Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Backup Documents 02/24/2009 Item #10A
Tamiami Square Water /Sewer Impact Fee Teresa L. Polaski From: Nelson, Karen [knelson @ralaw.com] Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2009 2:55 PM To: Minutes and Records Cc: Lewis, Doug Subject: Tamiami Square Water /Sewer Impact Fee Attachments: Document.pdf Page I of 1 104 M. Trish - Since Ann is on vacation, I was asked to send the attached exhibits that were submitted at Tuesday's BBC Hearing (Feb. 24, 2009) to you for the Staff regarding the captioned matter. Thank you. <<Document,P6f>> Karen Karen_ S. Nelson Legal Secretary to Douglas A. Lewis, Esq. and Joseph D. Zaks, Esq. Roetzet & Andress 850 Park Shore Drive Trianon Centre; Third Floor Naples, FL 34103 Main Phone No.: 239.649.6200 ext 3630 Fax No. 239.261.3659 Email: knelson (a)ralaw.com www.ralaw.com Both Karen S. Nelson 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 Karen S. Nelson immediately. 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. 2/26/2009 10A 171 q APPENDIX A OR: 3409 PG: 2013 SCHEDULE TWO: WATER & SEWER SYSTEM IMPACT FEE RATE SCHEDULE EFFECTIVE DATE: SEPTEMBER 10, 2003 RESIDENTIAL LIVING BASIS OF FEE METER RANGE SPACE ALLOCATION SIZE IMPACT FEE RANGE ERC WATER SEWER (Sq. Ft.) $ 2,570.00 1 IMPACT IMPACT 2 2.6 In 7.9 3 6,682.00 to $ 20.,103.0,) 3 8.0 to 54.9 FEE FEE SINGLE FAMILY Oto4,999 Per Unit �^ $331,530.00 to 3 919,803.00 8 358.0 to 600.0 (No more than Sq. Ft. Page I of 2 1.0 %2,570.00 $2,950.00 4 Bathrooms) SINGLE FAMILY Over 5,000 Meter Size/ Per (More than Sq. Ft. Per Unit Ordinance 111a Based on $2,950.00 4 Bathrooms) Meter Size MULTI - FAMILY 0 to 750 Per Unit Per DUPLEX Sq. Pt. Pei thiit Ordinance 33 S 860.00 S 960.00 MOBILE HOME Per Unit or Space TRAVEL TRAILER/ Per Unit or Space R.V. (TTRV) MULTI - FAMILY 751 to 1,500 Per Unit Per DUPLEX Sq. Ft. Per Unit Ordinance .67 $1,710.00 $1,970.00 MOBILE HOME Per Unit or Space MULTI- FAMILY 1,501 or More Per Unit Per DUPLEX Sq. Ft. Per Unit Ordinance 1'0 $2,570.00 $2,950.00 MOBILE HOME Per Unit or Space NON - RESIDENTIAL (WATERI IMPACTFEE l ERC 52570 METER SIZE WATER ERC RANGE WATER IMPACT FEE RANGE r„ <1 $ 2,570.00 1 1.1 to 2.5 3 2,827.00 to 3 6,425.00 2 2.6 In 7.9 3 6,682.00 to $ 20.,103.0,) 3 8.0 to 54.9 3 20.560.00 to 5 14I.M3.00 4 55.0 to 1289 3141,350.00 to S 331,273.00 6 129.0 to 357.9 $331,530.00 to 3 919,803.00 8 358.0 to 600.0 $920,060.00 to $1,542,000.00 Page I of 2 L��IV,rt' rr�ll W OR; 3409 PG; 2016 1 71 7, Staff has reviewed in excess of 25 building permits issued since October, 2002. The impact fees were calculated using the revised methodology. The results showed that the application of the methodology had no negative impact on revenues and resulted in a more accurate assessment of impact on water and sewer facilities. The proposed modification for the assessment of impact fees was presented to and approved by: the (DSAC) Utility Sub - Committee on June 17, 2003, the DSAC on July 2, 2003, and the Productivity Committee on August 20, 2003. FISCAL IMPACT: Per the water and wastewater impact fee study approved by the Board of County Commissioners on February 25, 2003, the projected revenue to be generated by the impact fees over the next five years was: Water - S40,267,000 Wastewater = $43,846,000 TOTAL =584,113,000 The proposed change in methodology will more'accurately assess the impact fees. It will enable the Water -Sewer District to generate the impact fees referenced above. GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: Adoption of this resolution does not have any impact on the Growth Management Plan. RECOMMENDATION: The Board of County Commissioners, as Ex- officio the Governing Board of the Collier County Water and Sewer District, adopt a resolution amending Schedule Two of Appendix A of Chapter 74 of the Collier County Consolidated Impact Fee Ordinance, authorizing the change in the methodology for assessment of the Non - residential Impact Fees for water and wastewater on the basis of Equivalent Residential Connections (ERCs). Submitted By: a `, 27 3 Harry Huber, Senior Project Manager Date: Public Utilities Engineering Department Reviewed By: C lRo Date: .A nderson, .EDirector ic Utilities Engineering Department Reviewed By: �1�(�,e„�; Date: cJ Ta Wides, Director Public Utilities- Operations •Grn01 ITC*— ao. 17 _L EX A; 1f ,,1tt 8A l0A RESOLUTION NO. 2003- 9 3 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING SCHEDULE TWO OF APPENDIX A OF CHAPTER 74 OF THE COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES, AS AMENDED, THE SAME BEING THE COLLIER COUNTY CONSOLIDATED IMPACT FEE ORDINANCE, THEREBY DECREASING THE WATER IMPACT FEE RATE FROM $2,690 PER EQUIVALENT RESIDENTIAL CONNECTION (ERC) TO $2,570 PER ERC (A DECREASE OF 4.5 PERCENT); AND THEREBY INCREASING THE SEWER IMPACT FEE RATE FROM $2,840 PER ERC TO $2950 PER ERC (AN INCREASE OF 3.9 PERCENT) FOR ALL CUSTOMER CLASSES; THE PROPOSED RATES SPECIFIED IN REVISED SCHEDULE TWO OF APPENDIX A; PROVIDING A DELAYED EFFECTIVE DATE OF APRIL 1, 2003. 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 II, 2001, the Board of County Commissioners 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 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 of County Commissioners 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, Collier County uses impact fees to supplement the funding of necessary capital improvements required to provide public facilities to serve new population and minted development that is necessitated by growth in Collier County; and WHEREAS, the Consultant has recommended that me County increase water plant capacity by thirty (30) million gallons per day and to increase sewer treatment capacity by twenty-seven million and eight hundred thousand (27.8 million) gallons per day over the next tan (10) years, at an estimated cast to future utility system users of approximately five hundred and sixty-five million dollars ($565 million); and 8A APPENDIX A SCHEDULE TWO - EFFECTIVE APRIL 1, 2003 WATER & SEWER SYSTEM IMPACT FEE RATE SCHEDULE RESIDENTIAL LIVING BASIS OF FEE METER ERC WATER SEWER SPACE ALLOCATION SIZE IMPACT IMPACT (Sq. Ft.) FEE FEE SINGLE FAMILY 0 to 4,999 Per Unit V." 1.0 $2,570.00 $2,950.00 (No more than Sq. Ft. 4 Bathrooms) SINGLE FAMILY Over 5,000 Meter Size] Per n/a Based on $2,950.00 (More than Sq. Ft. Per Unit Ordinance Meter Size 4 Bathrooms) MULTI - FAMILY 0 to 750 Per Unit Per .33 $ 860.00 $ 980.00 DUPLEX Sq. Ft. Per Unit Ordinance MOBILE HOME Per Unit or Space TRAVELTRAILER/ Per Unit or Space R.V. (TTRV) MULTI - FAMILY 751 to 1,500 Per Unit Per .67 $1,710.00 $1,970.00 DUPLEX Sq. Ft. Per Unit Ordinance MOBILE HOME Per Unit or Space MULTI - FAMILY 1,501 or More Per Unit Per 1.0 $2570.00 $2,950.00 DUPLEX Sq. Ft. Per Unit Ordinance MOBILE HOME Per Unit or Space NON - RESIDENTIAL: WATER METER SIZE WATER SEWER IMPACT IMPACT FEE FEE ti, $ 2,570.00 $ 2950.00 V. $ 2.570.00 $ 2,950.00 1 $ 6,425.00 $ 7,375.00 1 Yr $ 12,850.00 $ 14,750.00 2 $ 20,560.00 $ 23.600.00 3 $ 41,120.00 $ 47200.00 4 $ 64,250.00 $ 73,750.00 6 $128.500.00 $147500.00 8 $231,300.00 $265500.00 10 $372,650.00 $427,750.00 12 $552500.00 $634,250.00 February 25, 2003 64 FL ADC 64E -6.008 Rule 64E- 6.008, F.A.C. Fla. Admin. Code Ann. r. 64E -6.008 C FLORIDA ADMINISTRATIVE CODE ANNOT- ATED TITLE 64. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SUBTITLE 64E. DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENT- AL HEALTH CHAPTER 64E -6. STANDARDS FOR ONSITE SEWAGE TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL SYS- TEMS PART I. Current with rules included in the February 8, 2008 is- sue of the Florida Administrative Weekly; see scope message for specific rules in effect. 64E- 6.008. System Size Determinations. (1) Minimum design flows for systems serving any structure, building or group of buildings shall be based on the estimated daily sewage flow as determined from Table I or the following: (a) The DOH county health department shall ac- cept, for other than residences and food operations, metered water use data in lieu of the estimated sewage flows set forth in Table 1. For metered flow consideration, the applicant shall provide authentic- ated monthly water use data documenting water consumption for the most recent 12 month period for at least six similar establishments. Similar es- tablishments are those like size operations engaged in the same type of business or service, which are located in the same type of geographic environ- ment, and which have approximately the same op- TYPE OF ESTABLISHMENT Page 2 of 9 10A Page 1 crating hours. Metered flow values will not be con- sidered to be a reliable indicator of typical water use where one or more of the establishments util- ized in the sample has exceeded the monthly flow average for all six establishments by more than 25 percent or where the different establishments demonstrate wide variations in monthly flow totals. When metered flow data is accepted in lieu of es- timated flows found in Table 1, the highest flow which occurred in any month for any of the six sim- ilar establishments shall be used for system sizing purposes. Except for food operations which exceed domestic sewage waste quality parameters as defined in subsection 64E- 6.002(15), F.A.C., where an existing establishment which has been in con- tinuous operation for the previous 24 months seeks to utilize its own metered flows, the applicant shall provide authenticated monthly water use data docu- menting water consumption for the most recent 24 month period. The highest monthly metered flow value for an existing establishment shall be used for system sizing purposes. (b) When onsite systems use multiple strategies to reduce the total estimated sewage flow or the drain- field size, only one reduction method shall be cred- ited. TABLEI For System Design ESTIMATED SEWAGE FLOWS GALLONS PER DAY COMMER- CIAL: Airports, bus terminals, train stations, port & dock facilities, Bathroom waste only (a) per passenger 4 (b) add per employee per 8 hour shift Barber & beauty shops per service chair 75 15 2008 Thomson(West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works. we Y" ,FeSc . i 3" http: / /web2. westlaw .com /print/printstream.aspx ?sv= Split &prft = HTMLE &fn = _top &mt =F1... 2/21/2008 Page 3 of 9 64 FL ADC 64E -6.008 Page 2 Rule 64E- 6.008, F.A.C. Fla. Admin. Code Ann. r. 64E -6.008 Bowling alley bathroom waste only per lane 50 Country club or less per day per seat (a) per resident 100 (b) add per member or patron 25 (c) add per employee per 8 hour shift 15 Doctor and Dentist offices (a) per practitioner 250 (b) add per employee per 8 hour shift 15 Factories, exclusive of industrial wastes gallons per employee 15 per 8 hour shift (a) No showers provided 15 (b) Showers provided 25 Flea Market open 3 or less days per week (a) per non -food service vendor space 15 (b) add per food service establishment using single service 50 articles only per 100 square feet of floor space (c) per limited food service establishment 25 (d) for flea markets open more than 3 days per week estimated 10 flows shall be doubled Food operations 1. add for deli per 100 square feet of deli floor (a) Restaurant operating 16 hours or less per day per sEat 40 (b) Restaurant operating more than 16 hours per day per seat 60 (c) Restaurant using single service articles only and operating 16 hours 20 or less per day per seat (d) Restaurant using single service articles only and operating more than 35 16 hours per day per seat (e) Bar and cocktail lounge per seat 20 add per pool table or video game 15 (f) Drive -in restaurant per car space so (g) carry out only, including caterers 1. per 100 square feet of floor space 50 2. add per employee per 8 hour shift 15 (h) Institutions per meal 5 (i) Food outlets excluding deli's, bakery, or meat department per 100 10 square feet of floor space 1. add for deli per 100 square feet of deli floor space 40 2. add for bakery per 100 square feet of bakery floor space 40 3. add for meat department per 100 square feet of meat department floor 75 space 4. add per water closet 200 Hotels & motels G 2008 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works. http: / /web2. westlaw .comlprintlprintstream.aspx ?sv= Split &prft = HTMLE &fn = _top &mt =F1... 