Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
DSAC Agenda 04/03/2024
f Co le-r COU44ty Growth Management Community Development Development Services Advisory Committee Meeting Wednesday, April 3, 2024 3:00 pm 2800 N. Horseshoe Dr. Naples, FL 34104 Growth Management Community Development Department Conference Room 609/610 If you have any questions or wish to meet with staff, please contact Rey Torres Fuentes at (239) 252-2413 1 Co ier County Growth Management Community Development Development Services Advisory Committee Agenda Wednesday, April 3, 2024 3:00 pm 2800 N. Horseshoe Dr., Naples, FL 34104 Growth Management Community Development, Conference Rooms 609/610 NOTICE: Persons wishing to speak on any Agenda item will receive up to three (3) minutes unless the Chairman adjusts the time. Speakers are required to fill out a "Speaker Registration Form", list the topic they wish to address, and hand it to the Staff member before the meeting begins. Please wait to be recognized by the Chairman and speak into a microphone. State your name and affiliation before commenting. During the discussion, Committee Members may direct questions to the speaker. Please silence cell phones and digital devices. There may not be a break in this meeting. Please leave the room to conduct any personal business. All parties participating in the public meeting are to observe Roberts Rules of Order and wait to be recognized by the Chairman. Please speak one at a time and into the microphone so the Hearing Reporter can record all statements being made. 1. Call to order - Chairman. 2. Approval of Agenda 3. Approval of Minutes: a. DSAC Meeting— March 6, 2024 b. DSAC Utility Subcommittee Meeting— March 13, 2024 4. Public Speakers For more information, please contact Rey Torres Fuentes at (239) 252-5727 or at Rey.TorresFuentes@colliercountyfl.gov 5. Staff Announcements/Updates a. Development Review Division — [Jaime Cook] b. Code Enforcement Division — [Thomas landimarino] c. Community Planning & Resiliency Division- [Christopher Mason] d. Building Review & Permitting Division- [Richard Long] e. Public Utilities Department — [Matt McLean or designee] f. Housing Policy & Economic Development Division. - [Cormac Giblin] g. Growth Management Dept. Transportation Engineering Division — [Jay Ahmad or designee] h. Collier County Fire Review — [Michael Cruz, Assistant Chief, Fire Marshal] i. North Collier Fire Review — [Chief Sean Lintz] j. Operations & Regulatory Mgmt. Division — [Michael Stark] k. Zoning Division — [Mike Bosi] 6. New Business a. Pending Legislation on Building Regulations [Rich Long] b. Collier County FY2024 Water and Wastewater Impact Fee Study [Joseph Bellone] 7. Old Business a. Sidewalk Payment in-leu Provisions— [Jaime Cook] 8. Committee Member Comments 9. Adjourn FUTURE MEETING DATES: May 1, 2024 — 3:00 pm June 5, 2024 — 3:00 pm July 3, 2024 — 3:00 pm For more information, please contact Rey Torres Fuentes at (239) 252-5727 or at Rey.TorresFuentes@coIIiercountyfLgov 3 March 6, 2024 MINUTES OF THE COLLIER COUNTY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING Naples, Florida March 6, 2024 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, the Collier County Development Services Advisory Committee, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 3 P.M. in REGULAR SESSION at the Collier County Growth Management Community Department Building, Conference Room #609/610, 2800 Horseshoe Drive North, Naples, Florida, with the following members present: Chairman: William J. Varian Vice Chairman: Blair Foley (excused) James E. Boughton (excused) Clay Brooker Jeff Curl David Dunnavant John English Marco Espinar Norman Gentry Mark McLean Chris Mitchell Robert Mulhere Laura Spurgeon-DeJohn Jeremy Sterk Mario Valle Hannah Roberts—AHAC non -voting ALSO PRESENT: Craig Brown, Manager, Environmental Services Thomas Iandimarino, Director, Code Enforcement Drew Cody, Senior Project Manager, Utilities Planning Cormac Giblin, Director, Housing Policy & Economic Development Lorraine Lantz, Planner III, Transportation Engineering Michael Stark, Director, Operations & Regulatory Mgt. Division Richard Long, Director, Building Plan Review & Inspection, GMCD Diane Lynch, Management Analyst II/Staff Liaison GMCD Julie Chardon, Ops Support Specialist II, GMCD Rey Torres Fuentes, Ops Support Specialist I, GMCD Page 1 of 13 4 March 6, 2024 Any persons needing the verbatim record of the meeting may request a copy of the audio recording from the Collier County Growth Management Community Department. 1. Call to Order — Chairman Chairman Varian called the meeting to order at 3 p.m. A quorum of 11 was present in the boardroom; three members joined later. 2. Approval of Agenda Mr. Curl moved to approve the agenda. Mr. Valle seconded it. The motion passed unanimously, 11-0. 3. Approval of Minutes a. DSAC Meeting — February 7, 2024 Mr. McLean made a motion to approve the February 7, 2024, DSAC meeting minutes. Mr. Dunnavant seconded it. The motion passed unanimously, 11-0. b. DSAC-LDR Subcommittee Meeting —January 16, 2024 Mr. Brooker, chair of the subcommittee, made a motion to approve the January 16, 2024, and January 31, 2024, DSAC-LDR Subcommittee meeting minutes. Mr. Mulhere seconded it. The motion passed unanimously, 4-0; Mr. McClean and Mr. Curl also voted. c. DSAC-LDR Subcommittee Meeting —January 31, 2024 Mr. Curl made a motion to approve the January 31, 2024, DSAC-LDR Subcommittee meeting minutes. It was seconded and passed unanimously, 3-0; Mr. McLean and Mr. Brooker, who chaired the subcommittee, also voted. 4. Public Speakers (None) 5. Staff Announcements/Updates a. Development Review Division — [Craig Brown, Environmental Services Manager] Mr. Brown provided an update about LDC Amendment 305-08: • This section involves the live exotic removal ordinance, which has had a few amendments. • It's been revised to limit the scope to the state's only company. • It's going to the CCPC tomorrow. • It goes to the Board of County Commissioners on March 12 and if approved, it will be adopted on March 26. • Anything in limbo, once this is adopted, a 7'/z-foot perimeter of exotic removal will go into effect. b. Code Enforcement Division — [Thomas Iandimarino, Director] Mr. Iandimarino provided a February update: • We had about an 8% increase in cases over February of last year, which is about standard. Page 2 of 13 March 6, 2024 • There was a 20% increase in inspections from last year that stems from the large jump of cases in January. We have little ebbs and flows and some cases we have to finish. • It won't go up a lot more so we are opening up 8% more than last year. • There are little increases across-the-board. We'll see how the rest of the year goes. Chairman Varian said for Contractor Licensing, once they upload their certificate of insurance how long should someone expect that to take to be approved? Mr. Iandimarino said he'd find out and get back to him after the meeting. c. Community Planning & Resiliency Division [Chris Mason, Director] (No report) d. Building Review & Permitting Division [Richard Long] Mr. Long reported that: • We're doing 1,100 inspections a day, our usual. • We hit a new record after President's Day, 1,490 in one day, the most he's seen in 18 years. • There are a couple of review teams that are about three weeks out. Everybody else is running between seven to 10 days after it gets routed. • There are about 2,050 pending reviews, which encompasses all trades, all reviewers in the system now. • Pending intake, there are 527 in the intake process, so half have already been processed and are getting ready to be routed. The other half are in the front of the process. • We issued 286 COs last month, 58 TCOs and 3,561 Certificates of Completion. • We have nine open positions and three new hires starting this month. We have two structural inspector positions open, two plumbing review positions and five structural review positions. Mr. Dunnavant asked about the significance of the Milestone Inspections and the HOA inspections that are completed versus not due yet. Mr. Long explained: • It's an HOA function. • There is a typo and 1,474 is supposed to be 474. • 965 buildings require a Milestone Inspection so we're actively reaching out. • We've just finished the workflow and are trying to it into CityView to capture the data for reporting and track it better. • It's a slow process. Some have been uploaded but haven't been paid yet. • He was mistaken last month. He found that we can charge a fee. It's a $50 review fee, so some engineers don't want to pay that. They say the HOAs should pay it, so we've got some things waiting for that. • We're actively pursuing communication to try and get the HOAs to start getting their inspections in. [Ms. DeJohn joined the meeting at 3: 08 p.m.] Page 3 of 13 6 March 6, 2024 Chairman Varian said there are many HOAs —he has five or six now — and they're all asking what they need to do. Mr. Long said they're just starting to pay attention to it and get it going. He assumes that's probably because they're finishing up Hurricane Ian work. Chairman Varian agreed that's definitely part of it. Mr. Long said we try to be proactive and remind them that as long as they're working on the Hurricane Ian paperwork, they may as well ask the engineer to do the Milestone Inspection. Mr. Valle said on the building plan review statistics, it looks like single family homes jumped back up to about $250,000 but the construction value was still below $50 million. Do you have any sense of the disparity between that and going back to August of last year, we had about $258, 000 but the construction value was much higher. Is there a different product that's coming in the building? Is that just catching up with the statistics? Mr. Long explained that the graph you're looking at represents the ones we issued, and the applied number is another graph, so it'll be probably trailing. e. Public Utilities Department [Drew Cody, Senior Project Manager] Mr. Cody provided an update: • Things have started to normalize after the holiday rush. • We're working through some longer -term requests, permits no one has asked us to help with since 2019 and dates that we haven't done before. • We're working with the county attorney to ensure everything is good to go. We should have those reports out in the next month. • We have a subcommittee meeting next Wednesday with Utilities Finance Director Joe Bellone. He anticipates sending the agenda packet and details to you on Friday. [Mr. Gentry joined the meeting at 3:10 p.m.] E Housing Policy & Economic Development [Cormac Giblin, Director] Mr. Giblin told the DSAC. • We continue to process local applications and Growth Management Plan applications that are seeking increased density in exchange for affordable housing. • Last week the Board of County Commissioners approved the first authorization for the use of the sales surtax dollars to acquire property for Ekos Collier, about 7.5 acres on South Collier Boulevard. About 160 affordable apartments will be built there. The board authorized us to move forward with the purchase of the property for about $3.75 million. • $20 million in surtax dollars was in the pot. • Construction on the Golden Gate Golf Course workforce housing and family project is continuing, with 252 units under construction. Some are in site development now. An additional 120 senior affordable housing units will be built there in Phase 2. • In calendar year 2023, the board approved 2,090 new affordable housing units to be built. That represented 23% of all residential units approved that year. Page 4 of 13 7 March 6, 2024 Ms. Roberts provided a report about the AHAC meeting: • There will be a Live Local Act workshop in conjunction with a local chapter of the ULI. It's intended to be a deep dive into the legislation and recent updates, as well as how we can best adopt it and still comply with our Land Development Code. • The workshop will gather the experts in this room. • If anyone is interested in attending, reach out to Cormac for details. Mr. Giblin noted that several of you already have RSVPed to attend. Mr. Brooker asked what happened with the Live Local Act revisionist bills. Mr. Giblin said the bills passed both chambers and are on Gov. DeSantis' desk. Mr. Brooker asked whether 23% of all approved units being affordable was a good number. Mr. Giblin replied. • It's better than 0. That's on track for a healthy community. • That's a mixture of some developments that were approved that were focused on affordable housing. Some were Growth Management Plan and opted in with 15%, 20% or 30% affordable, so it's a mixture. • There were many at 0%. • About half the 20 developments approved that contained residential units had affordability restrictions, so half were still purely market rate. • The incentives, Growth Management Plan and Land Development Code changes have led to more applicants now. g. GMD Transportation Engineering Division [Jay Ahmad, Director] Mr. Ahmad provided an update on projects in design and in construction: • Airport Road from Vanderbilt Beach Road to Immokalee Road is at about 40-50% design. The project will make it six lanes like the rest of the road, three lanes in each direction. KCA is our consultant. We hope to be in construction by early 2026. There's a grant associated with that and that's the date for that. • Collier Boulevard widening from City Gate north, where Uline is, all the way to Green Boulevard. It's the last section of Collier that's not six lane. It goes from U.S. 41 all the way to Immokalee, so this is a missing piece. We hope to be in construction in 2025. The Army Corps has taken back permitting on the 404 Permit for the DEP, so this project may be impacted by that transfer. • When we had the Vanderbilt Beach Road extension, we were almost ready and the FDEP notice to permit was issued and that took about 1'/2 years to clear that mess. Jacob, of Sacyr Construction USA, is our consultant on that project. • Vanderbilt Beach Road Extension Phase 2, which takes the project from where we ended at 161h to just east of Everglades is in design with Kimley-Horn. We hope to complete the design by early 2024 and the construction soon after so it's seamless with the other projects once it's in. The $153 million ongoing construction projects by Sacyr Construction USA have been undertaken now. They're about 35% complete, about 70,000 feet of pipes being installed, almost 15 crews constructing, so it's going very well. It's tracking for completion on time. Page 5 of 13 8 March 6, 2024 • We're taking a change order to the Board of County Commissioners' next meeting. We faced some unsuitable material we couldn't build roadways on so we were adding days and dollars. • Logan Boulevard by Old Cypress construction project. We're getting many complaints. We're doing a roundabout to slow traffic down. Instead of having a three-way stop, it helps traffic flow. It's going very well. • There are delays in Lumen, which seems to be really slow in addressing utility relocations. We have attorneys involved but it took a long time to have that utility move its fiber optics, so we were backed up and it finally moved. We hope to be completed around August and hopefully, the phone calls will end. • At the last meeting he was asked about the fence on Golden Gate Parkway that kept getting hit, so he dug deeper and talked to Marshall Miller, our maintenance director. There was some confusion about FDOT maintaining the fence, but it's our responsibility, so from now on, we will be repairing it. When they built that bridge, there was an agreement with FDOT to address all the landscaping and fencing features on the bridge. h. Collier County Fire Review [Michael Cruz, Captain] • Chief J. Nolan Sapp is retiring Friday. We're going to do a nationwide search. • Deputy Chief Chris Wolfe will be interim chief until the commissioners get together and figure out that situation. • Plan reviewers are doing a great job. There were 231 reviews for building and 50 for planning. • 49% of our inspections are on the new construction side. h. North Collier Fire Review [Bryan Horbal, Captain] Capt. Horbal detailed the February reports: • We're going to have a party for Chief Sapp on Friday, so swing by if you want to. • We had 408 reviews in February, 52 for planning. • An average review on a permit for new construction is three days and two days on a planning review. • We have multiple housing projects coming up. There are a lot off of Oilwell Road and Immokalee Road. They're popping up everywhere. The new Publix off of Oilwell is already in for permitting, so that'll be next for the Ave Maria area and Estates residents. • Fees for new construction were implemented. The new fee structure seems to be going well. We put our fees together with Greater Naples so they're all aligned so no matter which side of the road you're on, you're paying the same fees. We got a good response on that. • As of March, we had 1,994 permits for new construction in our system for just north Collier alone. • We completed 1,400 inspections in February, including Naples, Immokalee, Ave Maria, Bonita, so it's been another busy month. • We're still one day out on inspection requests, sometimes same day if somebody's in a pinch. Page 6 of 13 March 6, 2024 i. Operations & Regulatory Management Division — [Michael Stark, Director] Mr. Stark provided a February update: • He reviewed our DSAC ordinance to make sure we're achieving our elected regulatory objectives. We review a lot here and want to make sure that we highlight some of the business centers and business units so we can collectively address any concerns and move forward with addressing those concerns. • There are five locations for business centers. That includes the information counter, call center, permit intake, zoning front desk and client services. • Our financial operations section oversees about $96 million in operating expenses and about 49 call centers. • We are starting the budget process now, so we're deep into that. • At Tuesday's BCC meeting, they're going to review the budget instructions for moving forward for our programs. We also oversee cashiering, records management, 311 support, technical systems operations with IT support, our agenda management system, as well as high -profile project support through Diane Lynch. • We are still looking at May for testing the texts and updating that. • Our facilities management team involves operations, security, maintenance, and capital improvements. • Our business center assisted approximately 957 walk-in customers. • Our four satellite locations welcomed 189 walk-in customers. • The Call Center received 6,129 calls to the main number. The average call lasted under three minutes. • The department received 3,876 permit applications through CityView, totaling 18,651 year-to-date. • We're still looking at numbers correlating with FY19-FY20 numbers and are still slightly down. • The average turnaround time for applications was less than one day, with 270 revisions. About 1,488 of those 3,876 had incompletes, but they were processed. • We're evaluating this and working with Kirsten and her team to determine how to communicate effectively to make sure that we lessen the amount of revisions. That will increase turnaround time. • 284 permit applications were related to Hurricane Ian. • There are 277 permits in routing for fees paid. • Intake staff is working through 320 permits from March I" • The zoning front -desk staff resolved 974 survey conditions and are working through 30 survey conditions, 10 of which are CO holds. • We have 320 full-time employees with 29 positions in the hiring pipeline. • We conducted our second round of interviews for the HR manager position that Jamie French discussed. One candidate, a woman employed on the East Coast, has vast experience not only in building, but floodplain management and other experience specific to growth management, which will really help us out. j. Zoning Division — [Mike Bosi, Director] (No report) Page 7of13 10 March 6, 2024 6. New Business a. Sidewalk Payment -in -Lieu Provisions in LDC Section 6.06.02 (requested by Clay Brooker) Mr. Brooker reported. • He has a client who is dealing with the sidewalk payment -in -lieu issue. The purpose for bringing it to this committee's attention is to see if anyone else is having a similar situation. • Sidewalks were introduced as a code 15-20 years ago and this committee was somewhat contentious when we heard it 15 years ago. • The reason it became contentious is there were many pieces of property where there are no sidewalks anywhere around them, yet they were required to build a sidewalk. We called that a "sidewalk to nowhere." • Because of that issue, the code has changed over time to allow payments -in -lieu so if you don't want to build a sidewalk, you can pay into the county's funds, about $9.64 per square foot. • His client has property off Immokalee Road, a fairly eastward road on Rock Road. His house is on an unpaved dirt road and there are no paved roads within a mile and no sidewalks within two miles. • He runs a small landscape business out of his property and parks his landscaping trucks at his property, which is literally in the sticks. • Someone complained about his trucks going down the dirt road and there was dust, etc. It was investigated by Code Enforcement, which found everything was legal. However, because he was operating a business on the property, he was required to submit a Site Improvement Plan. • But a fairly routine, an easy submission ended in many comments coming in. • The scope of work is about $1,000 to throw some plants in. He also must create a handicap -parking space, even though he's the only one who lives there. It will be $25,000 for sidewalks under the current code. That was the demand as of today. • He's working with staff on it. There is one provision that's horribly worded that says if your sidewalk payment -in -lieu is going to be more than 25% of your scope of work, then maybe we need to adjust the payment -in -lieu because that's out of proportion. • He's dealing with Jaime and Mike Bosi and we're trying to work through that. He's not being roadblocked, but it's an issue. • Has anyone here experienced this? If so, how did it get resolved? • He wants to ask staff to come back next month to talk to us about this. • Another issue is that payments -in -lieu go into a fund. The code says they try to use the money to construct sidewalks as near to the location as feasible, which in this case would be a long way away. It makes zero sense. • His client is part of an MSTU, Municipal Service Taxing Unit. Because Rock Road is private, it's not maintained by the county, so property owners around them have paid into this fund over the last 20 years to do what they think is best for Rock Road. Sidewalks have never been in the plans. It doesn't make sense. • He'd like to invite staff next month to tell us if we can do something better. Mr. English told him he supports his proposal. Page 8 of 13 11 March 6, 2024 Mr. Curl said more development is going to happen out in that direction so this really impacts the Estate's zoning. The lengths are ridiculous. When do we ever see a sidewalk group out there building a sidewalk with those funds? It's more of a beat -down to get some money. Mr. English told the DSAC: • He's encountered this many times. We all call them "sidewalks to nowhere." • He had a project where instead of doing payment -in -lieu, because the way it's handled has changed over time, it was cheaper for them to build the sidewalk on the frontage. But there was no sidewalk anywhere near them for miles and miles. They put the sidewalk in and had to put an end -of -sidewalk sign on each end. That's part of the problem. • It's a noble idea to have this requirement, but the problem is the way it's been written. It's very simplistic and leaves no room for reason, waivers and exemptions where it makes sense. • Anytime you encounter these situations, it mystifies logic and the answer is always the same. The code says "you must." It doesn't make sense. • Something that's long been missing is some ability to introduce reason, exemption and waiver. [Mr. Mulhere joined the meeting at 3:33 p.m.] [Mr. Valle left the meeting at 3:33 p.m.] Mr. Curl said it's almost similar to the utilities out there. With the length of lot frontage, it doesn't make sense in terms of bang for your buck. The rights -of -way are easements on properties so it's not technically a right-of-way. They're very narrow, so how do you fit all this within that profile? You've got two swales and a 20-foot road so there's not even room within the right-of-way to build that sidewalk. Mr. Mitchell said we've never had relief. You either build it or you pay. Is there an opportunity to do a consent agenda item or take it directly to the board? It's a bit different, a residential use that isn't commercially visited by anybody, so there's really nothing there. Maybe the thought is the board can approve anything. In the past, Jaime and Matt have introduced items for the board to vote on. It's not a public process so that may be an option. Mr. Brooker said he wants staff to come in next month to inject reason into this Land Development Code Amendment. We need to create flexibility and inject reasonableness into the extreme circumstances we're talking about. A discussion ensued and the following points were made: • A provision allows the county manager to waive that requirement. • That appears in certain sections, but not the one Mr. Brooker needs. He's arguing that it should apply in all sections. • Mr. Mulhere said it's usually tied to practicality. • Mr. Brooker said the county manager's discretion should be built into it all to exercise discretion, regardless of whether it's public versus private, 6-foot, 5-foot, Page 9 of 13 12 March 6, 2024 private easements or rights -of -way. That should all be built in to allow the county manager to exercise discretion when circumstances warrant. • Mr. Mulhere agreed. • Mr. Dunnavant said that for years staff has had the ability to fix this. Do you expect support for your viewpoint from staff? • Mr. Brooker said he spoke to Jaime early this week and she seemed amenable about looking into how this code provision can be improved. • Mr. Mulhere said that's one side of the equation. • The other side is transportation, where it may be more difficult. • The pre-app notes from transportation said we have to install a crosswalk, a stop sign for him to leave his single-family home, and sidewalks. It was off -the -charts crazy. They said this is what the code says, thou shalt do it, with no reason to inject into the review process. That's what needs to occur. • We don't want to add more layers, but it sounds like by right, you can do it administratively, a Site Improvement Plan for the business in the Estates. • This is ag zoning but it has an overlay on it and he uses the property legally. • Maybe there's a hearing examiner process you can use to expedite it. The fear would be that you're giving the county manager or designee the ability to make that decision. • That's a big decision to make and how do you apply it uniformly or with some consistency? • It's fairly easy if you consider how many landscape businesses operate in the Estates. Residents have 5-10 acres so it must be a lot. • It is. There aren't other places for them to operate. Where are they going to go? • Why are we penalizing someone for a non-impactful business? It doesn't draw transportation, pedestrians and there are no customers, so why can't we develop a process? • You can build a waiver into the process. • If the county is lukewarm to this, the hearing examiner process takes three months. It's still time-consuming, but at least you have an opportunity to get out, a waiver, exemption or variance. Ms. DeJohn said she lives on the Estates street of a window contractor, a roofer and some landscape businesses. There are quite a few bicyclists and people coming to work, so it's not customers, it's the employees of these guys in their nice Estate homes with their nice Estate slots who are drawing workers in at about 6 a.m. by foot or by bike. Mr. Brooker said no customers come to this location. Mr. Curl said the roadway he's on is a 20-foot road with a multi -use path. Mr. Mulhere said there's only one permitted use by right in Golden Gate Estates and it's a single-family home. You can do a home occupation, but you cannot do a home occupation under the current rules. You cannot get a home occupation for something that creates more than the usual traffic, etc. There are residents who couldn't get a home occupation for a lawn service in the Estates and they got kicked out of the Estates. That's why they're out in the ag district because we only have two industrial areas in Collier County, one across from Page 10 of 13 13 March 6, 2024 the airport and one off Pine Ridge Road, and there's no room there. The rest is scarce. In North Naples, there's really nothing. Mr. Booker said he believes the only exception for this property is the Rural Fringe Overlay, which allows agricultural services, including land and landscaping businesses, as a matter of right. Mr. Mulhere said it gets very nuanced in the SIC codes. You can't have a site - development business like bulldozers, but you can do the same things under a landscaping business. You can build ponds, lakes, dig lakes, build berms, all under a landscape license, so that whole thing needs to be looked at as to what is permissible. There are impacts. Mr. English said he'd be interested in a conversation about that code item. There are plenty of situations we can map out where it's punitive based on frontage on a public road. You can have 10 acres with very little frontage on a public road, and you're going to pay one price, but you could have the same acreage with a lot of public road frontage and you're going to pay a lot more. There's no proportionality in some cases. Mr. Mulhere said the cost is quite a bit more than if you were to go out and build it, but you don't want to go out and build it because it goes to nowhere. Mr. English said he had a client who had 50-acre property shaped like this and it was all public road frontage. The cost estimate at the county's rate was $500,000 to pay a move for the sidewalk. A discussion ensued and the following points were made: • No code is written perfectly, so it's worth talking about. We've all had problems with it. Why not at least have a discussion? • They don't know if there's an appetite to change it, but it's worth talking about. • So we should ask staff to bring it back to us. • Should the non -urban area be different from the urban area in terms of how that applies? Action Item: Jaime, Mike and Ahmad will speak at the April DSAC meeting to determine if there's a way to create flexibility and iniect reasonableness into the Land Development Code Amendments for extreme circumstances. 7. Old Business (None) 8. Committee Member Comments Ms. Chardon told the committee this would be her last meeting and Rey Torres Fuentes will be taking over. Mr. Espinar told the committee: • He wants to add some context to something Jay said earlier about DEP and the Army Corps of Engineers. Page 11 of 13 14 March 6, 2024 • If there are wetland impacts, you need state and federal permits. The federal permit is the 404. • In an effort to streamline things, three years ago, FDEP assumed the 404 program and a federal judge in Washington, D.C. has since ruled that it was "illegal." They can't do it. The premise is that it involves the Endangered Species Act. • All state permits, if you're in the permitting process for single-family or big development, are on hold. • The state of Florida filed an appeal on Friday. The NGOs who filed the initial lawsuit have this week to reply. • In the meantime, applications are on hold. It may be bad in the sense that applications that were in review under the DEP umbrella may have to start all over again under the 404 federal umbrella. • The state is saying, it's the Endangered Species Act, so maybe we can tweak that and continue the program, but for now, the whole 404 program is on hold. Chairman Varian reported. - Last week, he attended the National Association of Home Builders (IBS) International Show. Their economists spoke and there were a couple of points that are very important for us here. • Remodeling, his business, accounts for about 25% of all construction spending in the country. • They're expecting that to reach almost 45% in the next five years. • Part of that is due to the aging homeless housing stock around the country. • The economists also said they did a study and found that regulatory costs on a single- family home were $93,000. That was mind -boggling. • They said that locally it could be zoning and with the state, it could be building codes. With the feds, it could be energy codes and everything else they throw at us, permitting and delays. • There was a man from Kansas City who said there's a shortage of homes in the country and there's only one group that can make that go away, and that's us. We've got to make everybody aware of that, that they can do whatever they want, but we're the ones who build it. It's very important to take that message forward because we are the only ones that can make something right because that's what we do for a living. 