117 e I. I. 1 I. R Z 96 z 9 0 1 M. I 3ma xwNdW OMLLSM - - ---- -- ------- --- -- - -- - -- - --� m I }z�(�]o�j i 1 F ----- --- -- 1'. 4s - -- I 1 - -: z R Ins t _ 0N`� 1 —: ' - -- ri Uj 2�V -z> w 73 I iS OI� SIZO I 1 8 1 I •- I I ! I r ' I I Zn I DR I O i i H ZC OOSLL 005'LL A05 LL OSL'ZL i H A -- J —T —TL— I — — — — I 1 I ------ __-- --'---- ----------_ - - - -' o � I o o o � 1 if H54 Agenda Item No. 10E January 13, 2.009 Page 391 of 398 21 r R 74 17 14 VI JO ft ' � '' EXSTING rIIRgN' ! 3' � � EXISTING PARXWG p I @I 1 ,4 I'�pROP. ti;I:E>sJC. ,; N1pt, WII I: GARB:TYf). FX1SnNh PI DE e ( , s RS PRO1AhSN3RFCYC.LF' PROP, YIMfiL S'TPQ AYI" ��j LV 1'RASIIINCLOSLIR( 9E[Y.1 3Ct'�T{ { All i�P3 A PRDII'g'�J.gkC1:'ig. 5''K]UfNANCAG:N: y .¢NNeF IT N',vt hill lit 77 '•'SIP KILN Pill - 3huN]'IL- - ;W_AIX- �r SliiM CD UNIT I IMY r�.�. I I I Ct•.t: I I'.i!I lkthl'INc: P. UNIT PROPOSED ;I I C t-�j E ' BLDG, 100_ Ill wipe (C)N(.. N'htK- P TYPE V CONST. ��y■� �� II Uy y L .( NIT 71 1 UNPHOTECTEO •L ��? '�., ONE STORY_ .,.E' u,lc r tn _ L, I ,J ��. pLPC�• NT. E1'J)` i . t, .: ,ul l..I W i a�, UNIT 4 I � � 3V� �y 00nM C1A UNIT 5 X�'ci ! rrw� SLUG SF 1 J2.195 "l Ili Pr i.l !i'I; E)(ISTING I COMM. it i41 i:I) p;l •. ell 7 `] 0 Agenda Item No. 10E January 13, 2009 Page 392 of 398 Vested Flow Rates for Study /Audit (ED. 32 ERCs (Potable Only) Water and Wastewater a.) Water LOS 350 gpd AADF (i) Annual Average Daily Flow through potable (non irrigation meters) = 32 x 350 gpd AADF or 11,200 gpd (ii) 2 month peak factor (see page 29 Table 1 PRMG 40.00 + 33.33 = 1.2 (iii) 2 month audit use on average day of that period limit is 11,200 gpd x 1.2 or 13,440 gpd for test period. b.) Wastewater LOS 250 gpd AADF (i) Annual Average (12 month period) Daily Flow = 32 x 250 = 8,000 gpd AADF (ii) 2 month peak factor (see page 32 Table 2 PRMG) 40.100 _ 30.846 = 1.3 (iii) 2 month audit of use on average day for that period is 8,000 gpd x 1.3 or 10,400 gpd. Proposed Additional Payments a.) Irrigation meters 3/3/1/08 (i) Tapping fee $ 1,140.00 (ii) ERCs irrigation $22,060.59 b.) Water potable service) impact fees — unit count (i) 4.7 ERCs x $3,575 $16,803.00 c.) Wastewater impact fees — unit count (i) 4.7 ERCs x $3,495 $16,427.00 Total Amount Due Consensus of Follow -up $56,430.59 a.) Answer questions and requests for information by County. This activity is complete. b.) Submit alternative methodology signed and sealed by engineer. This letter report and attachments satisfies this final item. GCH(ev /A080376.00 /corresp /Attach H Page 3 of 3 072308 Agenda Item No. 10E January 13, 2009 Page 393 of 398 Attachment I Gerald C. Hartman, PE, ASA Resume GERALD C. HARTMAN, PE, BCEE, ASA Vice President EDUCATION B.S., Duke University, 1975 M.S., Duke University, 1976 PROFESSIONAL REGISTRATION Alabama No. 19422 Arizona No. 28939 Colorado No.31200 Florida No. 27703 Illinois No. 062 - 053100 Indiana No. 10100292 Kentucky No.22463 Louisiana No.30816 Maine No. 10395 Maryland No.12410 Mississippi No. 12717 New Hampshire No. 10820 New Mexico No. 15990 North Carolina No. 15264 Ohio No. 70152 Pennsylvania No.38216 South Carolina No. 15389 Tennessee No.105550 Virginia No.131184 Wisconsin No.32971 NCEES National P.E. No. 20481 American Society of Appraisers CM No. 7542 EXPERIENCE Agenda Item No. 10E January 13, 2009 Page 394 of 398 Page 1 PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS Diplomate - American Academy of Environmental Engineers American Society of Civil Engineers National Society of Professional Engineers Florida Engineering Society American Water Works Association Florida