2/21/2008 Tamiami Square Lewis, Doug From: whitejennifer [JenniferWhite @colliergov.net] Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2009 3:20 PM To: Lewis, Doug Subject: FW: Tamiami Square Pis see below response. Jennifer From: MoncivaizGilbert Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2009 3:19 PM To: whitejennifer; CurryAmiaMarie; wides_tom Subject: RE: Tamiami Square Jennifer, Page 1 of boa The information we use for the Florida Plumbing Code Calculation is cited form various tables within the plumbing code document. There is not a simple reference point. The fixture value can be found on our website under the Public Utilities Engineering web page in the document titled "Meter Sizing Form ". Do you need a reference point for each list fixture? The reference in 2007 -52 for the FAC is general and does not provide a specific reference. As common practice, we use the sewage flows referenced in the FAC 64E- 6.0008 Please let me know if you need further information. Gilbert From: whitejennifer Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2009 3:03 PM To: MoncivaizGilbert; CurryAmiaMarie; wides_ tom Subject: PN: Tamiami Square Do any of you have this readily available. Just got in from a meeting. -- - -- From: Lewis, Doug [mailto:dalewis @ralaw.com] Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2009 12:13 PM To: whitejennifer Subject: Tamiami Square Jennifer, in advance of my meeting with my client this afternoon, can you provide me with a copy of citation for the Florida Plumbing Code calculation and the FAC calculation for projected average daily flows per County Ord. 2007 -52? For purposes of the FAC, do you have a citation other than FAC 64E- 6.008, Table I? Thanks!! Douglas A. Lewis ❑ x Picture (Metafle) 2/23/2009 I 02/10/2009 15:52 12393489915 SUNWESTPLUMBING PAGE 02 "A COLLIER COUNTY PUBLIC UTILITIES DIVISION 7301 EM Tamium'rmil • NarAra. KwWl 31112 • (239) 732 -2575 • Fak (239) 732 -2526 February 9, 2009 Ms. Stacey Morales Sunweat Plumbing, LLC 4376 1" Ave NW Naples, FL 34119 Subject: Potable Irrigation Meter 14700 Tsmiami Trail North — Tamiani Square Dear Ms. Morales: Our office has reviewed the prelimunaty meter sizing information (application dated February 9, 2009) for the abovo-referenced address. Based on the information that you supplied to our office, a two (2) inch meter meats our minimum requirements. You should apply far the meter with the Public Utilities (.tirstomer Service Department located at 4420 Mercantile Avenue. Please brhi¢ thb letter and Gov a total 000M of 523.020.50. This amount includes the motor tapping fee of $1,213.00 and water impact fee of $21,807.50 based on 6.1 Equivalent Residential Connections (ERCs). The fees stated within 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, Public Utilities Operations cc: Gary Morocco, Revenue Supervisor Heather Sweet, Revenue Supervisor Joe Thomas, Water Distribution Manager 1 /E l0A Exhibit "C" -- Tamiami Square of Naples, LLC Period Water Usage (in the thousands) 12/01/08 11/01/08 488 140 Y / 1001 1 ! 10/01/08 160X 2`4(oq y15 09/01/08 515 08/01/08 549 07/01/08 541 06/01/08 674 05/01/08 601 04/01/08 560 03/01/08 382 02/01/08 413 1/1/2008' 781 12/01/07 374 11/01107 223 1D/01/07 244 09/01107 239 08/01/07 292 07/01/07 385 07/01/07 312 05/01107 423 04/01/07 420 03/01/07 549 Excludes / /�hM/t inae Monthly Average (All) 421.1 404.0 404. y 13 S Average ERCs (All) 40.1 38.5 0a 1. /o y Last 4 Month Average 325.75 Four Month Average ERCs 31.0 E- Axcs)A /1 jy 12_ M-tX Afro Yy7. 7 12 months (including leak month) 483.7 X41 ` A✓• y2.. Annual Average ERCs 46.1 11 months (w /o leak month) 456.6 Annual Average ERCs 43.5 398.8 `major leak Gx171�1F "yl/ Item #10A RESOLUTION (OF DENIAL) 2009 -45 WILL NOT BE PREPARED BY THE COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE * *SEE ATTACHED E- MAIL ** (IN ITS PLACE) A RESOLUTION WITH AN ACCOMPANYING PAYMENT PLAN AND LIEN AGREEMENT IS BEING BE BROUGHT BACK FOR FINAL CONSIDERATION AT THE MARCH 10, 2009 MEETING AGENDA ITEM #16C1 Patricia L. Morgan �� From: KlatzkowJeff [Jeff Klatzkow @colliergov.net] Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2009 3:32 PM To: Patricia L. Morgan; TeachScott Cc: whitejennifer Subject: RE: Question There will be a Resolution either way. Jennifer to prepare. -Jeff From: Patricia L. Morgan [ mailto: patricia .morgan @collierclerk.comj Sent: Tue 2/24/2009 3:29 PM To: KlatzkowJeff; TeachScott Subject: Question Good Afternoon, If the BCC goes with staff recommendations to deny the Alternative Impact Fee Appeal on Agenda Item #10A (2/24/09), will any type of document be submitted to formalize the Board's decision or will the transcript stand good for their decision? We want the Recap to accurately show any document that would be submitted to account for the decision. Thank you, Trish Under Florida Law, e -mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by telephone or in writing. Tamiami Square Item #16C2 March 10 BCC Meeting n ".o t If l Ann P. Jennejohn 1 Q A From: whitejennifer [JenniferWhite @colliergov.net] Sent: Thursday, March 05, 2009 4:48 PM To: Ann P.Jennejohn Subject: RE: Tamiami Square Item #16C2 March 10 BCC Meeting Only one Resolution will be sent to your office and it will be sent after the Board considers the 3/10 Item. Since the Board on 2124 directed that there be a Resolution and Payment plan we incorporated both together for its consideration on 3/10. Although the Board did not direct us to come back, we decided to bring it back to the BCC because we wanted to make sure that they were ok with the details. I hope that answers the question. Also, on Monday I am going to be induced so tomorrow is my last day before I go on maternity leave. Wish us luck and I will make sure that you are sent photos, etc. Jen From: Ann P. Jennejohn [ mailto: Ann.Jennejohn @collierclerk.com] Sent: Thursday, March 05, 2009 4:43 PM To: whitejennifer Subject: Tamiami Square Item #16C2 March 10 BCC Meeting Hi Jen, I have a quick question for you. During the February 24th BCC Meeting (Item #10A) the Board discussed and voted on a Resolution of Denial for the Tamiami Square Appeal. We were informed there would be a Resolution of Denial prepared for that item, per an e -mail from the County Attorney. In next weeks Agenda (Item #16C2) there is a Resolution of Denial w /attachments, including a payment plan and lien agreement. My question is, will our office be getting an exclusive Resolution denying that appeal; Item #10A? Please let me know at your earliest convenience. Thank you, Ann Clerk to the Board Minutes & Records Department 239-252-8406 (Fax: 239-252-8408) ann.jennejohn@colliercierk.com Under Florida Law, e -mail addresses are public records. Jf you do not want your e -mail address released in response to a public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by telephone or in writing. 3/10/2009 '1 'n � O w Y i c O I O 7 y QS ! S6 A W O dy i � I I00 !I 2 I� n m ly O p I A SS `s N !6 C fD !99 1 2l0 CD 2 A ?I W J 2 OQ S2 �s I i 9 �6 s 0 4 X09 O �. vl A A Gallons Used per Day r+ N W A VI cr, J O O O O O O O O O � + � Y i c V F� I Q V ^� I 1 liyl I!� V, 10A --�" • ,a V Q � 1 �k t R ;t Q) � �� VQ, Q h M Q I i i i I r1k i r' T a 4. v._ n a E v a) co a] O O L E a) �= M— L N L i�-J N rn (n n m@ ro nm In m"a 3�E C. m 3: w m E~ to N a) m C C O ui 5 u @ u L ro -0-0 C (D-0 fl m � u 'E •' a U •III (�6 rO m aJ 6) O E N r� O E ra u �� � a) rj a)E �a`°iE �v °> u Q @mLn m m �Q) � a) ��a 4i ro �av ; �o o - � � ar " I- O c M ra r0 �g rp L E v d- 1 a _ ) u u C +� L �• Q v U N U 34E �c v is a r6 = N — Q n ro ��{— ( j ro - c O M v Z, a= , ) ow L'6 Fa u9� EO m O �) � U - a i-r L o C.J- -� � M M U d a�� 0-ry �c E •- O om a w MUU ra T� nj E to u �_ 0 "C3 comet V) Ln @�rC6 L E �a) a) LL.. M Q L r6 30.0 f6 flv� C C E Q)N �� ry) m y � C) � v 4r ra ro 0 QMM + o C), 'S• p7 C L o 0 N Q 0 aCnEO o M o u -0 —r �rvj V plN � N a) L roO 0= olio " �N r6 � U m rn O, 0-3: a Q n a v V) - a) to -0 Ln C m .O fR, tv�?_4' a) + OD _ i V E o OTn o��_ N O OO_ M � � O O �r -o O y0) a.E m OrU„rn O Z� >1Lnrn Ca- m° 0 L H� rn� rod �rnra wran �� v w co IV iavi M% if r E69 O O O N M ,--q o Cr 0) 01 try O mo m LLMI m M ,,' 1 Lolq- rB i ro C) M Ql C IA u Ln O u c 40-+ N O ^0 W 2- L- a� f6 O1� Q) -00 ro .� i Q C) N ru i L D . =3 D t0 L! ) O i O O O U) N -0 OD z� Q) c� U (U C:) (U Lr) M -0 O Q f6 C =3 O a^,' ^0 W W .T) fu U -0 Id W ru D V1 ? rl U= O a 0 ro ro u ru u T Q w u 0 a E ro c Ln v 4 m° c o �z E v Qj u c c n � L oO - ru Ln u 'u No C9 c O_ a) aj c c :3 ru fa o cu u 0 L a o u N � V, Z �Tu° v c c U ro 0 0 N N 0 0 0 H L • CM U U _0 CL co cv �O U '— -O cn O U j tQ M C cn � � � Q) W ca O to p, ro ru -0 > D 4- . U Cn C O C : :3 Ln � � 0 ca .— 4-J cr � � � '� OQm�rt3 -� O L -00 ® O� �0) O =U —o � � -0 cn E S C: 0 p 0) u u U o 4 U-) � o � U -J C) 0. L OO W� ��N- O - Q� = L --+ U . C -� (� V , � > N EQO -0 uE O =E a LQ 3 z \ / g \ Ln / § e / / e w Co e > Li _ q - - Q 7 / / F Is + 2 _ (D� ru 110 E Z3 { z ~ - / \ ' (D $ \ m @ w q - � e ) n � } V) Ln k+ L - .�. \\ Ln ) \ )/ � q \{ \ ± � � a 7 \j J i 0000000 %D LAd'MNrl a� o 0) G M O .� M > O +-r -O N O cn 0 cn E -L' "- -0 4-J p c Q 4-J Ln N A P L j c 0 �E°iL J o v y,*4 b a v w lie o 0 -o U s= ra Q- 4-J L E cn 0) N a •- +-' CL O ° o E U U- CL a • i f i _J �i J u w -a fB V V O O T--1 N O � N ru L N 'a rp N _ 4-J V L E �= O ro O � a1 aJ OD I O ro C (� V .O V � Z3 '~ U d? J C) CL V L.f) �3E f6 V o D u�/ O m O LL u W y_ !p V C m O 0 N O V M O +_+ al N V N O 4-J � l - :D i N (10 i'r-J L L f0 Q O 4— C. O d m L- w -a (o V O N O O� ru L N 'a rp N _ 4-J V L E �= O N O � a1 al C L Z3 '~ C) C) V o D O m O CO u y_ !p V C m O C N O V O +_+ N O 4-J - l - :D i N V i'r-J L L f0 Q O 4— C. O d L L- 40 � 40 4-J 0 N Ln C ate-+ � fo C N :3 U C O � • U a 0 0 ry fu r}a ru U ra ;, ■ ro 'O �.� W 0 �� U 4J i (O ,� to : Lr) .� �- 3 O U ra i 0 rl ra ru � Q� y Yrti � O V Wag+ 0= 'Fm >_ OO iN 0�- -O ro � � O 'er � E am E Q) �, cn i Ln 0) Nip to 00 00 u-O 4-. + a -0 -0 ra Q1.i 0 O ra � (3) m r i rO 4 Ol U T3 "O 4-J Z3 i = U (a ,0 ++ 0 O ? U~ Q� 0),i a+to XU 0 0m QO_ 0L0 0O 4' 0'' v� BOO • CU -0 O d1 4J rO -O � M O U rB .'= -0 70 0 O E � O 0 0 rn U O Ln _ rO� rO0 0 0 O a� HO O +— L N U Ln CO ru L L (4-j cr) C O Ol E'0 ■. , O 4� R r 01 L U U) > a � M ' W a p ,,, O W O� �M��V >� 4' C:) ® 0 0) � O ra �� NOGp a+ M �v a'� AEU v0 ta01d ® �� Q-0 u� -c� Ln � ra. —++ i .O� O + Q L �m U� 0 0 v L- C.— Q 00 Ql ra N cn V) ate-+ arm Q ■sera■ LLn L ra .0 fu Q1 Cr) rya ++ Ln rOd? Q� Ln p� �QO r ■ter � E C) < 0) - fu g b- rap � � .Qu1p0� �� D0N M000) U00 �� vuQao� o+'_0 000 Ln Q) OnrY crnO �LA0 P:.�= m <( E a¢ W I- m m == O LL r I ■ ru L L H O M C' L Co M ❑ ❑ O ttf O IA O tlt O �A O d' M M N N rl rI n 0 O O rl N a n O N 4J L c Q L 0 E (n C C f6 L O 0 fl. C O Q N Q- 0 0 4-J _ M 0 C O 0 E O -j N 2+ O 0)voG 6 Q- Ln � f6 ro 4-j O C M E O ;,o Xr- M ,-I fQ 0) N � 0 Q •+-+ O >, o E O N O CD •- O f13 0 � � N L O0 h Ln Lan) fly.. >_T m (ll O E E s X .X m c 0 0 0 o j >mQi•' CL L = L 0 O 0 o� U C:) C .2 N O L, � o uE b0 N �0 -0 In N _C N Q 3: . . 00 .® w I i F-W 64- i♦` ve cu fa u i O = ,-i dN M C;N � V � W M N ro Ln Q .) ..� O CL M W C Ol fB O fo fu Lf) C 4-)- -+ O �c L!•) O L 0 Q N O 4-' C: p1-O ro O O ! C ru — (0 O ru N Ln o V 00 d O d' a U �.D lq- E'er; 0 OOL X 'L (B OV Ln V a O C� C- ro OMW -� O O 0) O CaiN0T-q W � 3: 0) -0 N EL,,��L W W - O N 3: E m ,-i O C . W O O O m O M M .1"' CL !2 O C31 L U �-: 'V) C. L- cu. 40 -c U- i C 'd "O m m O h i 4-J O i O t0 m " i--a CD CO > Q -C O 0 0 E ,1- - -0 N 3 O O v � � F' fa CD W L .0) C) > .O Lr) � �f?M N O C O C ..E > --o X c6 E O O O m ca c E 0 m 0 2: U.) L Ea 4-J N - OT--lLn E M O N A -' CD- CD- 4 N 4+ 0 C 4-J O _ N to X O O a, E O Ln U) O � fa N ^ a'' ate-+ O C 2 O • Q fu E ro Q .) ..� O ate-+ M O O fo fu C O �c O �_ 0 Q QC r (L) O _0 C ru O ru N Ln o 00 O d' M O L E'er; 0 OOL X 'L m 'S OV Ln N a O C� C- ro OMW -� O O 0) O0 CaiN0T-q O 3: 0) -0 N EL,,��L O N 3: E m ,-i O C . t m C Q O E CL !2 tU L C O' �-: 'V) C. L- cu. 40 -c U- i C C Ln O h E O O " � 0) a'C-+ -C O 0 0 E ,1- - -0 N 3 O O v � � F' fa CD W L .0) C) > .O Lr) � �f?M N O C O C ..E > --o X c6 E O O O m ca c E 0 m 0 2: U.) L Ea 4-J N - OT--lLn E M O N A -' CD- CD- 4 N 4+ 0 C 4-J O _ N to X O O a, E O Ln U) O � fa N ^ a'' ate-+ O C 2 O • Q fu E f6 W 070 +� C:) (a a) = v ��� �» 3 a) cv O_ E pro N-+ �cOLa� pr�6W Q) cE ,i n ° a�O.0 L tn�EQ) Otn O 4, C �Otn� w -° °�>O� c.