9. Adjourn Future Meeting Dates: 3 p.m. April 3, 2024 3 p.m. May 1, 2024 3 p.m. June 5, 2024 Mr. Curl made a motion to adjourn. Second by Mr. Mulhere. The motion passed unanimously, 13-0. There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by the order of the chairman at 3:49 p.m. Page 12 of 13 15 March 6, 2024 COLLIER COUNTY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ADVISORY COM TTEE William Varian, Chairman These minutes were approved by the Committee/Chairman on , as presented (choose one) , or as amended Page 13 of 13 16 March 13, 2024 MINUTES OF THE COLLIER COUNTY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE UTILITY SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING Naples, Florida March 13, 2024 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, the Collier County Development Services Advisory Committee Utilities Subcommittee, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 3 p.m. in REGULAR SESSION at the Collier County Growth Management Department Building, Conference Room #609/6105 2800 N. Horseshoe Drive, Naples, Florida, with the following members present: Chairman: Blair Foley Vice Chair: Mario Valle (via Zoom) Chris Mitchell ALSO PRESENT: Joe Bellone, Director, Utilities Finance, PUD Drew Cody, Supervisor — Project Management, PUD Ian Barnwell, Impact Fees Manager, TMSD Alexandra Casanova, Management Analyst I, GMCD 17 March 13, 2024 Any persons in need of the verbatim record of the meeting may request a copy of the audio recording from the Collier County Growth Management Department. 1. Call to Order - Chairman Mr. Foley called the meeting to order at 3 p.m.; a quorum of three members was present. He said the subcommittee is here to discuss issues related to the impact fee report of 2024. 2. Election of Chair and Vice Chair Mr. Valle made a motion to nominate Mr. Foley as chair. The motion passed unanimously, 3-0. Mr. Mitchell made a motion to nominate Mr. Valle as vice chair. Second by Chairman Foley. The motion passed unanimously, 3-0. 3. Approve Agenda (No changes) 4. New Business Mr. Bellone introduced himself and said he's been the Utilities Finance Director since 2013 and has been with Collier County Public Utilities in finance roles since 2003, except one year when he took a sabbatical. a. Collier County 2024 Impact Fees Report b. Fee History Mr. Bellone told the subcommittee: • The User -Fee Rate Study was approved by the Board of County Commissioners in December. • Deloney was the department head in the early 2000s and envisioned that the way the county was growing back then, when we almost ran out of water in 2000, and had to reduce pressures through that Easter weekend in 2000 to save capacity, we had to buy land. • It was very cheap in the northeast and very far away at that point, thinking nothing would ever happen there, but we could have our plants there. • In 2005, Collier started designing the water and wastewater plants on that northeast site to add capacity. • In the 2000-2005 rate study, it showed impact fees were about $5,885 combined. • As we started truly thinking about expansion, when population was growing in that time period and through 2007, by the time the 2007 rate study came out, it was $7,338 for combined impact fees. (A chart is provided at the back of the agenda packet.) • In 2008, business started a slowdown and we asked the board to put the capacity expansion projects on hold and the board approved that in 2010. • In 2011, we reduced impact -fee rates and conducted another impact -fee rate study in 2015, when we were just starting to recover from the Great Recession and impact fees went down again, based on growth and capacity requirements. • Then recovery really took hold and we started to hear about developments everywhere, including in the northeast area. 2 18 March 13, 2024 • In 2017, they increased a bit and by 2019, the board approved a district expansion, when some of the developments in the northeast were starting to take shape, and we were starting to hear about names and potential numbers of units in those areas. • In 2019, impact fees increased substantially. • This rate study was done in 2019 and the rates went into effect at the end of March 2020. • We're now in the new rate study, looking at a large rate increase of about 80%. • If you look at it from when the capacity discussion started, rates increased about 3% year -over -year. • Two things are driving this. One of the elements of our impact rate study involves determining whether there's any unutilized capacity in the existing plants, both water and wastewater. There are some based on our level of service standards. Utilities doesn't set the level of service standards. That's set by our users, based on demand. It comes from empirical data based on consumption. • In addition to a lot of the growth going on countywide, not only in the urban area but in the 951 Corridor, Drew will tell you it's sucking up a lot of capacity. A lot of that is going to the south plant, which is not expandable. According to our AUIR, that will be out of capacity soon, in the short term. • In the next 10-year horizon, we're planning a 4 MGD capacity expansion at the Golden Gate plant, primarily to service what will be called Collier County Central. It'll take some pressure off the South Plant and for anything that's happening along the 951 Corridor and then south along US. 41, east of 951. • In the AUIR, we're also now considering having wastewater capacity 4 MGD online on the northeast site to replace the interim wastewater plant site that's there now. The AUIR says that will be online in 2027. • Then a 10 MGD water plant, which will add 10 MGD of water capacity, will be online in 2033, with construction starting in 2030. • All those capacity expansions will occur in the 10-year time horizon within this study. • What we've always said is those are the assumptions and the timeline we have today. • Craig will be going out for bid on the Golden Gate plant very shortly, so we need to be bonding that this coming fiscal year. • The others are subject to growth projections that we include in the AUIR. • Currently, these impact fees reflect what's in the AUIR and the capacity promised in the AUIR. Those are the two major elements that comprise capacity. • We never anticipated the Golden Gate plant. When he did the 2019 bond, based on the cost estimates for that 4 MGD plant, we borrowed $70 million to build that plant back in 2019. Design is complete now and the current estimates are over $140 million due to construction costs that have increased exponentially. • On our rehab side, that's where our user fees went up and that's another of the drivers in the impact figure extending the cost of construction. Vice Chair Valle asked what he sees as the coverage area for that plant and will all of Golden Gate merge onto that plant net, or are you still seeing a number of both water and wastewater being used to meet with what was the South Basin? 19 March 13, 2024 Mr. Bellone explained: • What we're seeing immediately is the 951 corridor is driving that. There are apartment buildings, U-Line and Great Wolf Lodge being constructed. • We also acquired the Golden Gate Utility System from FGUA (Florida Governmental Utility Authority) based on the commission's direction to do two things. One is for public health, to provide portable water, get people off wells located on tiny lots adjacent to their septic systems. The second is the environmental issue of leaching and that would be a septic -to -sewer conversion. That's huge. • We're doing a small one in Palm River now, 24 lots, and Golden Gate would be thousands, and those will all be connected to the Golden Gate plant, which is why we're not calling it Golden Gate. We're calling it Central Collier, as opposed to North Collier Regional. This will be the Central Collier Regional wastewater plant. • Anything on 951 and anything east of 951, the AUIR shows the area that can be served by that plant. During a discussion between Vice Chair Valle and Mr. Bellone, the following points were made: • The former FGUA plant will become the central plant. The FGUA plant is a 1'/2 MGD plant and isn't in great shape. FGUA takes over utilities and runs them into the ground without a lot of rehabilitation. • Right now, we're building the force main to bypass that plant. We can take that offline, so while we're building the expansion, we can rehab some of it. • We'll probably end up taking the 1 MGD train offline. • In this Impact Fee Rate Study, instead of adding 4 MGD, we're really adding 3 MGD additional capacity, so we've taken 75% of the cost of that expansion into the Impact Fee Rate Study, not 100%, because we are taking some capacity off. • The deferred maintenance on the Golden Gate plant would be user -fee funded, not impact -fee funded. Any rehabilitation is user -fee funded. Vice Chair Valle asked if the central plant will be for all the new multifamily units in development and all the subdivisions going in off 951. Mr. Bellone said not necessarily. Mr. Cody explained. • With the central plant -connected and online, the anticipation is for the immediate conversion before we stop and reassess what that plant is taking. It is going to cover the service area that FGUA had, including the conversion projects Joe talked about for the people who are on septic now, Activity Center No. 9, the area around 951 and I-75. There's also some space that isn't in either one of those technically on the map, but it's between them. We also would get that area. It's between Activity Center 9 and the former GG service area. • It doesn't make sense to try and pipe that out of the middle south. • Then we would reassess what we're looking at for the central plant and there are some other long-range considerations there that don't fall into this impact study. • There are many south of that. Mr. Mitchell asked if they would stay in the South Plant. 4 20 March 13, 2024 Mr. Bellone said right. A discussion ensued and the following points were made: • We can relieve the South Plant of some of this area, Activity Center No. 9. • The areas between are still going to the South Plant. Anything that's built off of the street, as they come online, will go to the South Plant where that capacity is vacated. • The limitation of the South Plant expansion is 16 MGD and it's the size. It's surrounded by schools and homes. Vice Chair Valle asked about p. 25 of the study, which shows the cost and breakdown ratio. He was trying to understand what drove the $485 million at the bottom. After we started at $924 million plus and then certain things were excluded and certain costs didn't come in, we got down to a bottom number that reflected the percentage increase and therefore the percentage increase in the fee? Mr. Bellone said that's correct. The $947 million capital improvement program is what you're looking at in total for the utility. You have to exclude any rehab. Mr. Bellone broke down the $140 million: • The capital investment schedule is Table 3 in the appendix, starting on p. 38. • Table 3 is the Water Capital Improvement Program and Table 4 is the Wastewater Capital Improvement Program for the 10-year summary. • He started working with the Capital Improvement Plans and the capital plans in the AUIR, which are reflected in this. • We have $140 million in the Golden Gate wastewater plant, and $140 million on the northeast site, the 4 MGD plant, which is supposed to include two deep injection wells. Right now, we have an IQ tank, the water tank, the high-pressure pump and the small 1.5 MGD —two 0.75 MGD interim wastewater treatment plants. • It's east of Big Island Corkscrew Regional Park. That's $163 million. We're using some existing bond money to re -look at the design, spending about $4 million to $5 million on the re -design to look at it again to ensure we've got the latest technology, etc. • Based on where that is, the engineering estimates are about $163 million, including two deep injection wells. He doubts those injection wells could be included in that. • The 10 MGD water plant is similar to what's included in the annual AUIR, about $100 million to $125 million. • If you add up the $140 million, the $160 million and the $100 million, you're very close to having the nearly $485 million we've got over the four years. • It's really being driven by those three planned expansions. Vice Chair Valle said. • What we're trying to do is to capture those capital improvements in this impact phase. • The question folks will have is: How come we have to go that far out all at one time and can we stagger this incrementally between major studies? It's the biggest jump. • He understands what construction prices did from last year to this year and he's having hard conversations with clients nearly daily, so he understands construction loans. • He's trying to figure out how to not make it as painful on the most affordable side of the equation, understanding that affordable housing is already a big challenge and this 21 March 13, 2024 will be another significant number for folks with an already high or higher than normal interest rate. Mr. Bellone explained. • On the financial side, he's going to the bond market in Fiscal `25 to ask for at least $160 million for the Golden Gate Plant. • What they ask for is a 10-year revenue and a 10-year operating expense projection. If he doesn't have approved rates, he cannot give them those numbers. • The only way for him to get the bonds to even do the beginning of the projects is to demonstrate to the bond market that the revenues are available. Otherwise, what they look at is the utilities' overall revenue stream, which would include user fees. • The last thing we want to do after a 9'/2% rate increase is tell the users that all these new people are coming to Florida and let's build them some plants. • That's the dilemma he has in terms of shortening that 10-year horizon. Vice Chair Valle asked if the Board of County Commissioners could approve the rate as you set it up as a hypothetical, knowing that we're going to collect and we're going to increase this much over the next three years until we get to the 100% of where your rate is versus turning on the tap in 90 days. That's what the board usually has to do. Mr. Bellone explained: • Even though water and sewer are exempt from that, when we did the last impact rate increase, we waited 90 days, and we would do that again. • In the history chart, in 2007, we had the rate study approved, and then in 2008, we did it again, and the rates came down. Then we waited until 2011 to take them down. • He has no intention of waiting three years in this business environment. It's way too long. • When he goes to the board, he thinks he'll say here's an AUIR you just approved. Here are the impact fees that provide that capacity in the AUIR. However, much like user rates, if we see business conditions change, we're going to come back to you more quickly than three years. Mr. Barnwell explained that 90 days is the county policy, which follows the new state statute. It says you're wholly exempt due to Chapter 163, so for all the other impact fees, the new legislation requires that you can't come back with an increase more than once every four years. But water and sewer is wholly exempt from that. Mr. Bellone said. We're exempt from that, but you're all in the business and understand that you're signing contracts all the time for building and from one year to the next, things can change dramatically. We saw that from 2008-2010. We put our plans on hold and it doesn't mean it won't happen again. He immediately came back with the new rate study, so while we're saying that we're going to approve these rates now for three years, we're asking them to approve them at this rate, but we don't give them a time frame. We've always said to the board that based on business conditions, these are subject to change up or down. 6 22 March 13, 2024 He understands the affordable component, but for essential services like water and sewer, you don't want to be in the situation we were in on Easter Sunday 2000, where it would have blown the pressure and he has to manipulate to lower the pressure. Vice Chair Valle said. He was here when FDEP came out because we had spills on Goodlette-Frank Road. Back then, folks were using an average for that north sewer plant and we can't use an average of wastewater capacity, right? You've got to be prudent. He understands where you're coming from but worries about how this is going to come out when we have an increase in users of 9%-plus and that saddles new people with an 80% increase. From the optics, that's despair. He wants to ensure we're looking at this every way we can because so many of us in business are finding it harder to hire people because they can't afford to live here because it's already expensive. We're not doing anything to make it more affordable for the entry level employees who are returning here or coming to work in the private or public sector. It's about $500,000 to purchase a home and then you're putting in an 80% increase in wastewater impact. Mr. Bellone said he understands the hiring issues because he made two offers to get an accounting tech, an entry level position, and two people turned down the offer. He understands the rates have a nexus in the costs for providing the service. That's why he created this chart — because he wanted you to see the ebb and flow. At this point, with the number of villages in the northeast that have been proposed, the number of agreements that we have to service those developments, you don't want to be behind the curve in capacity. That's the last thing a utility ever wants. But we also don't want to gouge folks who are buying homes and tell them, "Give me $12,000 and maybe we'll build it, maybe we won't." We have to gauge the construction market. He's also got the bond market on his tail so he needs to ensure he keeps everyone happy. A discussion between Vice Chair Valle and Mr. Bellone ensued and the following points were made: • That's the hardest component because you've got to get financing for it in a bonding issue under a 10- or 30-year plan. • We're reserving that money for that plan today and folks are paying for that today. • The northeast plant will come online in about three years, possibly 2027. • Water travels better than wastewater, so we can fill tanks up in the northeast. We can run high-pressure pumps, like we do in Carica and Manatee and Goodland, etc. We can get water to those far-flung places better than we can get wastewater collected from those places. • The priority will be the wastewater plants, which is why the water plant is later in the planning horizon. • When we go to the bond market and borrow $163 million to $170 million, we will do that over 20 years. Hopefully by that time, interest rates will be more friendly than they are today. The county will be paying for that Golden Gate plant over 20 years. • The county will be paying for the northeast wastewater plant over 20 years, so the money we're collecting over time from all the home building in Isles of Collier Reserve 7 23 March 13, 2024 all the way down past 951 on the north side of 41, all those people are paying for these plant expansions, no matter where you build. If you build on 951, you pay the same impact fee to use the capacity of a regional plant. These are all regional, interconnected plants. Vice Chair Valle said for the residents of Golden Gate City living on small quarter -acre lots and even the commercial properties there, such as Santa Barbara Boulevard, that have water but not wastewater connections, what happens to them? Mr. Bellone said they will be forced to connect once there is availability to connect. They will have 90 days to connect. Vice Chair Valle asked when that would occur. Mr. Cody said Golden Gate City is tricky because it will have more than nine phases of getting sewer installed. It must be done in concert with a significant number of other neighborhood projects and grants, so the utility is working with planning on that in conjunction with the growth management capital services that are provided, such as lighting, sidewalks, etc. Those public utilities renewal projects will take time. Mr. Bellone said those will be public utilities renewal projects like with Naples Park and Palm River. We'll do that work in concert, so that we're not ripping up a road to open a trench and wastewater pipes and then going in the next year to do stormwater. Mr. Mitchell asked if there's financing available for the user or do they have to do it themselves? If they have to pay $12,000, does the county let them do that over time? Mr. Bellone said of course, but it's not interest free. Most people choose not to. Golden Gate may be a stickier issue due to the environment. A discussion ensued and the following points were made: • This isn't like building a new plant, so don't they get credit? Doesn't it get calculated differently than users coming into a new plant and adding to the system? They're newly reserving capacity, which is when they pay. • The county must look at whether they have to pay for the big plant they're not using. • They will pay for water first. The transmission mains for water are already going in and then when we eventually get to the septic -sewer conversion, that will be a long process because of the public utility renewal project we're working in concert with. • Then they'll pay the wastewater utility at connection at that point, when we install the meters. • We have to get the water there first and the transmission mains are going in today. • Water will take two years or less. • It's up to the county to put in the distribution lines with the service lines to connect those that aren't connected. At the point when we install the meters, they'll pay the impact fees. Mr. Cody reminded them they the county doesn't expect to have that plant until 2027. And we're not looking at starting with sewer conversions until we have a plan for that multiphase project and we need the plant. There isn't a capacity, there's no conversion. 24 March 13, 2024 Mr. Bellone said the driver is the 951 Corridor and taking pressure off the South Plant and we don't have to fill the South Plant. Chairman Foley said the vice chair has good points, but he has a different perspective. What he's hopeful about is that we come back yearly. These big gaps here are no good to anybody, and the charts are problematic because of that. When you take things to the bond market, it's a yes or no. He doesn't think you can phase it. He wasn't surprised by the numbers. If you live here, work here, run a business here, travel the roads here, it's not really a surprise. A discussion ensued and the following points were made: • When you bring your report to the full DSAC, when they go to make a motion, they can include that in their motion, that another fee rate study will be done sooner rather than later, not waiting three years. • It could get reviewed within 12 months to see if a rate study is necessary. That would be more amenable to the board and would pass more easily. • The expenditure for an impact -fee rate study is about $100,000, a little less for the user - rate study. That's not a large percentage of your operational budget, so it wouldn't really impact the users if we did it more often. • One of the commissioners just saved utilities $126,000 by not having to put fluoride in the water, so we can use that money to do another rate study. • If we entered a climate where we had a reduction in home production and building, that would be the time to spend money to do the plant expansions so we're ahead of the curve. • Almost every local large civil engineering firm is now a national firm and or private equity firm, which says people are doubling down on the market because no one's going to spend that kind of money to get that asset without a return. The goal is to then be gobbled up by a larger company. • Even if the forecast says that we're going to slow down in the market, it's relative to our market, not relative to the national market. We need to consider that 2008 was a lot different, but we should push forward on this because we could get more behind and be subject to increased fees, instead of doing it at today's dollars. • Those are the times when interest rates generally are lower. While construction costs are lower and you have more bidders on those projects, and there's more competition, you get better rates not only on construction, but on the bond side, you have lower interest rates. So that's the best time to do it. • When COVID hit, Mr. Mitchell recommended that his clients move forward on projects, despite their trepidation that the world was ending, and that was the best time to put projects out to bid. Interest rates were low, contractors were hungry for work and prices were good. Mr. Barnwell told the subcommittee: • If we were to see some major fluctuations in costs, we could do a cost and credit analysis. • That hasn't been done since before 2015. • It's a stripped down version of a full study just to evaluate costs as an interim solution. • Utilities from the impact -fee perspective are wholly exempt from the more restrictive covenants, such as the changes made in Chapter 163 for impact fees. 9 25 March 13, 2024 There was a push in one bill this year that didn't get any traction to remove that exemption for water and sewer, so if that were to come back and be approved, then utilities would be subject to the same regulations as the other impact fees, which now limits your increases to every four years. For phasing, if a fee increases from 0-25, you can implement it straight away at the time of adoption. Between 25% and 50%, that has to be phased in over two years and then any fee increase over 50% has to be phased in over four years. If utility impact fees were to be included and that exemption was removed, they would be... Mr. Mitchell asked how they'd do bonding then. Mr. Barnwell said that's a great question and he thinks that's why it got pushed back this year. Mr. Mitchell said maybe higher -rate users pay more interest but it could be done. Mr. Bellone said the general fund generally has three bond rating agencies, including Standard & Poor's (S&P), which doesn't rate utility bonds. A discussion ensued and the following points were made: • Those are some of the safest bonds. When the county wanted to borrow $128 million, Mr. Bellone got $156 million and those were premium bonds. Utility bonds are generally premium bonds and are guaranteed and tax free. • Staff needs to present this to the full DSAC to show you've looked at every aspect on how to reduce the cost. • It's important to know whether there's a way to reduce the cost over time and if it could be phased in. • The county has a monumental political task with Golden GateCity. It will be tough when they're mandated to connect so we want to make it as friendly as possible. That's a pretty big pill to swallow, so we need to ensure we're doing everything we can to minimize the cost. • It also will be an issue because a lot of those properties are investor properties and are rented out. The owners aren't here. If the county has to look for delinquencies, everyone dreads Golden Gate because we have hundreds that we have to do. • There also has to be an MSTU vote for Golden Gate Estates. • Golden Gate Estates involves large lots so they're exempt, such as Oakes Boulevard. They did an exercise and were more interested in water than sewer but we couldn't even get them to pass it for water. We couldn't get 50% plus one to agree. • You can't bring it into the county's service district and do the capital improvements because it's an exempt area within the service district and always has been. It's a donut hole in the service area. • Estates and agricultural -zoned properties are exempt from compulsory connection. That's a board policy, so you'd have to change the zoning to do it or board policy. • One of the changes in the statute that took effect last July was that Collier County became eligible for more grant -type funding for conversion programs. We've also started pursuing hazard mitigation and direct appropriations from the state. • Palm River is offset by direct appropriation. Staff s intent is to continue doing that to help residents offset conversion fees, but that's at the discretion of the regulatory 10 26 March 13, 2024 agencies and the legislature. We can't plan on offsetting in advance. We offset at project time. • The county applied for Palm River and Naples Park and have $4.5 million combined for water, sewer and stormwater. We have $3 million for the Palm River conversion. • We applied for $35 million for the Golden Gate Wastewater Plant and were denied. That doesn't mean we're not going to try again next year. We're applying in tandem now. We're going back again and applying for the local hazard mitigation -grant on that one as well. • We don't just pursue single avenues. We have a minimum of three we're actively pursuing. • It will be important to mention to the full DSAC what's available and what's actually used. • The last firm that did the impact -based study was PRMG, but they were acquired by Raftelis. PRMG was a small private firm and Robert J. Ori was the principal. He now works for Raftelis. It's a much larger organization but they do a significant number of water -sewer rate studies in Florida, which is why we choose them. • This study was broken down and is much easier to understand, without the interspersed of what we have versus what we've got to build new. • You need to provide some history, show the fluctuations and big swings in the market, given the time -frame differences, then talk about what is actually going to be needed and where that number comes from, tying that all together for that, and then talk about the bonding and how the financing works. • The board requested that the Office of Management & Budget tie together three concepts, so that budget was not an exercise that we did just as an exercise. It was tied into the strategic plan and the AUIR so your idea to bring the AUIR into this to say, "Here's the plan, based on what the county sees is growing and this is funding that growth" is a great point. • You can't realistically understand one without the other. It's important for folks to get that fundamental understanding so we can go ahead and go through that. • That needs to be highlighted for newer members and Hannah Roberts, who's representing the Affordable Housing Advisory Committee, to show how we try to go through this. • Rates are broken down by 750 square feet or less, 750 square feet to 1,500 square feet and over 1,500 square feet for multifamily and single family. The majority of homes are three-quarter inch and some of the larger homes are 1-inch. • The impact fees on the larger meters tend to be commercial, hospitals and schools. • You need to highlight on a per -unit differential for the multi -family side. Some people are going to think this is adding more cost. Affordability will be part of that multifamily component and if you can show that the cost is less than a full single-family home, that gives you something from the affordability side. • The graph Mr. Bellone showed is a typical three -quarter -inch single family home of 1,800 square feet. • But when you're talking about affordability and multi -family, there are some staggered approaches we're able to take that we're not able to take in the single-family home market. • Courts said we could no longer base impact fees on home size. We were trying to do that when transportation impact fees were blowing through the roof and there was a lawsuit and a judgment that went the other way. 11 27 March 13, 2024 Mr. Bellone said that on p. 84 is Appendix C, the proposed study, and it shows that for the smaller units, the 0-750 square feet, their water impact fee would be $2,135 compared with $6,470 for a single- family house. Vice Chair Valle said that's where you want to tie in from an affordability perspective. You need to use that. Mr. Bellone said that's a great idea and asked if the subcommittee would be ready to give a recommendation to the full DSAC at its next meeting in April. Vice Chair Valle said he thinks so. Based on what we've seen and heard, especially with the financing approach, we're comfortable making that recommendation. Mr. Bellone said then he can plan on board schedules. He'll talk with Ian and Amy. She's already indicated that the first meeting in April would be difficult. It may be May. Chairman Foley said maybe they can make a summary that says we brought this report to the subcommittee and these are some of the suggestions. We're happy to incorporate them and then we can support that at the next meeting. He thanked them for doing the research. That always works with the board. It's always important. Sometimes it's surprising when you start looking at it. Who would think that Marco Island was in a position where they are now? Mr. Bellone said every time his boss asks if he wants to take over that utility, I tell him not during my tenure. Financially, that's not something I want to take on at this point. Vice Chair Valle said you also need to highlight some of the suggestions that came out of the subcommittee that were unable to be adopted, but that we went through the exercise of just throwing everything we could to get to the point where we felt comfortable about making that recommendation. Mr. Bellone said OK. Chairman Foley said the description you made about the bonding is really important. Because you have to do it a certain way, you're not going to get even the beginning of the first plant. Mr. Bellone said right. And Derek, the director of finance for the Clerk's Office, he's on him about that all the time. about that all the time. They work closely on those things. He'll get the exact words from Derek. • Action Item: • Mr. Bellone needs to provide the full DSAC with the history, show the fluctuations and big swims in the market, given the time frame differences, then discuss what will be needed and where that number comes from. That all needs to be tied together. • He also needs to show how the bonding and financing works. • The per -unit differential for the multi -family side needs to be highlighted to show affordability. • He needs to show the full DSAC suggestions that came out of the subcommittee that couldn't be adopted, but that the subcommittee went through the exercise of looking at everything to get to the point where it felt comfortable about making that recommendation. • The DSAC motion should say that another fee rate study will be done sooner rather than later and the county won't wait three years. They could consider a review in 12 months. 