Pollution Control Association American Water Resources Association Water Environment Federation Florida Water and Pollution Control Operators Association Florida Waterworks Association American Concrete Institute (ACI) Water Management Institute American Society of Appraisers QUALIFICATIONS SUMMARY Mr. Hartman is highly qualified in environmental engineering with special expertise in utility management; facility planning; rate charge and fee studies; and funding and grants. Mr. Hartman is a qualified expert witness in the areas of water supply and treatment, wastewater treatment and effluent disposal, rate making, service areas, utility system appraisals, landfill siting, and utility creation /management/ acquisition projects. Utility Finance, Rates, Fees and Charges Mr. Hartman has been involved in hundreds of capital charge, impact fee, and installation charge studies involving water, wastewater, stormwater and solid waste service for various Florida entities. He also has participated in hundreds of user rate adjustment reports. Since 1976, Mr. Hartman assisted in the development of over 50 revenue bond issues, 20 short-term bank loan systems, 2 general obligation bonds, 26 grant/loan programs, 10 capacity sale programs, and 20 privatization programs. He has been involved in over hundreds of utility acquisition /utility evaluations for acquisition, and is a qualified expert witness with regard to utility rates and charges, and utility negotiation, arbitration and condemnation cases. A few of his water, wastewater, reuse and/or solid waste rate and charge projects include: • Flagler County — Impact Fee Analysis, 2005 • Flagler County — Base Facility Charge Analysis, 2005 • Marion County— Silver Springs Regional — Water and Wastewater Revenue Sufficiency, 2004 • Beverly Beach - Water and Wastewater System, 2004 • Village of Bald Head Island — Water and Wastewater Rate Sufficiency, 2004 • Farmton Water Resources, Inc. — FPSC, 2004 • B &W Water Resources, Inc. — FPSC, 2004 • Marion County — Stonecrest, Marion Oaks, Spruce Creek, Salt Springs, South Forty, Smyral Villas — Rate Integration /Phasing Program, 2003 • City of North Miami Beach — Water and Wastewater Adjustment, 2003 • City of Fernandina Beach — Water and Wastewater Rate Study, 2002 • St. Johns County— St. Johns Water Co. Rates, 2003 ® gai consultants transforming Ideas Into rialk,a GERALD C. HARTMAN, PE, BCEE, ASA Vice President • St. Johns County— Intercoastal Rates, 2001 • Nashua, NH — Pennichuck Water Co., 2002 • City of Deltona — Water and Wastewater, 2002 • Town of Lauderdale By- The -Sea, 2001 • FICURA— Palm Coast Rates,Certiflcation, 2000 • Marion County — Pine Run, Oak Run, A.P. Utilities — Rate Integration, 2000 • City of North Miami Beach — Revenue Sufficiency Analysis, 2000 • North Key Largo Utility Authority, 2000 • Port St. Lucie — St. Lucie West — CDD, 1999 • Hanover County— Water and Wastewater, 1999 • UCCNSB /Sugarmill, 1999 • Town of Hope Mills, 1998 • Town of Palm Beach, 1998 • City of Winter Haven, 1998 • Palmetto Resources, Inc. — Raw Water, Reuse, Water, and Wastewater, 1997 • City of Miami Springs — Analysis, 1997 • Widefeld— Water and Wastewater. 