�U - c>,w E m a -0 Ew 70 u °—� Q).�U01 a) Q) ' CCU o X �vo Z3 ra (Z"C.- °1�0 c NNN `+- ,� nl X�0 U .U. +_ boa c o °' a) ca( o� c U O L Lj V) v W 0 Quo CO Ln `v U � ) mo o-' ro ---- )r°ro �o� o °oho o c ;�c°M NCO �vn -°Qi L L �ooc Qr =o °ra Q) (Tj fl 0000 = n ° Cl) Q) U ° E °U � Qu ° C o n � fUn Q) ') > ,L=C u o -a � w ra Q. � � o)•= LL � a) L rD c i7 N Ot (V6 L mm 'EO canes =M-0 (n a) `- (t3 c4 v °Q' >aEO a��LoQ Csrca9 a�iwEm ra U) � ra , Q'O U -0 Ln a v -o c c � � ° ckc ra Q) o a o w�� oo aum v �n o o w � � S— a����� ��� cM-aca- 0 �0 o �-- M N �_ U _o L ra ra ro L n Cil L ° a a) O rn c o _I- O Q) c Lo OMLn.- 70 CCrn� �Cf�— L otDNO �� r0 mO-p C >ra Q!Q)U ra N +-+ L Mtocn - N a) .� ° ES Q) (0-0 Q) in O "= N Oc O �'-� _c c � rra oCDn0 -_° o��� v��•c n �, coa;= Eat Ln ca�i�°a °moo °� �- 0) ov i-� °� a� V @ rQa N 7L- Ln U U. `�= +-+ n N 4° f: t Sri Q:o c C.1 r0 . w �rn0'pn�o =v< -0 46 "nc LO a a) 00 m WQ o U O L L� c In U- rco ' Q] L U Q) L a) ra 0) U :3.2 E 71 c a..r �r`d a��� l ° O Ln O C o cn : o m o= c m c >l a i O- CL w „_ LL rn ¢ LL V, U c I— L � O rn ¢ C7 U im v fa .�. \� \� a � \ . \\ � f f / � g ru \ _0 � U \ 'E 0 \«7 00 Z /2 \ c § O c 4-) ru « U/ / D Q � 7 \ \) U 0-1-0 ./ L \ g u 'E ' o 22 w T $3 � � *2 � g \U '/ ® U u7 3 $$ W � �I w _0 Q) / � »zo \\ O O p / , \ '/ � ra >D / g \ \ \«7 . <� /2 \ © ®m § / y » =__ 0 k U/ / $ 7 � 7 \ \) /� /§� \ / f 03 amR 22 / \t $3 � *2 \/ \b\ 92e ru \U c m ® ® u7 3 $$ f \/ �I _0 Q) / � =2 »zo \\ / 00 p \ m , \ \\ / / 7\ t� _0 \\ / I Ln m ru 4-J V) 0 0 _N v O ui � 00 r-I 2 N ru O 1-- 4-j a-J (u L u p U i ru O O ru U _0 E U u M Q W 'i O N (B U U 0 C) M 0 — a-J C!7 .4, L U w i ro U >1 _0 L N r-i O O (3) M N 0 ) N U � 0 _0 (o (o 3 m cn v� 0 0 _N v O X p -O 00 p t Co O O t O •N ,1- 0 3� Q E . -, .(D) t: C) M 0 — Q) 0- .4, 11 w i ro U >1 _0 L N r-i (o W (3) (n O N O 0 3 _0 O p 0 Fa -0 0 m 01 O 0'0 � 0 01 p to M i C i C) m O N N �+ 0 Z; rru 0 >,.I- - p d L [n 0 0 4 00 p i > (6 O i X X N O fu O N O O ^ -0 Q Lnn a 0 0- 0- O a.J cn 11 a) Ln 0 c 0 70 L- 0- rj pl i U fl O 06 ' to ro� .0 (o O V) L O �-�0 -0 0 0o O -� to O u O � O E O� N O L =� U L p% O -v =0 M a._, +oM 0- C� W L— O (n p s= N Q O 0 Ln m (o C p E 1710 v U p E � 0"O 0)p � W w '0 N O 0 O O O E C '- p (o Ln L Off } _0 V) 0 O 0 ro M 0- M M 0) Lnn L ;N y- p1 ro -0 p (off O O O H .0 .i U U 0- LL E Y ON N O w N Q-0 Q fl a:3 E° Q� N H c'n U U _0 CL 0 U) •L- fu fo 0 4-1 U -0 U-) C) U to pC c 4mJ Q) LU M 0 cn c)).cp q- 4-) 04--.- C Z; C: :3 U U (n C) 0 MOM C) — C:) M E 0-): ro c) 0 M U) 0 Z3 M rN �� M c- cyl-rv--i (.0 >-�o 0 C: 4-J 4-J m 0- >- to _0 — fo 0 co =3 (3 ra (3) • - 0) cc (j) -5 4-J -00 >- Co > 4-J 0 4—J 0 0 1-- L_0 .00 L ::3 V) 4-5 0 0 U 0 c: o 4�J -0 (n E* 0 V) 0) U Ln U � E -C D U 0 to 3: C:) I:e U) 0 ro , C:) 0 4-d 0.— o 5 03 ro 5 1-- Q) -s-- = ro -om' E W• 4-J C co 0) Q) -r- LZ ro c: ra c: > 4-J 0 U U , &- 0- *— CU a) a. 0 -0 0 0 *40 E 0- .— U E O= 0— E'— CL 0 Ln m LL -o c ru I O _0 O L ra C O O 0 4 0) p A ran •1-J LIi L O -0 � C C4u L - O � O y '�'.J (U V) U L- oa;CL.v o o m OLn >�a N OOD O O V) a�+0 Q L L ra U � L V 0 N C O O W- .� .� u +a 0 4- ■ ro4- U U �-} M ��4� 4-J Lf (71 W W ra N r- ru i• -i L L O �U U P �� r,4 C-0 a U-0 � O ra lD i O 2-0 OE-0 ",- (n 0 N N �E Ura L L Lr7 a.., O 4- �+4- C O O O O 4+ M ra L .� -0 4J NO ate- ~5 0 0 E: LL-- O_> 0m ru O E v ao O O N ra p O a p i7 O Q1 0 �V) E� ry Q >_ �= ONO �C0OI ca 0 C0O� ru �v� 5i(a v 4-C 0 O 13 al O 0cn U a_C ■ f6 QCEra C ra O C 0 iw C .— OC L(1 N LU Ew°' -o O } 00 to 00 NW EO MOL F--' w> Q N D N L O O c'O Ln C61LU M E �v a= CO :3 OC O0 0) Lc 0) E L-cn 0>a E- 0 ��c ■ ra���� �� �'O O Ou O� �0 QO C O M .Ni E OOcam M L vE 40- >,4° � 0 3: 0 � � 0 4 � � —° O , cn Ln O \ N ) QQ� = O +-� U Lu -0 -Fu U O ON t L � O tea..+ �'p C -0 W � W ,4; u u W u u O� O fu cn O.�'S L a"'I O .- O 12 L.- OE Q O L .- a 0 •� � ru C: •L 4 4-, Q a;E EO E(u�% Z mMILO-0 q�'jmc! = raNN= ro N'~ raOO bra r-,m ca-0 (00C EOcn to I-- to L N �--�' Q 0 n M m PM 9 U _0 CL O c c ca co O U •� Q)U N w R3 O cn 0).(u L. •.�� 4-J 0 0-0 > 'S 4=- . v cn O c u f c c O cC3 OM M M Ul •i�0 a cy ca rN — -gip � 0o V, 3:.0 > 4-1 O 0 0 � I — -C U- 00 �u-O to Q�Q •cO =00 � 4 —`+— u cn U E o � � o oC � o .� C) 0 -� - w :�-0 -0°`� E �_ _ o a� i f6 Q� '�"' t�l N to 4--)O 4-J >Q1 0 04-J O (n.tip m In m �► Ln E Ln Y3 Y n 1 -0, C 1 -0 C ° _0 Orn Q) Q) r� a) co 4 � -0 ra p 4-J .n a) 6 5L. (R) O O r0 N rp N�N0 a' to Oi- O tU O��Q d1 U= U� 0 N C O () ru W ,O Ln rn Ei4 O TD � -J U U � — NroON- a' � �� NE �O '-m=0 W W m UZ�-- NO O� 4�.0 2 v N E U ch > ru N= N .ru 0 C 0-0 V) O N N �E Uru �p 1= Ln Ln +� O y> '' _ 4 .. O O � i- rB ra N p O �3E-+ C U-) . O O C i O> � �r�� U �p � (a -0 OC co cU v Q ro ro CL > U C f6 O U +,�ou) ro a T �� O4 O U�� O O T3 O U �.- C (a C O O Q T QJ E -p ) O O QL-) �>� Q C) a) N �+'0 O7 0 O NO 0) E E �0) COQ 50� �O O �_ O >'C N� ,-i-0U C U U Mm ri� �Ni L��� m C m C Md1 r6 Q) i-�� � T.i, 3: 0 T � 0 'S -& rM 4 � O � � cn to cn (j QaN u p- U p- ON p i 0 EIS CL O " •- rvro f-p ���_ Mmr�= Eo m�� UCu �E�� �E �� E .0 � a � ' -'ru�� r,M :3 :� r,M q f; ra-v mOC �7 tD I- J) N N 1— �- ra OL = M L _, a 10 A- Y- RESOLUTION NO. 2003- o a A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING SCHEDULE TWO OF APPENDIX A OF CHAPTER 74 OF THE COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES, AS AMENDED, THE SAME BEING THE COLLIER COUNTY CONSOLIDATED IMPACT FEE ORDINANCE, THEREBY DECREASING THE WATER IMPACT FEE RATE FROM $2,690 PER EQUIVALENT RESIDENTIAL CONNECTION (ERC) TO $2,570 PER ERC (A DECREASE OF 4.5 PERCENT); AND THEREBY INCREASING THE SEWER IMPACT FEE RATE FROM $2,940 PER ERC TO $2,950 PER ERC (AN INCREASE OF 3.9 PERCENT) FOR ALL CUSTOMER CLASSES; THE PROPOSED RATES SPECIFIED IN REVISED SCHEDULE TWO OF APPENDIX A; PROVIDING A DELAYED EFFECTIVE DATE OF APRIL 1, 2003. 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 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 II, 2001, the Board of County Commissioners 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 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 of County Commissioners 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, 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 Consultant has recommended that the County increase water plant capacity by thirty (30) million gallons per day and to increase sewer treatment capacity by twenty -seven million and eight hundred thousand (27.8 million) gallons per day over the next ten (10) years, at an estimated cost to future utility system users of approximately five hundred and sixty -five million dollars ($565 million); and 10A -�9L February 25, 2003 8A APPENDIX A SCHEDULE TWO - EFFECTIVE APRIL 1, 2003 WATER & SEWER SYSTEM IMPACT FEE RATE SCHEDULE RESIDENTIAL LIVING BASIS OF FEE METER ERC WATER SEWER SPACE ALLOCATION SIZE IMPACT IMPACT (Sq. Ft.) FEE FEE SINGLE FAMILY 0 to 4,999 Per Unit 'A" 1.0 $2,570.00 $2,950.00 (No more than Sq. Ft. 4 Bathrooms) SINGLE FAMILY Over 5,000 Meter Size/ Per n/a Based on $2,950.00 (More than Sq. Ft. Per Unit Ordinance Meter Size 4 Bathrooms) MULTI - FAMILY 0 to 750 Per Unit Per .33 $ 860.00 $ 980.00 DUPLEX Sq. Ft. Per Unit Ordinance MOBILE HOME Per Unit or Space TRAVEL TRAILER/ Per Unit or Space R.V. (TTRV) MULTI - FAMILY 751 to 1,500 Per Unit Per .67 $1,710.00 $1,970.00 DUPLEX Sq. Ft. Per Unit Ordinance MOBILE HOME Per Unit or Space MULTI - FAMILY 1,501 or More Per Unit Per 1.0 $2,570.00 $2,950.00 DUPLEX Sq. Ft. Per Unit Ordinance MOBILE HOME Per Unit or Space NON - RESIDENTIAL: WATER METER SIZE WATER SEWER IMPACT IMPACT FEE FEE 51, $ 2,570.00 $ 2,950.00 N $ 2,570.00 $ 2,950.00 1 $ 6,425.00 $ 7,375.00 1'h $ 12,650.00 $ 14,750.00 2 $ 20,560.00 $ 23,600.00 3 $ 41,120.00 $ 47,200.00 4 $ 64,250.00 $ 73,750.00 6 $128,500.00 $147,500.00 8 $231,300.00 $265,500.00 10 $372,650.00 $427,750.00 12 $552,500.00 $634,250.00 February 25, 2003 171. 1 RESOLUTION NO. 2003- inn A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF .COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING SCHEDULE TWO OF APPENDIX A OF CHAPTER 74 OF THE COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES, AS AMENDED, THE SAME BEING THE COLLIER COUNTY CONSOLIDATED IMPACT F$E ORDINANCE, AUTHORIZING A CHANCE IN METHODOLOGY FOR'TIIE ASSESSMENT OF NON - RESIDENTIAL WATER AND WASTEWATER IMPACT FEES BASED ON EQUIVALENT RESIDENTIAL CONNECTIONS (ERC); PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE OF SEPTEMBER 10, 2003. WHEREAS, in April 2002, the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) mandated that Collier County discontinue use of certain meters that do not now comply with newly adopted Florida Department of Environmental Protection standards; and WHEREAS, in accordance with that FDEP Order, the Collier County Public Utilities Division changed meter brands, thereby replacing non - compliant Hersey meters with ABB meters, which have better Bow characteristics resulting in more water Bow from smaller sized meters; and WHEREAS, on February 25, 2003, the Board of County Commissioners adopted Resolution Number No. 2003 -93, to thereby amend schedule Two of Appendix A of Chapter 74 of the Collier County Code of Law and Ordinances as amended, the same being the Collier County Consolidated Impact Fee Ordinance, and thereby decreasing the impact fee rate for water, but thereby also increasing the impact fee rate for wastewater, both with an effective dale of April 1, 2003; and WHEREAS, the County's non - residential impact fee assessments are based on the size of the meter, and not on the estimated average daily Bow requirements of the respective connection; and WHEREAS, on September 23, 2002, staff authorized Malcolm Pimie, Inc., (the consultant), pursuant to a miscellaneous service contract, to evaluate the County's current impact fee structure and to offer recommend changes, if any, to try to ensure that the County receives equitable impact fee revenues for all new compound meter installations; and WHEREAS, the consultant has recently recommended that tine assessment of non - residential water and non - residential wastewater impact fees will be more equitable if these assessments are hereafter based on estimated average daily Bows for the respective cuslomersUi:1iy =ing converte into equivalent residential connections ( "ERCs') as is, and has been, the County's practice with regard to residential impact fee assessments; and WHEREAS, in Collier County an ERC is equal to 350 gallons per day (gpd) for water and is 250 gpd for wastewater; and WHEREAS, Appendix A, attached hereto, contains a table relating each meter size with its related appropriate range of ERCs based on estimated average daily Bow and re- slating the current water and wastewater impact fee per ERC; and WHEREAS, the above recommended change in methodology does not change any water or wastewater impact fee per ERC adopted by the Board of County Commissioners on February 25, 2003, and still within the parameters for impact fee determination established by Florida case law; and W1 EREAS, staff has thoroughly reviewed the Consultant's findings and recommendations and staff concurs with the recommended change in methodology to assess non - residential water and non - residential wastewater impact fees, and staff reconnnends that the Board of County Commissioners adopt this Resolution and the mm� r r . ma: W r . MCI: ,s o r of vi E; 10 A - c,2, 171 "4OR: 3409 PG: 2012 revised Schedule Two to of Appendix A, attached hereto and made a part hereof, to implement these recommended changes in methudology; and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners hereby accepts these recommendations. 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 assessment method set forth in the revised Schedule Two of Appendix A of Ordinance No. 2001 -13, as amended, the Collier County Consolidated Impact Fee Ordinance, the same also being entitled Schedule Two of Appendix A of Chapter 74 of the Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances, and incorporated herein as Exhibit "A" and is made a part hereof, This revised methodology is fair and reasonable and is hereby adopted, and is to be assessed to all customers who receive or will receive benefits from increased water facilities capacity, increased sewer public facilities capacity, or from both, provided the respective increased capacity is necessitated by increased population and related growth driven development. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED this change in methodology will take effect as of 8.00 A.M on Wednesday, September 10, 2003. This Restijution is adopted after motion; seconded and majority vote favoring adoption this % day IS, , 2003. -,:-ATTEST: Dwight E.`Brock, Clerk ' ii. • ;Deputy Clerk Attest as Approved as to form alyid!nr'm And legal sufficiency: Thomas C. Palmer, Assistant County Attorney BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA By: —:)9 . . Tom Henning, Chaimran to Chalyddni63 I 10A-e-9 10A-a 171 411 APPENDIX A OR: 3409 PG: 2013 SCHEDULE TWO: WATER & SEWER SYSTEM IMPACT FEE RATE SCHEDULE EFFECTIVE DATE: SEPTEMBER 70, 2003 RESIDENTIAL LIVING BASIS OF FEE METER EMC RANGE SPACE ALLOCATION SIZE $ 2,570.00 WATER SE1l'ER $ 2,827.00 to $ 6,425.00 (Sq. F[.) 2.6 to 7.9 $ 6,682.00 to $ 20.303.1111 3 IMPACT IMPACT 4 55.0 to 128.9 $141,350.00 to $ 331,273.00 6 129.0 to 357.9 FEE FEE SINGLE FAMILY 0to4,999 Per Unit '/;' (No more than Sq. Ft. 1.0 $2,570.00 $2,950.00 4 Bathrooms) SINGLE FAMILY Over 5,000 Meter Size/ Per (More than Sq. Ft. Per Unit Ordinance Na Based on $2,950.00 4 Bathrooms) Meter Size MULTI - FAMILY 0 to 750 Per Unit Per DUPLEX Sq. Ft. Pei Unit Ordinance .33 $ 860.00 r $ 98(.00 MOBILE HOME Per Unit or Space TRAVELTRAILER/ Per Unit or Space R.V. (TTRV) _ MULTI - FAMILY 751 to 1,500 Per Unit Per DUPLEX Sq. Ft. Per Unit Ordinance .67 $1,710.00 $1'970'00 MOBILE HOME Per Unit or Space MULTI- FAMILY 1,501 or More Per Unit Per 1.0 DUPLEX Sq. Ft. Per Unit Ordinance $2,570.00 $2,950.00 MOBILE HOME Per Unit or Space NON - RESIDENTIAL (WATER) IMPACT FEE 1 ERC S2 570 METER SIZE WATER ERC WATER RANGE IMPACT FEE RANGE Li <1 $ 2,570.00 1 1.1 to 2.5 $ 2,827.00 to $ 6,425.00 2 2.6 to 7.9 $ 6,682.00 to $ 20.303.1111 3 8.0 to 54.9 $ 20,560.00 to $ 141.1193.00 4 55.0 to 128.9 $141,350.00 to $ 331,273.00 6 129.0 to 357.9 $331,530.00 to $ 919,803.00 8 358.0 to 600.0 $920,060.00 to $1,542,000.00 Page 1 of 2 10A =cfz- EFFECTIVE DATE: SEPTEMBER 10 2003: OR; 3409 PG, 2014 NON - RESIDENTIAL fsEwERI 'FEE. 1 ERC S2.950 METER SIZE SEWER ERC RANGE ;7 SEWER IMPACT FEE RANGE ]q <I $ 2,950.00 1 1.1 to 2.5 - $ 3,245.00 to $ 7,375.00 2 2.6 to 7.9 $ 7,670.00 to $ 23,305.00 3 8.0 to 54.9 $ 23,600.00 to $ 161,955.00 4 55.0 to 128.9 $ 162,250.00 to $ 380,255.00 6 129.0 to 357.9 5 390,550.00 to $ 1,055,805.00 8 358.0 to 600.0 $1,056,100.00 to $ 1,770,000.00 Page 2 of 2 10 A -t4z OR: 3409 PG: 2016 171 If Staff has reviewed in excess of 25 building permits issued since October, 2002. The impact fees were calculated using the revised methodology. The results showed that the application of the methodology had no negative impact on revenues and resulted in a more accurate assessment of impact on water and sewer facilities. The proposed modification for the assessment of impact fees was presented to and approved by: the (DSAC) Utility Sub - Committee on June 17, 2003, the DSAC on July 2, 2003, and the Productivity Committee on August 20, 2003. FISCAL IMPACT: Per the water and wastewater impact fee study approved by the Board of County Commissioners on February 25, 2003, the projected revenue to be generated by the impact fees over the next five years was: Water = $40,267,000 Wastewater = 343,846,000 TOTAL = 384,113,000 The proposed change in methodology will more accurately assess the impact fees. It will enable the Water -Sewer District to generate the impact fees referenced above. GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: Adoption of this resolution does not have any impact on the Growth Management Plan. RECOMMENDATION: The Board of County Commissioners, as Ex- officio the Governing Board of the Collier County Water and Sewer District, adopt a resolution amending Schedule Two of Appendix A of Chapter 74 of the Collier County Consolidated Impact Fee Ordinance, authorizing the change in the methodology for assessment of the Non - residential Impact Fees for water and wastewater on the b ' f Equivalent Residential Connections (ERCs). Submitted By: Harry Huber, Senior Project Manager Public Utilities Engineering Department Reviewed By: lRo . Anderson, P.E., Director ic Utilities Engineering Department _ 1 Reviewed By: �jc_. Torrf Wides, Director Public Utilities - Operations as o Date: Date: z �3 Date: Y w Cj E 80 eccn i I cr 1�; 1\ J TO p� ana v J ORDINANCE NO. 2007 - 5_ AN ORD y NCE OF COLLIER COUNT FLORIDA, AMENDING SUBSECTION ¢ SECTION 74 -303 OF ARTICLE III IN ORDINANCE NO, 2001 -13 (TILE *& LIDATED 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 DETERMINED 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, 2001, 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 foe 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 Pirrue and with the URS Corporation regarding these impact fees, and both consulting firms 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 areaof 5,000 or more square feet, or-irrespective ofithf square footage will have more than four toilets, no longer be determined by the size of the applicable service meter; but shall be determined by the ERC value that results from applicable projected average daffy - flows; and WHEREAS, having reviewed the Consultant's recommendations, staff concurs and therefore 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. a _ NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that: ECTION ONE. Subsection (d)(2)(g) in Section 74 -303 of Article III of Chapter 74 of the Collier Gounty Code of Laws and Ordinances (the same being Ordinance No. 2001 -13, as amended), is hereby amended to read as follows: ..g fees shall be Paid �q the Gauff�y ae the l"est slePaF affieunt based upeR th r r mva d ffam sus Zsa Water and wastewaterfsewer) impact fees for individually metered water and/or sewer service to residential use of less than 5,000 square feet living space and which \ /e will have less than five toilets shall have an ERC value of one. Master metered service to residential \ \♦! JI use of less than 5,000 square feet living space and having less than five toilets shall be determined by v the specific impact fee value assigned by Appendix A Schedule Two Individually metered service and master metered service to non - residential uses or to residential use having living area of 5 000 Underlined text is added; s�ekth> aueh text is deleted. 10 A 6q- 10 A -ce Utilities Administrator or authorized designees shall have final aooroval authority with regard to these impact fee calculations." SECTION TWO. CONFLICT AND SEVERABQ.ITY. 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, andtheword °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 06 day of 5�,,, . , 2007. ATTEST: DWIGHT. E. BR K,,CLERK AtTeR VS-A0o CAdI cart x "ertgndturle ouj-. Approved as to form and legal sufficiency: OF • 1 COUNTY, • n. By: i (21nn, WL4—,— Thomas C. Palmer, Assistant County Attorney This ordinance filed with the ^c tary of State's (. - the g dal, of -T_ht `. 2ct�- Underlincd text is added, &ask- l4eng4i tent is dclekd. cx ,, ckncytisdgemer' ' .7 ` that �iitepce ^jived is L.104,_ day Page 2 of 4 t~ aSfCf C WM1 cfwt 10 A �. APPENDIX A SCHEDULE TWO: WATER AND 1474 STE12VATRR SEWER SYSTEM IMPACT FEE R ATF. SCAFDI TF,F Underlined mx[ is added; SWels- 1kingp wst is delewd. Page 3 of 4 J 10 A --mz -- INDIVIDUALLY METERED SERVICE LIVING SPACE (SO.FT.) ERC VALUE BASIS OF WATER IMPACPFEES SEWER IMPACTFEES FEE ERC- Equivalent Resldential Connection 0 TO 4.999 (AND MAXIMUM OF 4 1 Per ERC $3.415 $3 515 TOILETS) 5,000 OR GREATER ADF/ 350 Per ERC ERC VALUE x 3 515 (OR MORE THAN 4 TOILETS 1 (min value of 3 415 (mi imumvalue � (roundedto Non - Residential ERG VALUE x the nearest $3,415) $3.515 (minimum tenth value $3.515) MASTER METERED SERVICE LIVING SPACE (SO.FT 1 ERC VALUE BASIS OF WATER IMPACT FEES SEWER IMPACT FEES FEE Residential Unit -0 TO 750 0.33 Per Unit $1,125.00 $1,160.00 Residential Unit - 751 TO 0.67 Per Unit $2,290.00 $2.355.00 1500 Residential Unit -1,501 TO 1 Per Unit $3,415.0 0 $3.515.00 499 Residential Unit– 5.000 OR ADF/ 350 Per ERG ERG VALUE x $3.515 GREATER (OR MORETHAN 4 TOILETS) from value M $3.415 (minimum Non - Resldential (rounded to the nearest value $3.4151 ERC VALUE x 3 515 �`- (minimum value tenth $3 515 ACRONYM KEY: Average Daily Flows for proposed use as provided by FOR or Authorized ADF - — Representative FOR - Engineer of Record for prolect ERC- Equivalent Resldential Connection Underlined text is added; Stadk Lla�exgp text is de)eaa. Page 4 of 4 10 A ca. 577147 \111647.0003 EXHIBIT "E" 12 Page I of 3 10 A -0c Lewis, Doug From: Lewis, Doug Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 2:43 PM To: wides_ tom', DeLony_Jim Cc: belpediojennifer, KlatzkowJeff, MoncivaizGilbert,'Gerry Hartman' Subject: RE: Tamiami Square Attachments: Document.pdf Page 1 of 3 10 A -O. Lewis, Doug From: Lewis, Doug Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 2:43 PM To: Iwides_tom'; DeLony_Jim Cc: belpediojennifer, KlatzkowJeff; MoncivaizGilbert; 'Gerry Hartman' Subject: RE: Tamiami Square Attachments: Document.pdf Jim/Tom, I sent you an e -mail earlier today on this, and the clear communication that we have had is that any settlement should address our client's desire to resolve this as quickly as possible and without uncertainty (especially in this current economic climate) of further audits or monitoring of the site Private parties need time to plan for expenses and unanticipated costs are not easily obtainable and recovered. As we discussed, I prefer to be clear on what County staff is offering before I go to the client as I will likely have an uphill battle with Gerry and the client to work to get this settled given the below e -mail. Jim, you asked me yesterday to get back to staff with options to allow us to proceed without any further audits or monitoring of the site. In response to this request, I ran a proposal by Gil yesterday afternoon, and he did not have any objection to it (he did say that this is Tom /Jerry's call however). My e -mail to you this morning contains this proposal. Please carefully look at this and let me know your thoughts On item b. below and according to our consultant, all inflow and infiltration (Ill) is accounted for in the runtimes provided to the County in our report. When sewer discharges out from the pump station it goes into pressurized (not gravity) system and does not have any inflow and infiltration. The annual average daily flow for sewer (taking into account 1 /1) for Units 300 and 400 (based on the historical data provided to the staff) is 18 ERCs. Our client's proposal of 26.5 ERCs is for sewer for Units 300 and 400, and it also includes ERCs for all non - permitted retail space within Units 300 and 400. This ERC count is supported by historical flows and our client's study /methodology. To date, Gerry and I have not seen any data provided by County staff to support 32 ERCs for Units 300 and 400. The only thing I have seen raised by staff on this is the inflow and infiltration (1 11) issue raised by Tom's e -mail today and you now have our response above on this. On the water side and given a proposed 2 year monitoring /audit period, staffs proposal puts the developer in a worse position then he would have been in had the County charged water impact fees at the time of building permit issuance. Several years after the fact, after tenants (not the developer) have pulled permits, after lender financing is gone, this is not something that I can easily take to my client. On item c, per Exhibit 3 to the County's August 29, 2008 letter, the annual average (from August 07 to August 08) is 42 + / -ERCs, not 54.9 ERCs. 54.9 ERCs is based off a 4 month average, with the last month being August 2008 On what basis are we looking at the 4 month average to calculate ERCs? For purposes of deriving the current impact fee rate of $3,200.28 per 1 sewer ERC per the May, 2006 Impact Fee Study, the County looks at AADF, not 4 month averages, and