12 28 March 13, 2024 5. Public Comments 6. Adjourn There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by the order of the acting chairman at 4:01 p.m. COLLIER COUNTY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE UTILITIES SUBCOMMITTEE Blair Foley, Chairman These minutes were approved by the subcommittee/acting chairman on , (check one) as presented , or as amended 13 29 slsanbaa o o n o N r ci Ln O m N 0 E 7 E W O 0r, ID 0 O0 O O O O sAed ssauisn8 sjsanbab m a u v E F O Q Q Q O u GJ 0 m 'tJ ci G1 E 3 v v c O m ' N O v Z E H 3 v v C I O m ar N � U Q O E O U N v 7 O' v I O Ln O in O Ln O Ln O V (n m N N sAea ssauisne cWA6fflCT C-eOT411ty JvIarch 2024 Code Enforcement .T4ont(Cy Statistics 03/2024 Growth Management Community Development Department 32 Code Enforcement Reports Cases Opened Per Month 700 w 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 M M QM �'M M M �M �M V M > M V M 2N QN 2N �N MN QN CN ON ZN ON 'N LLN Code Inspections Per Month 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0 2 N Q N 2 N n N M N Q N Cl)N O N Z N O N M N LL N Code Enforcement Reports 5000 4500 4000 3500 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0 F- 3500 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0 Origin of Case 2023 _ 330 __ 719 2024 CRA Case Opened Monthly 401 Bayshore Immokalee Code Investigator initiated cases by FY Complaint initiated Cases by FY Monthly Case Opened Total Cases Opened Code Enforcement Reports February 22, 2023 — March 21, 2024 Highlights • Cases opened: 513 • Cases closed due to voluntary compliance: 315 • Property inspections: • Lien searches requested: Top 15 Code Cases by Category Signs, 14 Right of Way, 12 Communication 1 Towers, 5 Site Development, 96 Parking Enforcement, Property 14 Maintenance, 57 Vehicles, 94 Occupational Licensing, 8 Nuisance Abatement, 78 Land Use , 63 Noise, 20 2434 905 Vegetation Requirements, 9 Animals, 3 Accessory Use, 17 35 ollor"ALqws r7ji Building Plan Review Statistics All Permits Applied by Month 6,000 5,000 4,000 3,000 2,000 1,000 N N N N N N N N N N M M M M M M M M M M M M I* Iq Iq N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N L L i+ C 0 Q— i V C ma L L i+ C 3 M Q— i U C -0 L cC 0.(6 d V O 0 M 0 R Q M � 3 N V O W M 0 R Q Q In O z o n u_ 2 Q Eto O z o n u_ a Top 15 of 35 Building Permit Types Applied Bldg 1 & 2 Res,210 Well Permits, 101 Plumbing, 340 e/qg Roof, 446 / 00,''3 �aa�q�t ROW Residential, 117 8 3gs Building, 654 �- ` Shutters/Doors/ Windows, 479 Gas, Solar, 77181 Electrical, 315 -"17. Mechanical, 727 Aluminum Structure, 169 Building Plan Review Statistics Monthly 1 & 2 Family Total Construction Value by Applied Date $450,000,000 $400,000,000 $350,000,000 $300,000,000 $250,000,000 $200,000,000 $150,000,000 $100,000,000 $50,000,000 N N N N N N N N N .a cn cn 1 &2 Family Monthly Total Construction Value by Applied Date $450,000,000 $400,000,000 $350,000,000 $300,000,000 $250,000,000 $200,000,000 $150,000,000 $100,000,000 $50,000,000 Monthly Multi -family & Commercial Total Construction Value by Applied Date $450,000,000 $400,000,000 $350,000,000 $300,000,000 $250,000,000 $200,000,000 $150,000,000 $100,000,000 $50,000,000 N N N N N N N N N i C Q U M C Q U L Multi -family Commercial N N N N N N N N N N CO M M CO M CO M M M CO M M ;I- N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N >, C M Q U > U C Q >+ C 0) Q U > U C (6 Q (6 Z5 N O O O � N O (0 O N (9 O Q Q CO 0 Z 0 —) LL Q � Q cn 0 Z 0 � L ® 1&2 Family —0—Multi-family Commercial Building Plan Review Statistics 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 New Construction Building Permits Issued by Month N N N N N N N N N N M M M M M M M M M M M M qe V le N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N L >_ i, i 81 a— > U C M L L i+ a 0 a— > U 14 0-7' 3 0)0 0 d M d M Q M 7' 3 a)V 0 d R d Q Q fn O z o-) LL E Q E Q fn O z o-) LL ;E Mar- 22 Apr- 22 May- 22 Jun 22 Jul 1 22 Aug- 1 22 Sep 22 Oct 1 22 Nov- 1 22 Dec 22 Jan 1 23 Feb- 1 23 Mar- 23 Apr- 23 May- 23 Jun- 23 Jul- 23 Aug- 23 Sep 23 Oct- 1 23 Nov- 1 23 Dec- 23 Jan- 1 24 Feb- 24 Mar- 24 ■Commercial 4 4 4 7 4 4 4 6 8 2 8 1 6 6 6 3 4 7 9 2 3 2 1 4 4 ■ Multi -family 15 3 1 8 2 2 3 10 29 7 3 1 3 22 3 1 7 4 15 3 4 5 2 11 3 0 1&2Family 333 255 284 316 248 280 234 279 212 219 195 211 246 168 243 221 234 258 240 245 165 183 103 252 174 New Multi -family Building Permits Issued by Month 30 25 20 15 10 5 N N N N N N N N N N N N N L i1 1 0-i C L i1 1 Q i C L CO O M cB O G ll0^ VJ Z ccM C '0 W Z C Growth March 2024 New Commercial Building Permits Issued by Month 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 N N N N N M M M M M M � 'T N N N N N N N N N N N N N I I 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 M 5 0 O M M M -) 0 0 M M � 2 (n Z� 2 2 (A Z� 30,000 25,000 20,000 15,000 10,000 5,000 0 Well, 116 Building Inspections Statistics Building Inspections N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N CZ ML L %1 C 2 Q 2 Q (n 0 z 0-, U- 2 Q 2i� Q (n 0 z 0-, LL 2 Types of Building Inspections Gas, 630 Pollution Control, 1 \T3,295 g, \ Electrical, Mechanical, 5,266 2,903 ROW, 275 Structural, 9,624 Land Development, 1,884 Septic, 154 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Building Inspections Statistics Milestones Received by Month CO Ca E C C L CL O > 0 m a) o a) LL cn z o 2023 2023 2023 2023 2023 2023 2023 2023 2023 2023 2024 2024 2024 Milestone Inspection Status 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 Land Development Services Statistics All Land Development Applications Applied by Month N N N N N N N N N N M M M M M M M M M M M M IRT Iq Iq N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N a *11 > V C M i i >% C Is 0 Q. > V M i ca d V O O M a) M 3 N 0)V O O M Q g Q Cl) 0 Z o-) u_ Q Q cn 0 Z o-) u_ Z Top 5 Land Development Applications Applied within the Last 6 Months 180 170 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 ifi3 Short -Term Vacation Zoning Verification Site Development Plan Vegetation Removal Special Event Permit Rental Registration Letter Insubstantial Change Permit Land Development Services 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 120 100 :E We 40 20 Statistics Pre -application Meetings by Month N N N N N N N N N N M M M M M M M M M M M M V Iq NT N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N i V C L L C i V C L.IC Q (4 3 3 V 0 d 14 N M 3 � V O d 14 -0 d a a cn O z o n LL 2 a 2 a cn O z 0 n LL a Front Zoning Counter Permits Applied by Month N N N N N N N N N N M M M M M M M M M M M M ICT le Iq N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N L L i1 C 0 Q — i U C -0 L L A C M Q — i V C M L M Q R Q N v O d R W M M a)v 0 0 14 a) M A a a ch O z o LL 2 a n n a US O z o� LL 2t Temporary Use Commercial Certificates Growth• 1 • Development Land Development Services Statistics Number of New Subdivisions Recorded per Month 8 7 6 0 5 0 4 0 3 .0 E 0 2 z U) m 0) M a 4- 0 as z il N N N N N N N N N N M M M M M M M M M M M M Iq qT qT N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N L L i1 0 Q— i 0 C M L i >, C �= a) V 0 0 M 0 M 0 Q— i 0 C M L cC Q R N 0 0 0 M a) M OMR= Q g Q fA 0 z o n LL 2 Q 2 Q W 0 z o n LL a 60 54 50 Plat Pages Recorded per Month 40 35 30 24 21 1 9 20 10 9 10 12 9 9 11 9 11 9 14 11 0 3 ■ 0 0 0 11 0 5 101 N N N N N N N N N N M M M CO M M M M M M M M Iq I* I* N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N L M 2 L 0. Q if fa ' M Q Q a) Ch "� v 0 i 0 z V 0 o C M n M 0 LL i 0 2 L Q Q A= M 2 7� � M Q Q a) U) "� v 0 i 0 z U d o-) C.0 R W LL L M a Yearly Totals Subdivisions 2020 - 25 2021- 33 2022 - 29 2023 - 21 2024 YTD - 6 Yearly Totals Lots 2021- 1353 2022 - 3100 2023 - 1212 2024 YTD - 596 Yearly Totals Pages 2020 - 152 2021- 188 2022 - 175 2023 - 100 2024 YTD - 42 Land Development Services 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 30 25 20 15 10 5 Statistics Monthly Total of Subdivision Applications (PSPA, PSP, PPL, PPLA, ICP, FP, CNST) by Month N N N N N N N N N N M M M M M M M M M M M M Iq Iq Iq N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N 0) Q I'll > U C .0 i i >% C ai 0.41 > U C � L fC Q (C a) U 0 0 M a) M d U 0 0 ca a� Q Q CO 0 z o—) LL Q 2 Q N 0 z o� LL Z Monthly Total of Subdivision Re-submittals/Corrections (PSPA, PSP, PPL, PPLA, ICP, FP, CNST) by Month N N N N N N N N N N M M M M M M M M M M M M qT 1* NT N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N L L it C 0) Q I'lli U C M L L >% C of Q "'' i U C M L- a) 14 Q c4 U 0 a) cC a) (U am (0a) U 0 d ca a) M Q n Q cn 0 z M LL Q Q fA 0 z M LL Z U C:, I Cq1t) Cl) I Iq Ito CV) CV) M E elm I I I EM E PRE! I 1 1 ri I Fq I I I I I I I I I 00 � C'I C*1 i�i i�i i�i�i i�i "i� 02 Growth Management Community March 2024 Development Department Reviews for Land Development 1,600 1,400 1,200 1,000 800 600 400 200 Services Number of Land Development Reviews N N N N N N N N N N M M M M M M M M M M M M le Iq Iq N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N L L i' C Qi Q— i V C -0 L i i+ C M Q— i V C Q L 2 Q Q 0 O z o n LL 2 Q E n Q 0 O z o n LL a Percent Ontime for the Month Late, L.4 Top 5 Land Development Reviews- Feb 2024 400 384 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 p S�Al Se t� 1zA 0 !�� `.CTO Land Development Services Statistics Total Applied Construction Valuation Estimate am nnn nnn %pJ J, V VV, VVV $30,000,000 $25,000,000 $20,000,000 $15,000,000 $10,000,000 $5,000,000 $0 70 KE t 50 c 0 E 40 v n c 30 0 U n 20 Ln c 10 0 N N N N N N N N N N M M M M M M M M M M M M V le Re N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N L L i. C 0 Q — i 0 C M L L i+ C 0 Q — i U C M L M Q R 3 3 41 V 0 M Q R Q 3 (D 0 0 d M 0 M Q Q 0 0 z n LL 2 Q Q w 0 z 0 n U- ■ Construction Estimate Utility Estimate Site & Utility Inspections N N (V N N N N N N N M M M M M M M M M M M M 1:t 1:t 1:t N rV N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N rV rV rV N i C :w 0-—> U c -0L % C � tin Q > U c - co Q co 7 O U 0 v ra a1 fl- v U 0 W M a) M Q Q vi 0 z L Q Q cn O Z L.L ■ Final Subdivision Inspection ■ Final Utility Inspection Preliminary Subdivision Inspection Preliminary Utility Inspection ■ Tie In Inspection Fire Review Statistics 10 9 8 7 6 N m 5 0 4 3 2 1 0 Building Fire Review Average Number of Days N N N N N fV N N N N M M M M M M M M M M rA M II:T Ict N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N i i >C I]A Q +' > U C � - i >� C to 0- }' > U C -0i ro 0- co 7 N U O a) M a) M Q M O M a a) U 0 a) ! g a s V) o z o LL 2 a Q LA o z o L g Total Number of Building Fire Reviews by Month Fire District Mar- Apr- May- Jun- Jul- Aug- Sep- Oct- Nov- Dec- Jan- Feb- Mar- Apr- May- Jun- Jul- Aug- Sep- Oct- Nov- Dec- Jan- Feb- Mar- 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 24 24 24 ■ North Collier 671 646 777 855 637 800 525 466 449 391 444 450 583 490 692 650 627 636 525 616 543 411 459 406 508 Collier County (Greater Naples) 613 538 576 623 383 481 350 422 317 374 347 448 539 408 500 447 391 428 397 442 395 403 382 429 425 Planning Fire Review Average Number of Days 10 9 8 7 6 m 5 0 4 3 2 1 0 N N N N N N N N N N M M M M M M M M M M M M N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N (o Q to bn 0- > U C: -0 L L >` C W Q > 7 7 a) U O W to a1 ro 7 7 a1 U O U W C: ro W L a a U) o z o� a Q Ln o z o U Total Number of Planning Fire Reviews by Month Fire District Mar- Apr- May- Jun- Jul- Aug- Sep- Oct- Nov- Dec- Jan- Feb- Mar- Apr- May- Jun- Jul- Aug- Sep- Oct- Nov- Dec- Jan- Feb- Mar- 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 24 24 24 0 North Collier 29 49 43 48 36 31 29 55 27 41 42 28 46 25 47 56 54 50 37 52 48 57 60 57 37 Collier County(Greater Naples) 62 69 59 56 65 73 41 57 46 62 56 68 70 63 82 91 43 43 60 62 50 39 56 53 60 ENROLLED 2024 Legislature CS for CS for CS for SB 812, 1st Engrossed 2024812er 1 2 An act relating to expedited approval of residential 3 building permits; creating s. 177.073, F.S.; providing 4 definitions; requiring certain governing bodies, by a 5 date certain, to each create a program to expedite the 6 process for issuing residential building permits 7 before a final plat is recorded; requiring the 8 expedited process to include a certain application; 9 prohibiting the application or local government final 10 approval from altering or restricting the number of 11 building permits requested under certain 12 circumstances; requiring certain governing bodies to 13 update their program in a specified manner; providing 14 applicability; requiring a governing body to create 15 certain processes for purposes of the program; 16 authorizing applicants to use a private provider to 17 expedite the process for certain building permits; 18 requiring a governing body to establish a registry of 19 qualified contractors for a specified purpose; 20 prohibiting such qualified contractors hired to review 21 an application from having a conflict of interest with 22 the applicant; defining the term "conflict of 23 interest"; authorizing a governing body to issue 24 addresses and temporary parcel identification numbers 25 for specified purposes; requiring a governing body to 26 issue a specified number or percentage of building 27 permits requested in an application when certain 28 conditions are met; setting forth certain conditions 29 for applicants who apply to the program; providing Page 1 of 8 CODING: Wordsstrie#en are deletions; words underlined are additions. 50 ENROLLED 2024 Legislature CS for CS for CS for SB 812, 1st Engrossed 2024812er that an applicant has a vested right in an approved preliminary plat when certain conditions are met; prohibiting a governing body from making substantive changes to a preliminary plat without written consent; requiring an applicant to indemnify and hold harmless certain entities and persons; providing an exception; providing an effective date. Be It Enacted by the Legislature of the State of Florida: Section 1. Section 177.073, Florida Statutes, is created to read: 177.073 Expedited approval of residential building permits before a final plat is recorded.— (1) As used in this section, the term: (a) "Applicant" means a homebuilder or developer who files an application with the local governing body to identify the percentage of planned homes, or the number of building permits, that the local governing body must issue for a residential subdivision or planned community. (b) "Final plat" means the final tracing, map, or site plan presented by the subdivider to a governing body for final approval, and, upon approval by the appropriate governing body, is submitted to the clerk of the circuit court for recording. (c) "Local building official" has the same meaning as in s. 553.791 (1) . (d) "Plans" means any building plans, construction plans, engineering plans, or site plans, or their functional equivalent, submitted by an applicant for a building permit. Page 2 of 8 CODING: Words strieken are deletions; words underlined are additions. 51 ENROLLED 2024 Legislature CS for CS for CS for SB 812, 1st Engrossed 2024812er (e) "Preliminary plat" means a map or delineated representation of the subdivision of lands that is a complete and exact representation of the residential subdivision or planned community and contains any additional information needed to be in compliance with the requirements of this chapter. (f) "Qualified contractor" includes, but is not limited to, an engineer or engineering firm licensed under chapter 471; a surveyor or mapper or a surveyor's or mapper's firm licensed under chapter 472; an architect or architecture firm licensed under part I of chapter 481; a landscape architect or landscape architecture firm registered under part II of chapter 481; or any other qualified professional who is certified in urban planning or environmental management. (2)(a) By October 1, 2024, the governing body of a county that has 75,000 residents or more and any governing body of a municipality that has 10,000 residents or more and 25 acres or more of contiguous land that the local government has designated in the local government's comprehensive plan and future land use map as land that is agricultural or to be developed for residential purposes shall create a program to expedite the process for issuing building permits for residential subdivisions or planned communities in accordance with the Florida Building Code and this section before a final plat is recorded with the clerk of the circuit court. The expedited process must include an application for an applicant to identify the percentage of planned homes, not to exceed 50 percent of the residential subdivision or planned community, or the number of building permits that the governing body must issue for the residential subdivision or planned communitv. The application or Page 3 of 8 CODING: Words strieken are deletions; words underlined are additions. 52 ENROLLED 2024 Legislature CS for CS for CS for SB 812, 1st Engrossed 2024812er 88 the local government's final approval may not alter or restrict 89 the applicant from receiving the number of building permits 90 requested, so long as the request does not exceed 50 percent of 91 the planned homes of the residential subdivision or planned 92 community or the number of building permits. This paragraph does 93 not: 94 1. Restrict the governing body from issuing more than 50 95 percent of the building permits for the residential subdivision 96 or planned community. 97 2. Apply to a county subject to s. 380.0552. 98 (b) A governing body that had a program in place before 99 July 1, 2023, to expedite the building permit process, need only 100 update their program to approve an applicant's written 101 application to issue up to 50 percent of the building permits 102 for the residential subdivision or planned community in order to 103 comply with this section. This paragraph does not restrict a 104 governing body from issuing more than 50 percent of the building 105 permits for the residential subdivision or planned community. 106 (c) By December 31, 2027, the governing body of a county 107 that has 75,000 residents or more and any governing body of a 108 municipality that has 10,000 residents or more and 25 acres or 109 more of contiguous land that the local government has designated 110 in the local government's comprehensive plan and future land use 111 map as land that is agricultural or to be developed for 112 residential purposes shall update their programs to expedite the 113 process for issuing building permits for residential 114 subdivisions or planned communities in accordance with the 115 Florida Building Code and this section before a final plat is 116 recorded with the clerk of the circuit court. The expedited Page 4 of 8 CODING: Words strieken are deletions; words underlined are additions. 53 ENROLLED 2024 Legislature CS for CS for CS for SB 812, 1st Engrossed 2024812er 117 process must include an application for an applicant to identify 118 the percentage of planned homes, not to exceed 75 percent of the 119 residential subdivision or planned community, or the number of 120 building permits that the governing body must issue for the 121 residential subdivision or planned community. This paragraph 122 does not: 123 1. Restrict the governing body from issuing more than 75 124 percent of the building permits for the residential subdivision 125 or planned community. 126 2. Apply to a county subject to s. 380.0552. 127 (3) A governing body shall create: 128 (a) A two-step application process for the adoption of a 129 preliminary plat, inclusive of any plans, in order to expedite 130 the issuance of building permits under this section. The 131 application must allow an applicant to identify the percentage 132 of planned homes or the number of building permits that the 133 governing body must issue for the residential subdivision or 134 planned community. 135 (b) A master building permit process consistent with s. 136 553.794 for applicants seeking multiple building permits for 137 residential subdivisions or planned communities. For purposes of 138 this paragraph, a master building permit is valid for 3 139 consecutive years after its issuance or until the adoption of a 140 new Florida Building Code, whichever is earlier. After a new 141 Florida Building Code is adopted, the applicant may apply for a 142 new master building permit, which, upon approval, is valid for 3 143 consecutive years. 144 (4)(a) An applicant may use a private provider pursuant to 145 s. 553.791 to expedite the application process for building Page 5 of 8 CODING: Words strieken are deletions; words underlined are additions. 54 ENROLLED 2024 Legislature CS for CS for CS for SB 812, 1st Engrossed 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 2024812er permits after a preliminary plat is approved under this section. (b) A governing body shall establish a registry of at least three qualified contractors whom the governing body may use to supplement staff resources in ways determined by the governing body for processing and expediting the review of an application for a preliminary plat or any plans related to such application. A qualified contractor on the registry who is hired pursuant to this section to review an application, or any part thereof, for a preliminary plat, or any part thereof, may not have a conflict of interest with the applicant. For purposes of this paragraph, the term "conflict of interest" has the same meaning as in s. (5) A governing body may work with appropriate local government agencies to issue an address and a temporary parcel identification number for lot lines and lot sizes based on the metes and bounds of the plat contained in the application. (6) The governing body must issue the number or percentage of building permits requested by an applicant in accordance with the Florida Building Code and this section, provided the residential buildings or structures are unoccupied and all of the following conditions are met: (a) The governing body has approved a preliminary plat for each residential subdivision or planned community. (b) The applicant provides proof to the governing body that the applicant has provided a copy of the approved preliminary plat, along with the approved plans, to the relevant electric, gas, water, and wastewater utilities. (c) The applicant holds a valid performance bond for up to 130 percent of the necessary improvements, as defined in s. Page 6 of 8 CODING: Words strieken are deletions; words underlined are additions. 55 ENROLLED 2024 Legislature CS for CS for CS for SB 812, 1st Engrossed 2024812er 175 177.031(9), that have not been completed upon submission of the 176 application under this section. For purposes of a master planned 177 community as defined in s. 163.3202(5)(b), a valid performance 178 bond is required on a phase -by -phase basis. 179 (7)(a) An applicant may contract to sell, but may not 180 transfer ownership of, a residential structure or building 181 located in the residential subdivision or planned community 182 until the final plat is approved by the governing body and 183 recorded in the public records by the clerk of the circuit 184 court. 185 (b) An applicant may not obtain a temporary or final 186 certificate of occupancy for each residential structure or 187 building for which a building permit is issued until the final 188 plat is approved by the governing body and recorded in the 189 public records by the clerk of the circuit court. 190 (8) For purposes of this section, an applicant has a vested 191 right in a preliminary plat that has been approved by a 192 governing body if all of the following conditions are met: 193 (a) The applicant relies in good faith on the approved 194 preliminary plat or any amendments thereto. 195 (b) The applicant incurs obligations and expenses, 196 commences construction of the residential subdivision or planned 197 community, and is continuing in good faith with the development 198 of the property. 199 (9) Upon the establishment of an applicant's vested rights 200 in accordance with subsection (8), a governing body may not make 201 substantive changes to the preliminary plat without the 202 applicant's written consent. 203 (10) An applicant must indemnify and hold harmless the Page 7 of 8 CODING: Words strieken are deletions; words underlined are additions. 56 ENROLLED 2024 Legislature CS for CS for CS for SB 812, 1st Engrossed 2024812er 204 local government, its governing body, its employees, and its 205 agents from liability or damages resulting from the issuance of 206 a building permit or the construction, reconstruction, or 207 improvement or repair of a residential building or structure, 208 including any associated utilities, located in the residential 209 subdivision or planned community. Additionally, an applicant 210 must indemnify and hold harmless the local government, its 211 governing body, its employees, and its agents from liability or 212 disputes resulting from the issuance of a certificate of 213 occupancy for a residential building or structure that is 214 constructed, reconstructed, improved, or repaired before the 215 approval and recordation of the final plat of the qualified 216 project. This indemnification includes, but is not limited to, 217 any liability and damage resulting from wind, fire, flood, 218 construction defects, bodily injury, and any actions, issues, or 219 disputes arising out of a contract or other agreement between 220 the developer and a utility operating in the residential 221 subdivision or planned community. However, this indemnification 222 does not extend to governmental actions that infringe on the 223 applicant's vested rights. 224 Section 2. This act shall take effect upon becoming a law. Page 8 of 8 CODING: Words strieken are deletions; words underlined are additions. 57 COLLIER COUNTY WATER -SEWER DISTRICT Fiscal Year 2024 Water and Wastewater Impact Fee Study FINAL REPORT / JANUARY 19, 2024 R A F T E L I S Co�ev Count R y 58 R RAFTELIS January 19, 2024 Honorable Chairman and Members of the Board of County Commissioners Collier County 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 303 Naples, FL 34112-5746 Subject: 2024 Water and Wastewater Impact Fee Study Raftelis Financial Consultants, Inc. (Raftelis) has completed our review of the water and wastewater impact fees for the Collier County (County) Water -Sewer District (District) water and wastewater system (System), and has summarized the results of our analyses, assumptions, and conclusions in this report, which is submitted for your consideration. The purpose of our analysis was to review the existing impact fees and make recommendations as to the level of charges that should reasonably be in effect consistent with: i) the utility assets installed by the District; ii) the capital expenditure requirements identified in the District's multi -year Capital Improvement Program (CIP); iii) industry guidelines and Florida Statutes; and iv) County management objectives. The methodology for the determination of the capital costs to be included in proposed impact fees (i.e., available to be recovered) was also reviewed by the County's outside legal counsel and the fees as documented in this report reflect all of the recommendations from said counsel. Based on our review, Raftelis is recommending that the water system impact fee be increased from $3,382 to $6,470 per Equivalent Residential Connection (ERC). For the wastewater system, we are recommending an increase in the impact fee from $3,314 to $5,614 per ERC. The combined water and wastewater fees with the proposed rate adjustments would be $12,084, an increase of $5,388 or 80.5% when compared with the existing combined fees of $6,696. The proposed impact fees, based on the analyses and assumptions as documented in this report, are summarized on Table ES-1 following this letter and in the County's format which would be included in the amended Impact Fee Ordinance presented in Appendix C. The proposed impact fees were based on the recovery: i) of capital -related costs that have been incurred for utility plants that has been placed into service and financed by the District which are estimated to have available capacity to serve new development; as well as ii) the estimated incremental costs for construction of certain capital infrastructure anticipated to be incurred by the District during the projection period that are considered necessary to serve new development. Based on the information provided by the District and the assumptions and considerations outlined in this report, which should be read in its entirety, Raftelis considers the proposed impact fees to be cost -based, reasonable, and based on local costs to provide water and wastewater capacity to new development. (Remainder of page intentionally left blank) 341 N. Maitland Avenue, Suite 300, Maitland, FL 32751 www.raftelis.com 2 59 Honorable Chairman and Members of the Board of County Commissioners Collier County January 19, 2024 Page 2 We appreciate the opportunity to be of service to the County and would like to thank the County staff for their assistance and cooperation during the course of this study. Very truly yours, RAFTELIS FINANCIAL CONSULTANTS, INC. , "�' (D-"� Robert J. Ori Executive Vice President Z- Justin Rasor Manager Michele Galvin Consultant RJO/dlc Attachments 3 60 Page 1 of 2 Table ES-1 Collier County Water -Sewer District Water and Wastewater Impact Fee Study Summary of Existing and Proposed Water and Wastewater System Impact Fees Level of Service Line (gallons per day No. Description per ERC) Amount Cost Per Gallon IMPACT FEES Water Impact Fee Existing Per ERC 1 Treatment Component 300.00 $2,583.00 $8.61 2 Transmission Component 300.00 799.00 2.66 3 Total 300.00 $3,3 82.00 $11.27 Proposed Per ERC Calculated 4 Treatment Component 275.00 $5,637.00 $20.50 5 Transmission Component 275.00 833.00 3.03 6 Total 275.00 $6,470.00 $23.53 Change (Total) 7 Amount $3,088.00 $12.25 8 Percent 91.3% 108.7% Wastewater Impact Fee Existing Per ERC 9 Treatment Component 200.00 $2,718.00 $13.59 10 Transmission Component 200.00 596.00 2.98 11 Total 200.00 $3,314.00 $16.57 Proposed Per ERC Calculated 12 Treatment Component 172.56 $4,846.00 $28.08 13 Transmission Component 172.56 768.00 4.45 14 Total 172.56 $5,614.00 $32.53 Change (Total) 15 Amount $2,300.00 $12.22 16 Percent 69.4% 73.7% 4 61 Table ES-1 Page 2 of 2 Collier County Water -Sewer District Water and Wastewater Impact Fee Study Summary of Existing and Proposed Water and Wastewater System Impact Fees Level of Service Line (gallons per day No. Description per ERC) Combined Impact Fee Existing Per ERC 17 Treatment Component 18 Transmission Component 19 Total Proposed Per ERC (Rounded) 20 Treatment Component 21 Transmission Component 22 Total Change (Total) 23 Amount 24 Percent Amount $5,301.00 1,395.00 $6,696.00 $10,483.00 1,601.00 $12,084.00 $5,388.00 80.5 % Cost Per Gallon 5 62 Collier County Water -Sewer District / Fiscal Year 2024 Water and Wastewater Impact Fee Study Contents Introduction............................................................................................... 1 Purpose of Water and Wastewater Impact Fees ..................................... 2 Existing Water and Wastewater Impact Fees .......................................... 4 Developmentof Impact Fees.................................................................... 6 Levelof Service Requirements................................................................. 7 CapitalInvestment .................................................................................. 11 ExistingPlant-in-service.....................................................................................................12 Additional Capital Investment............................................................................................16 Designof Impact Fees............................................................................ 19 ImpactFee Comparisons........................................................................ 22 Conclusions and Recommendations...................................................... 28 6 63 Collier County Water -Sewer District / Fiscal Year 2024 Water and Wastewater Impact Fee Study Figures Figure 1: Location of Collier County................................................................................................. 