1997 Agenda Item No. t0E January 13, 2009 Page 395 of 398 Page 2 • Bullhead City — Wastewater, 1996 • Marion County, 1996 • Utilities Commission, City of New Smyrna Beach - Water and wastewater Rate Study, 1995 • Okeechobee Utility Authority - Rate and charge study, 1995 • Southern States - Statewide rate case, 1995 • Englewood - AFPI and capital charges, 1995 • Lee County - Rates and charges, 1995 • Venice - Reuse rate study, 1994 • Utilities Commission, City of New Smyrna Beach - Capital charge study, 1996 • Port St. Lucie - Water, gas and wastewater rates, 1994 • Port St. Lucie - Capital charge study, 1995 • Bullhead City - Assessment study, 1996 • Englewood - Assessment study, 1996 • Sanibel - Capacity sale study, 1995 • City of New Port Richey - Rate and charge study, 1995 • Acme Improvements District, Wellington, Florida - Water /wastewater studies, 1994 • Charlotte County, Florida - Water /wastewater studies; Rotunda West rate case, 1993 • Clay County, Florida - Water /wastewater studies, 1992 • City of Deerfield Beach, Florida - Water /wastewater studies, 1992 • City of Dunedin, Florida - Water /wastewater studies, 1991 • Englewood Water District, Florida - Water /wastewater studies, 1993 • City of Green Cove Springs, Florida - Water /wastewater studies, 1991 • Hernando County, Florida - Water /wastewater studies, 1992 • City of Lakeland, Florida - Water studies, 1976 -89 • Martin County, Florida - Water /wastewater studies, 1993 • City of Naples, Florida - Water /wastewater and solid waste studies, 1992194 • City of New Port Richey, Florida - Water /wastewater studies, 1994 • City of North Port, Florida - Water /wastewater studies, 1992 • City of Orange City, Florida - Water /wastewater studies, 1985 -94 • City of Palm Bay, Florida - Water /wastewater studies, 1985 -94 • City of Panama City Beach, Florida - Water /wastewater studies, 1993 • City of Sanibel, Florida - Water and reuse studies, 1988 -94 • Southern States Utilities Inc., Florida - Water /wastewater studies and statewide rate cases, 1991193 City of Tamarac, Florida - Water /wastewater studies, 1993 gai consultants transforming Ideas Into reality. Agenda Item No. 10E January 13, 2009 GERALD C. HARTMAN, PE, BCEE, ASA Page 396 of 398 Vice President Page 3 • Utilities Commission, City of New Smyrna Beach, Florida - Water /wastewater and reuse studies, 1992/94 • Volusia County, Florida - Solid waste studies, 1989 • City of West Palm Beach, Florida - Water /wastewater and reuse studies, 1993/94 • City of Sebastian, Florida - Water /wastewater studies, 1993 • City of Tarpon Springs, Florida - Water /wastewater studies, 1994 • City of Miami Springs, Florida - Water /wastewater and solid waste studies, 1994 • City of Edgewater, Florida - Water /wastewater and solid waste studies, 1987 -90 • City of Venice, Florida - Reuse studies, 1994 • City of Port St. Lucie - Water /wastewater studies, 1994 • Ocean Reef Club, Monroe County, Florida - Wastewater studies, 1994 • Placid Lakes Utilities Inc., Florida - Water /wastewater studies, 1994 • Old Overtown - Liberty Park, Birmingham, Alabama - Wastewater studies, 1994 • Bullhead City, Arizona - Wastewater studies, 1994 • Lehigh Utilities Inc., Lee County, Florida - Florida Public Service Commission rate cases for water, wastewater and reuse, 1993 • Marco Island and Marco Shores Utilities Inc., Collier County, Florida - Florida Public Service Commission rate cases for water, wastewater and reuse, 1993 • Venice Gardens Utilities Inc., Sarasota County, Florida - Rate cases for water, wastewater and reuse, 1989/91/93 • Mid -Clay and Clay Utilities Inc., Clay County, Florida - Water /wastewater studies, 1993 • Several expert witness assignments including Palm Bay vs. Melbourne; Tequesta vs. Jupiter; Town of Palm Beach vs. City of West Palm Beach; City of Sunrise vs. Davie; Kissimmee vs. Complete Interiors; and others. Facility Planning Mr. Hartman has been involved in over 50 water, wastewater and /or solid waste master plans, several