not peak. On the cost side of the ledger, impact fees include the total cost of additional sewer treatment plants and the adjusted cost of existing plants (expressed as a % of the total capacity remaining to serve new development). On the plant capacity side of the ledger, however, the total number of ERCs needed to pay such costs are based on AADF which incorporates a peaking factor of 1.3 to adjust down plant capacity. For example, if plant capacity is 40.100 MGD, this is adjusted down to 30.846 MGD to allow for peaking, inflow and infiltration, etc. If the total number of ERCs needed to pay such wastewater system costs were based on total plan capacity (e.g. 40 100 MGD), more ERCs would be available for issuance, thereby reducing the cost per ERC. However, this creates capacity issues for the County. To avoid this, a peaking factor of 1.3 is already built into the cost of the ERC. This has the effect of raising the cost per ERC by having less ERCs available to pay for the costs of such wastewater system. Our client's only point here is that ERCs are based on AADF, not 4 month averages, and not peak. As such, we should compare apples to apples. Typically, you don't have these historical AADF numbers as impact fees are paid prior to building permit issuance. Here, however, the County's own historical numbers show an AADF for the site at 42 ERCs from August 07 to Aug 08 As such, ERCs should not exceed the the AADF Otherwise, our client is paying too much. Please see the attached back -up information on this. Let me know as soon as possible if we are going to the Board on this appeal. My preference would be to work 1/17/2009 Page 2 of 3 1OA -u with staff and my client to get this worked out as soon as possible. Thank you for your continued efforts on this 11M. From: wides —tom [ mailto:TomWides @colliergov.net] Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 8:39 AM To: Lewis, Doug Cc: belpediojennifer; KlatzkowJeff; DeLony —Jim; MoncivaizGilbert Subject: Tamiami Square Doug, Based on our previous and most recent discussions, the information received to date from the owners of Tamiami Square, their consultants and you, the County's current position that we feel can be accommodated and eventually incorporated into an agreement is as follows: a) We will agree to forego payment of the water and wastewater impact fees for buildings 100 (a minimum of 2.0 ERC's, depending on build out) and 200 (a minimum of 3.5 ERC's, depending on build out) until the request for certificate of occupancy is made by the owners of such buildings. Accordingly, the then current owners will be responsible for payment of the impact fees as a condition of issuance of a certificate of occupancy. b) The County will accept payment for wastewater impact fees at 32 ERC's; this approximates the actual wastewater flows and allows for any additional flows due to normal and recurring inflow and infiltration (I /I) events experienced in the system (which must be recognized since the level of service is measured at the plant and includes allowances for I /I). The remaining impact fees due and payable are $31,266 (32.0 ERC's, less 21.8 ERC's already paid) (see calculations in attachment). Note that these wastewater impact fees only apply to existing tenants of Building 300. Future impact to our water and wastewater systems, by new or existing tenants, will be applied on the future building permits. c) Actual observed and recorded observations of metered water usage at the current customer base equate to a 54.9 ERC calculation. However, the calculated value for water was 61.4 ERC's which included all of the buildings. Subtracting the 5.5 ERC's for buildings 100 and 200, the remaining impact fees due and payable for water are $89,346 (61.4 ERC's — 5.5 ERC's — 1 ERC = 54.9 ERC's, less 21.8 ERC's already paid) (see calculations in attachment). Note that these wastewater impact fees only apply to existing tenants of Building 300. Future impact to our water and wastewater systems, by new or existing tenants, will be applied on the future building permits. d) In light of the fact that a significant percentage of building 300 has not been built out, the potential for additional water and wastewater impact fees will be monitored for two years, in line with the existing Alternative Fee agreement. Future assessments of impact fees will be measured based on actual water use and the same ratio of wastewater ERC's to water ERC's will be applied as established in this settlement agreement. This method of calculation will eliminate the need for the Developer to furnish wastewater monthly reports and will supply the County with a consistent monitoring process. In no event will the amount of ERC's as referenced in items b and c be reduced. e) The potential installation of a separate irrigation meter will be addressed outside of the agreement. 1/17/2009 Page 31f6 A Doug, therefore, staff is willing to resolve this alternative impact fee issue for a remaining combined water and wastewater impact fee payment of $120,904 (see calculations in attachment). Of course, this is subject to Board of County Commissioners approval. Sincerely, Thomas G. Wides, as Operations Director Collier County Public Utilities GxchangeDefender Message Security: Check Authenticity 1/17/2009 10 A -GX 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. 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. 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 10 kiu Table 2 Collier County Water -Sewer District Water and Wastewater Impact Fee Study Development of Existing Wastewater Treatment Facility Caoacity Available to Serve Customer Growth Line No. Wastewater _ System 1 Existing Plant Capacity of System (NEE ADF -MGD) (1) CAdjustment to Reflect 40.100 Capacity on Annual Average Daily Flow Basis (2) (9254 3 Adjusted Treatment Plant Capacity @ AADF 30.846 4 .Annual Average Daily Flow - Existing System (3) 5 Remaining Capacity (AADF) at Existing Plant 16.323 6 Percent of Total Capacity Remaining 14.523 7 Percent of Total System Capitalization Recognized 47.08% 47.08% Capital Costs of Existing Facilities 8 Existing Facility Costs (4) 9 Additional Costs (5) S 157,420,647 10 Less Assumed Retirements (6) 38,212,595 1 1 Less Grant Funds and Other Contributions (7) (11,080,708) (1,753,062) 1_ Total Applicable Capital Costs of Existing Facilities S 182,799,472 13 Estimated Amount Allocable to Future Growth S 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 Footnotes. M M 10A-it,,2- Table 2 Collier County W ale, -Sewer District Water and Wastewater Impact Fee Study Development of Existing Wastewater Treatment Facility Capacity. Available to Serve r.1111sur Growth Amounts reflect permitted MMADF wastewater treatment plant capacity of facilities as represented in the 2005 Wastewater System Master Plan Update developed by Grmlcy & Hansen, the District's Consulting Engineers. The permitted capacities of the individual regional facilities are 24.1 MMADF -MGD (North County Water Reclamation Facility) and 1&0 MMADF -MGD (South County Water Reclamation Facility). With respect to the existing wastewater facilities, the plant capacity is expressed on a maximum month average daily flow basis as referenced in the 2005 Wastewater System Master Plan Update. To be consistent with the level ofscrviae requirements for the wastewater system, the plant capacity was adjusted to reflect an annual average daily flow basis. A summary of the ten fiscal year actual wastewater flows is summarized below. As can be seen based on the actual reported flow data, the capacity adjustment factor averaged 1 27. Factor Used in 2006 Wastewater Master Plan Update 1.30 It should be noted that the District's Comprehensive Plan assumes that the treatment facilities are on an annual average daily Ilrw basis for determination of capacity needs to servicu the County population. 40.100 MMDD -MGD Capacity / 1.30 Peaking Factor = 30.846 AADD -MGD Capacity. 40.100 Less 30.846 = 9,254 Reflects the highest retooled annual average daily flow experienced by the District's wastewater trennnent facilities for the ten fiscal year period ended 2005 as shown below'. Wastewater Maximuu Period Reported AADF (') 16.323 19 a.r�rencemm�a�io FOOmmez roc evoliceble nnnuA everege e.11y nu. doer A,noums derived firm Appendix R reflect only wastewater treatment and effluent disposal and associated reclaimed (hcllity coats accounted for within the wastewater system operations, shown as follows'. Amount (•) Wnsmwater Treatment Costs $137.412,664 R ucluimcd Facility Costs 20,007,983 Taml $157,420,647 (') Ucrived from Appendia B. Line 2879 33 Annual Maximum Month Average Daily Average Daily Flew(MGD) Flow (MOD) Peaking Factor Fiscal Year 1996 8 744 11.450 1.31 Fiscal Year 1997 10.065 12.494 1.24 Fiscal Year 1998 9.962 14.180 1.42 Fiscal Year 1999 10.499 15.944 1.52 Fiscal Year 2000 12.362 15.800 128 Fiscal Year 2001 15.100 16.600 1.10 Fiscal Year 2002 15.528 20.160 1.30 Fiscal Year 200:1 15.600 17.279 1.11 Fiscal Year 2004 15.921 18.899 1.19 Fiscal Year 2005 16.323 19.306 1. 18 Ten -Year Maximum 52 3'cmYcar Avcragc 1 27 Factor Used in 2006 Wastewater Master Plan Update 1.30 It should be noted that the District's Comprehensive Plan assumes that the treatment facilities are on an annual average daily Ilrw basis for determination of capacity needs to servicu the County population. 40.100 MMDD -MGD Capacity / 1.30 Peaking Factor = 30.846 AADD -MGD Capacity. 40.100 Less 30.846 = 9,254 Reflects the highest retooled annual average daily flow experienced by the District's wastewater trennnent facilities for the ten fiscal year period ended 2005 as shown below'. Wastewater Maximuu Period Reported AADF (') 16.323 19 a.r�rencemm�a�io FOOmmez roc evoliceble nnnuA everege e.11y nu. doer A,noums derived firm Appendix R reflect only wastewater treatment and effluent disposal and associated reclaimed (hcllity coats accounted for within the wastewater system operations, shown as follows'. Amount (•) Wnsmwater Treatment Costs $137.412,664 R ucluimcd Facility Costs 20,007,983 Taml $157,420,647 (') Ucrived from Appendia B. Line 2879 33 10 V/12 Tahle 2 Collier County Water -Sewer District Water and Wastewater Impact Fee Study Developmentof Existing Wastewater Treatment Facility Capacity Available to Serve Customer Growth ranges X51 Amounts shown derived from Table 6, reflect i) upgrades and additions to existing plant which would be allocable in pan to syssem growth -, and ii) facility additions which are allocable to both existing and new users of the wastewater system. Derived from "5xisting" column in Table 6 - See Line 136 of Table 6. ;6. Dcrived from "Estimated Original Cost" column in "fable 6 - See Line 136 of Table 6. Amounts shown derived from Line 2881 of Appendix 9 (526,305+ $1,726,757 — $7,]53,062). 34 Table 8 Collier County Water -Sewer District Water and Wcui ewarer Impact Fee Study Development of Wastewater System Impact Fee Lies, No Description Amount Total Estimated Cost of Existing Wastewater TreaoneaVDispe.1 Facilities: I Carl of Existing Facilities (1) $ 157,420,647 2 Additional Costs C.Inudiced to Plant in Service (2) 38,212,595 3 Less Anticipated Retiremems(3) (11,080,708) 4 Less Grant Funds and Other Contributions (4) (1,753,062) 5 Subtotal Wasmwa¢r TreamtenNOispnsal Facilities S 182,799,472 6 Existing Nominal Plant Capacity (MGD) (IsDAADF) (5) 40100 7 Existing Nominal Plant Capacity (MGD) (AADF) (5) (6) 30.846 8 ERC Factor - GPD(7) 250 9 Estimated ERCs to be Served by Existing Facilities 123,385 10 Percent Remaining Capacity of Existing Facilities 47.08% II Allocation of Existing Facilities to lnetenpit.1 Growth S 86,061,991 12 Rate per ERC Associated with Existing Facilities S 1,481.54 Total Estimated Cost of Additional Wastewater TreaonenUDisposal Facilities: 13 Cast of Additional Wastewater TreatmenUDisposal Facililies(9) S 282.DGD,727 14 Capitaliced Interest During Construction of Additional Facilities IS I oral Cost of Additional Wastewater Treatment/Disposal Fnmlilies S 2112,000,727 16 New Plant Capacity (MGD) (MMADF) (9) 18.500 17 New Plant Capacity (MGD) (AADF) (6) 14.230 IS Estimated ERCs to be Served by Additional Facilities 56,920 11) Rate per ERC Associated with Additional Facilities S 4,954.33 20 Rate pct ERC Allocable to Wastewaterfrea[menWisposal Facilities (10) $ 3,20028 Primary transmission System: 21 Existing Fididities(11)(12) $ 32,423,291 22 Additional Costs Capialized to Plant in Scrvicc(I3) 10.469,632 23 New facility Costs (14) 25,491373 24 Capitalized lateral During Construction of "Additional Facilities - 25 Less Anticipated Retirements (15) (5,334.203) 26 Less Receipt of Grant Funds and Other Contribution, (16) (5,858,663) 27 Total Primary TmnnNsee.n Facility Costs S 57,191,431 28 Rstimated Plant Capacity (MGD) (A I)F) (17) 45.077 29 ERC Fumor GPD (7) 250 30 Estimated ERCs served by InUMM1551aa Facilities 180,308 31 Ram prr P.RCo(Primety Transmission Facilities S 317.19 32 'rural Combined Rate per FRC Before Rate Adjustment $ 3,517 47 33 Rounded Rate per ERC $ 3,515.00 34 Cost Per Gallon $ 14.060 MLL =MM... Cnllom Per Day M. =minimum. -rh Avenge Daily Flaw AADF' - Annual Avenas Daay.