1 Figure 2: Impact Fee Determination Methodology............................................................................ 6 Figure 3: Comparison of Water Impact Fees per ERC................................................................... 23 Figure 4: Comparison of Wastewater Impact Fees per ERC.......................................................... 24 Figure 5: Comparison of Combined Impact Fees per ERC............................................................ 25 Tables Table ES-1 Summary of Existing and Proposed Water and Wastewater System Impact Fees ........... [*] Table 1 Development of Existing Water Production / Treatment Facility Capacity Available to Serve System Growth..................................................................................[**] Table 2 Development of Existing Wastewater Treatment Facility Capacity Available to ServeSystem Growth..................................................................................................... [**] Table 3 Summary of Water Capital Improvement Program By Plant Function Through FiscalYear 2033.............................................................................................................[**] Table 4 Summary of Wastewater Capital Improvement Program By Plant Function Through Fiscal Year 2033...............................................................................................[**] Table 5 Development of Water System Impact Fee.....................................................................[**] Table 6 Development of Wastewater System Impact Fee............................................................[**] Table 7 Comparison of Water and Wastewater Impact Fees Per ERC........................................[**] Appendices Appendix A: Summary of Existing Utility System Assets.....................................................................[**] Appendix B: Existing Water and Wastewater Impact Fee Ordinance..................................................[**] Appendix C: Existing and Proposed Water and Wastewater System Impact Fee Schedule inCounty Format............................................................................................................[**] [*] Table ES-1 follows the letter of transmittal. [**] Referenced tables and appendices located at the end of the report. 7 64 Collier County Water -Sewer District / Fiscal Year 2024 Water and Wastewater Impact Fee Study Introduction FIGURE 1 Location of Collier County Collier County is a political subdivision of the State of Florida governed by the State Constitution and general laws of the State of Florida. In 2003, the Legislature of the State of Florida pursuant to Section 189.429, Florida Statutes, adopted the Collier County Water -Sewer District Special Act (formally known as House Bill 849) (Act) to create the Collier County Water -Sewer District (previously defined as the "District") on behalf of the County. The Act is represented in Chapter 2003-353, Laws of Florida. The District is an independent special district and public corporation of the State with the Board of County Commissioners being the governing board of the District. The purpose of creating the District was to provide the District with the overall responsibility for the provision of water and wastewater services to a specified geographic service area of the County as defined in the Act due primarily to the extensive growth within the County and to meet the public health and water supply issues affecting such service area. The County occupies approximately 2,026 square miles and as shown on the illustration in Figure 1 is located in the southwestern portion of the State. In terms of land area, the County is the largest county in the state. Based on information published by the Florida Office of Economic and Demographic Research (EDR), the County had an estimated population of approximately 399,480 people as of April 1, 2023. When compared with the 67 other counties, the County ranked nineteenth in terms of population size. Additionally, information published by the EDR indicates that the County's population was estimated to have grown from 375,752 persons in 2020 (2020 Census) to 399,480 persons in 2023, which represents an overall increase of 6.3% or about 7,900 persons per year. Medium projections published by the EDR show the population of Collier County increasing to 436,860 people by 2030, an increase of 37,380 people or a compound annual growth rate of about 1.3% per year when compared with the 2023 population. Among the 67 counties in Florida, the County ranked nineteenth in terms of permanent population size according to information contained in the 2023 BEBR Estimates. The District owns and operates a water and wastewater utility system (System), which during the Fiscal Year 2023 (the most recently completed fiscal year at the time the study was conducted), provided service to approximately 76,779 retail potable water accounts (annual average) and 78,166 retail wastewater retail accounts (annual average). According to the County's 2023 Annual Update and Inventory Report (AUIR), the permanent population served by the District's water system as estimated by the County was 225,873 in Fiscal Year 2023, which represents approximately 56.5% of the population located in the County as determined by the EDR for 2023. With respect to the District's wastewater system, the AUIR estimates for Fiscal Year 2023 reflect a permanent population of 118,804 for the service area of the District's North County Water Reclamation Facility, 99,993 for the service area of the District's South County Water Reclamation Facility, 13,061 for the service area of the District's Golden Gate Wastewater Treatment Plant, 6,708 for the service area of the District's Orange Tree Wastewater Treatment Plant and 40 for the service area served by the Interim Northeast Wastewater Treatment Plant. On a combined basis, the permanent population served by all of the District wastewater treatment facilities is estimated by the County to be 238,606, which represents approximately 59.7% of the BEBR population estimates for the County. The permanent population served by the Wastewater System is higher due primarily to the District providing wastewater -only service to a portion of the City of Naples. 65 Collier County Water -Sewer District / Fiscal Year 2024 Water and Wastewater Impact Fee Study The District has constructed or plans to construct utility infrastructure to accommodate the future developments identified for the County that are expected to be served by the System. Historically, the District has utilized water and wastewater impact fees, which are referred to as "system development fees" in the District's authorizing bond resolution, to fund a portion of constructing the infrastructure requirements associated with new growth or increased development. In the preparation of this report, the terms "impact fees" and "system development fees" shall be used interchangeably. Purpose of Water and Wastewater Impact Fees The purpose of impact fees is to recover the pro-rata share of allocated capital costs considered as growth -related from new customers connecting to the System or from existing customers that are requesting an increase in the reserved water and/or wastewater capacity associated with increased development on their property. To the extent that new population growth and associated development impose identifiable added capital costs to municipal services, capital funding practices to include the assignment of such costs to those residents or system users responsible for those costs rather than to the existing population base is reasonable and provides for the proper match of initial capital investment to the capacity being reserved. This practice has been labeled as "growth paying its own way" without existing user cost burdens. The application of impact fees to finance capital infrastructure allocated to such new capacity requests is very common in Florida and the country and has been used as a source of contributed capital by the District for many years. The initial precedent for impact fees in Florida was set in the Florida Supreme Court decision, Contractors and Builders Association of Pinellas Authority v. The Authority of Dunedin, Florida. In this case, the Court's ruling found that an equitable cost recovery mechanism, such as impact fees, could be levied for a specific purpose by a Florida municipality as a capital charge for services. On June 14, 2006, additional impact fee legislation became effective as Chapter 2006-218, Laws of Florida, and was later incorporated in Section 163.31801 of the Florida Statutes. The impact fee legislation, which has been designated as the "Florida Impact Fee Act," recognized that impact fees are an important source of revenue for a local government to use in funding the infrastructure necessitated by new growth. The Florida Impact Fee Act, as amended and modified from time to time, states that at a minimum an impact fee adopted by ordinance of a county or municipality, or by resolution of a special district, must satisfy several conditions such fees being based on localized cost, timing of when impact fees can be paid, level of fee adjustments that can be implemented (phased approach based on magnitude of the change in the fees), and other conditions. Based on certain conditions as stated in Section 163.31801 of the Florida Statutes regarding impact fees and existing Florida case law, certain conditions are required to develop a valid impact fee. It is our understanding that these conditions involve the following issues: The impact fee must meet the "dual rational nexus" test. First, impact fees are valid when a reasonable impact or rationale exists between the anticipated need for the capital facilities and the growth in population. Second, impact fees are valid when a reasonable association, or rational nexus, exists between the expenditure of the impact fee proceeds and the benefits accruing to the development from the use of the proceeds. 2. The system of fees and charges should be set up so that there is not an intentional windfall to existing users. 66 Collier County Water -Sewer District / Fiscal Year 2024 Water and Wastewater Impact Fee Study The impact fee should only cover the capital cost of construction and related costs thereto (engineering, legal, financing, administrative, etc.) for capital expansions or other system -related capital requirements that have been or are anticipated to be constructed which are required or available to serve growth. Therefore, expenses due to upgrades or improvements of a facility that has been constructed or an increase in the level of service / new asset additions should be borne by all users of the facility (i.e., existing and future users) on a pro rata basis to the extent that there is capacity in such facilities is available to serve the needs of new development. 4. The County should adopt an impact fee resolution or ordinance that explicitly restricts the use of impact fees collected. Therefore, impact fee revenue should be set aside in a separate account, and separate accounting must be made for those funds to ensure that they are used only for the lawful purposes described above. Based on the criteria above, the proposed impact fees, which are set forth in subsequent sections herein: i) include only the estimated allocated capital cost of facilities to provide capacity to serve anticipated or future service territory growth; ii) do not reflect costs associated with renewal and replacement of any existing capital assets (except for any incremental portion of upgrades allocable to growth, such as "upsizing" or "looping" of certain transmission lines or for that portion of the installed assets that have unused capacity allocated to serve new development) that is allocable to serving existing customers; and iii) do not include any costs of operation and maintenance of any facilities. The courts, recent legislation, and industry practices have addressed three areas associated with the development of the impact fee. These areas include: i) the "fair share" concept dealing with payment of the fee by the affected property owners; ii) the "rational nexus" concept, which focuses on the expenditure or purpose of the fee; and iii) the consideration of credits, which recognize appropriate fee offsets. The fair share concept addresses that the fee can be only used for capital expenditures that are attributable to new growth. The fees cannot be used to finance level of service deficiencies or the replacement of existing facilities required to provide services to the existing System users. Typical industry practices also allow for establishing different fees for different classes of customers and the ability for the payment of a reduced impact fee if applicants can demonstrate that their development will have a smaller impact (or capacity need resulting in a lower allocated capital requirement) than assumed in the fee determination. Additionally, the fair share concept recognizes that the cost of facilities used by both existing customers and new growth must be apportioned among the two user groups such that the user groups are treated equally, and one group does not intentionally subsidize the other. The cost of "System infrastructure" is constantly changing due to the ongoing upgrades, betterments, and improvements being made to utility assets which were not fully utilized and thus had capacity to serve future development. An example would be the upgrade of water and wastewater transmission mains which may have resulted in an increase in the capacity of the transmission line (larger diameter pipe installed) or simply upgraded the line which still had available capacity to serve future development. In these instances, Raftelis has i) recognized the improvement in the fee calculation and ii) made an allowance to remove the existing asset that was in service, which would result in an incremental "unit cost" increase in the assets available to provide service to new development (more closely corresponds to the higher current localized construction cost values). The cost to be recovered from growth in all instances would only be the pro rata cost per ERC applied to the ERCs requesting service; the total cost of the utility plant improvements would not be recovered only from new development since such improvements would benefit existing rate payers as well as future users. 10 67 Collier County Water -Sewer District / Fiscal Year 2024 Water and Wastewater Impact Fee Study 4 The rational nexus concept requires that there be a reasonable relationship between the need for capital facilities and the benefits to be received by new development for which the fee will be expended or applied. The County's existing infrastructure and the corresponding financing and management of such infrastructure is on a System- wide basis. And as such, the proposed impact fees were determined on a System -wide basis. The second nexus condition recognizes that the property must receive a benefit from the public services for which the fee is being applied. With respect to the water and wastewater charge, these facilities are used by and are constructed on behalf of all the property within the County's service area and benefit both residential and commercial customers. As such, all new growth requesting capacity from the System (either water and/or wastewater) are subject to the application of the impact fees. Credit or fee offsets recognize that if an agency has received property in the form of cost-free capital or there is specific revenue (taxes) that will be used for the capital expenditures for which the impact fee was designed to recover necessitated by new growth; a credit should be applied to the fee. Examples of cost-free capital include grants, property contributions by developers (that are associated with infrastructure identified in the County's utility master plans), infrastructure funded from external sources (assessments), and other sources that provide funds toward the capital expenditures for which the impact fee was designed to recover. These credits allow for the recovery of costs to serve new development through impact fees, net of such cost-free capital. The evaluation of the water and wastewater impact fees proposed to be charged by the County as identified in this study to new development requiring water and/or wastewater System capacity recognized the above -referenced issues. Existing Water and Wastewater Impact Fees Ordinance No. 2019-48, which was adopted by the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County (BOCC) on December 10, 2019 (Impact Fee Ordinance), established the District's current water and wastewater impact fees. The current impact fees are applied on the basis of: i) meter size; and ii) living space or square footage. The following table provides a summary of the existing water and wastewater impact fees and the corresponding fee application basis by customer classification: (Remainder of page intentionally left blank) 11 68 Collier County Water -Sewer District / Fiscal Year 2024 Water and Wastewater Impact Fee Study Summary of Existing Water and Wastewater Impact Fees Description Basis of Fee ERC Factor [1] Water Fee Wastewater Fee 5 Residential (Meter) per ERC 1.00 $3,382.00 $3,314.00 Multi -family (sq. ft.) 0 — 750 sq. ft. per Unit 0.33 $1,116.00 $1,093.00 751 — 1,500 sq. ft. per Unit 0.67 2,265.00 2,220.00 1,501 sq. ft. or More per Unit 1.00 3,382.00 3,314.00 Non-residential (Meter) 3/4-inch per Meter Size 1.00 $3,382.00 $3,314.00 1-inch per Meter Size 1.67 5,647.00 5,534.00 1-1/2-inch per Meter Size 3.33 11,262.00 11,035.00 2-inch per Meter Size 5.33 18,026.00 17,663.00 3-inch per Meter Size 15.00 50,730.00 49,710.00 4-inch per Meter Size 33.33 112,722.00 110,455.00 6-inch per Meter Size 66.67 225,477.00 220,944.00 8-inch per Meter Size 116.67 394,577.00 386,644.00 [1] Equivalent Residential Connection (ERC) factors for non-residential customers reflect rated hydraulic -capacity of meter divided by 30 gallons per minute based on rate capacity of smallest meter size. The current impact fees charged by the District to a standard, individually metered single-family residential household through a 3/4-inch meter from the System, which represents approximately 89% of individually metered single-family residential customers currently being served by the System are summarized as follows: Existing Residential Water and Wastewater Impact Fees per ERC [1] System Amount Water System $3,382 Wastewater System 3,314 Combined $6,696 [1] Reflects fee for standard individually metered residential unit (generally served through a 3/4-inch meter service and is considered to equate to one [1] ERC). (Remainder of page intentionally left blank) 12 69 Collier County Water -Sewer District / Fiscal Year 2024 Water and Wastewater Impact Fee Study Development of Impact Fees There are three significant components addressed in the design of impact fees. These three components include: i) the total capital investment recognized as a cost component that may be recovered from a new applicant requesting capacity; ii) the total estimated dependable capacity associated with the capital investment; and iii) the level of service to be apportioned to the applicants that request System capacity. The recognition of these components provides the general basis to recover the allocated capital costs from a new applicant requesting service and is depicted in Figure 2: Figure 2. Impact Fee Determination Methodology Level of Service (Gallons per ERC) All of these components are necessary to determine the amount of the impact fees expressed to be charged to new applicants requesting service on an ERC basis, which is more fully discussed later in this report. With respect to the development of the capital costs to be recognized in the fee determination, there are three methods generally used, which include: i) the Standards Method; ii) the System Buy -in Method; and iii) the Improvements Method. The Standards Method would base the capital cost on a theoretical cost of the improvements for incremental development (e.g., the standard cost for the construction of a water treatment plant expressed on a dollar per gallon basis). This method generally would not recognize the existing installed infrastructure that has capacity to serve new development and may also not recognize the current capital plan identified to provide service or complete the master planning of the system facilities. The System Buy -in (or historical) Method recognizes the installed original cost of the utility infrastructure in the determination of the allocated capital costs to provide service on an equivalent unit basis. This method is applicable to mature or developed utility systems that have constructed the majority of its infrastructure. This method generally would only reflect the constructed capacity and may not recognize any anticipated changes or additions identified by a utility in service area infrastructure. The Improvements Method would be based on future capital costs and new capacity determined over a projected period of time; it may not account for unused constructed capacity that may be available to serve new development. This fee is similar to the standards method in that it is based 13 70 Collier County Water -Sewer District / Fiscal Year 2024 Water and Wastewater Impact Fee Study on a future cost (however, it is specific to the utility as opposed to a theoretical construction cost standard). This method may also result in a disparity in the amount of growth to be served by the new facilities. For the purposes of this study, a blending of the Buy -in Method and Improvements Method was recognized for the following reasons: Although not specific to the County, the Florida Impact Fee Act provides that the impact fee be based on localized costs which more fully supports the buy -in method for fee determination. Basing the fee on the original installed costs of the assets that are currently in service would strongly promote this requirement since the costs are known, measurable, and are installed solely within the District utility service area boundaries. 2. The County has identified expansion -related and System upgrade projects in the near term, which will increase the availability of capacity to serve new development and the overall installed infrastructure cost to provide service. Since the District utility system is managed, financed, operated, and constructed as a single system and the new infrastructure associated with the development in the Northeast segment of the service area will be interconnected with the remainder of the System, near - term capital improvements were considered in the fee to recognize the estimated installed cost of capacity coincident with the time frame that the fee is to be charged to new development. The System Buy -in Method and Improvements Method were consolidated in our analysis to identify the blended average cost of the remaining installed capacity to serve new development during the planning period, which places more emphasis on the System Buy -in Method and will promote the "system concept" as it relates to service availability for new development since it does not only consider the capital improvement expenditures, which, in many instances, is higher than the original cost of the utility infrastructure that has been constructed and placed into service. The following is a discussion of these impact fee components. Level of Service Requirements In the evaluation of the capital facility needs for providing water and wastewater utility services, it is important that a level of service (LOS) standard be developed. Pursuant to Section 163.3164, Florida Statutes, the "level of service" means an indicator of the extent or degree of service provided by, or proposed to be provided by, a facility based on and related to the operational characteristics of the facility and shall indicate the capacity per unit of demand for each public facility or service. Essentially, the level of service standards is established in order to ensure that adequate capacity will be provided for future development and for purposes of issuing development orders or permits, pursuant to Section 163.3202(2)(g) of the Florida Statutes. As further stated in the Statutes, each local government shall establish a LOS standard for each public facility located within the boundary for which such local government has authority to issue development orders or permits. Such LOS standards are set for each individual facility or facility type or class and not on a system -wide basis. With respect to the determination of the water and wastewater impact fees the LOS standards were determined on a system- wide basis since all the water production and wastewater treatment facilities are managed, operated, financed, and accounted for on a total system basis and serve as a single water and wastewater system. This is also consistent with past practices of the County and the fee application of other local governments throughout the State of Florida. 14 71 Collier County Water -Sewer District / Fiscal Year 2024 Water and Wastewater Impact Fee Study For water and wastewater service, the level of service that is commonly used in the industry is the amount of capacity (service) allocable to an ERC expressed as the amount of usage (gallons) allocated on an average daily basis. This allocation of capacity would generally represent the amount of daily dependable capacity allocable to an ERC, whether or not such capacity is actually used (commonly referred to as "readiness to serve"). As previously mentioned, an ERC is representative of the average capacity required to service a typical individually metered or single-family residential account. This class of users represents the largest number of customers served by a public utility such as the District and generally the lowest (and most common) level of usage requirements for a specifically metered account. In the development of the level of service standards for the impact fee update, the following references were considered and reviewed: • BOCC approved 2023 Annual Update & Inventory Report / Capital Improvement Element Schedule Update on Public Facilities dated December 13, 2022. • Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) general design standards; • Florida Public Service Commission (FPSC) capacity relationships for private utilities; • Average persons per household information as published by the U.S. Census, the Bureau of Economics and Business Research, and information published in the 2022 Collier Count Economic, Demographic and Community Profile Report (2022); • Actual water sales and billed wastewater flow data reported by the District for the residential and commercial customer classes over the past several years; and • Actual water production and wastewater flow data reported by the District over the past several years. (Remainder of page intentionally left blank) 15 72 Collier County Water -Sewer District / Fiscal Year 2024 Water and Wastewater Impact Fee Study 9 The following table shows the level of service standards contained in some of the reference sources: Comparison of Water and Wastewater Level of Service (LOS) per Equivalent Residential Connection (ERC) Description Water ERC Wastewater ERC (gpd) (gpd) Current District Level of Service 300 200 Level of Service Standards Recognized by State Government of Florida: Florida Public Service Commission (FPSC) Capacity Relationships for Private 350 280 Utilities [1] Florida Department of Health Design Standards for Sewer Systems [2] Single or Multiple Family per Dwelling Unit [3] N/A 300 2023 Annual Update and Inventory Report [4] 2022 Collier County Economic, Demographic and Community Profile Report 247 169 (2022) — 2.35 BEBR 2022 Average Household Size Estimate — 2.34 246 168 U.S. Census Projection — 2017-2021 Persons per Household — 2.40 252 173 Application of Change in Existing GPCD from 2019 Master Plan to 2023 AUIR 260 180 Report Level of Service 9-County Utility Survey Average [5] 279 218 Level of Service Utilized for Impact Fee Calculations 275 195 [1] Rule 25-30.515(8), Florida Administrative Code. A wastewater ERC level of service is assumed to be 80% of the water ERC level of service (350 gpd X 80% = 280 gpd). [2] Amounts derived based on information as published in the Florida Administrative Code (FAC), Rule 64E-6.008. [3] As stated in FAC Rule 64E-6.008, design standard (estimated sewage flows expressed on a gallons per day basis) for 3-bedroom house with 1,201 — 2,250 square feet of building area and was assumed to be representative of a typical or standard residence. [4] LOS reflect gallons per capita per day (gpcd) in the approved Annual Update and Inventory Report / Capital Improvement Element Schedule Update on Public Facilities — 2023 AUIR / CIE multiplied by number of persons per household. Gallons per capita per day derived as follows: 2023 Annual Update and Inventory Report Prepared by County Water Wastewater Total gpcd 130.0 90.0 Adjustment for Commercial Component per County Billing Records (24.9) (18.1) Estimated Residential -only gpcd 105.1 71.9 [5] Represents average Level of service based on a survey of nine neighboring or representative counties that are similar to the County in terms of growth, service area characteristics, and general location (primarily southwest coastal counties) and is shown for general reasonableness relationships. Recognizing: i) the current trends in water use per single-family residential ERC; ii) the current capacity planning ERC service levels assumed in the most recent adopted 2023 AUIR Report used in the evaluation of and planning for water and wastewater treatment capacity needs (expected to be adopted by the BOCC which 16 73 Collier County Water -Sewer District / Fiscal Year 2024 Water and Wastewater Impact Fee Study 10 reflects a reduced level of service when compared to prior periods which is consistent with state-wide trends in water / wastewater use); iii) single-family residential and commercial water use relationships based on detailed utility billing information as provided by the District; iv) the most recent U.S. Census data regarding persons per household for the County; and v) discussions with the District staff, the LOS standards recognized for the evaluation of the fees as expressed on an average "gallons per day" (gpd) per ERC" basis are recommended to i) decrease from the current service level of 300 gpd per water ERC to 275 gpd per water ERC and ii) decrease from 200 gpd per wastewater ERC to 195 gpd per wastewater ERC. The primary differences in the LOS standards between the two utilities are considered to be: i) the recognition of outdoor irrigation demands for potable water service which reflect water usage not returned to the wastewater system; ii) differences in unaccounted for water (finished water leaving the water treatment plant compared with water metered at the customer premise) and wastewater inflow and infiltration (groundwater and stormwater entering the wastewater collection system which are treated at the wastewater treatment plants) relationships; and iii) other factors. The determination of the proposed LOS factors per ERC is summarized on Table 1 for the Water System and Table 2 for the Wastewater System and is summarized below: Determination of Proposed Water and Wastewater Level of Service (LOS) per Equivalent Residential Connection (ERC) Description Water ERC Wastewater ERC (gpd) (gpd) Level of Service — Gallons per Capita per Day (gpcpd) 130.0 90.0 Residential Flow (Basis for ERC): Percent of Total Billed Water Use / Wastewater Flows 80.84% 79.94% Estimated Level of service — gpcpd — Residential Only 105.1 71.9 Persons per Household =U.S. Census Projection 2.40 2.40 Level of Service Calculated — AADF 252.24 172.56 Adjust for Maximum Month Flow Basis (Factor) 1.09 1.13 Adjust for Maximum Month Flow Basis — MMADF (gpd) 274.94 194.99 Level of Service per ERC Recognized s— MMADF (gpd) 275 195 A review of the levels of service with other neighboring utilities was also conducted to identify the level of service standards employed by such utilities. Although not specific to the County, it is generally assumed that the level of service standards and customer usage characteristics for the neighboring utilities would be similar to the County since i) they have followed the same development patterns since they generally correspond to the same geographical location, land use, and timing of development; ii) county utilities would also provide service to rural areas (or less dense) than municipal systems; that is the service areas may be more comparable; and iii) average daily water use (sales) per single-family dwelling unit are similar. A summary of the comparison is shown below. 