interlocal negotiations and agreements, over 100 capital improvement programs, and numerous capital construction fund plans. He represented the American Society of Civil Engineers in the State Comprehensive Plan as a Policy Advisory Committee Member on the Utility Element, and participated in the preparation of Comprehensive Plans, Chapter 9J5, for more than 20 communities. Mr. Hartman was involved in the implementation of several stormwater utilities in Florida. Economic Evaluations /Credit Worthiness Analyses • Credit Worthiness Analysis for Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (1999) — Florida Department of Environmental Regulation • Credit Rating Reviews (1980 -2000) — for numerous investor -owned utilities; many city -owned utilities (Winter Haven, Port St. Lucie, Miramar, Tamarac, Palm Bay, North Port, etc.); many county-owned utilities; several not - for - profit utilities; and utility authorities (OUA, etc.) • Financial Feasibility and Engineer's Revenue Bond Reports (1980 -2000) — for over $2 billion of water and/or wastewater bonds for some fifty (50) entities in the Southeast United States including Clay, Lee, Hernando, Martin, and other counties; Lakeland, West Palm Beach, Miramar, Tamarac, Panama City Beach, Winter Haven, Naples, North Port, Palm Bay, Port St. Lucie, New Port Richey, Clermont, Orange City, Deerfield Beach, Sanibel, City of Peachtree City, Widefield, and many other cities; Lee County Industrial Development Authority, Englewood Water District, and other utilities. • Privatization Procurement and Analysis for many water and wastewater systems including Sanibel, Town of Palm Beach, Temple Terrace, Palm Bay, Widefeld, Bullhead City and sever others. Negotiations /Service Area Mr. Hartman has participated in over thirty-five (35) service area formations, Chapter 25 F.S. certifications, Chapter 180.02 reserve areas, authority creations, and interlocal service area agreements including Lakeland, Haines City, Bartow, Winter Haven, Sanibel, St. Cloud, Palm Bay, SBWA, ECFS, MWUC, Edgewater, Orange City, UCCNSB, Port St. Lucie, Martin County, OUA, NKLUA, DDUA, and many others ® gai consultants [ransfonning Iticas In[a ,ealltyA GERALD C. HARTMAN, PE, BCEE, ASA Vice President Agenda Item No. 10E January 13, 2009 Page 397 of 398 Page 4 Mr. Hartman has been a primary negotiator for interlocal service agreements regarding capacity, joint -use, bulk service, retail service, contract operations and many others for entities such as the Town of Palm Beach, Miramar, Lauderdale -By- The -Sea, North Miami Beach, Collier County, Marion County, St. Johns County, JEA and many others. PUBLICATIONS /PRESENTATIONS Mr. Hartman has presented several training sessions and seminars throughout the State of Florida for the American Water Works Association, the American Society of Civil Engineers, the Water Pollution Association, and the Florida Water and Pollution Control Operators Association. He has presented and /or published more than 30 papers on water, wastewater and solid waste utility systems including: Hartman, G.C.; 'Determining The Effectiveness of Solid Waste Collection;' M.S. thesis, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina, 1976. Dajani, J.S., Vesilind, P.A., Hartman, G.C.; "Measuring the Effectiveness of Solid Waste Collection," Urban Analysis, 1977, Vol. 4; Gordon and Breach Science Publishers Ltd.; Great Britain. Vesilind, P.A., Hartman, G.C., Skene, E.T.; Sludge Management and Disposal for the Practicing Engineer; Lewis Publishers Inc.; Chelsea, Michigan; 1986. Rimer, A., Vesilind, P.A., et. al., (Hartman