- EnC- El,- I- t R-61C iel Connccuon GI'n - Gallons eer Day Poo t nines start on Page 7S. 74 10 A l0A Table 8 Collier County Water -Sewer District Water and Wastewater Impact Fee Study Develonmeatof Wastewater Svstrm Impact Fee Fo f_�, `) Amount derived from Appendix B; reflects estimated wastewater treatment and effluent disposal assets currently in service, .frown as follows: Amount (`) Wastewater Treatment Costs $137,412,664 Reclaimed Facility Costs 2007,983 Total 5157,420,647 (•) Derived from Appendix B, Line 2879. (2) Amounts shown derived from Table 6; reflect B upgrades and additions to existing plant which would be allocable in part to system growth; and ii) facility additions which we allocable to both existing and new users of t e west Derived tiom " Hxisting" column in Table 6 - See Line 136 of Table 6. (3) Amount derived from Table 6 and reflects estimated treatment and transmission fixed asset telirements due to imposition of the capital improvement plan ofthe District Derived from "Estimated Original Cost' column in Table 6 - Sec Line 136 of Table 6. (4) Ameums shown derived bom Line 2891 of Appendix B ($26,305 +$1,726,757= $1753,062). (5) /Amount shown derived from Table 2 and includes the following facilities- Noah County Water Reclamation Facility South Comay Water Reclamation Facility Total Plano Capacity Capacity - MGD MMADF AADF 24.100 18.538 16.000 12308 40.100 30.846 (6) 1 he and sal average daily flaw for ex i sling capacity was calculated assam ing a maximum monthly average daily flow to annual average daily flow factor (peaking factor) of 1.30 MGD in accordance with capacity planning assumptions in the 2005 Wastewater Master Plan Update. See Table 2 and corresponding footnotes. i',) I Inc Icvcl of service factor for an ERC reflects capacity read iremcnts expressed on an average daily wastewater flow hnxis; the factor was based on the capacity planning assumptions contained in the Dis'trict's Comprehensive Plan, 2005 Wastewater Master 1'I an Update and other sources available to PRMG. ,R) Domed firm "Expms nor "column in'I able 6 -.Soc L, rc 136 of 1' able 6. 19) Amnum based na discussions with the District and reflected in the 20D5 Wastewater Master Plan Update, which shows the following plant additions / expansions: 75 Capacity MMADF -MGD Period North Cnnnty, Water Reclamation Facility Expansion 6.500 2006 -2010 Northeast County Water Reclamation Front ily Construction 4.000 2011 -2015 Nodheasl County Water Reclamation Facility Expuosloa 4.000 2011 -2015 Snuthcist Connly Water Reclamation Facility Construction 4.000 2011 -2015 Total Plant Capacity - MMADF Basis 18.500 75 l0A fable 9 Collier County WatcrSewer District Water and Wastewater Impact Fee Study Development of Waseewa ter System Impact Fee FU4nwLs: 1101 lknvcdasfollows: Cost a r ixisling Wastewater Treatment Facilities Percent of Existing Wessmwater Treatment Facilities Available to Serve New Growth Adjusted Cost of Existing Wastewater Treatment Facilities Cost of Add ilional Wastewater Treatment Facilities Tmal Costs Estimated ERCs to Be Served By Existing Wastewater' Treatment Facilities Pencil[ of Existing Wastewater Treatment Feed ities Available to Serve New Growth Adjusted ERCs to Be Served By Existing Wastewater Treatment Facilities Estimated ERCs to Be Smed By Additional Wastewater Treatment Facilities Imo[ ERCS Rate Per FRC Associated With Wastewater Treatment Facilities S 182,799,472 47,08% SM.D61,991 282,D00,727 $368,062,719 123,385 47.08% 58,089 56,920 115,009 $3200.28 111, Amount does not include the estimated cost of retail on -site capital expenditures such as manholes, local lift stations, service laterals, and on -site (local) collection utility plant facilities or general plant assets (vehicles, equipment, etc.); such costs arc. i) generally provided by the developer or owners ofpmperly which specifically benefit from such facilities; or it) funded by a separate and distinct fee (e.g., wastewater tap charge). (12, Amount derived Gom Line 2879 of Appendix B, reflects cost ofwaslewater transmission and master pumping station utility plant m service. (131 Ikrived Gom' Existing" column in fable 6 - See Line 137 of Table 6. 1 14 1 Derived limn "Expansion' column in'I able 6 - See Line 137 of "fable 6. (I5) Uclived from "Estimated Original Cost" column in Table 6 - See Line 137 of Table 6. 1151 Amounts shown derived from Line 2881 of Appendix B. ( 17) pefiecls total estimated plant capacity for the forecast period for the water service area based on capacity planning estimate as contained in the 2005 Wastewater System Master Plan Update. Amount calculated as follows: 76 Amount Estmaled service Area Capacity(MMADF - MGD) _ 58.600 Assumed MMADF to AADF Factor 1.300 Estimated AADF Capacity for .Analysis Period (MGD) 45.077 Assumed ERC Factor (gallons per day per ERC) 250 Total Estimated ERC, Available to be Served 180,308 76 03/25/2008 16:10 12393489915 SUNWESTPLUMBING PAGE 02 10A� WATER -ONLY METER APPL•ICATi (POTABLE) Pkww Meet qpe e! taeur regaaatad: _,_ COOLING TOWER --X— IRRIGAnON OTHER Site Address, . Applicant's Name: Applicant's Telephone N: �/SS R35 .� Fax tY:I 1901 - 9 9/ - Mailing Address.,_ Y37L st five N 1 Permit Number (,r Amt6 ff .e): Requested Meter Size: a ' SUMMARY OF SYSTEM CALCULATIONS: Total N of Zones: f a (If Cooling Tower or Other, list Flow in "Zone In) Total Gallons Per Minute (GPM) Per Zone ZONE 1: 2 2. 1 -. ZONE 2: / / —.,I- ZONE 3: 21gg ZONE 4: ZONE 5: 7 J *If more than ten (10) zones, please attach additional sheet. Maximum Number of Zones Running at Once: ZONE 6: Z J ZONE 7: 7 ZONE 8• ' T ZONE 9: ZONE 10: /O amore ij! 7-) PLEASE SUBMIT COMPLETED FORM AND 8.S "X 11 "DRA WINGSHOWING LOCATION OF PROPERTYAND REQUESTED LOGTIONOFPROPOSED METER TO: Englom"Ns TxYald�n Pablk UtWO. Operdl*ee 3361Tnriml Tna E, RMS A Naples, FL 34112 Phone: (239) 252-6237 Fey: M91252-6727 **Impact fees will apply to ALL Potable meter. SUc Tapping fee GPM Size Tapping Ftx GPM .75" $676.00 0-25.5 1s" $1,01100 42.6-85 1" $738.00 25.6 - 423 2" 31,140.00 85.1 -136 Water Impact Fee - S3,616.49/ERC ERC- I +I(Peak GPM - 24)120( l 1 j 5� Minimum Impact Fees - I ERC PUBLIC UTILITIES USE ONLY Peak GPM fur Proposed System: Water Impact Fee: Minimum Meter Size Required: Tapping Charge: Approved: Total: pate: Initials of reviewer. ,1 02/10/2009 15:52 12393409915 SUNWESTPLUMBING PAGE 02 10A- COLLIER COUNTY PUBLIC UTILITIES DIVISION 3301 Fu l nmiami'Rail - NNAea. Florida 34112 - (239) 732 -2115 - Fax (239) 732 -2526 February 9, 2009 Ms. Stacey Morales Sunwest Plumbing, LLC 4376 1" Ave NW Naples, FL 34119 Subject: Potable Irrigation Meter 14700 Tarnismi Trail North... Tamiami Square Dear Ms. Morales: Our office has reviewed the prelirtrinary meter sizing information (application dated February 9, 2009) for the above - referenced address. Based on the information that you supplied to our Office, a two (2) inch meter mom our minimum requirements. You should apply for the meter with the Public Utilities Customer Service Department located at 4420 Mercantile Avenue. Please brunt this letter and nay a total amount of $23,02050. This amount includes the meter tapping fee of $ 1,213.00 and water impact fee of $21,807.50 based on 6.1 Equivalent Residential Connections (ERCs). The fees stated within 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, Public Utilities Operations cc: Gary Morocco, Revenue Supervisor Heather Sweet, Revenue Supervisor Joe Thomas, Water Distribution Manager 10 A-4L 41 PHASE I TMLPiMt SQUARE -7 00 -T-krn (firn I -FkL. Ajo. 14 IV BUILDING KEY 800 sq. ft. Unit 6 3,179 sq. fL Ali Unit? 1,620 sq. ft. Unit a 1,620 sq, ft. Unit 9 1,620 sq. ft. Unit 10 1,620 sq. ft. Unit 11 1,620 sq. ft. Unit 12 1,620 sq. ft. Unit 13 1,620 sq. ft, Unit 14 4620 sq, ft. Unit 15 1,620 sq. fL Unit 16 1,620 sq. ft 7V9- Unit 17 1,602 sq. ft. 10 Ax t i ,SM, R•I i/tRlQ 11YHdSV rJt�iLLSIX3 it ,000'8[ Z'_ - -- - ------------------------- 1 1 ii I0�8. ---- i skl___. - � - Z v1SQ - - -. > 1 i yi -- sal - — — — R k- � - - -- %�L i I IQ t I I 1 W - - -- I �j1p �10 10 I 1 1 Zyi7i MAIM �`�l ayqcc I I Li I W }�}GGp sit-, �1�LL�YI fn I I 1 1lsr *� 010,4 �I iZ 1 I 8 I i _—.r r -- I 1 ' z I ZR z;Z I zSt I Z— I I Zoe ( Z � 1 7 I i H ,E85'lZ ,DOSZZ ZZ .OGS'ZZ OOS'ZZ AO.SZZ ,OSZ'ZZ I i i to _ -- 1 i i — L---- i— .--- .I— T — TL — - i —P - - -- — , ' f/O i i , 1 ---• fEi- ----- �-- '--------- --- -''�P' V Tamiami Square Lewis, Doug From: whitejennifer [JenniferWhite @colliergov.net] Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2009 3:20 PM To: Lewis, Doug Subject: FW: Tamiami Square Pls see below response. Jennifer From: MoncivaizGilbert Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2009 3:19 PM To: whitejennifer; CurryAmiaMarie; wides_tom Subject: RE: Tamiami Square Jennifer, Page I of 2 10A--a2-- The information we use for the Florida Plumbing Code Calculation is cited form various tables within the plumbing code document. There is not a simple reference point. The fixture value can be found on our website under the Public Utilities Engineering web page in the document titled "Meter Sizing Form ". Do you need a reference point for each list fixture? The reference in 2007 -52 for the FAC is general and does not provide a specific reference. As common practice, we use the sewage flows referenced in the FAC 64E- 6.0008 Please let me know if you need further information. Gilbert From: whitejennifer Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2009 3:03 PM To: MoncivaizGilbert; CurryAmiaMarie; wides_ tom Subject: FW: Tamiami Square Do any of you have this readily available. Just got in from a meeting. From: Lewis, Doug [mailto:dalewis @ralaw.coml Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2009 12:13 PM To: whitejennifer Subject: Tamiami Square Jennifer, in advance of my meeting with my client this afternoon, can you provide me with a copy of citation for the Florida Plumbing Code calculation and the FAC calculation for projected average daily flows per County Ord. 2007 -52? For purposes of the FAC, do you have a citation other than FAC 64E- 6.008, Table I? Thanks!! Douglas A. Lewis Picture (Metafile) 2/23/2009 l0 A -cv-. Water Meter Sizing Form 9 r e C✓C7""ty .529 One Form Per Meter Please call Public Utilities Engineering (239) 252 -2583 with any questions. Preparers Information: Name Title Company=== = =___> Address = ________> Phone Email Address Protect Information- Data m===> Permit or AR Number Name of Project =__> Project Address =__> Please Note: 1. All commercial facilities must be metered separately from residential facilities with the exception of those commercial facilities that are within a master metered residential development and designed for the exclusive use of the residents within such development. 2. Meters that include fire service shall be selected to allow a maximum pressure loss at design flow of 5 psi except the 3 -inch meter shall be a maximum pressure loss of 5.5 psi. 3. Additional fees may apply if a backfiow device is deemed necessary by the Water Distribution Department. 