17 74 Collier County Water -Sewer District / Fiscal Year 2024 Water and Wastewater Impact Fee Study 77 Level of Service Comparison with Other Utilities — per ERC [1] Utility Water LOS Wastewater LOS Collier County — Existing 300 200 Collier County — Proposed 275 195 Charlotte County 225 190 Desoto County 255 215 Hernando County 350 280 Hillsborough County 300 200 Lee County 250 200 Manatee County 250 185 Orange County 275 225 Polk County 360 270 Sarasota County 250 200 Other Utility Average 279 218 [1] Information based on readily available information as provided or published by the respective utility. As can be seen above, the levels of service for other neighboring local county governments range primarily from 225 to 360 gallons per day for water (the simple average of the above referenced utilities is 279 gallons per day) and 185 to 270 gallons per day for wastewater (the simple average of the above references utilities is 218 gallons per day). The recommended downward adjustments in the level of service per ERC is more representative of service standards used by other utilities, the overall long-term downward trends in water use and corresponding sewer flow demands per residential connection being experienced by the County and other utilities throughout Florida and the nation, and generally provides a reserve margin for other specific needs (larger household sizes, weather events, etc.). The LOS is considered by Raftelis to be reasonable and is recommended for the development of the proposed fees for services. It is also recommended that the impact fees, including the level of service standard, be reviewed no later than five years from the date of this report. Capital Investment In the evaluation of the water and wastewater impact fees, the development of the estimated facility or infrastructure costs associated with the identified facility capacity is a primary component in the fee development. As previously mentioned, the determination of the facility or infrastructure costs in this study was based on a blend of the System Buy -in Method and the Improvements Method to identify the estimated localized cost of the infrastructure necessary to meet the near -term future capacity needs associated with new development within the District on a system -wide basis during the planning period. The planning period included a ten-year forecast period consistent with the County's capital improvement planning process. The following is a discussion of the existing utility plant and new capital facility evaluation considered in the development of the impact fees for the water and wastewater utility systems. 18 75 Collier County Water -Sewer District / Fiscal Year 2024 Water and Wastewater Impact Fee Study 12 Existing Plant -in -Service In the determination of the impact fee associated with the servicing of future customers, any constructed capacity in the existing treatment and transmission utility system that is available to serve such growth was considered. Since this capacity was constructed and is available to serve the near -term incremental growth of the utility system, it is appropriate to recognize the capacity availability of such facilities. To evaluate the availability of the existing utility plant -in-service to meet or provide for near -term future capacity needs, it was necessary to functionalize the existing constructed utility plant by specific function or purpose (treatment, conveyance, etc.). The "functionalization" of the existing utility plant is necessary to: i) identify those assets that should be considered or included in the determination of the impact fees; and ii) match existing plant type to the capital improvements to meet future service needs. It was necessary to functionalize the utility plant into certain asset categories such that the estimated System infrastructure components (System -related expenditures that benefit all customers) can be identified such that the fee could be developed. The functional cost categories are based on the purpose of the assets and the service level that such assets provide or support. The following is a summary of the functional cost categories for the utility plant -in-service identified in this report. Functional Plant Categories Water Service Wastewater Service Other Plant Supply Treatment General Plant (Equipment, Vehicles, etc.) Treatment Effluent / Irrigation Quality Water Transmission Transmission Distribution Collection (Includes Local Lift Stations, Manholes, and Laterals) Fire Hydrants Meters and Services System improvement costs relate to those costs incurred to provide capacity needed to serve new growth and development and do not include site improvements and facilities that are planned and designed to provide service for a particular development project and that are necessary for the use and convenience of the occupants or users of the project or routine and periodic maintenance expenditures, personnel training, and other operating costs. Therefore, the costs of on -site facilities which serve a specific development or customer are not considered as a System cost, which is proportionately allocable to all users. These utility plant facilities include on -site (fronting the premise) water distribution and wastewater collection lines, meters and services, local lift stations, and fire hydrants are usually: i) donated by a developer as part of the District's utility extension program (a contribution of the plant); ii) recovered from the individual properties through an assessment program based on those properties which receive special benefit from such facilities or from the application of a main line extension fee to recover the specific cost of such facilities; or iii) funded from the customer directly (e.g., by a "front -foot" charge where the on -site lines were initially financed by the utility and then paid by the customer or an installation charge to recover the cost of a new service line and/or the potable water meter). Such costs should not be a capital cost component included in the impact fee calculation. Additionally, assets or utility plants that are designed to have short service lives which are replaced on a recurring basis should also 19 76 Collier County Water -Sewer District / Fiscal Year 2024 Water and Wastewater Impact Fee Study 13 not be included since these assets are considered attributable to serving existing customers of the System. An example of this utility plant would be assets commonly referred to as "general plant" and would include vehicles, equipment, furniture, and other related assets. The County provided Raftelis with reported utility plant asset information through September 30, 2023 (the most recently completed fiscal year at the time of this analysis) that served as the basis of the functionalization of the existing utility plant -in-service. Appendix A at the end of this report provides a summary of the functionalization analysis of the existing utility plant -in-service for the System. The functionalized existing utility plant -in-service as shown in Appendix A represents the original installed cost of such assets (gross book value) when placed into service and represents all assets in service as of September 30, 2023 that were provided by the County and detailed in the utility asset records. This information represents the most current information available relative to the plant -in-service to serve the existing and near -term future customer base of each utility system. The assets represent "installed costs" and have not been restated to account for any fair market value adjustments which would reflect current costs (would essentially assume that assets were replaced with identical materials). If an asset had been upgraded, improved, or replaced by the County as of September 30, 2023, and is now in service, such assets were considered since they are physically in-service and represent the immediate basis for the capital cost being incurred by the County to provide service to future development. This also recognized that the asset that was replaced is retired, is no longer in service, and was assumed to not be included in the fixed asset register provided to Raftelis. (Remainder of page intentionally left blank) 20 77 Collier County Water -Sewer District / Fiscal Year 2024 Water and Wastewater Impact Fee Study 14 A summary of the functionalization of the existing utility plant -in-service in Appendix A is shown as follows: Summary of Water and Wastewater Utility System Existing Assets (Gross Utility Plant - as of September 30, 2023) Function Water System [1] Amount Percent Wastewater System [1] Amount Percent Totals Amount Percent Supply $94,186,892 12.7% $--- 0.0% $94,186,892 5.6% Treatment/Disposal 210,408,955 28.3% 294,266,079 31.5% 504,675,034 30.1% Transmission / Storage / Master 123,132,678 16.6% 137,814,142 14.7% 260,946,820 15.5% Pumping Effluent / Reclaimed --- 0.0% 48,158,833 5.2% 48,158,833 2.9% Hydrants / Meters / Services 13,667,297 1.8% --- 0.0% 13,667,297 0.8% General Equipment and Costs [2] 16,375,962 2.2% 20,399,884 2.2% 36,775,846 2.2% Distribution/Collection 186,626,349 25.1% 302,101,516 32.3% 488,727,865 29.1% Other[3] 45,814,199 6.2% 57,071,721 6.1% 102,885,920 6.1% Construction Work -in -progress [4] 53,761,005 7.2% 74,689,022 8.0% 128,450,027 7.7% Total Gross Utility Plant -in-service $743,973,337 100.0% $934,501,197 100.0% $1,678,474,534 100.0% [1] Amounts shown derived from utility asset records as of September 30, 2023 that were provided by the District as shown in Appendix A. [2] General Plant represents equipment, vehicles, and assets with short service lives, and was allocated to the water and wastewater systems in proportion to all other functionalized utility plants. [3] Reflects reported assets that: i) represent capitalized costs (e.g., studies) that did not directly link to an existing constructed asset; and ii) certain asset costs considered to benefit only existing users; such amounts were not included as a capital cost for the determination of the impact fees. [4] Construction work -in -progress was not recognized as an existing asset for the determination of impact fees since the projects have not yet been completed and placed into service by the District and in many instances there potentially could be a corresponding adjustment to the installed value of existing gross utility plant for assets that would be retired or removed from the fixed asset register. As can be seen above and on Appendix A, approximately 58% of the installed water system assets and 5 1 % of the installed wastewater system assets is considered as being treatment and disposal plant or transmission - related and have been considered as a cost for the development of the proposed water and wastewater impact fees. To determine the amount of constructed water supply / treatment and wastewater treatment / disposal plant (including IQ) assets available to meet future growth, it is necessary to identify the estimated amount of available capacity in such facilities. Table 1 at the end of this report provides an estimate of the available capacity and the allocated water supply and treatment utility fixed asset (plant) costs that was recognized as being available to serve future needs. A similar analysis is shown in Table 2 at the end of this report for the wastewater system. This estimate for water and wastewater capacity and the allocation of existing plant to future growth was based on: i) the permitted design capacity of the respective utility plant facilities; ii) the recognition of adjustments to present the facility capacity on an average daily demand / flow basis to be consistent with the assumed level of service requirements (dependable daily capacity); and iii) actual use of such facilities as experienced by the System service area through the Fiscal Year 2022. Based on this analysis, it was estimated that the existing water supply and treatment, wastewater treatment, and effluent disposal plant facilities had the following remaining and available capacity to meet future needs: 21 78 Collier County Water -Sewer District / Fiscal Year 2024 Water and Wastewater Impact Fee Study 15 Summary of Water and Wastewater Treatment Plant Capacities Plant Capacity (MGD) Water Wastewater Utility Plant [1] Utility Plant [2] Total Permitted Design Capacity (MMDD / MMADF — MGD) 52.000 42.350 Less Capacity Considered Offline and Removed from Service [3] (0.000) (0.750) Less Adjustment to Reflect Operational Treatment Capacity [4] (2.000) (0.000) Adjusted Permitted Design Capacity (MMDD / MMADF — MGD) 50.000 41.600 Peaking Factor [4] 1.090 1.130 Plant Capacity Expressed on Average Daily Demand / Flow Basis 45.872 36.814 Less Existing Plant Utilization (ADF) 34.701 24.009 Net Available to Meet Future Service Area Needs 11.171 12.805 Estimated Percent of Total System Capacity 24.35% 34.78% MMDD = Maximum Month Daily Demand MMADF = Maximum Month Average Daily Flow MGD = Million Gallons per Day ADF = Average Daily Flow [1] Amounts derived from Table 1. [2] Amounts derived from Table 2. [3] Reflects the removal of the Orange Tree Wastewater Treatment Plant which is no longer considered to be in service once the Northeast County Water Reclamation Facility is completed, tested, and transitioned into service which has been recognized in the impact fee analysis. [4] The utilized peaking factors are based on a review of historical peaking relationships experienced by each specific utility (presented on a coincident peak month basis). As shown above, it has been estimated that approximately 24.35% in existing water production and treatment utility assets is allocable to serve future development. With respect to the wastewater system, it is estimated that approximately 34.78% of the combined treatment and disposal utility assets is allocable to serve new customer growth. In the identification of the capital costs associated with constructed infrastructure to be considered in the development of the impact fees, certain assets were not considered, which included the following asset categories: • Water distribution assets that were identified as project improvements were assumed to be specific to providing service directly to the customer premises (referred to as an "on -site" capital improvement), and which would generally i) be contributed to the County by a developer; or ii) recovered in a separate fee such as a meter installation charge were not reflected as a system improvement. With respect to the determination of the water conveyance system assets that were considered as a Project Improvement (non -recognized asset) and based on discussions with the County, it was assumed that all water distribution pipe with a diameter size of 8-inches or less would be identified as a Project Improvement and not be identified as a System Improvement that is allocable to providing service generally to all customers. In addition to the water distribution (pipe) facilities, utility plants that would also fall into this functional asset category as a project improvement would include meters, hydrants, and services to the customer property. It was further assumed that all water distribution (transmission) mains with a pipe diameter size of 10-inches or greater, primary booster pumping stations and water storage facilities 22 79 Collier County Water -Sewer District / Fiscal Year 2024 Water and Wastewater Impact Fee Study 16 would be considered as the primary conveyance system assets and would be included in the fee determination as a System Improvement that would have a functional purpose that would generally benefit all users of the System. • Wastewater collection assets were assumed to be specific to providing service directly to the customer premises (referred to as an "on -site" capital improvement), and which would generally i) be contributed to the County by a developer; or ii) recovered in a separate fee such as a sewer tap charge were not reflected as a system improvement. With respect to the determination of the wastewater collection system that were considered as a Project Improvement (non -recognized asset) and based on discussions with the County, it was assumed that all wastewater force mains, low pressure sewers, vacuum sewers with a diameter size of 6-inches or less and gravity mains with a diameter of 8-inches or less would be identified as a Project Improvement and not be reflected as a System Improvement that is allocable to providing service generally to all customers. In addition to the wastewater collection (pipe) facilities, utility plant that would fall into this functional asset category would include local lift stations, manholes, and laterals to the individual customer properties. It was further assumed that all sewer interceptors which is a component of the sewer network that directs flow to the wastewater treatment plants and force mains and gravity sewers with a pipe diameter size of 10-inches or greater and primary or master pumping stations would be considered as primary conveyance assets and would be recognized as a system -wide cost and would be included in the fee determination as a system improvement. • In reviewing the fixed assets, several assets were deemed as "excluded assets" and not reflected in the fee evaluation. Examples of these reported assets included expenditures classified as engineering fees and capitalized salaries that could not be specifically allocated to or identified with a specific utility asset. • The County has also recognized a significant investment in what is referred to as general plant, which consists of equipment, vehicles, furniture, and other assets that have generally short service lives, which are replaced frequently. Because of the nature of this capital investment and the frequency of asset turnover, these expenditures were assumed to benefit only the existing customers being served and were not included in the impact fee analysis. Additional Capital Investment The System is continually in the process of updating and expanding the water and wastewater plant facilities to serve increasing demand, capacity requirements, new regulatory requirements, and improve and upgrade existing infrastructure, which will provide the ability to serve both existing and new development. To develop impact fees that link to the installed cost to provide service during the planning period, the expenditures associated with the System's Capital Improvement Program (CIP) as currently planned by the County to meet the near -term future needs of the System have been considered in the development of the proposed impact fees. The County has prepared an eleven -year CIP, which outlines the capital improvements for both the water and wastewater systems. The County's CIP is shown on Tables 3 and 4 at the end of this report for the water and wastewater systems, respectively. These capital improvements are for: i) improvements to and new facility expansions to meet anticipated service area demands; ii) upgrades and improvements to existing assets that may provide a benefit to both current and future users of the System (e.g., a transmission line relocation, upgrade facilities to assets that have capacity to serve growth); and iii) upgrades and improvements to assets or conducting capital programs that would generally benefit the current users of the System. 23 80 Collier County Water -Sewer District / Fiscal Year 2024 Water and Wastewater Impact Fee Study 17 With respect to the total water and wastewater utility systems, the County has identified approximately $2.14 billion in expenditures included as a component of its capital improvement program to be constructed or initiated through Fiscal Year 2033 (the capital planning cycle recognized in the fee determination). With respect to the water system, a summary of the water system CIP is shown on Table 3 at the end of this report. Based on the water system capital program as outlined in the CIP, several of the projects are for ongoing or recurring expenditures and may not be necessarily associated with a specific project; such expenditures are considered as an ongoing capital program and were assumed to only benefit existing customers and have not been considered in the fee determination. Approximately $947.4 million in water system capital improvements have been identified of which approximately $485.5 million in capital costs as System Improvements that have been recognized in the determination of the fees or for which a portion of the cost is considered as being available to be funded from impact fees. The amount of capital needs identified as an expenditure to determine the estimated installed or constructed cost of water utility infrastructure to determine the unit cost of capacity to be recovered from future growth is shown on Table 3 for water system and is summarized below: Summary of Water System Capital Improvement Program Recognized in Impact Fees [1] Amount Total Water Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Expenditures $947,390,330 Less Excluded Expenditures [2] (65,197,983) Capital Program — Net of Excluded Expenditures $882,192,347 Less Capital Not Considered as System Improvements [3] (280,183,023) Net Identified Capital Expenditures [4] $602,009,324 Allowance for Asset Retirement [5] (116,526,845) Net Amount of Capital Expenditures Recognized $485,482,480 Percent of Total CIP Recognized in Fee Development 51.2% [1] Amounts shown derived from Table 3 at the end of this report. [2] Represents assets, if any, considered to be required beyond the planning period for the fees (Fiscal Year 2033) or represent ongoing general capital program expenditures that were assumed to benefit only existing customers or change in cost subsequent to CIP development. [3] Represents capital expenditures of utility plant not considered as a System improvement that benefits all users; examples would include meter replacement program, local area water line replacements and improvements / upgrades, and other similar expenditures. [4] Amounts shown represent estimated capital expenditures for assets that are "System" costs and may be recognized in the determination of the estimated installed cost of facilities to be included in the determination of the impact fee. [5] Amounts shown represent adjustment for asset upgrades and improvements that result in an existing asset being retired from service to recognize only the marginal increase in asset value considered to be in service during the evaluation period to meet future capacity demands associated with new development. As can be seen above, approximately 51.2% of the total water Capital Improvement Program was recognized in the development of the impact fees for the water system. 24 81 Collier County Water -Sewer District / Fiscal Year 2024 Water and Wastewater Impact Fee Study 18 A similar analysis was performed for the wastewater system to determine the near -term capital expenditures to be recognized in the fee determination. A summary of the wastewater system CIP is shown on Table 4 at the end of this report. Based on the wastewater System capital program as outlined in the CIP, several of the projects are for ongoing or recurring expenditures and may not be necessarily associated with a specific project; such expenditures are considered as an ongoing capital program and were assumed to only benefit existing customers and have not been considered in the fee determination. Approximately $1.20 billion in wastewater system capital improvements have been identified of which approximately $498.76 million have been considered as System Improvements and recognized in the determination of the fees or for which a portion of the cost is considered as being available to be funded from impact fees. The amount of capital needs identified as an expenditure to determine the estimated installed or constructed cost of wastewater utility infrastructure to determine the unit cost of capacity to be recovered from future growth is shown on Table 4 for wastewater system and is summarized below: Summary of Wastewater System Capital Improvement Program Recognized in Impact Fees [1] Amount Total Wastewater Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Expenditures $1,197,307,082 Less Excluded Expenditures [2] (240,051,125) Capital Program — Net of Excluded Expenditures $957,255,957 Less Capital Not Considered as System Improvements [3] (369,075,076) Net Identified Capital Expenditures [4] $588,180,881 Allowance for Asset Retirement [5] (89,418,788) Net Amount of Capital Expenditures Recognized $498,762,093 Percent of Total CIP Recognized in Fee Development 41.7% [1] Amounts shown derived from Table 4 at the end of this report. [2] Represents assets, if any, considered to be required beyond the planning period for the fees (Fiscal Year 2033) or represent ongoing general capital program expenditures that were assumed to benefit only existing customers or change in cost subsequent to CIP development. [3] Represents capital expenditures of utility plant not considered as a System Improvement that benefits all users; examples would include local lift station replacement program, local area sewer line replacements, relining, and improvements / upgrades, and other similar expenditures. Additionally, interim plant facilities that represent temporary facilities have not been included in the fee determination since the assets are proposed to be out of service by the end of the analytical period recognized in the study. [4] Amounts shown represent estimated capital expenditures for assets that are "System" costs and may be recognized in the determination of the estimated installed cost of facilities to be included in the determination of the impact fee. [5] Amounts shown represent adjustment for asset upgrades and improvements that result in an existing asset being retired from service to recognize only the marginal increase in asset value considered in service to meet future capacity demands associated with new development. As can be seen above, approximately 41.7% of the total wastewater Capital Improvement Program was recognized in the development of the impact fees for the wastewater system. 25 82 Collier County Water -Sewer District / Fiscal Year 2024 Water and Wastewater Impact Fee Study 19 Design of Impact Fees Tables 5 and 6 at the end of this report provide the basis for the determination of the proposed impact fees for the water and wastewater systems, respectively. The derivation of the impact fees was based on the estimated installed or anticipated System improvement costs, facility capacity, and utility level of service standards recognized for the individually metered residential ERC components as presented earlier in this report. In the development of the proposed impact fees, several assumptions were utilized or incorporated. The major assumptions utilized in the design of the calculated impact fees included: In the development of the proposed fees, the "System Buy -in" approach was recognized using the original cost method, adjusted for the estimated marginal cost increase associated with the recognition of the near -term System improvements and capacity expansions, if any, to match the estimated installed cost of infrastructure to the future fee recovery period. This method allocates the estimated proportionate share of the System improvements at the original cost (value) of the existing assets — the applicant requesting capacity contributes funds to the County for its share of the infrastructure constructed to serve System growth. It should be noted that this method does not impart or transfer ownership to the customer but is generally considered to provide access to capacity in the amount purchased at a status equal to that of the existing customers of the System. The proposed impact fees reflect the estimated proportionate share of the existing utility plant and anticipated near -term plant improvements and additions that are considered as a primary or "System improvement" expenditure that would be allocated to all users and is available to serve new development to reflect the estimated "buy -in" infrastructure value for the respective water and wastewater systems. The approach was based on the identification and allocation of the installed cost of the gross plant investment (expressed on an original cost basis — that is when the asset was originally placed into service and not the estimated replacement cost of such assets) that is available (in-service) to serve new growth. Under this approach, the applicant paying the impact fee is essentially reimbursing the System only for the applicant's estimated proportionate share of the constructed facilities that are currently in- service as of September 30, 2023 and estimated to be constructed in the next 10 years (the capital planning period) that are available to meet the requests for System capacity from new development. This method also recognizes that as capital improvements are made to the utility system, the available net cost of capacity to meet the future demands of the new development would increase based on the net incremental change in asset value (i.e., an incremental cost addition which recognizes the cost of the plant additions less any plant retirements) identified based on the implementation of the capital plan. The recognition of the Capital Improvement Program provides a match of the estimated constructed gross plant investment that is anticipated to be in service to meet the growth demands of the System and the impact fee proposed to be charged during the projected period of the capital plan (i.e., the next ten fiscal years). This promotes the "localized cost" parameter in fee development and is considered as being reasonable for the determination of the impact fee. 2. The "System Buy -in" method recognizes the System improvements considered in the fee development based on the allocation of the installed cost of the gross plant investment that is considered available (in-service) to serve new growth. Under this approach, the applicant paying the impact fee is reimbursing the System for the applicant's proportionate share of the facilities available to serve the new development. This method also recognizes that as improvements are made to the System, the 26 83 Collier County Water -Sewer District / Fiscal Year 2024 Water and Wastewater Impact Fee Study 20 available capacity to meet the future demands of the new development is being maintained and therefore the installed cost of the gross plant investment is reasonable. To the extent utility plant assets are upgraded, renewed or replaced and there is capacity in the utility plant to serve new customers, such new customers should be responsible for the pro rata share of the incremental and marginal cost of such improvements and such costs have been recognized in the fee; any capital costs that would be allocated to existing customers were not recognized in the impact fee development or should be recovered from the fees. The level of service for a water individually metered equivalent residential connection (ERC) was assumed to be 275 gallons per day (gpd) expressed on an average daily flow basis (maximum month basis used to recognize fluctuations and seasonality effects on water use) of finished water delivered to the water system since this links to the capacity costs constructed to provide service; it does not represent the potable water use as metered at the customer premises. For the wastewater system, the level of service for a wastewater individually metered ERC was recognized to be 195 gpd expressed on an average daily flow basis provided at the wastewater treatment facilities. The recognized levels of service represent a reduction to the current level of service standards, which is consistent with the capacity planning assumptions used by the District in the development of the AUIR capacity utilization and need projections and were considered by Raftelis to be reasonable and reflective of industry trends and actual individually metered residential connection flows / capacity use. 4. To serve new development and requests for increased capacity, the County must build the necessary infrastructure in advance of the capacity request (growth); the construction of the infrastructure is significant when one reviews the amount of capital costs included in the fee determination. Based on a review of County financial documents and master planning studies and System reports, a significant portion of the System improvements were debt financed; thus, there is an interest carry cost that is being incurred by the County associated with the financing of the infrastructure. We have conservatively not reflected any cost of carry in the fee since: i) it is not a capital cost and in many instances a separate fee may be charged to recover or reimburse a utility for prior period interest expenses; and ii) the cost of carry can change frequently due to changes in debt structure (e.g., new debt issues and debt repayment and maturities, application of impact fees towards debt repayment, etc.) and the structure of the capital financing. In the development of the proposed impact fees, no credit for the payment of future debt service was recognized because: i) the utility system is operated as an enterprise fund; ii) all financial resources received by the County stay within the fund for the benefit of such system; iii) the costs reflected in the fee are at original cost and not adjusted for any fair market value to reflect current cost conditions; iv) there is no interest -expense carry in the impact fee associated with the financing of the capital investment to serve new development; v) the County has historically used monies received from the application of the impact fees towards the payment of expansion -related debt; and vi) there are no other revenues received by the System from new development for the capital costs / utility plant reflected in the impact fee (e.g., ad valorem taxes on the property) or from the General Fund for new primary system construction. All realized impact fee funds remain in the System and the long-term capital financing costs for infrastructure constructed and available to serve new growth are mitigated by using the impact fees for ongoing expansion -related capital project financing or for the direct payment of the annual expansion -related debt service payments. As previously mentioned, the County historically has applied impact fees received by the System towards the payment of expansion -related debt to reduce the expenditure requirements for the benefit of the existing ratepayers. 