contributing author) Resource Recovery Unit Operations, Prentice Hall, 1981. Hartman, G.C., Utility Management and Finance, (presently under contractual preparation with Lewis Publishing Company /CRC Press). Hartman, G.C., and R. J. Ori, "Water and Wastewater Utility Acquisition," AWWA Specialty Conference, 1994. Hartman, G.C. and R.C. Copeland, "Utility Acquisitions - Practices, Pitfalls and Management," AWWA Annual Conference, 1995. Hartman, G.C., "Safe Drinking Water Act" and "Stormwater Utilities" FLC Annual Meeting, 1995. Hartman, G.C., M.A. Rynning, and R.A. Terrero, "5 -Year Reserve Capacity - Can Customers Afford the Cost ?" FSASCE Annual Meeting, 1996. Hartman, G.C., T.A. Cloud, and M.B. Alvarez, "Innovations in Water and Wastewater Technology" Florida Quality Cities, August 1996. Hartman, G.C., Seth Lehman, "Financing Utility Acquisitions" AWWA/WEF Joint Management Conference, February 1997, Hartman, G.C., M.B. Alvarez, and J.R. Voorhees, "Softening for Color Removal' FWRC Conference, April 1997. Hartman, G.C., B.V. Breedlove, "Water: Where It Comes From and Where It Goes" FRT & G /FDEP Conference, September 1997. Hartman, G.C., W.D. Wagner, T.A. Cloud, and R.C. Copeland, "Outsourcing Programs in Seminole County" AWWA/WEF /FPCOA Conference, November 1997. ® gai consultants Lronsforming Ides Into realityp Agenda Item No. 10E January 13, 2009 GERALD C. HARTMAN, PE, BCEE, ASA Page 398 of 398 Vice President Page 5 Hartman, G.C., M.B. Alvarez, J.R. Voorhees, and G.L. Basham, "Using Color as an Indicator to Comply with the Proposed D /DBP Rule" AWWA, Water Quality Technology Conference, November 1997. Hartman, G.C., "In- House, Outsourcing and the Non - for - Profit Utilities Option ", Florida Government Finance Officers Association (FGFOA) Conference, March 27, 1998. Hartman, G.C. and D.P. Dufresne, "Understanding Groundwater Mounds - A Key to Successful Design, Operation and Maintenance of Rapid Infiltration Basins" April 4 -7, 1998, FWWA/WET /FPCOA Joint Meeting. Hartman, G.C. and Seth Lehman, "Financing Water Utilities — Acquisition and Privatization Projects" AWWA Annual Conference, June 24, 1998. Hartman, G.C., "Utility Valuation," Wake Forest University Law School Seminars Series, February 7, 2003. Hartman, G.C., H.E. Schmidt, Jr., and Michael S. Davis, "Biosolids Application in Rural DeSoto County, Florida," WEF /AWWA/CWEA Joint Residuals & Biosolids Management conference, February 19 -22, 2003. Hartman, G.C. contributing author, Chapter 14B, Nichols on Eminent Domain, RCNLD Valuation of Public Utilities, March 1999 Edition, Release No. 48. Hartman, G.C., M.A. Rynning, and V. Hargray, "Assessment of Commercial Customer Water Impacts; AWWA 2000. Hartman, G.C.,- M. Sloan, N.J. Gassman, and D.M. Lee, "Developing a Framework to Balance Needs for Consumptive Use and Natural Systems with Water Resources Availability," WEF Watershed 2002 Specialty Conference, February 23 -27, 2002. Hartman, G.C. and Dr. M. Wanielista, "Irrigation Quality Water — Examples and Design Considerations," ASCE Conference, April 4, 2003. Hartman, G.C., M.A. Rynning and V. Hargray, "Assessing the Water Demands of Commercial Customer," WEF Volume 6, No. 4, July /August 2003 — Utility Executive. Hartman, G.C., D. Cooper, N. Eckloff and R. Anderson, "Water," The Bond Buyer's Sixth Southeast Public Finance Conference, February 23, 2004. Wanielista, Marty and G.C. Hartman, "Regional Stormwater Facilities ", Stormwater Management for Highways Transportation Research Board TRB AFB60, July 12, 2005. 6 gai consultants transforming Ideas Into re.Ifty"