4. The Design Engineer /Architect must submit signed and sealed documentation supporting meter sizing. For meters 4 -inch and smaller the sing shall be based upon Fixture Flow Values as shown on the following page and sized as per the Table on page 3 unless approved otherwise by the Collier County Utilities Engineering Department. For all meters the Engineer /Architect must consider all relevant factors before selecting the final meter size. 5. For remodeling projects this form must he submitted only if there is a net increase in Fixture Flow Value This Section to be filled out by Engineer /Architect of Record Demand in accordance with the Fixture Flow Value Worksheet and the Table for Estimating Demand (EngineeriArchitect must attach a completed Fixture flow Value Worksheet) Meter Size in Inches (If the meter is existing. Engineer /Architect most identify the meter manufacturer, antl model number) Type or Print Name of EngineerlArcbitect of Record for Protect Signature of EngineedArchilect of Record for Protect and Date [Affix Eel ineenrg/Architecf Stamp Here] Demand Rarge(GPM) Meter Size 0 to 24 3/4" 24 1 to 40 P 40 1 to 80 1 1/2" do .1 to 144 2° 144.1 to 405 3" 4051 to 900 4' � r 10A -az Fixture Flow Value Worksheet Supporting Documentation r Please call Public Utilities Engineering (239) 252 -2583 with any questions. Enter# of Fixtures of each Figure Type, per unit, then multiply by appropriate Flow Rate to get Fixture Value Valves are calculated using a flush rate of 10 flushes per minute (accortling to Florida Plumbing Code). The flow rate is 10 times the gallons per flush. The fixture flow value is calculated as follows: Number of Valves Calculatio n 1 -2 Flow Ratetimes Number of Figures. 3-10 Flow Ratetimes Me plus two times the Number of Fixtures. 11 or more Flow Rate times Number of Figures divided by two. "Use total Fixture Flow Value on Table for Estimating Demand" to estimate water meter demand. 10 A -�-° ev Gouitty Table for Estimating Demand Supporting Documentation Please call Public Utilities Engineering (239) 252 -2583 with any questions. SUPPLY SYSTEMS PREDOMINANTLY FOR FLUSH TANKS SUPPLY SYSTEMS PREDOMINANTLY FOR FLUSH VALVES Load Demand Load Demand Fixture Flow Value Gallons per minute Fixture Flow Value Gallons per minute 1 3.0 2 5.0 3 6.5 - - 4 B.0 5 9.4 5 15.0 6 10.7 6 17.4 7 11.8 7 19.8 8 12.8 8 22.2 9 117 9 24.6 10 14.6 10 27.0 11 15.4 11 27.8 12 16.0 12 28.6 13 16.5 13 29.4 14 17.0 14 30.2 15 17.5 15 31.0 16 18.0 16 31.8 17 18.4 17 32.6 18 18.8 18 33.4 19 19.2 19 34.2 20 19.6 20 35.0 25 21.5 25 38.0 30 213 30 42.0 35 24 9 35 44.0 40 26.3 40 46.0 45 27.7 45 48.0 50 29.1 50 50.0 60 32.0 60 54.0 70 35.0 70 58.0 80 38.0 80 61.2 90 41.0 90 64.3 100 43.5 100 67.5 120 48.0 120 73.0 140 52.5 140 77.0 160 57.0 160 81,0 180 61.0 180 85.5 200 65.0 200 90.0 225 70.0 225 95.5 250 75.0 250 101.0 275 80.0 275 104.5 300 85.0 300 108.0 400 105.0 400 127.0 500 124.0 500 143.0 750 170.0 750 177.0 1000 208.0 1000 208.0 1,250 239.0 1250 239.0 1,500 269.0 1,500 269.0 1,750 297.0 1750 297.0 2.00G 325.0 2,000 325.0 2,500 380.0 2,500 380.0 3,000 433.0 3,000 433.0 4,000 535.0 4,000 525.0 5,000 593 .0 5 000 593.0 taw. 64 FL ADC 64E -6.008 Rule 64E- 6.008, F.A.C. Fla. Admin. Code Ann. r. 64E -6.008 C FLORIDA ADMINISTRATIVE CODE ANNOT- ATED TITLE 64. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SUBTITLE 64E. DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENT- AL HEALTH CHAPTER 64E -6. STANDARDS FOR ONSITE SEWAGE TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL SYS- TEMS PART 1. Current with rules included in the February 8, 2008 is- sue of the Florida Administrative Weekly; see scope message for specific rules in effect. 64E- 6.008. System Size Determinations. (1) Minimum design flows for systems serving any structure, building or group of buildings shall be based on the estimated daily sewage flow as determined from Table I or the following: (a) The DOH county health department shall ac- cept, for other than residences and food operations, metered water use data in lieu of the estimated sewage flows set forth in Table I. For metered flow consideration, the applicant shall provide authentic- ated monthly water use data documenting water consumption for the most recent 12 month period for at least six similar establishments. Similar es- tablishments are those like size operations engaged in the same type of business or service, which are located in the same type of geographic environ- ment, and which have approximately the same op- TYPE OF ESTABLISHMENT Page 2 of 9 10 A -c Page 1 crating hours. Metered flow values will not be con- sidered to be a reliable indicator of typical water use where one or more of the establishments util- ized in the sample has exceeded the monthly flow average for all six establishments by more than 25 percent or where the different establishments demonstrate wide variations in monthly flow totals. When metered flow data is accepted in lieu of es- timated flows found in Table I, the highest flow which occurred in any month for any of the six sim- ilar establishments shall be used for system sizing purposes. Except for food operations which exceed domestic sewage waste quality parameters as defined in subsection 64E- 6.002(15), F.A.C., where an existing establishment which has been in con- tinuous operation for the previous 24 months seeks to utilize its own metered flows, the applicant shall provide authenticated monthly water use data docu- menting water consumption for the most recent 24 month period. The highest monthly metered flow value for an existing establishment shall be used for system sizing purposes. (b) When onsite systems use multiple strategies to reduce the total estimated sewage flow or the drain - field size, only one reduction method shall be cred- ited. TABLEI For System Design ESTIMATED SEWAGE FLOWS GALLONS PER DAY COMMER- CIAL: Airports, bus terminals, train stations, port & dock facilities, Bathroom waste only (a) per passenger 4 (b) add per employee per 8 hour shift Barber & beauty shops per service chair 75 15 © 2008 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works. http:// web2. westlaw .com/print/printstream.aspx ?sv= Split &prft= H'FMLE &fn= _top &mt =F1... 2/21/2008 64 FL ADC 64E -6.008 Rule 64E- 6.008, F.A.C. Fla. Admin. Code Ann. r. 64E -6.008 Bowling alley bathroom waste only per lane 50 Country club or less per day per seat (a) per resident 100 (b) add per member or patron 25 (c) add per employee per 8 hour shift 15 Doctor and Dentist offices (a) per practitioner 250 (b) add per employee per 8 hour shift 15 Factories, exclusive of industrial wastes gallons per employee 15 per 8 hour shift (a) No showers provided 15 (b) Showers provided 25 Flea Market open 3 or less days per week (a) per non -food service vendor space 15 (b) add per food service establishment using single service 50 articles only per 100 square feet of floor space (c) per limited food service establishment 25 (d) for flea markets open more than 3 days per week estimated 10 flows shall be doubled Food operations 1. add for deli per 100 square feet of deli floor (a) Restaurant operating 16 hours or less per day per Gnat 4_0 (b) Restaurant operating more than 16 hours per day per seat 60 Page 6A , a' Page 2 (c) Restaurant using single service articles only and operating 16 hours 20 or less per day per seat (d) Restaurant using single service articles only and operating more than 35 16 hours per day per seat (e) Bar and cocktail lounge per seat 20 add per pool table or video game 15 (f) Drive -in restaurant per car space 50 (g) Carry out only, including caterers 1. per 100 square feet of floor space 50 2. add per employee per 8 hour shift 15 (h) Institutions per meal 5 (i) Food Outlets excluding deli's, bakery, or meat department per 100 10 square feet of floor space 1. add for deli per 100 square feet of deli floor space 40 2, add for bakery per 100 square feet of bakery floor space 40 3. add for meat department per 100 square feet of meat department floor 75 space 4. add per water closet 200 Hotels & motels © 2008 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works. http: / /web2.westlaw. com/ print /printstream.aspx ?sv = Split &prft= HTMLE &fn= _top &mt =F1... 2/21/2008 64 FL ADC 64E -6.008 Rule 64E- 6.008, F.A.C. Fla. Admin. Code Ann. r. 64E -6.008 (a) Regular per room (b) Resort hotels, camps, cottages per room (c) Add for establishments with self service laundry facilities per machine Mobile Home Park (a) per single wide mobile home space, less than 4 single wide spaces connected to a shared onsite system (b) per single wide mobile home space, 4 or more single wide spaces are connected to a shared onsite system (c) per double wide mobile home space, less than 4 double wide mobile home spaces connected to a shared onsite system (d) per double wide mobile home space, 4 or more double wide mobile home spaces connected to a shared onsite system Office building per employee per 8 hour shift or per 100 square feet of floor space, whichever is greater Transient Recreational Vehicle Park (a) Recreational vehicle space for overnight stay, without water and sewer hookup per vehicle space (b) Recreational vehicle space for overnight stay, with water and sewer hookup per vehicle space Service stations per water closet (a) Open 16 hours per day or less (b) Open more than 16 hours per day Shopping centers without food or laundry per square foot of floor space Stadiums, race tracks, ballparks per seat Stores per bathroom Swimming and bathing facilities, public per person Theatres and Auditoriums, per seat Veterinary Clinic (a) per practitioner (b) add per employee per 8 hour shift (c) add per kennel, stall or cage Warehouse (a) add per employee per 8 hour shift (b) add per loading bay (c) self- storage, per unit (up to 200 units) add 1 gallon for each 2 units or fraction thereof, for over 200 units, and shall be in addition to employees, offices or living quarters flow rates. INSTITUTIONAL: Churches per seat which includes kitchen wastewater flows unless meals prepared on a routine basis If meals served on a regular basis add per meal prepared Hospitals per bed which does not include kitchen wastewater flows © 2008 ThomsonAVest. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works. Page 4 of 9 10A-u2 Page 3 100 200 750 250 225 300 275 15 15 50 75 250 325 0.1 4 100 10 4 250 15 20 15 100 1 9 R ce W, http:// web2 .westlaw.comlprintlprintstream. aspx ?sv— Split &prft = HTMLE &fn = _top &mt —Fl... 2/21/2008 Page 5 of 9 10 A -c(- 64 FL ADC 64E -6.008 Page 4 Rule 64E - 6.008, F.A.C. Fla. Admin. Code Ann. r. 64E -6.008 add per meal prepared 5 Nursing, rest homes, adult congregate living facilities per bed which does 100 not include kitchen wastewater flows add per meal prepared 5 Parks, public picnic (a) with toilets only per person 4 (b) with bathhouse, showers & toilets per person 10 Public institutions other than schools and hospitals per person which does 100 not include kitchen wastewater flows add per meal prepared 5 Schools per student (a) Day -type 10 (b) Add for showers 4 (c) Add for cafeteria 4 (d) Add for day school workers 15 (e) Boarding -type 75 Work /construction camps, semi - permanent per worker 50 RESIDENTIAL: Residences (a) Single or multiple family per dwelling unit 1 bedroom with 750 sq. ft. or less of building area 100 2 bedrooms with 751- -1200 sq. ft. of building area 200 3 bedrooms with 1201- -2250 sq. ft. of building area 300 4 bedrooms with 2251- -3300 sq. ft. of building area 400 For each additional bedroom or each additional 750 square feet of building area or fraction thereof in a dwelling unit, system sizing shall be increased by 100 gallons per dwelling unit. (b) Other per occupant 50 Footnotes to Table I: 1. For food operations, kitchen wastewater flows shall normally be calculated as 66 per- cent of the total establishment wastewater lTow. 2. Systems serving high volume establish- ments, such as restaurants, convenience stores and service stations located near interstate type highways and similar high- traffic areas, require special sizing consideration due to expected above average sewage volume. Minimum es- 0 2008 Thomson(West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works. http: / /web2.westlaw.conVprint/ printstream .aspx ?sv = Split &prft = HTMLE &fn = _top &mt =Fl... 2/21/2008 64 FL ADC 64E -6.008 Rule 64E- 6.008, F.A.C. Fla. Admin. Code Ann. r. 64E -6.008 timated flows for these facilities shall be 3.0 times the volumes determined from the Table I figures. 