27 84 Collier County Water -Sewer District / Fiscal Year 2024 Water and Wastewater Impact Fee Study 21 Based on the analysis of the primary System assets and the corresponding estimated capacity of such System, the following impact fees were calculated and are being proposed. Summary of Calculated and Proposed Impact Fees [1] Description Amount Water System [2] Water Supply/Treatment Water Transmission Proposed Water System Fee $5,637.00 $833.00 $6,470.00 Wastewater System [3] Wastewater Treatment/Disposal $4,846.00 Wastewater Transmission $768.00 Proposed Wastewater System Fee $5,614.00 [1] ERC representative of the allocated daily flow for an individually metered residential dwelling unit served by a 5/8" x 3/4" meter. [2] Amounts shown derived from Table 5 at the end of this report. [3] Amounts shown derived from Table 6 at the end of this report. The following table provides a summary of the proposed water and wastewater impact fees and the corresponding fee application basis by customer classification: Summary of Proposed Water and Wastewater Impact Fees Description Basis of Fee ERC Factor [1] Water Fee Wastewater Fee Residential (Meter) Multi -family (sq. ft.) 0 — 750 sq. ft. 751 — 1,500 sq. ft. 1,501 sq. ft. or More Non-residential (Meter) 3/4-inch 1-inch 1-1/2-inch 2-inch 3-inch 4-inch 6-inch per ERC 1.00 $6,470.00 $5,614.00 per Unit 0.33 $2,135.00 $1,852.00 per Unit 0.67 4,334.00 3,761.00 per Unit 1.00 6,470.00 5,614.00 per Meter Size 1.00 $6,470.00 $5,614.00 per Meter Size 1.67 10,804.00 9,375.00 per Meter Size 3.33 21,545.00 18,694.00 per Meter Size 5.33 34,485.00 29,922.00 per Meter Size 15.00 97,050.00 84,210.00 per Meter Size 33.33 215,645.00 187,114.00 per Meter Size 66.67 431,354.00 374,285.00 28 85 Collier County Water -Sewer District / Fiscal Year 2024 Water and Wastewater Impact Fee Study 8-inch per Meter Size 116.67 754,854.00 654,985.00 [1] Equivalent Residential Connection (ERC) factors for non-residential customers reflect rated hydraulic capacity of meter divided by 30 gallons per minutes based on rate capacity of smallest meter size. Impact Fee Comparisons In order to provide additional information to the County regarding the existing and calculated impact fees, a comparison of the existing and calculated fees for the District with other Florida jurisdictions was prepared. This comparison is summarized on Table 7 at the end of this report and provides a comparison of the existing and proposed District impact fees for single-family residential connections (i.e., one ERC) relative to the impact fees or comparable charges currently imposed by other municipal / governmental water and wastewater systems located primarily in the southwest Florida region. It is important to note that one must view the comparison with caution as no in-depth analysis has been performed to determine the methods used in the development of the water and wastewater impact fees imposed by others, nor has any analysis been made to determine whether 100% of the cost of new facilities is recovered from system capacity -related charges, or some percentage less than 100% with the balance recovered through the user charges. Additionally, no analysis was conducted as to the rate of capital facilities currently in service or planned for the utility. For example, the costs of wastewater effluent disposal for systems that do not discharge directly to surface waters generally have a higher capital cost per unit of capacity than those that do. Finally, the timing of the construction needs is extremely important in the fee development since the cost of construction has increased significantly since Fiscal Year 2021. For those utilities that are now expanding its capacity infrastructure, the cost of the capacity expansion can easily be double the price (expressed on a $ per gallon basis) when compared to the per -unit construction costs incurred prior to Fiscal Year 2021 which has a direct impact on the impact fees to be charges (is the reason for the County's increase in impact fees being recommended in this report). The following is a summary of the survey results regarding the water system impact fee comparison expressed on a per ERC basis (generally the fee charged to a single-family residence) of the District's fees with those of the surveyed utilities: (Remainder of page intentionally left blank) 29 86 Collier County Water -Sewer District / Fiscal Year 2024 Water and Wastewater Impact Fee Study 23 Figure 3. Comparison of Water Impact Fees per ERC $7,000 $6,000 $5,000 $4,000 $3,000 Average: $2,088 $2,000 $l 000 $0 1� 1 K J i� c� w� tiA *� ti� ti �A �Sw \a q4 q `A �P �L a��`� oe Jew �a4yo a{`�e Lo o� '0 �q ok40 V � V C� <o\ ['] Utility is currently included in a fee study, or plans to implement a fee revision within the next twelve months following the comparison preparation date. (Remainder of page intentionally left blank) 30 87 Collier County Water -Sewer District / Fiscal Year 2024 Water and Wastewater Impact Fee Study 24 The following is a summary of the survey results regarding the wastewater impact fee comparison expressed on a per ERC basis (generally the fee charged for a single-family residence) of the District fees with those of the surveyed utilities: Figure 4. Comparison of Wastewater Impact Fees per ERC $6,000 $5,000 $4,000 Averal $ 2, 000 $2,00❑ $1,000 $0 cF �p aca`'o °�� 'y�i �a ti o °�� °�� �� °1§ °�� t ``e °° U G°�� U d �N° q`< ° 'ti� �e 4:b 6 � ea a�Qe �yp�,� G�� ��ap ��$e a� * � fey Q Darr 0 G` �;���� fat �� e<c Qt ��c' y�°t �`� CO lip ['] Utility is currently included in a fee study, or plans to implement a fee revision within the next twelve months following the Comparison preparation date. (Remainder of page intentionally left blank) 31 88 Collier County Water -Sewer District / Fiscal Year 2024 Water and Wastewater Impact Fee Study 25 The following is a summary of the survey results regarding the combined water and wastewater impact fee comparison expressed on a per ERC basis (generally the fee charged for a single-family residence) of the District fees with those of the surveyed utilities: Figure 5. Comparison of Combined Impact Fees per ERC $ I4,000 $I2,000 $ I0,000 $ 8, 000 $ 6, 000 $4,000 $ 2, 000 $o o,A °�, ` �e5 ¢sy saa *N *N � *N 4N N fi,A *N fi� N �.�� ��4 �� � aR, yet Qv efi wa °3 wJ °a A ,y y o -A y� ° e sa ay Q� c� +yw` Q 0.0 ❑� L °❑ fi o❑ o a� ° �` �`� '� G° s❑ asp° °� ❑��as G� Q kQJo �es0❑�C�` �ay4 �qLe ye air❑ G eho� C ❑��' S �� Qo ai Q �"A Spa p� Safi Na `saw O say�(Q ` �O �° ❑CP 115 Q❑ 0 V] Utility is currently included in a Fee study, or plans to implement a fee revision within the next twelve months Following the comparison preparation date. Some reasons why impact fees differ among utilities include, but are not limited to, the following: • Timing of capacity construction infrastructure needs and the embedded cost of the existing infrastructure being captured in the fees. • Water quality and proximity to source of supply. • Type of treatment process and disposal requirements (e.g., brine from reverse osmosis process, effluent from wastewater process). • Availability of grant and other external sources (e.g., other General Fund revenues such as sales taxes) available to finance expansion -related capital needs. • Density of service area, including number of ERCs served per mile of water and wastewater transmission lines and number of treatment facilities to serve the service area. • Age of system / level of renewals and replacements. • Utility life cycle (e.g., growth -oriented vs. mature). • Level of service standards. • Administrative decision to maintain fees at a level below what could justifiably be charged. 32 89 Collier County Water -Sewer District / Fiscal Year 2024 Water and Wastewater Impact Fee Study 26 Addition of any administrative fees, as allowed by the Florida Impact Fee Act, which may be embedded as a cost recovery component in the fee charged. As shown on Table 7 at the end of this report, the average water and wastewater system impact fees for the 20 governmental entities surveyed are $2,088 and $3,149 (combined fee being $5,236), respectively, for a standard single-family residence (i.e., one ERC). It should be noted that many utilities have not adjusted fees in many years or may be in a mature position with limited growth potential. When comparing the fees for those counties that are considered to have the ability for continued growth, the proposed fees continue to remain comparable as shown below: (Remainder of page intentionally left blank) 33 90 Collier County Water -Sewer District / Fiscal Year 2024 Water and Wastewater Impact Fee Study 27 Summary of County and "High Growth" Areas Impact Fees - $/ERC [1] Water System Wastewater System Combined Fees Collier County: Existing Fees $3,382 $3,314 $6,696 Proposed Fees [1] 6,470 5,614 12,084 Surveyed Florida Utilities: Bonita Springs Utilities, Inc. $3,040 $3,925 $6,965 City of Bradenton 1,751 1,550 3,301 Charlotte County [3] 1,290 1,610 2,900 DeSoto County 1,910 4,140 6,050 Englewood Water District [2][3] 1,751 2,754 4,505 City of Fort Myers 2,070 2,011 4,081 Hillsborough County [3] 3,047 4,640 7,687 Lee County [3] 2,440 2,660 5,100 Manatee County [3] 1,738 3,175 4,913 City of Marco Island 4,380 5,220 9,600 Marion County 1,659 3,844 5,503 City of Naples [2] 1,416 2,324 3,740 City of North Port [3] 2,319 2,255 4,574 Orange County [3] 1,970 3,570 5,540 Pasco County [3] 1,633 3,032 4,665 Polk County 2,844 4,195 7,039 City of Punta Gorda 1,497 2,760 4,257 City of Sarasota [3] 900 2,577 3,477 Sarasota County [3] 2,950 3,190 6,140 Hernando County [3] 1,147 3,544 4,691 Other Florida Utilities' Average $2,088 $3,149 $5,236 [1] Amounts shown derived from Table 7 at the end of this report. [2] Reflects utilities that have not adjusted fees in approximately ten years. [3] Utilities either have or anticipate conducting an impact fee study within the next 12 months. 34 91 Collier County Water -Sewer District / Fiscal Year 2024 Water and Wastewater Impact Fee Study 28 Conclusions and Recommendations Based on our evaluation of the District water and wastewater system impact fees, Raftelis offers the following conclusions and recommendations: Based on our review, the County's current water and wastewater impact fees do not appear to be recovering the estimated installed and anticipated proportional cost of the System Improvements to provide water and wastewater capacity expressed on a per equivalent residential connection basis for the cost of system water production, treatment and conveyance capacity or the system wastewater conveyance, treatment and disposal capacity. 2. Based on a review of prior studies, the County's current level of service recognized in the development of the water impact fees is 300 gpd (average day) per ERC. Based on the on current metered water use for the individually metered residential customer class (i.e., an equivalent residential connection) and retail finished water deliveries coupled with the capacity planning estimates recognized in the County's AUIR planning studies and documents, and based on discussions with the County it is recommended that the level of service standard for a water ERC be reduced to 275 gpd (average day) for the determination of water -related impact fees. The County's current level of service recognized in the development of the wastewater impact fees is 200 gpd (average day) per ERC. Based on estimates of indoor water use, current billed wastewater flows for the individually metered residential customer class, wastewater treatment requirements, capacity planning parameters recognized in the County's AUIR planning studies and documents, and based on discussions with the County, it is recommended that the level of service standard for a wastewater ERC be reduced to 195 gpd (average day) for the determination of wastewater -related impact fees. Based on levels of service per ERC and the capital costs identified, the proposed impact fees for the water and wastewater systems, respectively, are as follows: Existing and Proposed Fiscal Year 2024 Calculated Water and Wastewater Impact Fees per ERC Difference Proposed LOS Proposed System Existing Fees Amount Percent (gpd) Fees Water 275 $3,382.00 $6,470.00 $3,088.00 91.3% Wastewater 195 3,314.00 5,614.00 2,300.00 69.4% Total $6,696.00 $12,084.00 $5,388.00 80.5% ERC = Equivalent Residential Connection Raftelis considers the impact fees to support the rational nexus requirements whereby the benefits received by the applicant (new development) are reasonably related to the capital cost of providing utility services; Raftelis considers the proposed impact fees to be based on localized costs and reasonable. 35 92 Collier County Water -Sewer District / Fiscal Year 2024 Water and Wastewater Impact Fee Study 29 4. It is recommended that the County evaluate the sufficiency of the proposed impact fees no later than five years from the date of this report to provide that the capital cost recovery in the fee is consistent with the County's investment in System improvement infrastructure. Consistent with our scope of services, Raftelis only reviewed the water and wastewater impact fee levels and did not review the County's methodology for charging the impact fees to applicants / new development requesting capacity as shown in the Impact Fee Ordinance in Appendix B. Appendix C reflects the proposed fees applied to the County's existing methodology. 6. The Florida Impact Fee Act provides that entities cannot implement increases in impact fees less than 90 days after the effective date of an ordinance or resolution imposing the amended fees (notice to the community). Although the County's legal utility counsel does not consider the Act to be applicable to water and wastewater impact fees, the County has historically followed the provisions of this implementation Florida Statute. Due to the magnitude of the increase, it is recommended that the County follow historical precedent and implement the recommended impact fees not less than 90 days after the effective date of an ordinance or resolution imposing the amended fees (notice to the community). (Remainder of page intentionally left blank) 36 93 Collier County Water -Sewer District / Fiscal Year 2024 Water and Wastewater Impact Fee Study Tables Table 1 Development of Existing Water Production / Treatment Facility Capacity Available to Serve System Growth Table 2 Development of Existing Wastewater Treatment Facility Capacity Available to Serve System Growth Table 3 Summary of Water Capital Improvement Program by Plant Function Through Fiscal Year 2033 Table 4 Summary of Wastewater Capital Improvement Program by Plant Function Through Fiscal Year 2033 Table 5 Development of Water System Impact Fee Table 6 Development of Wastewater System Impact Fee Table 7 Comparison of Water and Wastewater Impact Fees per ERC Appendices Appendix A: Summary of Existing Utility System Assets Appendix B: Existing Water and Wastewater Impact Fee Ordinance Appendix C: Existing and Proposed Water and Wastewater System Impact Fee Schedule in County Format 37 94 Collier County Water -Sewer District / Fiscal Year 2024 Water and Wastewater Impact Fee Study Analysis Tables 38 95 Line No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Table 1 Collier County Water -Sewer District Water and Wastewater Impact Fee Study Development of Existing Water Production / Treatment Facility Capacity Available to Serve System Growth Water Description System Existing Treatment Plant Capacity of System (MMADF-MGD) [1] 52.000 Less Capacity Considered Offline and Removed from Service (MGD) [2] - Less Adjustment to Reflect Operational Treatment Capacity (MGD) [3] (2.000) Adjusted Treatment Plant Capacity of System (MMADF-MGD) 50.000 Adjustment to Reflect Maximum Month ADF of Water Treatment System (MGD) [4] (4.128) Dependable Treatment Plant Capacity (ADDF) Average Maximum Month Daily Demand Recognized [5] Remaining Estimated System Capacity (MMADD) to Serve Future Growth (MGD) Percent of Total Existing System Capacity Available to Serve Future Growth Capacity Available to Service New Growth (MMADF-MGD) Capacity Available to Service New Growth (gallons) Level of Service Standard Per ERC (gallons per day) [6] Number of ERCs Available to be Served by Existing Available Capacity [Line 11 / Line 12] MGD = Million Gallons Per Day MMADF = Maximum Month Average Daily Flow ADD = Average Daily Demand ADF = Average Daily Flow Footnotes on following page. 45.872 34.701 11.171 24.35% 11.171 11,170,689 275 40,621 39 96 Table 1 Collier County Water -Sewer District Water and Wastewater Impact Fee Study Development of Existing Water Production / Treatment Facility Capacity Available to Serve System Growth Footnotes: [1] Amounts reflect MMADF treatment capacity of facilities as provided by the District. The permitted capacities of the two individual regional facilities are 20.0 MMADF-MGD for the North County Regional Water Treatment Plant (WTP), and 32.0 MMADF-MGD for the South County Regional WTP. [2] Based on information presented in the AUIR, no facilities are assumed to be removed from service. [3] Adjustment to reflect Total Operational Capacity which is the capacity of the largest non -redundant treatment unit which could be out of service during a period of peak demand and is estimated by the County to be 2.0 MGD. In accordance with the County's July 2021 Draft Potable Water Master Plan, the Total Operational Capacity must be sufficient for the maximum day demand. [4] With respect to the water facilities, the plant capacity is expressed on a maximum month daily flow basis. To be consistent with the level of service requirements for the water system, the plant capacity was adjusted to reflect an average daily demand basis. A peak day to maximum month daily demand factor of 1.09 was utilized as supported by finished water flow data contained in the Monthly Operating Reports filed with the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) as shown below: Maximum Annual Average Month Daily Peak Day Estimated Peak / Daily Demand Demand Demand Maximum (MGD) (a) (MGD) (a) (MGD) (a) Month Factor Fiscal Year 2010 23.015 24.774 28.133 1.136 Fiscal Year 2011 24.292 27.999 29.352 1.048 Fiscal Year 2012 24.086 27.960 29.839 1.067 Fiscal Year 2013 23.753 28.440 30.383 1.068 Fiscal Year 2014 25.581 29.125 30.024 1.031 Fiscal Year 2015 26.009 30.009 31.339 1.044 Fiscal Year 2016 26.147 30.571 33.891 1.109 Fiscal Year 2017 26.222 31.671 32.953 1.040 Fiscal Year 2018 26.239 30.812 38.984 1.265 Fiscal Year 2019 26.738 31.072 34.749 1.118 Fiscal Year 2020 27.667 31.997 34.023 1.063 Fiscal Year 2021 26.154 30.400 32.720 1.076 Fiscal Year 2022 28.010 32.874 39.273 1.195 Fiscal Year 2023 29.954 34.701 36.373 1.048 Historical Period Maximum 1.265 Historical Period -Year Average 1.090 Historical Period Adjusted Average (less maximum and minimum) 1.100 Factor Utilized For Impact Fee Determination Purposes 1.090 50.000 MMDD-MGD Capacity / 1.09 Peaking Factor = 45.872 ADD-MGD Capacity. 50.000 Less 45.872 = 4.128. (a) Amounts shown include adjustments for the acquisition of the Orange Tree (acquired Much 1, 2017) and Golden Gate Utility System (acquired March 1, 2018) as if such Systems were under County Ownership for the historical period to provide comparability among all periods. 40 97 Table 1 Collier County Water -Sewer District Water and Wastewater Impact Fee Study Development of Existing Water Production / Treatment Facility Capacity Available to Serve System Growth Footnotes: [5] Reflects the highest reported average daily demand experienced by the District's water treatment facilities for the fifteen Fiscal Year period ended 2022 as shown below: Water Maximum Period Reported for Historical Period - MMADD (*) 34.701 (*) Reference is made to Footnote 3 for applicable water daily demand data. [6] The level of service factor for an ERC reflects capacity requirements expressed on an average daily water demand basis for a standard equivalent residential unit. Level of Service - Gallons per Capita per Day 130.0 Adjustment to Remove General Service Water Demands 2022 Billed Water Sales - Residential Service (Thousands of Gallons) 6,870,418 2022 Billed Water Sales - General Service (Thousands of Gallons) 1,628,263 2022 Billed Water Sales - hrigation Service (Thousands of Gallons) 546,063 2022 Billed Water Sales - Wholesale Service (Thousands of Gallons) - Total 2022 Billed Water Sales (Thousands of Gallons) All Customer Classes 9,044,744 All Customer Classes Excluding Wholesale Service (Retail Service) 9,044,744 Residential as a Percent of Retail Service 80.84% Estimated Level of Service - Gallons per Capita per Day - Residential Service Only 105.1 U.S. Census Projection - 2017-2021 Persons per Average Permanent Household 2.40 Level of Service per ERC Calculated - AADF 252.24 Adjust for Level of Service per ERC - MMADF 1.09 274.94 Level of Service per ERC Recognized - MMADF 275.00 41 98 Table 2 Collier County Water -Sewer District Water and Wastewater Impact Fee Study Development of Existing Wastewater Treatment Facility Capacity Available to Serve System Growth Line No. Description Wastewater System 1 Existing Treatment Plant Capacity of System (ADF-MGD) [1] 42.350 2 Less Existing Capacity Considered to be Removed from Service and Considered Off-line [ 1 ] (0.750) 3 Less Adjustment to Reflect Operational Treatment Capacity - 4 Adjusted Treatment Plant Capacity of System (MMADF-MGD) 41.600 5 Adjustment to Reflect Maximum Month ADD of Wastewater Treatment System (MGD) [2] (4.786) 6 Dependable Treatment Plant Capacity (ADD) 36.814 7 Average Maximum Month Daily Demand Recognized [3] 24.009 8 Remaining Estimated System Capacity (MMADF) to Serve Future Growth (MGD) 12.805 9 Percent of Total Existing System Capacity Available to Serve Future Growth 34.78% 10 Existing Capacity Available to Service New Growth (MMADF) 12.805 11 Existing Capacity Available to Service New Growth (gallons) 12,805,159 12 Level of Service Standard Per ERC (gallons per day) [4] 195 13 Number of ERCs That Could Be Served By Existing Capacity [Line 11 / Line 12] 65,667 MGD = Million Gallons Per Day MMADF = Maximum Month Average Daily Flow ADD = Average Daily Demand ADF — Average Daily Flow Footnotes on following page. 42 99 Table 2 Collier County Water -Sewer District Water and Wastewater Impact Fee Study Development of Existing Wastewater Treatment Facilitv Capacity Available to Serve Svstem Growth Footnotes: [ 1 ] Amounts reflect permitted MMADF wastewater treatment plant capacity of facilities. The permitted capacities of the of the wastewater treatment facilities are: 24.1 MMADF-MGD for the North County Water Reclamation Facility, 16.0 MMADF-MGD for the South County Water Reclamation Facility, 1.50 MMADF-MGD for the Golden Gate Wastewater Treatment Facility, and 0.75 MMADF-MGD for the Orange Tree Wastewater Treatment Facility. The Orange Tree Wastewater Treatement Facility is planned to be removed from service by the County in the near future and is not included in the determination of the existing Wastewater System capacity. [2] With respect to the existing wastewater facilities, the plant capacity is expressed on a maximum month daily flow basis. To be consistent with the level of service requirements for the wastewater system, the plant capacity was adjusted to reflect an average daily demand basis. A maximum month daily demand to annual average daily demand peaking factor of 1.13 was utilized as supported by treated wastewater flow data presented in the Monthly Operating Reports filed by the County with the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) as shown below: Maximum Annual Average Month Daily Daily Demand Demand (MGD) (a) (MGD) (a) Fiscal Year 2010 15.673 17.339 Fiscal Year 2011 16.077 18.146 Fiscal Year 2012 17.334 19.564 Fiscal Year 2013 18.538 20.748 Fiscal Year 2014 17.657 20.952 Fiscal Year 2015 18.730 21.024 Fiscal Year 2016 19.411 23.085 Fiscal Year 2017 20.132 23.659 Fiscal Year 2018 19.150 21.328 Fiscal Year 2019 20.234 23.406 Fiscal Year 2020 20.421 23.321 Fiscal Year 2021 21.574 22.660 Fiscal Year 2022 22.282 24.009 Fiscal Year 2023 21.590 23.575 Historical Period Maximum Historical Period -Year Average Historical Period Adjusted Average (less maximum and minimum) Factor Utilized for impact Fee Determination Purposes 41.600 MMDD-MGD Capacity / 1.13 Peaking Factor = 36.814 AADD-MGD Capacity. 41.600 Less 36.814 = 4.786. (a) Amounts shown include adjustments for the acquisition of the Orange Tree (acquired March 1, 2017) and Golden Gate Utility System (acquired March 1, 2018) as if such Systems were under County Ownership for the historical period to provide comparability among all periods. Estimated Peak Month Factor 1.11 1.13 1.13 1.12 1.19 1.12 1.19 1.18 1.11 1.16 1.14 1.05 1.08 1.09 1.19 1.13 1.13 1.13 43 100 Table 2 Collier County Water -Sewer District Water and Wastewater Impact Fee Study Development of Existing Wastewater Treatment Facility Capacity Available to Serve System Growth Footnotes: [3] Reflects the highest reported average daily flow experienced by the District's wastewater treatment facilities for the nineteen Fiscal Year period ended 2022 as shown below: Maximum Period Reported for Historical Period - MMADD (*) (*) Reference is made to Footnote 2 for applicable wastewater daily flow data. [4] The level of service factor for an ERC reflects capacity requirements expressed on an average daily wastewater demand basis for a standard equivalent residential unit. Level of Service - Gallons per Capita per Day per AUIR Adjustment to Remove General Service Wastewater Demands 2022 Billed Wastewater Flows - Residential Service (Thousands of Gallons) 2022 Billed Wastewater Flows - General Service (Thousands of Gallons) Total 2022 Billed Wastewater Flows (Thousands of Gallons) All Customer Classes Residential as a Percent of Retail Service Estimated Level of Service - Gallons per Capita per Day - Residential Service Only U.S. Census Projection - 2017-2021 Persons per Household Level of Service per ERC Calculated - ADF Adjust for Level of Service per ERC - MMADF Level of Service per ERC Recognized - MMADF AUIR = Annual Update & Inventory Report prepared by the County dated December 13, 2022. Wastewater 24.009 90.0 7,059,751 1,771,333 8,831,084 79.94% 71.9 2.40 172.56 1.13 194.99 195.00 44 101 N O ci �y 3 m w .......... w ....... ........................................................fig.... .. gad a M� N F uO esr z^ x w eeeeeeeeee w .e....... a��...ee..e.................................... . .eeeeeeeeee -aam..v-r.. .. �o .. oa,rvogrvo_ .ma,�e oa,rvoom000000,�oary o..rv__......00rvm_a�o_v.rvooaaa„��o$rmmo°-°,'ry erv.. oOmn rv..x $mwoNN n_e eeeeeeeeeeee we mneaN ........emeeem a....enemry S ............ ................................................................................. w eeeeeeeeee w eeeeeee eeeeeeeeee.eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee mg.......... eeeegrvr, ee �F .. ................eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee g� 8 w eeee ee - . eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee - N$e - eeeeeeeeeeeeee eeeeeeeee a �8 . ...r._..r.r a ..................eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee w eeeeeeeeee w...........mge.......................................ee - .eeeeeeeeee e we........... .. eeeGee eeeeeeeeeeeeee .eeeeeeeeee eeeeeee eeeeeeeeeeee eeeeeeeeeeeeee 'a e-`� 2MA _"rv' _ m 5 _____________________ ______________ _________________ eeee.. ________________ G ��� ............ ..................... .............. ................. ................. z` .geeeeeeeeeeeeeeggeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeggggggggNeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee S 88888881,888 ................................................................................ FFF F F ss sa FFF F a aFFFaFaaaaa aaaFFFFFFF a aaaaaa FFFF as eeee F FF Y2 o" P-"y a 5 5 D ". §° 5 S E❑ 5 v m "E oJa' C g° v 19 nn� pzy�zo�S�-tlo4E2n 3-mf'c<i fm'�m EzwC zCz z z z �o o8F orte88 �z-rvmarer�a�__ = �=e_SaNNNNNNNNNNmmmmmm'm°mm°m`���eSeeeaa�rrrrr'�°G°�°°�,`e6ee�ee6ee�K������������������aaaa �y "a+ Lfi e3 3 x °.................................... eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee e 4 arme��ooeeeNeeee��eoeNeeeeeee$am`°oo�'Oe�o N So��ooSaa�o����a�SS�a�me S 6 �Se � ry a a�mee�veeeemeeeeem eeeeeeeee-e$--eee<ee�g $ eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee e M S 000000000eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee ti eeee$-- a ee @@� cryw�Ha.g eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee-eeee---ee--- - eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee e �F eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee eee .eeeeee eee 8 eee eeeeeeeee eeeeee eeee$-- _ � eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee - fa eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee 8e9�S eeeeeeeee eeee ti rv�ry ^ m eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee ee eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee a g arme��oeeeeNeeee��emeNeeeeeee�°^,m$oo�'m°o�o So9NooSaaOOeo��a�SS�a�ee --eeeeeeeee eeeeee -eeeeeeeee & d' e 'a 5 eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee G %ms........................................ ........................ z" S eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee-----------------'_--'-' d555 dSSdS��� g555 ����� 4� ;�4444�,���FFFF�FF44�FSSS ssaFF aaaaFFaaF F �=F�=a" aFF a"�-aa � �-�-�- P o o'z$3 o'000m�$$o sz y'o3$zo3asoo>$aaa3yzaa rvoQ r e�....... dQ oQZ H o Viz° Yaa°^,aa---- ------------------- ---NNmm__ - _ ---------------^ - F v 0 ........... ..................................................................................... H .......................................................................................... v ._aa.e".ors � 000�"�oo_�m��,"_oe_��aom"a"m"a�_"oo�,_�,"�oaoMoe"MwM�_MM"MMMMMM„mmo�armas_s<e<e<��s�sm� ........... ---- -- ........... ..................................................................................... ........... ..................................................................................... ........... ........................... .....................................................vevee ........... ..................................................................................... H ......... .................................................................... 8�... �.....r". ^^^^^ oS� ___' _ wAe����=�aaa�^ ' Qa aS°=h�::.:N"����aooh�MMMeMMMryMMMMMMMMr�M���Ma�_me,mma ^<m�me�a ........................ ........... . . . x . . . . . . s `s`s...`s.`...`..`..`................. ....................... a _g re "_" S °S°S°S°S°S°SSSSSSSSSSSS S SSSS@ of�388@S°SSSSS-----s-s--s-fr -s-- SoSsu esSs€'frs €ssfr€esS€esS sS 3 u u uuuu F i a g � g i e F � LE a g oysm $ �$S$„SauS �zzzz°'o.S_x"smsg°- o sf� o � zggggo- Sd S"`�zzzSg e £ 8y gygm y8yhy��va'aaa aoo " " " ' x y° 8fo;�€w5 € a3 _ a3 �. 3 3 ha`s"e�Haaaamg �u w z 'z�y''3zz At tP,3s Ln 0 � a .................. m o a ...... v ...................... C° � -- smxr�s x .mmm=sxme ..........................................................................eeeeeee S ...............$...... ....e.e.e.e Ns ....... ........................ ..................e00000..................000eoeoe............................... oeoeoeoeoeoa ...............................eeeeeee............................... eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeoeo................................oeoeoeoeoeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee ;s--------- -•Mnss ss o ae�Maaeaameeor essa me....= gem ....o o o o e o e oe eo ......e ..eeee a1R R A 9 M air A esS _A 8 8 n a 8 n G_ _ _ _ _N$8"_ =o.`s`s`s`s`s`s`s``s``s` _= osasasssssasssssss �3.000000............................................ ........................ .. _j F F F F SSS SBSBSBSB€ gae=======uS Hy f`;vvvv ``�a=5Is5IAAUsss3g5555555s55555 H8833F"F4 F€u8�Eu8uEu8 f o==== a E g E fr 2s���� fr lee m �a €€ � sffiffisx s� �� �� � �frfr���aQ�@fg'��g���' Sig as A dv'yaaz- 6 a�a�8,.sea v5p2 maagraC,� e$5g 3� s $ es9 Ns'"=-aaaa =�33 e�mmz�--- -6�,. u33H�a59$ 33 �z���s���� �f�f�f�5�s=a�a aaaaa 58zzm��iaaaa5�535aaaa��i�i���s.��. 