3. For residences, the volume of wastewater shall be calculated as 50 percent blackwater and 50 percent graywater. 4. Where the number of bedrooms indicated on the floor plan and the corresponding building area of a dwelling unit in Table I do not coin- cide, the criteria which will result in the greatest estimated sewage flow shall apply. 5. Convenience store estimated sewage flows shall be determined by adding flows for food outlets and service stations as appropriate to the products and services offered. 6. Estimated flows for residential systems as- sumes a maximum occupancy of two persons per bedroom. Where residential care facilities will house more than two persons in any bed- room, estimated flows shall be increased by 50 gallons per each additional occupant. (2) Minimum effective septic tank capacity and total dosing tank capacity shall be determined from Table II. However, where multiple family dwelling units are jointly connected to a septic tank system, minimum ef- SEPTIC TANK PUMP TANK Page 6 of 9 10 A -Yt- Page 5 fective septic tank capacities specified in the table shall be increased 75 gallons for each dwelling unit connec- ted to the system. With the exception noted in paragraph 64E- 6.013(2)(a), F.A.C., all septic tanks shall be mul- tiple chambered or shall be placed in series to achieve the required effective capacity. The use of an approved outlet filter device shall be required. Outlet filters shall be installed within or following the last septic tank or septic tank compartment before distribution to the drainfield. The outlet filter device requirement includes blackwater tanks, but does not include graywater tanks or grease interceptors or laundry tanks. Outlet filter devices shall be placed to allow accessibility for routine maintenance. Utilization and sizing of outlet filter devices shall be in accordance with the manufacturers' recommendations. The approved outlet filter device shall be installed in accordance with the manufacturers' recommendations. The Bureau of Onsite Sewage Pro- grams shall approve outlet filter devices per the.depart- ment's Policy on Approval Standards For Onsite Sewage Treatment And Disposal Systems Outlet Filter Devices, August 1999, which is herein incorporated by reference. TABLE II SEPTIC TANK AND PUMP TANK CAPACITY AVERAGE MINIMUM EFFECTIVE MINIMUM TOTAL CAPACITY SEWAGE FLOW CAPACITY GALLONS GALLONS /DAY GALLONS Residential Commercial 0--200 900 150 225 201 - -300 900 225 375 301 - -400 1050 300 450 401 - -500 1200 375 600 501- -600 1350 450 600 601 - -700 1500 525 750 701 - -B00 1650 600 900 801 - -1000 1900 750 1050 1001 - -1250 2200 900 1200 1251- -1750 2700 1350 1900 1751- -2500 3200 1650 2700 © 2008 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works. http: / /web2.westlaw .com/print /printstrearn.aspx ?sv= Split &prft = HTMLE &fn = _top &mt =F1... 2/21/2008 64 FL ADC 64E -6.008 Rule 64E- 6.008, F.A.C. Fla. Admin. Code Ann. r. 6413-6.008 2501--3000 3700 1900 3000 3001 - -3500 4300 2200 3000 3501- -4000 4800 2700 3000 4001 - -4500 5300 2700 3000 4501- -5000 5800 3000 3000 (3) Where a separate graywater tank and drainfield sys- tem is used, the minimum effective capacity of the gray- water tank shall be 250 gallons with such system receiv- ing not more than 75 gallons of flow per day. For gray- water systems receiving flows greater than 75 gallons per day, minimum effective tank capacity shall be based on the average daily sewage flow plus 200 gallons for sludge storage. Design requirements for graywater tanks are described in subsection 64E- 6.013(2), F.A.C. Where separate graywater and blackwater systems are utilized, the size of the blackwater system can be reduced, but in no case shall the blackwater system be reduced by more than 25 percent. However, the minimum capacity for septic tanks disposing of blackwater shall be 900 gal- lons. (4) Where building codes allow separation of discharge pipes of the residence to separate stubouts and where lot sizes and setbacks allow system construction, the ap- plicant may request a separate laundry waste tank and drainfield system. Where an aerobic treatment unit is used, all blackwater, graywater and laundry waste flows shall be consolidated and treated by the aerobic treat- ment unit. Where a residential laundry waste tank and drainfield system is used: (a) The minimum laundry waste trench drainfield absorption area for slightly limited soil shall be 75 square feet for a one or two bedroom residence with an additional 25 square feet for each additional bed- room. If an absorption bed drainfield is used the MAXIMUM SEWAGE LOADING RATE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE SOIL TEXTURE SOIL TEXTURAL LIMITATION CLASSIFICATION (PERCOLATION RATE) Page 7 of 9 10 Vg- minimum drainfield area shall be 100 square feet with an additional 50 square feet for each additional bedroom over two bedrooms. The DOH county health department shall require additional drainfield area based on moderately limited soils and other site specific conditions, which shall not exceed twice the required amount of drainfield for a slightly limited soil. (b) The laundry waste interceptor shall meet re- quirements of subsections 64E- 6.013(2) and (9), F.A.C. (c) The drainfield absorption area serving the re- maining wastewater fixtures in the residence shall be reduced by 25 percent. (5) The minimum absorption area for standard subsur- face drainfield systems, graywater drainfield systems, and filled systems shall be based on estimated sewage flows and Table III so long as estimated sewage flows are 200 gallons per day or higher. When estimated sewage flows are less than 200 gallons per day, system size shall be based on a minimum of 200 gallons per day. TABLE III For Sizing of Drainfields Other Than Mounds TO TRENCH & BED ABSORPTION SURFACE IN GALLONS PER SQUARE FOOT PER DAY 2008 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works. http:// web2. westlaw .com/print/printstream.aspx ?sv= Split &prft = HTMLE &fn = _top &mt =F1... 2/21/2008 64 FL ADC 64E -6.008 Rule 64E- 6.008, F.A.C. Fla. Admin. Code Ann. r. 64E -6.008 Sand; Coarse Sand not associated with a seasonal water table of less than 48 inches; and Loamy Coarse Sand Loamy Sand; Sandy Loam; Coarse Sandy Loam; Fine Sand Loam; Fine Sandy Loam; Silt Loam; Very Fine Sand; Very Fine Sandy Loam; Loamy Fine Sand; Loamy Very Fine Sand; Sandy Clay Loam Clay Loam; Silty Clay Loam; Sandy Clay; Silty Clay; Silt exceeding 30 min /inch) Clay; organic Soils; Hardpan; Bedrock Coarse Sand with an estimated wet season high water table within 48 inches of the bottom of the proposed drainfield; Gravel or Fractured Rock or Oolitic Limestone Footnotes to Table III: Page 8 of 9 Page TRENCH BED Slightly limited 1.20 0.80 (Less than 2 min /inch) Slightly limited 0.90 0.70 (2 -4 min /inch) Moderately limited 0.65 0.35 (5 -10 min /inch) Moderately limited 0.35 0.20 (Greater than 15 min /inch but not Severely limited (Greater than 30 min /inch) Severely limited (Less than 1 min /inch and a water table less than 4 feet below the drainfield) 1. U.S. Department of Agriculture major soil tex- tural classification groupings and methods of field identification are explained in Rule 64E- 6.016, F.A.C. Laboratory sieve analysis of soil samples may be necessary to confirm field evaluation of specific soil textural classifications. The USDA Soil Conservation Service "Soil Textural Triangle" shall be used to classify soil groupings based on the proportion of sand, silt and clay size particles. Unsatisfactory for standard subsurface system Unsatisfactory for standard subsurface system 2. The permeability or percolation rate of a soil within a specific textural classification may be af- fected by such factors as soil structure, cementation and mineralogy. Where a percolation rate is de- termined using the falling head percolation test pro- cedure described in the United States Environment- al Protection Agency Design Manual for Onsite Wastewater Treatment and Disposal Systems, Octo- ber, 1980, incorporated by reference into this rule, the calculated percolation test rate shall be used with Table III and evaluated by the DOH county O 2008 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works. http: / /web2.westlaw.com/ print /printstream.aspx ?sv =Split &prft = HTMLE &fn = _top &mt =Fl... 2/21/2008 64 FL ADC 64E -6.008 Rule 64E- 6.008, F.A.C. Fla, Admin. Code Ann. r. 64E -6.008 health department with other factors such as history of performance of systems in the area in determin- ing the minimum sizing for the drainfield area. 3. When all other site conditions are favorable, ho- rizons or strata of moderately or severely limited soil may be replaced with slightly limited soil or soil of the same texture as the satisfactory slightly limited permeable layer lying below the replaced layer. The slightly limited permeable layer below the replaced layer shall be identified within the soil profile which was submitted as part of the permit application. The resulting soil profile must show complete removal of the moderately or severely limited soil layer being replaced and must be satis- factory to a minimum depth of 54 inches beneath the bottom surface of the proposed drainfield. The width of the replacement area shall be at least 2 feet wider and longer than the drain trench and for ab- sorption beds shall include an area at least 2 feet wider and longer than the proposed bed. Drainfields shall be centered in the replaced area. Where at least 33 percent of the moderately limited soils at depths greater than 54 inches below the bottom of the drainfield have been removed to the depth of slightly limited soil, drainfield sizing shall be based on the following sewage loading rates. Where severely limited soils are being removed at depths greater than 54 inches below the bottom of the drainfield, 100 percent of the severely limited soils at depths greater than 54 inches shall be removed down to the depth of an underlying slightly limited soil. Maximum sewage loading rates for standard subsurface systems installed in replacement areas shall be 0.90 gallons per square foot per day for trench systems and 0.70 gallons per square foot per day for absorption beds in slightly limited soil tex- tiues. Where moderately limited soil materials are found beneath the proposed drainfield, and where system sizing is based on that moderately limited soil, soil replacements of less than 33% may be per- mitted. 4. Where coarse sand, gravel, or oolitic limestone directly underlies the drainfield area, the site shall Page 9 of 9 10 A -U- Page 8 be approved provided a minimum depth of 42 inches of the rapidly percolating soil beneath the bottom absorption surface of the drainfield and a minimum 12 inches of rapidly percolating soil con- tiguous to the drainfield sidewall absorption sur- faces, is replaced with slightly limited soil material. Where such replacement method is utilized, the drainfield size shall be determined using a maxim- um sewage application rate of 0.80 gallons per square foot per day of drainfield in trenches and 0.70 gallon per square foot per day for drainfield absorption beds. 5. Where more than one soil texture classification is encountered within a soil profile and it is not re- moved as part of a replacement, drainfield sizing for standard subsurface drainfield systems and fill drainfield systems shall be based on the most re- strictive soil texture encountered within 24 inches of the bottom of the drainfield absorption surface. (6) All materials incorporated herein may be obtained from the Bureau of Onsite Sewage Programs at www.MyFloridaEH.com or 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A08, Tallahassee, Florida 32399 -1713. Specific Authority 381.0011(4), (13), 381.0065(3)(a) FS. Law Implemented 381.0065 FS. History - -New 12- 22 -82, Amended 2 -5 -85, Formerly 1013-6.48, Amended 3- 17 -92, 1 -3 -95, Formerly IOD- 6.048, Amended 11-19-97,3-22-00,9-5-00,11-26-06. Rule 64E - 6.008, F.A.C., 64 FL ADC 64E -6.008 64 FL ADC 64E -6.008 END OF DOCUMENT © 2008 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works. http:// web2. westlaw .com/print/printstrearn.aspx ?sv= Split &prft = HTMLE &fn = top &mt =Fl... 2/21/2008