3z3 �oHz`sza33 Viz° kD 0 ooaom0000000000eoe�,�oeoeoeomeeeeee_�e s z s � � •,� �'"�°a Bm � 'Spa, �� °4z� 3 � E S$ k r 3 S 3 3 a s c 3 i f f � E ae-«M<he�mae-nM<re�ma8aeed<8<v8=_:=:= m = I cscccc g doaga E 3 m 3 'o rn Table 5 Collier County Water -Sewer District Water and Wastewater Impact Fee Study Development of Water System Impact Fee Line No. Description Amount Total Estimated Cost of Existing Water Production and Treatment Facilities: 1 Installed Cost - Existing Facilities [1] $304,595,847 2 Plus Anticipated Assets Placed in to Service - CIP [2] 192,341,064 3 Less Estimated Existing Assets Removed from Service [3] (100,394,541) 4 Less Receipt of Grants and Other Contributions [4] (51,550,999) 5 Subtotal Water Production and Treatment Facilities $344,991,371 6 Daily Treatment Plant Capacity (ADD) [5] 45.872 7 Existing Maximum Daily Flow (MGD) (MDF) [6] 34.701 8 Level of Service per ERC - (GPD-AADF) [7] 275.0 9 Total Estimated ERCs Permitted to be Served by Existing Facilities 166,806 10 Percent Remaining Capacity of Existing Facilities 24.35% 11 Allocation of Existing Facilities to Incremental Growth $84,012,648 12 Rate per ERCs Associated with Existing Facilities $2,068 Total Estimated Cost of Additional Water Production and Treatment Facilities: 13 Additional Costs Capitalized - CIP [8] $333,050,111 14 Less Receipt of Grants and Other Contributions [4] 0 15 Cost of Additional Water Production/Treatment Facilities $333,050,111 16 Additional Treatment Plant Capacity (MMADF-MGD) [9] 10.000 17 Daily Plant Capacity (MGD) (MDF) [9] 9.174 18 Level of Service per ERC - (GPD-AADF) [7] 275.0 19 Total Estimated ERCs to be Served by Additional Facilities 33,360 20 Rate per ERCs Associated with Additional Facilities $9,984 21 Rate per ERC Allocable to Water Production/Treatment Facilities $5,637.45 22 Rounded Rate per ERC $5,637.00 Primary Transmission System: 23 Existing Facilities [10] $123,132,678 24 Plus Anticipated Assets Placed in to Service - CIP [2] 76,618,149 25 Less Anticipated Assets Removed from Service [3] (16,132,303) 26 Less Receipt of Grants and Other Contributions [4] (16,737,405) 27 Total Primary Transmission Facility Costs Recognized $166,881,119 28 Estimated ERCs Served by Existing Facilities [11] 166,806 29 Estimated Future ERCs served by Transmission Facilities [11] 33,360 30 Total Estimated ERCs served by Transmission Facilities [11] 200,166 31 Net Rate per ERC of Primary Transmission Facilities $833.71 32 Rounded Rate per ERC $833.00 33 Total Combined Rate per ERC After Rate Adjustment $6,470.00 34 Cost Per Gallon $23.53 35 Existing Rate per Gallon $12.30 36 Existing Rate per ERC $3,382.00 37 Proposed Increase / (Decrease) $3,088.00 MDF — Maximum Daily Flow GPD = Gallons per Day MMADF = Maximum Month Average Daily Flow MGD = Million Gallons Per Day AADF — Annual Average Daily Flow Footnotes continued on the following page. 50 107 Table 5 Footnotes Collier County Water -Sewer District Water and Wastewater Impact Fee Study Development of Water System Impact Fees Footnotes: [1] Amount shown excludes estimated existing fixed assets associated with the Golden Gate Water Treatment Plant, which is considered to be out of service and no longer a source of water treatment capacity. [2] Amount shown recognizes incremental increase in cost based on the implementation of the Capital Improvement Program (CIP). Such costs reflect assets anticipated to contribute to the Utility Plant -in -Service, which is considered to have capacity available to serve new development. [3] Amounts shown represent adjustment for asset upgrades and improvements that result in an existing asset being retired from service to recognize only the marginal increase in asset value considered to be in service during the evaluation period to meet future capacity demands associated with new development. [4] Total cost of facilities is reduced by grants and other outside funding sources, if any, as provided by the County. [5] Amount reflects dependable treatment capacity as shown on Table 1. [6] Amount reflects the average daily flow for Fiscal Years 2008 through 2022 adjusted by the County's estimated historical peaking factor of 1.09. [7] Amount reflects the County's actual level of service provided for a residential ERCs unit. [8] Amount derived from Table 3, if any, and reflects the cost of additional water treatment capacity. [9] Amount as provided by County staff and reflects the amount of additional water treatment capacity expressed on a maximum daily flow basis, if any. [10] Amount based on Appendix A and reflects water transmission assets currently in service. [11] Amount derived from Table 1 and reflects the planned upgrades to the existing water transmission system. 51 108 Table 6 Collier County Water -Sewer District Water and Wastewater Impact Fee Study Development of Wastewater System Impact Fee Line No. Description Total Estimated Cost of Existing Wastewater Treatment Facilities: Installed Cost - Existing Facilities Additional Costs Capitalized - CIP [1] Less Estimated Existing Assets Removed from Service [2] Less Receipt of Grants and Other Contributions [3] Subtotal Wastewater Treatment Facilities Amount $342,424,912 162,791,493 (84,877,762) (16,897,272) $403,441,371 6 Existing Treatment Plant Capacity (MMADF-MGD) [4] 42.350 7 Existing Dependable Treatment Plant Capacity (MGD) (ADF) [4] 36.814 8 Existing Maximum Daily Flow (MGD) (MDF) [5] 24.009 9 ERCs Unit Factor - (GPD) (MDF) [6] 195.0 10 Total Estimated ERCs Units Permitted to be Served by Existing Facilities 188,791 11 Percent Remaining Capacity of Existing Facilities 34.78% 12 Allocation of Existing Facilities to Incremental Growth $140,330,001 13 Rate per ERCs Unit Associated with Existing Facilities $2,136.98 Total Estimated Cost of Additional Wastewater Treatment Facilities: 14 Additional Costs Capitalized - CIP [7] $375,910,183 15 Less Receipt of Grants and Other Contributions [3] 0 16 Cost of Additional Wastewater Treatment Facilities $375,910,183 17 Additional Treatment Plant Capacity (MMADF-MGD) [8] 9.000 18 Dependable Plant Capacity (MGD) (MDF) [8] 7.965 19 Total Estimated ERCs Units to be Served by Additional Facilities 40,844 20 Rate per ERCs Units Associated with Additional Facilities $9,203.56 21 Rate per ERCs Units Allocable to Wastewater Treatment Facilities $4,846.80 22 Rounded Rate per ERC $4,846.00 Primary Transmission System: 23 Existing Facilities [9] $137,814,142 24 Additional Costs Capitalized - CIP [10] 49,479,205 25 Less Anticipated Assets Removed from Service [2] (4,541,026) 26 Less Receipt of Grants and Other Contributions [3] (6,389,686) 27 Total Primary Transmission Facility Costs $176,362,635 28 Estimated ERCs Units Served by Existing Facilities [11] 188,791 29 Estimated Future ERCs Units served by Transmission Facilities [ 11 ] 40,844 30 Total Estimated ERCs Units served by Transmission Facilities [ 11 ] 229,635 31 Net Rate per ERCs Unit of Primary Transmission Facilities $768.01 32 Rounded Rate per ERC $768.00 33 Total Combined Rate per ERCs Unit After Rate Adjustment $5,614.00 34 Cost Per Gallon $28.79 35 Existing Rate per Gallon $16.99 36 Existing Rate per ERCs Unit $3,314.00 37 Proposed Increase / (Decrease) $2,300.00 MDF = Maximum Daily Flow GPD = Gallons per Day MMADF = Maximum Month Average Daily Flow MGD = Million Gallons Per Day AADF = Annual Average Daily Flow Footnotes continued on the following page. 52 109 Table 6 Footnotes Collier County Water -Sewer District Water and Wastewater Impact Fee Study Development of Wastewater System Impact Fee Footnotes: [ 1 ] Amount derived from Table 4 and reflects the planned upgrades to the existing wastewater treatment facilities. [2] Amounts shown represent adjustment for asset upgrades and improvements that result in an existing asset being retired from service to recognize only the marginal increase in asset value considered to be in service during the evaluation period to meet future capacity demands associated with new development. [3] Total cost of facilities is reduced by grants and other outside funding sources, if any, as provided by the County. [4] Amount reflects dependable capacity as shown on Table 2. [5] Amount reflects the average daily flow for Fiscal Years 2008 through 2022 adjusted by the County's estimated historical peaking factor of 1.13. [6] Amount reflects the County's actual level of service provided for a residential ERCs unit. [7] Amount derived from Table 4, if any, and reflects the cost of additional wastewater treatment capacity. [8] Amount as provided by County staff and reflects the amount of additional wastewater treatment capacity expressed on a maximum daily flow basis, if any. [9] Amount based on Appendix A and reflects wastewater transmission assets currently in service. [10] Amount derived from Table 4 and reflects the planned expansions and upgrades to the existing wastewater transmission system. [ 11 ] Amount derived from Table 2 and reflects the planned upgrades to the existing wastewater transmission system. 53 110 Table 7 Collier County Water -Sewer District Water and Wastewater Impact Fee Study Comparison of Water and Wastewater Impact Fees per ERC [11 Line Residential 5/8" x 3/4" Meter No. Description Water Wastewater Combined Collier County Water -Sewer District 1 Existing System Impact Fees $3,382 $3,314 $6,696 2 Proposed System Impact Fees $6,470 $5,614 $12,084 Surveyed Florida Utilities: 3 Bonita Springs Utilities, Inc. $3,040 $3,925 $6,965 4 City of Bradenton [2] 1,751 1,550 3,301 5 Charlotte County 1,290 1,610 2,900 6 DeSoto County 1,910 4,140 6,050 7 Englewood Water District [4] [5] 1,751 2,754 4,505 8 City of Fort Myers 2,070 2,011 4,081 9 Hillsborough County [4] [6] 3,047 4,640 7,687 10 Lee County [4] 2,440 2,660 5,100 11 Manatee County [4] 1,738 3,175 4,913 12 City of Marco Island 4,380 5,220 9,600 12 Marion County 1,659 3,844 5,503 13 City of Naples 1,416 2,324 3,740 14 City of North Port [4] 2,319 2,255 4,574 15 Orange County [4] 1,970 3,570 5,540 16 Pasco County 1,633 3,032 4,665 17 Polk County 2,844 4,195 7,039 18 City of Punta Gorda 1,497 2,760 4,257 19 City of Sarasota 900 2,577 3,477 20 Sarasota County [4] 2,950 3,190 6,140 21 Hernando County [4] 1,147 3,544 4,691 22 Other Florida Utilities' Average $2,088 $3,149 $5,236 Footnotes: [ 1 ] Unless otherwise noted, amounts shown reflect fees charged to a standard residential connection (considered as one ERC) in effect as of July 2022 and are exclusive of taxes or franchise fees, if any, and reflect rates charged for inside the city service. All rates are as reported by the respective utility. This comparison is intended to show comparable charges for similar service for comparison purposes only and is not intended to be a complete listing of all rates and charges offered by each listed utility. [2] Fees are based on number of fixtures per customer. Fees shown are calculated at an assumed 19 fixtures for a typical home representing a standard residential connection (considered as one ERC). [3] Fees shown at gross amount. Actual charges reflect a -75% temporary reduction from the original fee schedule until their sunset date of September 30, 2022. [4] Utility is currently included in a fee study, or plans to implement a fee revision within the next twelve months following the comparison preparation date. [5] Fees shown exclude the distribution and collection system components of the utility's capital capacity charges. [6] Fees shown include the accured guaranteed revenue fees (AGRF). 54 111 Collier County Water -Sewer District / Fiscal Year 2024 Water and Wastewater Impact Fee Study APPENDIX A: Summary of Existing Utility System Assets 55 112 a1 C A N w p, 0 U w U . rz e o 0 0 v1 O vi N M '-- 00 O oNo omo 69 o e e e O V] h N O ;- Z In M 6s r M 0 N '-- 00 � � 0y0 07 .M-i � O M 69 e e o 0 0 0 00 N l� 7 O N CT 10 l-- In N O l� �c In O h V 10 N N I N x 00 0� O l� l� 'n l- 'n C r N 00 In m 00 N x M 00 O Ni 69 69 e o e e e o V O N M O O N N �O 00 V M (14 In 0000 N N O x v] l n O M CT W O O N l- V o0 N O In f` V M IS bs e e e e e e V� Do N N N �n N In l- N 00 00 In lr N O� M O x f- In �o r- M �O DD r- V N w � u O U a O y Jq�.. ''7 5• O O v, O i� � cS y 'b iC ayr•"i U O O o _ 18 �zC) 0u ( i v v 0 0 0 w 7 C 1 � co Collier County Water -Sewer District / Fiscal Year 2024 Water and Wastewater Impact Fee Study APPENDIX B: Existing Water and Wastewater Impact Fee Ordinance 57 114 ORDINANCE NO. 2019- 48 AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING CHAPTER 74 OF THE COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES (THE COLLIER COUNTY CONSOLIDATED IMPACT FEE ORDINANCE) BY INCORPORATING BY REFERENCE THE "COLLIER COUNTY ROAD IMPACT FEE UPDATE STUDY" AND THE "WATER AND WASTEWATER IMPACT FEE STUDY FOR COLLIER COUNTY WATER -SEWER DISTRICT"; AMENDING THE ROAD IMPACT FEE RATE SCHEDULE, WHICH IS SCHEDULE ONE APPENDIX A, AS SET FORTH IN THE IMPACT FEE UPDATE STUDY AND AMENDING THE WATER AND WASTEWATER SYSTEM IMPACT FEE RATE SCHEDULE, WHICH IS SCHEDULE TWO OF APPENDIX A, AS SET FORTH IN THE IMPACT FEE UPDATE STUDY; PROVIDING FOR UPDATED DEFINITIONS; PROVIDING FOR REQUIRED CHANGES TO THE PROVISIONS RELATED TO OBTAINING A CERTIFICATE OF ADEQUATE PUBLIC FACILITES IN ACCORDANCE WITH NEW STATUTORY PROVISIONS; PROVIDING FOR CONFLICT AND SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION IN THE COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES; AND PROVIDING FOR A RETROACTIVE EFFECTIVE DATE OF NOVEMBER 13, 2019 FOR ALL FEE DECREASES AND A DELAYED EFFECTIVE DATE OF MARCH 30, 2020 FOR ALL FEE INCREASES AND NEW/REPLACEMENT LAND USE CATEGORIES, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE 90-DAY NOTICE REQUIREMENTS SET FORTH IN SECTION 163.31801(3)(d), FLORIDA STATUTES. 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, Collier County has used impact fees as a funding source for grorvnh-related capital improvements for various facilities since 1978-, and WHEREAS. on March 13. 2001, the Board of County Commissioners adopted Ordinance No. 2001-13, the Collier County Consolidated Impact Fee Ordinance, repealing and superseding all of the County's then existing impact fee regulations. and consolidating all of the County's impact fee regulations into that one Ordinance, codified in Chapter 74 of the Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances {Code}; and ( J nde rl i ved text us added. c...ik h.eLim text is deleted 58 115 WHEREAS, on February 10, 2015, the Board of County Commissioners adopted the Collier Ordinance No. 2015-17 for the adoption of the Road Impact Fee Update Study thereby updating the then current Road Impact Tee rates; and WHEREAS, on April 25, 2017. the Board of County Commissioners adopted Ordinance No. 2017-14 adopting an annual indexing calculation thereby establishing the current Road Impact Fee rates: and WHEREAS, on April 25. 2017, the Board of County Commissioners adopted Ordinance No. 2017-13 for the adoption of the Water and Wastewater Impact Fee Study thereby establishing the current Water and Wastewater Impact Fee rates; WHEREAS, Section 74-502 of the Code provides that impact fee studies should be reviewed at least every three years; and WHEREAS. Collier County retained Tindale-OIiver &: Associates. Inc„ to complete the Road Impact Fee Update Study; and WHEREAS. Tindale-Oliver and Associates, Inc., has prepared the "Collier County Road Impact Fee Update Study", dated October 14. 2019: and WHEREAS. Collier County retained Ratielis. which Public Resources Management Group. Inc., is now a part of, to complete the Water and Wastewater Impact Fee Update Study; and WHEREAS, Raftelis has prepared the "Water and Wastewater Impact Fee Stitdy for Collier County Water -Sewer District'. dated Septemberl2. 2019: and WHEREAS, the "Collier County Road Impact Fee Update Study" and the '`Water and Wastewater Impact Fee Study for Collier County Water -Sewer District recommend changes to the rate schedules that provide For both rate reductions and increases; and WHEREAS, the proposed changes to the Road rates and the Water and Wastewater rates equitably distribute the costs of acquiring public facilities based upon a rational nexus relating, costs incurred by fee payers to infrastrLicture impacts created by residential and non-residential land uses; and WHEREAS. staff has thoroughly reviewed the calculations and tindings and concurs with the results of the calculations and the studies; and O.n derl i ned text is adcdnd. 8ii,wE! k th";i e# text is deleted Nee 2 0l' 23 59 116 WHEREAS. the calculations and studies have also been reviewed by Collier County's outside legal counsel of Nabors, Giblin & Nickerson, P.A._ and WHEREAS. staff recommends that [lie Board of County Commissioners adopts this Ordinance to implement the recommended changes; and WHEREAS, Section 163.31801. Florida Slootte.s, which is the Florida Impact Fee Act. requires that the most recent and localized data be used 'in impact fee calculations and these studies comply with that requirement, and WHEREAS, in accordance with Section 163.31801, Florida ,Slatzales, all rate categories that are increasing have a 90-day delayed effective date in accordance with the Notice requirements set forth in Section 163.31801(3)(d). Florida Statute.v. Additionally, the minimum 90-day notice is not required for rate reductions; and WHEREAS. the new and/or replacement land use category rates and definitions will also become effective in accordance with the 90-day notice requirements; and WHEREAS, the Florida Legislature adopted provisions related to the timing of collection of impact fees and therefore the requirements related to the payment of Road Impact Fces to obtain a Certificate of Adequate Public Facilities (COA) are being modified to comply with the new law. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that. - SECTION ONE. Article I, General. Section 74-106. Adolyfio►r q/ impact fee studies, of the Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances is hereby amended to read as follows: Section 74-106. Adoption of impact fee studies. The board hereby adapts and incorporates by reference the following studies with regard to the respective public facilities; (1) T'raa7.s )orl alion fercilities: "Collier County Road Impact Fee Update Study." prepared by Tindale-[diver and Associates, Incorporated (SURF ' 13. October 11. 2019 I Jkediwd text is added, St W %ti#} text is deleted Page 3 of 23 60 117 () Water and wastewerter_facilities. "Water and Wastewater Impact Fee Study for Collier County Water -Sewer District" (dated eeember—`_ 1ems6 September 12, 2019) prepared by Public Resources Management Group. Inc as part oi' Rartelis; SECTION TWO. Article 1, General, Section 74-108. General clefinitions, or the Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances is hereby amended to read as follows: Section 74-108 -- General definitions. When used in this chapter, the fallowing terms shall have the following meanings, unless the context clearly indicates otherwise. Terms contained in article III or the rate schedules supersede these general definitions to the extent of any conflict(s). Kr�s�ustree�r_� ��� Condominium shall mean an ownership unit that has at least one other owned unit within the same building, structure. For the purposes of this chapter and assessment of impact fees. condominiulns will be 'sneIuded under the appropriate Multifamily H❑using category. Convenience store shall mean a store open a wini.,,um . r t c 24 hours per day and which sells convenience foods, newspapers, magazines and often beer and wine and does not have gasoline pumps. Ditplex shall mean a single, free-standing, conventional building on a single lot which contains only two dwelling units and is intended, designed. used and occupied as two dwelling Underlined lent is added: r text rs deleted Pap 4 o!'33 61 118 units under single ownership_ or where each dwelling unit is separately owned or leased but the lot is held under common ownership. For the purpose of this chapter and assessment or impact tees a duplex will be considered under the definition of the Multifamily lousing (Low -Rise) CategL3CV. fefeffEd ie as a sinele f..ffii..t.a..11..n--cz-vr—crrrrr� Hrgb-rise condominium shall mean residential condominiums or townhouses that are: located in buildings with three or more levels (floors). For the purposes of this chapter and assessment of impact fees. high-rise condominiums will be included under the appropriate Multifamily Housing category. 11i�I?-Rise Re.yhlemial with First Floor Commercial shall mean development with first - floor commercial that are mixed -use multifamiIv housing buildings that have more than 10 levels (floors) and include retail space that is open to the public on the first level. Aficl-Rise Residential ►WIh First Floor Coinmercial shall mean development with first -floor co:nmercial that are mixed -use multifamily housing buildings that have between three and ten levels floors and include retails ace on the first level. Mull ifLnnidv Hortvipw (M&Rise) shall mean apartme:its, townhouses and condominiums that have more than ten levels (floors). Far the purpose of CaICLIIating water and/or sewer impact L derlined t2Nt is added. c..,.. thr8,.gI lelt IS deleted Page ; uf?3 62 119 fee. the Following shall be considered multiple -family dwelling units: guesthouse, servants' Yuarters. in-law apartment. townhouse and adult congreglate living facility_ Multif nnilt., Housigg (Low -Rise) shall mean apartment& townhouses and condominiums located within the same building with at least three other_dwellin units and that have one or two levels (floors). For the purpose of this chapter and assessment of impact fees duplexes will also be considered under this definition. For the purpose of calculating water and/or sewer impact fee. the following shall be considered multiple -family dwelling units: guesthouse, servants' quarters. in-law al2artmeni. townhouse and adult con re ate I i v i n P, facility. 111arltiflriiriN Housing (APL-l-Rise) shall snean apartments, townhouses and condominiums located within the same building with at least three other dwelling units and have between three and ten levels (floors). For the purpose of calculating water and/or sewer impact fee, the following shall he considered multiple -family dwelling touts: guesthouse, servants' quarters. in-law apartment, townhouse and adult congregate living facility. Restaurant (Mst casual) shall rnean a sit-dowri restaurant with no wait staITortable service, Customers typically order from a menu board. pav for food before the food is prepared and seat themselves. The menu generally contains himquality made to order foods items with fewer frozen or processed ingredients than fast food restaurants. Re.s aw-ant (ass 16od w1drive-1hrio shall mean a land use including fast-food restaurants with drive -through windows. This type of restaurant is characterized by a large carryout clientele; long hours of service (se are open for breakfast. all aF@ OreA A3+ lunch and dinner, some are open late at night or 24 hours): and high turnover rated Fos- eat -in customers. Rvvicwranl aslLquel ►r drive-ifrr`r.r j2 niealsj shall mean a land use including fast-food restaurants vv'it11(1rrvr;-the"OULIh windows. This IVL'e oI-restaurant i.s characterized by a large carryout clientele; long hours of service- but not open for breakfast. and high turnover rated for eat -in customers. Underlined text is added, 6vut fk Owe ug h lext is deleted Pape 6 or23 63 120 stores ei- eaF washes. Tmanhortse shall mean a group of three or more dWeIIi11g LI11its attached to each other by a common wall or roof wherein each unlit has direct exterior access and no unit is located above another. and each unit is completely separated frorn any other(s) by a rated firewall or a lire and sound resistant enclosed separation or space. and wherein each dwelling unit may or may not be on a separate lot under separate ownership. For the purposes of this chapter and assess rnent of impact fees_ a townhouse will be included under the appropriate Multifamily HOLISing categ gory SECTION THREE. Article 111. Special Requirements.for Specific T)pe.s oflmpacl Fees, Section 74-302. Special requiremews for road impact ,fee• of the Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances is hereby amended to read as follows: (h) PaYin m ► 1'road impact.fees to ohlair7 u cerlrficaie rif'rieYeelnale public fiacililies. (1 ) A certificate of public facility adequacy (COA) shall be issued concurrent with the approval of the next to Occur final local development order. At the time a certificate of public facility adequacy is issued. thirty-three percent (33%) of the estimated payment L'ndetlinyd text is added; 6!FkioIi i,.0 y ugh text i5 drleted Page 7 ot'23 64 121 will be due and deposited into the applicable impact fee trust fund. The funds will then be immediately available for appropriation by the Board of County Commissioners l'or- transportation capital improvements and are non-refundable. Final calculation of impact fees due will be based on the intensity of development actually permitted for construction and the impact fee schedule in effect at the time of the building permit(s) application submittal. such that additional impact fees may be due prior to issuance of a certificate ❑foccupancy or certificate of completion for the building perinit(s). (2) Offsets for road impact fees assessed to building permits for impact fees paid in accordance with this subsection. will be applied equally to units or square footage and will run with the subject land. {3) This provision is to be read in conjunction with Section 10.02.07 of the Collier County [sand Development Code. To the extent this prevision conflicts with this or with any other Collier County ordinance. rule or regulation. the provisions of this section shall contra I. (4) The provisions of this subsection apply to final local development orders approved prior to July 1, 2019. Final local development orders approved on or after.luly 1. 2019 are required to obtain a COA in accordance with the provisions of 10.02.07 of file Collier COLInty Land Development Cade but are riot required to pay road impact fees to obtain the COA, in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 163.31801t3)(c . Fla;-Wrr Sizifu[es. SECTION FOUR. Appendix A of Chapter 74 of the Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances is hereby amended as set forth in the attachment to this Ordinance. SECTION FIVE. CONFLICT AND SEVERABILITY. In the event this Ordinance conflicts with any other Ordinance of Collier County or other applicable law, the more restrictive shall apply. if any phrase or portion of this Ordinance is held invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a Underlined ("I [s added. gqc, � text is deleted paste S 01,23 65 122 separate. distinct, and independent provision and such holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions. SECTION SIX. INCLUSION 1N 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 throLigllout to accompI ish such, and the word "ordinance" may be changed to "section." "article,- or any other appropriate word. SECTION SEVEN. EFFECTIVE DATE, This Ordinance shall be considered adopted upon the date written below and subject to (I ling with the Florida ❑epartment of State. however, for administrative purposes the effective date Ior all rate schedule decreases shall be retroactive to November 13. 2019 and the effective date for all rate schedule increases, new and/or replacement land use category rates and definitions shall be delayed to March 30, 2020 in accordance with the notice requirements set foilh in Section 163.31901 {3 )id}, Florida Statutes. Underlmcd uexI is added, &W+Wrt h lexl is deteled Nape 4 o123 66 123 FLORIDA DEPARTMENT Of STATE RON DESANTIS Governor December 18, 2019 Ms. Martha S. Vergara, BMR & VAB Senior Deputy Clerk Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court & Comptroller of Collier County 3299 Tamiami Trail, Suite #401 Naples, Florida 34112-5324 Dear Ms. Vergara: LAUREL M.LEE Secretary of State Pursuant to the provisions of Section 125.66, Florida Statutes, this will acknowledge receipt o1' your electronic copy of Collier County Ordinance No. 2019-48, which was filed in this office on December 18, 2019. Sincerely, Ernest L. Reddick Program Administrator ELR/lb R. A. Gray Building ■ 500 South Bronough Street • Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Telephone: (850) 245-6270 www.dos.state.fl.us 67 124 PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED by the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, th i s lr� day 2419. ATTEST Crystal K. Kin�i;c Attest as to Chairman's BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY. FLORIDA By: C' W' iam L. McDaniel, Jr., CH IRMAN This ordlnonc" e'�rr rrrith =' Secretary of rt o r1 s1 and ockr►owLedgprne� �tifn d�Y filing received this � -- SY W oy cs Underlined lext is added. Stk thFekigh lext �s deleted Page 10 vf23 68 125 APPENDIX A - SCIIEDL'LE ONE ROAD IMPACT FEE RATE SCHEDULE Phase I - Effecti►•e '�•'o� y 14, 201 Nos emher 13, 2019 Impact I'ee Land Use Category hate Residential Assisted Living Facilitv (ALF) S80.19 Per Dwelling Unit Condo,rFownhOuse (1-2 Stories) $4.844 Nl Per Dwelling Unit High -Rise Condominium (3+Stories) $3.510.36 Per Dwelling Unit Mobile Hame $3.146-48 Per Dwelling k ]nit Multi -Family iApartments) I-10 Stories $5,541.89 Per Dwelling Unit. Multi -i an7iIv f Apartments) >10 Stories $3.531.57 Per Dwelling Unit Retirement Cirmmunily (A[Lac hcd) ?2.787 92 $2.019.00 Per D%yelling Retirement Co in i n u n i ty f Dctaclie dl $2.787 92 Per Dwelling Unit Sing1e Family Detached Hotise Less than 4.OfIR1 sq, 11. 57.443.99 Per Dwelling Unit 4,000 sq. 11. or larger $$ 958.89 Per Dn-ellmg Unit Non -Residential Auto Sales - Luxurr S 10.946-92 Per 1,000 sq. ft. Auto Sales - New/Used V6i 5I6,622.00 Per 1.000 sq R. Rank/Savings: Drive -In `28� ..- 6 i 2-1 . 21,254.0 Per 1,000 sq. li. Hank/Sayings- Walk -An `2'�8. i 112,300.00 Per 1,000 -sq- tl. Business Park $9,988.97 Pcr 1,000 sq. fi. Car Wash - Automatic $33,397 71 Per 1,000 sq. fi Car Wash —Self-Service $10.395.28 Per Service Bay Church $447 6 286.00 Per Seat College/Umversity (Private) <7.501 Students $1.749 28 Per Student >7J00 Students $1,31 1.21 Per Student Convenience Store (24 hours) 569.707 46 ]let 1.000 sq. Il C nmyeniencc Sin re kv/Gcis Pumps n ..-_teS4 F...,1 n ¢ 2000 sq. Ft. QIF,_-;T fi 910. 0 Per Fuel l'osniitn --:�--6 1'ue1 Pe s ' I miq 2.000-2.999 so. ft.. �'2�-, n; 8.252.00 Per Hucl I'asitiori '� 11090 t so. ft. $i . i i $9,262.00 Per Fuel Position Undertmed text rs added. 3tmei kRt uO text is deleted Page 11 ar 23 69 126 Impact Fee Land Use Category Non- ResidentinI Wont'41) Convenience Store iv/Gas Pumps Dance SnrdiuslGymnasttes $8,203.56 Day Care 51,025.84 Furniture Store $2,706.23 Gasoline/Service Station $5,432.62 Gencral Light Industrial sj.699 95 G❑ I f Course C70: 2 6 1,,8 G01I Course - Bundled I come Improvement Store $7,483 24 Hospital iCf1.�.w5 Hotel %3,469,66 1 lotel - AIJ Suites $2.900.37 Manufacturing $3.I212_IN Marino Q'.er MinelCommcrcial Excavation $8.49 Mitu-Wsrehousc ram Motel %;:996 0 Movie Theater $33,271.47 Nursing Home 51,031 15 offiCe 6,001) sq . ft- or less cu & ` - -� 0ffice6,001- 100,000sq. 11 C 0, 2 49:9H Office 100,001-200.000 sq. ft. eQ +';; Office 2WOO 1-400.000 sq. ft- $7,344.27 Office Greater than 400.000 sq. 11. $6,665.33 0fl3cc-?vledicai Greater Ihan 10,000 sq. ft. $28,31_3+.05 Oflice. - Medical 10,000 sq. ft, or less $19,443.28 PhannacylDrug Store $10,165 07 Quick Lube $10,696,56 Rate 4 584.00 $199,1 46.00 $59.741.00 9J 6K00 3 702.00 Si2.376.CIO 891ou S1074.00 $8,605.00 $8,605 fill R 605.00 I_'iiderImod text is added. `'r••^ eueug : iex1 is deleted Page 12 w'23 rff-r'ozz-r'rrrrnc4rr Rep Pue! "mwm Per 1,000 sq. Q. Per Student Per 1,000 sq. I1. Per rLe4 Position Per 1,000 sq. ft Per 18 Holes Per Is Holes Per 17000 sq. ft. Per 1,00ii sq. ft. Per Raorn Per 12oom Per I.000 sq. I Per L3erth (Dry/Wet) Per 1.000 cubic yards Per I NO sq. ft Per Room Per Screen Per Bed Per 1,000 sq. 11. Pcr 1,000 sq ft Per 1,000 % 11. Per 1.000 sq. R. Per 1,000 sq. 11. Per 1,000 sq, it. Per 1.000 sq. ft. Per 1,000 sq. ft. Per Service 13av 70 127 Impact Fee Land Use Category Rate Son -Residential ((:ont'd) Restaurant - Fast Food w/Drive-te1hru $96,567 14 Per 1,000 sq. 11. Restaurant - Nigh l umover S 1.757. 93 Per Seat Restaurant - Low Turnover S I.129.81 Per Seat Retail 6,000 sq. 11. or less 55,696.77 Per 1,000 sq. It. Retai16,001-25.000 sq. li. s i o.67 1 $10,568.00 Per 1,000 sq, f. Retail 25.001-50,000 Sq Ft. ¢'g.24 $11774.0{) Per 1,000 sq, ft. Retail 5t1.001-100.000 Sq Ft. 5 154 A 2 4. 77 513,774.00 Per 1,000 sq. R, Retail 100.001-150,001) Sq. Ft. Si 113.774,00 Per 1,000 sq, ft. Retail f 50A 10 1 -200.000 Sq. Ft. 513.743.32 Per 1,000 sq. It. Retail 200,001-400,000 Sq. Ft. $12,989.06 Per U)00 sq ft. Retail 400,001-600,000 Sq. Ft S12,802 35 Per 1,000 sq. fl. Retail 60 U01-1.000.000 Sq. Ft. 513,351.87 Per I,000 sq A Retail >L000,000 Sq. Ft. Reim! S}y $13,597.99 e i n_n Per LOW sq. ft. Per 1,000 A, RV Park $1 X6.34 5q Per Site School - EIentcntary (.11rivat ey $728.80 Per Student School - Middle (.Private) °'' .ar 27 96 $921 A Per Student School - l Iigh School (Private) eta, 0A5 a $983.00 Per Student Supennarket S19.163.21 Per 1,000 sq. fl Tire Store $8,178 10 Per Service [3av Warehouse sg93 ss S1,599.00 Per 1,000 sq. R. LInderlmLod text Is added; Strm-k-Ftmu&lr text is deleted Page 13 ol'23 71 128 APPENDIX A -SCHEDULE ONE ROAD IMPACT FEE RATE SCHEDULE Phase 42 - Effective NoveRthe —'� 4,,'2019'larch 3U, 2020 Impact Fee Land Use Category Rale Residential Assisted Living facility (Al- Fl9 5831.Bh Per L3et1�7NveFFirtttt Corid o/'1awnhouse t 1-2 Ntories1 4; i 91 $5,539 59 Per Dwelling Unit I Itgh-Rise Condominium (3 • Stories) `''�r 5 i P.4 �I.U� 59.36 Per Dwelling Unit Mobile Home %'� 4: 3$,288.22 Per Dwelling Unit aaulii•FamA Howlil I .1y-R-Atr A. m i =carlua Sftr os S5 ;4-81 6 O06.56 Per Dwelling Unit Multi-F'amiiv Housing (Mid_ Risc, 3-10 Floors) S 174.00 Per Dweliine Unit 4Su4144mily li. -EL, -$3 531 r57 53.762.0 Per Dwelling Unit Mid -Rise Residential wl lst FloorComin4rcial $3.265.00 Per Dwelling Unit I Iigh-RiseRes iden tial w/Ist Flour Commercial 1 afl 00 Per Dwelling Unit Reuremem Communny tAtinchedl s2.i1I9.Uil Per Dwelling Unit Retirement Communifv {Detaehedl $2r78 4-2 $3,037. 10 Per D%vell ing Unit Single Family Detached I Iquse Less than 4,000 sq. lt. $7. i43.94 7 657.17 Per Dwelling IJnit 4,000 sq. ft. or larger U.08.9 $9,257.57 Per Dwelling Unit Non -Residential Auto Sales - Luxury S 10�, P ol61) 51 1,419.84 Per 1.000 sq ft. Auto Sales - New/Used 516,622.Un Per 1,000 sq- Ft. Bank/Savings. Drive -In 521.254 00 Per 1,000 sq. fi BanklSavtngs' Walk -In 5I2.300 00 Pcr 1,000 scI li Business Park $9W88-4 S10,421.44 Per 1,600 sq. ft. Car Wash - AtllUmatle $33-39 7i S35-016.46 Per 1,00fl sq. ft. Car Wash -Self=Service Si" 28 $10-974.68 Per ServiLL Isar' Church $296.00 Per Seat CoIIegelUniversiIy l Private} -t7,iOl Swdents gi.748=8 SlAr12.44 Per Student -7,500 Students `;, 'i; 2 I$,367,90 Per Student Convenienct: Store (24 hours) 569.707 16 $73.H20.10 Per 1,000 sq. fl. Convenience Store w/Gas Pumps c 2000 sq. it. $6,9 I0.00 Per Fuel Position Underlined text is added. Faft te� text is deleted Page 14 of 23 72 129 Impact Fee Land Use Category Bale Non -Residential fConl'dj Convenience Store w"Cias Pumps 2,000-2,999 sq. fi S8,252.00 Per Fuel Posttion 3,000+ sq Il. $9.262,00 Per Fuel Position Dance Sludio5/0ytnnastics S8.2(466 8 573.64 Per 1,000 sq 11. Day Care 025 8 c i 4 Y S LU49.32 Per Student Furniture Stare `r'.'� �-".'_' 53,025 59 Per 1,000 sq. ft, GeteelineAer'fiee Re! eR S[ .1,26 or e,—Foe1 Posit on General Light Industrial S4.584 f10 Per 1,f100 sq. 1t. Golf Coursc 5199,146 00 Per 181ftries Gol FCourse - Bundled 559,741.111) Per 18 1 Poles Home Improvement Store 3 24 $, 7,823-39 Per 1,000 sq- R. I luspital $9,168 00 Per 1,000 Sq. ft Hotel S3,702 00 Per Roam Hotel - All Suites Q,909.4S2,924.67 Per Ran1n Munutacturing T2'_ ^8 53:289_,37 Per 1,000 sq. 11. Marina S2,376.00 Per Berth tDry/Welj Mine/Conitnerciai Excavation $84A) I$0.31 Per 1,000 cubic yards Mini-Warehanse $891 0O Per 1,000 sq. A. Mole[ 42,074 1.11.1 Per Room Movie Fhcat r �"�—: 535.784.59 Per Scruen Nursing I lome S i� 03 i ;5 L I i 1.95 Per Bed office 6.000 sq. 11. or less $8,605 Oft Per 1,000 sq. N. o fice 6.001- 100.000 sq. fl $8,605 f10 Per 1.000 sq. fl. Office 100,001-200.000 sq, li. $8,605 00 Per 1,000 sq. ft, On -ice 200,001-400.000 sq. M. 5;�� 4 4.3 $7 760-31 Per 1,000 sq. It. 0f7ice Greater than 400,L100 sq. fi. .`90 66TSS 7.305.42 Per 1,000 sq. It, 0fiice - Medical Greater Shan 10,000 sq, ft. e'1° I= $29,346 27 Per I WO sq. ft. L7t]ice • Medical 10X100 sq. ft. or less a "r 20 272.15 Per 1,000 sq. li. Pharmacv/Drug Store $ 10 97 4. - 4 Per 1,000 sq. Il. Quick Ltube % 0A46 5 1 ! 192.04 Per Service Bay Restaurant - Fast Food w/Drive-lhrtu $96 `67.14 �99,109.75 Per IM00 sq. fi. �eslaurant - 1 t Turn g �-�.� S' "' 83 E 776.37 Per Seat Restaurant - Low Turnover ea,—� ig 8 4 15 140.76 Per Seat Restaurant - [ as C 4sual $68, 107 00 Per I.000 sq. 11, Restaurant - i us Food w/Drive-Thru I? meal s1 $95762.00 Per L000 sq. fl. (inOvdined lexl is added; 54ruOvr rfmgh text �s deleted f'age 15 of 23 73 130 impart Fee land Use Category Rate Non " Res idential (ConI'd) Retail 6.000 sq. Q. or- less "� 7� .710.05 Per 1,000 sq. It. Retail 6.0U 1-25.000 sq. R, $ t 0,568.00 Per 1,000 sq, R. Retail 2 5.000 1 -50,000 Sq, Ft. $13,774 00 Per 1,000 sq. f. Retail 50.001-100.000 Sq. Ft. $13.774 00 Per 1,000 sq. ft. Retail 100,001-150.000 Sq, Ft. $13,774 00 Per 1.000 sq. It Retail 150.001-200.000 Sq, Ft. e" $135.753,45 kiof 1,01413e{-} Retail ?00,001-400,000 Sq, Ft. 5;1989.06 $13.24S.09 Per 14WO sq fi, Retail 400,(H)I -bW000 Sq. F t. $ i 2� - 8 0 2-17 $11122 99 Per i 900 sq. R Retai1600,001-1,000,000 Sq Ft ' . 8 ; $13,491.17 Per-1,909sq. a- Retail >1,000.000 Sq_ Ft. e� 3,597.9 $I3,656.07 PcF-�999- sq. -fr RV Park i,2263 4 l 278.04 Per Site School - Elementary (Private) $7299A 5757.25 Per Student School - Middle (Private) $921.00 Per Student School - High School IPrivatel $983 (10 Per Student Supermarket e' 4a, r 163.21 20 287.12 Per 1,000 sq. 11. Tire Store S&! 7H. i $8,554.27 Per Service Bay WarehOLISC :31.599,00 Per 1,000 sq 111. Underlined text is added, °'- - _'.`"-_ i text rs deleted Page 16 of 23 74 131 APPENDIX A -SCHEDULE ONE ROAD IMPACT FEF. RATE SCHEDULE Phase 2-3 - Effective Mfk reb 3W,-=41 N1arr1130. 2021 Impart Fee Land t se Category Rate Residential Assisted Livutg 1•acuity lALF) $93 i.8€I $858.52 Per Bed CondofFownhouse I 1-2 Stories) �M;Jig 754 $6,234-27 Per D"AielIing I )nit 1 Iigh-Rise Condominium 13+Stories) S 3b $4,608.36 Per Dwelling Unit Mobile Flame !�289 .2z 53.429.96 Per l)ti�elIing Unit Multi -Family Housing (Low -Rise, 1-2 Floors) fif#3b a6 $6,471 24 11er Dwelling Unit Multi-FniniIv Housing (Mid -Rise, 3-10 floors) $5,174 00 1'er Dwelling Unit Multi -Family Iiousing (High -Rise, -10 Stone&) "' i 53,992.53 Per Dwelling Unit Mid -Rise Residential oust Floor Commercial $3,265.O0 Per Dwelling Unit High -Rise Residenial wllst Floor Commercial $I.903 00 Per Dwelling Unit Rctireinent Cornmusiity (Attached) 52.01800 Per Dwelling ()Tait Retiremeni Community (Detached1 V-1-4 N 3$ _286.27 Pcr Dwelling Unit Single Family Detached I Inuse Less than 4,000 sq. ti_ $7:6j i $7870.36 Per Dwelling I [nit 4.0110 sq. It. at larger "�'_'� 25 r-' ° 59,556'6 Per Dwelling Unit lion -Residential Auto Sales - Luxury 5 i i A i 9-84 11,892.75 Per I.000 sq, It. Auto Sales- Newltised 516,622.00 Per I,000 sq. R. Rank'Savings: prig-ln $21,254.00 Per 1,000 sq. R. 3,ulk'Savings: Walk; -In $12.300.1)0 Per 1.000 sq. 11 13usmess [lark i Ei:; 4 A 4 $10,8854.91 Per I,000 sq ft. Car as - Automatic C6 354! �-.��.;6 � S,66i_ �� i,� Per 1.0110sy. ft, Car as - e i-Service £ 7A �,- i!1 �8,-,r68� $I 1.354.07 Per Service l3av Church S296 00 Per Seal Collcgelllniversity (Private) <7.501 Students $1,822.1 1 S 1,89fi.60 Per Student >7,500 Students S1,367.9 $1,4 4.79 Per Student Convenience Store [24 hours] "gin 577.932.74 Per 1,000 sq. ft. Convenience Store w/Gas Pumps r 2000 sq. ft. 56.910.00 Per Fuel Position Underline test 15 added. t3true HI"ugh test Is deleted Page 17 ❑l'23 75 132 Impart Fee Land Use Category Non -Residential [Cunt'd] Convenience Store W'IGas Punlps Rate 2,000-2,999 sq. ft. $8,252.00 Per Fuel 1sosition 3,000- sq t. $9,262.01) Per Fuel Position Dalice 5tudiosiGymnastics S8�., 5;' a4 $8.943,71 Por 1,000 sq, ft- Day Care $ H Li () ? . 1$ .072 81 Per Student Furniture Store az"� ,025 S° S3344.1}6 Pei 1,000 sq. ft. General Light Industrial $4,584 00 i'er 1,000 sq, a. GoIrcourse 5199,146.00 Per 18 Holes Golf Course -Bundled $59,741.00 Per 18 Holes !-lame Improvement Store e'�9 $8, 163.54 Per 1 000 sq. ft i lospital $9,168.00 Per I,000 sq. It. I lolel $3.702,00 Per Ronne f lutel - Atl Suites Q924.67 �_J43.96 Per Room Manufacturing 5'. 3T i 456.65 Per 1,000 sq. I'!. Marines $2,376 00 Per Berth IDrv!Wet1 MineCominerctal Excavation E'�1 $12. 13 Per 1.000 cubic vards Mini -Warehouse SOLO() Per 1,000 sq- 11_ Motel 52,074.00 Per Roam Movie Theater �35.784.39 $38197.72 Per Screen Nursing Horne � I:l 1 1.95 $1192.75 Per Bed Office 6.00 sq ft, or less Per 1,000 sq il. Office 6.1101- 100,(100 sq ft. $8,605.00 Per 1,000 sq h * M c e I (It 1_001-200.000 sq, ft $8.605.00 Per 1,000 sq. ft Office 200,001-400,000 sq, [l Q'."� �T 58,176.35 Per 1.000 sq. Q Office Greater than 400,000 sq. fi. e$ ,305.422 S7,945.5 I I'er 1,000 sq. ft. 011icc! -,IMedical Greater Ihan 10.000 sq. 11. S29,446.4; S30379.48 Per 1,000 sq. ft- 0 I'lice - Medical 10.000 sq. ft, or less e7�; S2L 101.01 Per I.000 sq. fi_ Pharmacy/Drug Store $10,974.54 51 1,784,01 Per 1,000 sq. ft, QUick Lobe 51 H, 5 11 [r87 51 Per Service Bay Restaurant - Fos t Food wOfIve-Thns $9 . 109.;5 S 101 05 2.3 5 Per 14000 sq. ft Restaurant-HighIurnover e1az- 37r SfJ94.90 Per Seat Restaurant - Low Turnover a i A 40 6 51.151.71 Per Seat Restaurant - Fnst Casual W. 107 00 Per I.000 sq. It. Restaurant - Fast Fond wlDrive-Thru 12 meals} $95,762 00 Per 1,000 sq, ft, Retail 6,000 sq. Itor less $5,'� 7' OAS $5,723,32 Per 1,000 sq. ft Retail 6.001-25,000 sq. ft $10,568 00 Per 1,000 sq. 11. UTided ined text is added, St�hf ttg6 text is deleted Page 18 of 23 76 133 Impact Fec (.and Use Category state Non -Residential (Cont'd) Retail 25,0001-50,000 Sq. Ft. $13,774.00 Per LOGO sq. Il Retail 50.001-100,000 Sq. Ft. $13,774.00 Per 1,000 sq. fl. Retail 100.001-15U.000Sq. Ft, $13.774.00 Per 1.000 sq. Fl Retail 150,001-200,000 Sq. Ft. S-,--�;53-445 S13.763.57 Per IMOO sq. Fi Retail 200.001-4007000 Sq. I-t. $42 h8.09 $13,507.12 Per 1,000 sq. f. Retail 400,001-600.000 Sq. Ft Sim '�; w1=_44:.64 Per LOW sq. fi. Retail 600.001-1.000.000 Sq. Ft. S; 4 4 * $13,630.48 Per IMOO sq. Ft Retail n 1.000,000 Sq. Ft, &�— 513 714.16 Per 1.000 sq. a RV Park 9 i.2;84)4 1$329.74 Per Site School - Elementary (Private) $75?-25 S785.69 Per Student SehooI - Middle (Private) $92f _00 Per Student School - High School (Private) $983.00 Per Student 5upemtarket $2a-0.297. i2 21 A 11.03 Per 1.000 sq. 11. Tire Store $8 "� $8.930.43 Per Service Bay Warehouse $1.599.00 Per I MO sq. fi. LhrtlerIMed rest is added: S irttek L11 N a#h te%I is deleted Page 19 of 23 77 134 APPENDIX A - SCHEDULF, ONE ROAD IMPACT FEE RATE SCHEDULE Phase 34 - Effective reh 30, 2022 Impact Fee Land IIse Category Itate Residential Assisted Living Fact Iily (ALF) c�rtvv-rvi44i 1NHti� �sl1FF85} CVO -v64-3-r 886.00 Per Lied Mobile IIonic E 4608'_C RT.�n '��n S3 576.00 PeF !)well Fig } i.. � gym[ Per Dwelling Unit Multi -Family Housing (Low- Rise, 1-2 floors i.4 S6,950.00 Per I vm11ing i.Jnii Mu Ii1•I.aini Iv I lousing (Mid- Rise_ 3-I0 ilnr rs1 $5,174 00 Per Dwelling Unit Multi-fatniIV I IUusing (I ltgh-Rise_ 711) Fl00r53 ?$3,I)Y2- 3 $4,' 30.00 Per Dwelling Unit Mid -Rise Residemiat � lst flour Commercial $3.265.00 Pcr Dir,elIing thiit High -fuse Residential %v/Isl l=ioor Cotnmercrtd $1,901.00 Per Dwelling Unit Retiremmm C ommunity (Attached) S2,018 00 Per Dwelling Unit Retirement [(immunity (Detached) $1.296 i7 $3,543 00 Per Dwelling Unit Single Family Detached I louse Less than 4.001) sq ft e7,931 8 090.00 Per Dwelling Unit 47000 sq. Ft. or larger $ `�-AA-2 $9364.00 Per Dwelling Unil Non -Residential Auto Sales - Luxury a 1 1 892.75 $12.381t.ULt Per 1,0011 sq, ft. Auto Sales-NewlUsed S16.622.00 Per 1,0.00 sq_ Ft, Bank/Savirtgs Drivc-In $21,254.00 Per I,000 sq. Ii. Bank/Savings� Wldk-In S12,300,00 Per 1,000 sq. ft, Business Park `"` A l 1 301.00 Per 1,000 sq, Ft. Car Wash - Automatic S36 $38.303.00 Per 1,000 sq. h, Car Wash - Self -Service S1S, r-'5 4.0 1 L848.00 Per Service Bay Church S286.00 Per Seat Colleg&Un n, ersity i.Privalel <7.501 Students i.946 60 1.973.00 Per Student �7,500 Students x 1 _ate 1 483.00 Per Student Convcttience Smrc (24 hours) sq� '93244 $$82.170-00 Per 1,001) sq. li. Convenience Stare wlGas Pumps < 2000 sq. ft. $6,910.00 Per Fuel Position underlined text is added. Pwijv egh text is deleted Page 20 of 23 78 135 Impact Fee Land Use Categon• hate ]Von-Residentiral (Cont'd) Convenience Store wlGas Pumps 1000-2.999 sq. ft. 58,252.00 Per 1'uel Position 3.000+ sq, ft. K262.00 Per i•'uel Position Dance Studios/Gymnastics $8.943TF $9,325.00 Per 1,000 sq. ft_ Day Care $ 4;2... S 1,047.00 Per Student Furniture Store $3.334 1-k* S3,674 0(100 Per 1,000 sq, ft Ceneral light Industrial SC584.00 Per 1.000 sq• ft. Golf Course 5199,10.00 Per 18 1 files Goll'Course - Bundled $59.741.Of) Pcr 18 l lafes l Innre Improventell l Store $8.163,51 SR_514 00 Per 1.000 sq. ft- Hospital $9,168 00 Per 1,000 sq. ti. Hotel $3.702.00 Per Rootn I Intel - All Suites $2�-949.96 $2 97R4.0 Per Rnnm Manufacturing rim; $3,629.0 Per 100 sq. {t. Marina $2,376.01) Per Berth (Dr}•/Wef } Mine/Cununercial Ftcavauan Sig...i4 514.illt Per 1,000 cubic vards Mini -Warehouse $891 00 Per 1000 sq. {t Motel S2.074 00 Per Room Movic Theatcr S3°29 7 'Y $4q 887.011 Per Screen Nursing I tonne M. i 92 :1§ $ L276,00 Per Bed 0tlice - General 6A0 rq f_ 1..e« nMee 6,06 1 100.060 sq. w $8,('t15.nU $8 c� r� $8 c�0n Per 1,000 sq, ft. ReF 1,091) Sq. ft- Per 1,009 ft. rir� t1-r—fiirv00 sq. f-t- f ll'l`.e..G.•eater. il.m. -100 000sq A. Cb• 15-- sq. n.._. to Pep 1 IS911s•q Fi Office - Medical Greater than 10,000 sq. ft. "`'T"T A $31,444.00 Per 1,000 sq. ft. 0Ili ce - Medical 10.000 sq ft. or less $2�—r-'�01 2 i 955.00 Per 1,000 sq. R. Pharniacy0tug Stare e 1 Jam, .4 f %1 ,618.00 Per 1,000 sq. R. Quick Luke $ i i'68;4+ F $ i 2.198.00 Per Service Bay Restaurant - Fast Food %Y/Drive-Thru s i 0 3 $ l U4.272.00 Per 1,000 sq, It. Restaurant - I sigh Turnover S','�, - 9A.9 $1,814.00 Per Seat Restaurant - Lots Turnover $ 1 � 15 17 $i 163.00 Per Suit Restaurant - Fast Casual 568,107.00 Per 1,000 sq. It, Restaurant - Fast Food w0rive-Thru (2 meals) 595.7r,2 00 Per 1,001) sq. ft. Retail 6.000sq ft- or less $5-7 2 3.32 $5,737.00 Per 1_000 sq. 13. Retail 6,001-25,000 sq N. $10,568.00 Per I.000 sq. I•t- Underlined tryl is added, StrtiekrAhrah test is deleted Pace 21 a f 23 79 136 lmpacl Fee Land Use Category Rate lion -Residential (Cont'd) Retail >25,0001-5OzO Ii Sq, Ft, $13,774.00 Per 1,000 sq. 11 n..w 150,001 I nn- ruin Sq c.- a T17 ,77.T0 Per nrsq: rzIi ll 1 Inn 00 f 150,000 sq pi $13,7740m Per 1,000,qq 1 Rem! 150,001 _200,90 sq F+ EI z�� 7 Der 1 RFC 9�k- i ° Ri c tom;, n.pef I RV Park $1,329.7t1 $1.383.00 Per Site School - Elementary (Private) $785.69 $815 Oo Per Strident Schtuul - Middle (Private) $921.00 Per Stu dent School - IIigh School (Private) $983.00 Per Siudcnt Supernarket $2i 4n. 3 $21569.00 Per IX0 sq. 11. uc tort eo nil(43 �� $9.318.0t Per Service Bay Warehouse $1,599.00 Per 1,000 sq. 11. UitderIinCd text iS added. Lek ugh test is deleted Page 22 ol'23 80 137 APPENDIX A SCHEDULE TWO - EFFECTIVE-July-24,-201-7 March_30, 2020 WATER & WASTEWATER IMPACT FEE RATE SCHEDULE ERC = Equivalent Residential Connexion ADF = Average Daily Flow RESIDENTIAL - INDIVIDUALLY METERED water Impact Existing Proposed Llvirrg Space (SQ.FT) ERC Factor Basis of Fee Wastewater Wastewater. Meter Size Fee Impact Fee D TO 4.999 (AND NO M013E THAN 4 TOILETS) 1 Per ERC thxed at 1 ERG) g2662 3 82 S. 3 c, 3 Z2793 3 14 Q-,743 314" 5,00E OR MORE Varies u Per ERC (based On ADF ERC value x 52fi62. S3362iminlmum value 82b3-b $2-7&} Varies [Reference IOR MORE THAN R TOILETS) valuea oOf f 1) Formula) Lb2-66243362j �53314 Meter Size Note) Meter Size Note Meier size determined by the total fixture value connected to the meter and applying applicable provision in the current edition of the Florida Plumbing Code Reference the Meter Sizing Form. ERC with ADF Formula When AD Is in Gallons Per Minute(GPM) then use the formula [(ADF-30)1301+1 MULTI -FAMILY - MASTER METERED Water Impact ExtsNng P�apased Livirrg Space (SQ.FT.) Basis of Fee ERC Factor Wastewater Wastewater - Fee Fee act Fee Im t•Fee 0 To 750 Per unit 033 $80 51116 $894 tS 093 4891 751 TO 1.500 Per unit 057 &37-4 52265 $4809 $2220 54809 1,501 OR MORE Per unit 1 D S2562 53382 S27$4 13114 $2-704 Meter Size Note Meier size determined by the total fixture value connected to the meter and applying applicable provision in the current edition of the Florlda Plumbing Code Reference the Meter Sizing Form - NON -RESIDENTIAL Type Basis of Fee All Non -Residential Impact fees are determined by meter size. Water and lor wastewater impact fees for afteration s, expansions, or replacements are imposed on ly if the meter size is increased as a resuh of the a8eration, expan 5io n, or replacement. Meter Size ERC Factor (1) Water Impact Fee F*SgR9- W4898w01ter Impact Fee Praalaeeed IlVaeteweteFlr�aaetfee 314inch 1 00 $2682 3362 &Z;04 3314 -794 1 inch 1 67 $4278 S5647 S4619 5534 1-112 inch 3.33 $964 $11,262 66994 $11.035 2 inch 5.33 $43-.6m $11U.215 574.206 $17.663 3 inch 15.00 638439 $50,730 $40 646 149.710 6 4 inch 33.33 SS&.494 $112-722 9190,024 $110,455 6 inch 56.67 6470808 $225,477 448D475 U20944 8 inch 116.67 $298 988 $394,577 534�325 IM6 644 Meter Size Note Meter size determined by the total fixture value connected to the meter and applying applicable provision to the current edition of the Florida Plumbing Code. Reference the Meter Sizing Form. ERC Factors by Meter Size for Non -Residential Customers Rated Capacity ERC Meter Size ;gallons per minute) Factor 12J 314" 30 1.00 V. 50 1.67 1-112" 100 3.33 K 160 5.33 3" 450 15.00 4" 1,000 33.33 6" 2,000 6667 8" 3,500 116.67 11159 sed on the rated capacities per tecnnrcal specifications or meters used by the counly Eli Retlecm rated hydraulic capacity of meter divided by 3e ga 11ws per minOe basetl on the rated capa"y of Smallest meter size. Underlined text is added; Struck- tim"h text is deleted Page 23 of 23 81 138 Collier County Water -Sewer District / Fiscal Year 2024 Water and Wastewater Impact Fee Study APPENDIX C: Existing and Proposed Water and Wastewater System Impact Fee Schedule in County Format 82 139 Appendix C Collier County Water -Sewer District Water and Wastewater Impact Fee Study Existing and Proposed Water and Wastewater Svstem Impact Fee Schedule in Countv Format RESIDENTIAL INDIVIDUALLY METERED LIVING SPACE (SQ.FT.) ERC Factor (Eymraror ae,asonar c000sonool BASIS OF FEE ALLOCATION METER SIZE W TER IMPACT FEE W TER IMPACT FEE WASTEWATER IMPACTFEE WASTEWATER IMPACTFEE EXISTING PROPOSED EXISTING PROPOSED 0 TO 4,999 (PND NO MORE THAN 4 TOILETS) 1.0E Per ERC (fixed at 1 ERC) 3/4" $3,382 $6,470 $3,P4 $5,614 5,00E OR MORE (OR MORE THAN 4 TOILETS) Varies (minimum value of 1) Per ERC (based on ADF Formula) Varies (Reference Meter Size Notes) RRG ""` A' -"'°' ERC VALUE x $6,470 (minimum value $6,470) $3-3A $5,614 Meter Size Note Meter size determined by the total fixture value connected to the meter and applying applicable provision in the current edition of the Florida Plumbing Code. Reference the Meter Sizing Form. ERC with ADFFormula When ADF is in Gallons Per Minute (GPM) then use the formula ((ADF-30)/30)+1 RESIDENTIAL MASTER METERED LIVING SPACE (SQ.FL) ERC (Eyw-reoe Resmeoeor c000eonoo) BASIS OF FEE ALLOCATION METER SIZE WATER IMPACT FEE W STEWATER IMPACT FEE EXISTING PROPOSED EXISTING PROPOSED 0 TO 750 0.33 PER UNIT Per GPM or Engineer of Record $1,116 $2,135 KOM $1,852 751 TO 1,500 0.67 PER UNIT Per GPM or Engineer of Record $2,265 $4,334 $2,220 $3,761 1,501 OR MORE 1.00 PER UNIT Per GPM or Engineer of Record $3,382 $6,470 $3;3A $5,614 Meter Size Note Meter size determined by the total fixture value connected to the meter and applying applicable provision in the current edition of the Florida Plumbing Code. Reference the Meter Sizing Form. NON-RESIDENTIAL CUSTOMER TYPE ERC (Equrv,Mnr aesmem�,r coon ,o )1-(1) BASIS OF FEE ALLOCATION METER SIZE (1) WATER IMPACT FEE W STEWATER IMPACT FEE EXISTING PROPOSED EXISTING PROPOSED Non -Residential 1.00 PER METER SIZE 314" $2,,282 $6,470 $3,2 i4 $5,614 Non -Residential 1.67 PER METER SIZE 1" $5,647 $10,804 $5,534 $9,375 Non -Residential 3.33 PER METER SIZE 1-1/2" $11,262 $21,545 $ki'035 $18,694 Non -Residential 5.33 PER METER SIZE 2" $48926 $34,485 $^-r663 $29,922 Non -Residential 15.00 PER METER SIZE 3" $5&,730 $97,050 c" $84,210 Non -Residential 33.33 PER METER SIZE 4" $112;z22 $215,645 $1f0-;455 $187,114 Non -Residential 66.67 PER METER SIZE 6" $225-037 $431,354 $220,944 $374,285 Non -Residential 116.67 PER METER SIZE 8" $394,57T $754,854 $386-;644 $654,985 Meter Size Note Meter size determined by the total fixture value connected to the meter and applying applicable provision in the current edition of the Florida Plumbing Code. Reference the Meter Sizing Form. ERC Factors by Meter Size for Non -Residential Customers Rated Capacity ERC Meter Size (gallons per minute) Ill Factor r2l 3/4" 30 1.00 1" 50 1.67 1-1/2" 100 3.33 2" 160 5.33 3" 450 15.00 4" 1,000 33.33 6" 2,000 66.67 6" 3,500 116.67 [1] Based on the rated capacities per technical specifications of meters used by the County. [2] Reflects rated hydraulic capacity of meter divided by 30 gallons per minute based on the rated capacity of smallest meter size. 83 140 2 e to- \\ \/ \� \� \§ \ ®bt \\\ \0} 4 ■ 8 R/ 8 8 R 8 R 8 9 a R 8 R 8 a R a_$ a i a a G IN d sGco) me\\\k \\\\4&#/ / §GARS=©»\ f@@@@@§@a / I % © m�« 2< ? o , � \ o \) a§K tf k � Ra5 E } 16 a§K �r o -I�. a 2 +< a ) lk o ~ ® I _ \ \\\ co \� \\\\\\\\\c\\c \: \\\ Z\\\\\\\\\ )\)\)\/\(d Collier County Water -Sewer District Impact Fee Rate Study Appendix C Water Sewer Total 0 - 750 sq ft $2,135 $1,852 $3,987 751 - 1,500 sq ft $4,334 $3,761 $8,095 > 1,500 sq ft $6,470 $5,614 $12,084 86 143 5/31/23, 3:43 PM Correction:Fitch Affirms Collier County Water -Sewer District, FL's Rev Bonds at'AAA';OutlookStable FitchRatings RATING ACTION COMMENTARY Correction:Fitch Affirms Collier County Water -Sewer District, FUs Rev Bonds at 'AAA';Outlook Stable Wed 31 May, 2023 - 3:19 P M ET Fitch Ratings - New York - 31 May 2023: This is a correction of a release published May 26, 2023. It removes the $48 million water and sewer refunding revenue bonds series 2016, which was included in error. Fitch Ratings has affirmed the'AAA' rating on the following Collier County Water -Sewer District, FL (the district) revenue bonds: --$203 million water and sewer revenue bonds series 2019 and 2021. Additionally, Fitch has assessed the district's Standalone Credit Profile (SCP) at'aaa'. The SCP represents the credit profile of the system on a standalone basis irrespective of its relationship with the credit quality of Collier County (the county; Issuer Default Rating AAA/Stable). The Rating Outlook is Stable. RATING ACTIONS 144 https://wm.fitchratings.com/research/us-public-finance/correction-fitch-affirms-collier-county-water-sewer-district-fl-rev-bonds-at-aaa-outlook stable-31-05-2... 1/12 5/31/23, 3:43 PM Correction:Fitch Affirms Collier County Water -Sewer District, FL's Rev Bonds at'AAA';OutlookStable ENTITY/ DEBT : RATING Collier County (FL) [Water, Sewer] Collier County (FL) /Water & Sewer Revenues/1 LT VIEW ADDITIONAL RATING DETAILS ANALYTICAL CONCLUSION LT AAA Rating Outlook Stable Affirmed The'AAA' bond rating and 'aaa' SCP assessment reflect the district's exceptionally low leverage, measured as net adjusted debt to adjusted funds available for debt service (FADS), in the context of very strong revenue defensibility and strong operating risk, assessed at 'aa' and 'a', respectively. The district's very strong revenue defensibility is supported by its fundamental role as the largest retail water and sewer provider in the area, with very favorable demographic trends. The district has independent legal ability to set rates, with rates affordable for the vast majority of the population. The system's strong operating risk profile features a low operating cost burden, and moderate investment needs supported by adequate capital investment. Leverage has consistently been exceptionally low, historically hovering around 1.0x over the past few years between fiscal years 2018-2020 (FYE Sept. 30), increasing slightly in fiscal 2021 due to the debt issuance of the series 2021 bonds. Leverage increased further to 3.1x in fiscal 2022, largely due a one-time interest loss that decreased FADS. While the district has a large capital improvement plan (CI P) to implement over the next five years, its robust liquidity position, disciplined rate setting, and service area growth are expected to support a sustained level of exceptionally low leverage through Fitch's scenario analysis, which is consistent with the current rating. CREDIT PROFILE Located along the Gulf of Mexico in southwestern Florida, Collier County is the largest county in the state encompassing roughly 2,000 square miles and includes a portion of the Everglades National Park. It is home to popular destinations, including the city of Naples and Marco Island. In 2022, the county had an estimated population of around 398,000, which has 145 https://wm.fitchratings.com/research/us-public-finance/correction-fitch-affirms-collier-county-water-sewer-district-fl-rev-bonds-at-aaa-outlook stable-31-05-2... 2/12 5/31/23, 3:43 PM Correction: Fitch Affirms Collier County Water -Sewer District, FL's Rev Bonds at'AAA';OutlookStable increased since by around 1.3%. on average, since fiscal 2018. The district provides retail service to the unincorporated communities within the county through about 83,000 mostly residential customer accounts. Management reports it did not sustain material damage from Hurricane Ian's landfall last year. The district has ample raw water supply and water and sewer treatment capacity to meet expected demand for the foreseeable future. Water supply is regulated by the South Florida Water Management District under a consumptive use permit that expires in 2036. The district has a total permitted groundwater allocation of 56.1 million gallons per day (mgd), and a treatment capacity of 52 mgd, both of which compare favorably to average daily demand of about 26 mgd. Wastewater is treated by four district -owned and operated wastewater treatment plants, and combined treatment capacity of 42.6 mgd, and is well in excess of average daily demand of about 21 mgd. The district also provides reclaimed water to over 50,000 end users that include golf courses, parks and schools, as wel I as residential and commercial areas. Capital projects are underway to expand service to growing areas within its service area and to maintain system assets in good condition. Fitch considers the district a related entity of the county for rating purposes given its dependent relationship as an enterprise unit of the county, includingthe authorityto establish rates and operations. The credit quality of the county does not currently constrain the bond rating. However, as a result of being a related entity, the issue rating could become constrained by a material decline in the county's general credit quality. KEY RATING DRIVERS Revenue Defensibility'aa' Affordable Rates and Very Favorable, Growing Service Area Revenue defensibility is very strong at'aa'. Revenues are received entirely from the district's ability to provide retail water and wastewater services as the largest provider in the area.. The county has independent rate setting authority, and utility bills are deemed affordable for the vast majority of the population. The district has experienced strong customer growth and economic indicators are slightly better than national levels. Operating Risks'a' 146 https://wm.fitchratings.com/research/us-public-finance/correction-fitch-affirms-collier-county-water-sewer-district-fl-rev-bonds-at-aaa-outlook stable-31-05-2... 3/12 5/31/23, 3:43 PM Correction: Fitch Affirms Collier County Water -Sewer District, FL's Rev Bonds at'AAA';OutlookStable Low Operating Cost Burden and Continued Ongoing Capital Investment The strong operating risk profile is based on a low operating cost burden and moderate investment needs that are adequately supported by robust capital investment. In addition, planned CI P spending is anticipated to exceed annual levels of depreciation, which should contribute to a sustained low life cycle ratio. Financial Profile'aaa' Strong Margins and Liquidity Support Exceptionally Low Leverage Leverage is exceptionally low, having historically measured around 1.0x, but increasing over the past two fiscal years. While leverage measured at 3.1x in fiscal 2022, leverage is forecasted to remain exceptionally low and below 4.Ox through Fitch's scenario analysis, despite planned implementation of its large CIP. The liquidity profile is considered neutral to the assessment. Asymmetric Additive Risk Considerations No asymmetric additive risk considerations affected this rating determination. RATING SENSITIVITIES Factors that could, individually or collectively, lead to positive rating action/upgrade: --The rating is at the highest level on Fitch's scale and cannot be upgraded. Factors that could, individually or collectively, lead to negative rating action/downgrade: --Increased leverage exceeding 4.Ox over a sustained period resulting from deterioration of financial margins and/or capital spending beyond the current expectations; --Inadequate future rate adjustments that do not support capital spending, operating expenditures, and increasing debt carrying costs. Best/WorstCase Rating Scenario International scale credit ratings of Sovereigns, Public Finance and Infrastructure issuers have a best -case rating upgrade scenario (defined as the 99th percentile of rating transitions, measured in a positive direction) of three notches over a three-year rating horizon; and a worst -case rating downgrade scenario (defined as the 99th percentile of rating transitions, 147 https://wm.fitchratings.com/research/us-public-finance/correction-fitch-affirms-collier-county-water-sewer-district-fl-rev-bonds-at-aaa-outlook stable-31-05-2... 4/12 5/31/23, 3:43 PM Correction: Fitch Affirms Collier County Water -Sewer District, FL's Rev Bonds at'AAA';OutlookStable measured in a negative direction) of three notches over three years. The complete span of best- and worst -case scenario credit ratings for all rating categories ranges from 'AAA' to ' D'. Best- and worst -case scenario credit ratings are based on historical performance. For more information about the methodology used to determine sector -specific best- and worst -case scenario credit ratings, visit https://www.fitchratings.com/site/re/10111579. SECURITY The bonds are senior lien obligations payable from net revenues of the district's water and sewer system (the system) and system development fees. The bonds are additionally secured by a cash -funded debt service reserve fund. Revenue Defensibility Revenue defensibility is considered verystrong and assessed at'aa'. All revenues are derived from monopolistic services in a growing service area with very favorable demographic trends and strong rate flexibility. Water and sewer rates are set by the county commissioners, absent additional oversight. The district reviews service rates every two years to ensure rates are sufficient to cover all system costs. Modest rate increases have been implemented annually over the last five fiscal years. For fiscal 2022 and 2021, the district increased rates by 2.9%. A 4% increase to water and 5% increase to wastewater rates went into effect for fiscal 2023 and is planned forfiscal 2024. The district is finalizing a rate study, set to be completed later this calendar year which will inform rate adjustments beyond fiscal 2024. Based on Fitch's standard usage of 7,500 gallons per month for water and 6,000 gallons per month for sewer, the combined bill was considered affordable for around 80% of the population. The local economy is centered on tourism, agriculture, fishing, ranching and forestry, with a growing healthcare and technology presence. Service area demographics are very favorable, with a five year customer growth CAG R of 4.6% in fiscal 2022, median household income approximately 109% the national level, and unemployment that typically bettered the national average over the last five years. Operating Risks The district's operating risk profile is strong, and is assessed at'a', which considers its low operating cost burden and moderate investment needs. The operating cost burden registered a low $9,611 per million gallons (mg) in fiscal 2022. The system's life cycle ratio registered a moderate 45% in fiscal 2022, but is supported by adequate annual capital 148 https://wm.fitchratings.com/research/us-public-finance/correction-fitch-affirms-collier-county-water-sewer-district-fl-rev-bonds-at-aaa-outlook stable-31-05-2... 5/12 5/31/23, 3:43 PM Correction:Fitch Affirms Collier County Water -Sewer District, FL's Rev Bonds at'AAA';OutlookStable investment, with a five year average capex to depreciation ratio of 102%, having increased from lower levels over the past several years. Most of the growth in operating expenditures is related to personnel expense growth and increases in equipment and treatment costs, to contend with its growing service area, as the district previously acquired two smaller utilities over the last five years. The district plans to continue expanding service to new developments in the growing northeast area. Fitch expects growing demand will offset expenditure growth to maintain a low operating cost burden. The district's updated fiscal 2023-2027 CI P totals around $644 million, and is about 21% higher than the prior fiscal 2022-2026 CI of around $529 million, with around $182 million anticipated in new debt in fiscal 2025. The increase in the Cl P is largely driven by inflationary cost increases and expansion -related projects to support the growing service area. CI P projects are primarily for ongoing repair and replacement needs, which accounts for around 71% of the total CIP,with projects focused on additional distribution and conveyance in order to provide redundancy between both water and wastewater treatment plants for system -wide service reliability. Other projects include expansion needs, such as a 5 mgd and 3.5 mgd expansion over the next several years to its water and wastewater treatment facilities, among other capital projects. Around 56% of the plan is anticipated to be funded through debt (including the use of new and existing proceeds), with the remainder being funded through available cash. Financial Profile The financial profile is exceptionally strong and is assessed at'aaa'. Between fiscal years 2018-2020, leverage generally trended between 1.0x-1.3x, but increased the last two fiscal years to 2.4x in fiscal 2021 and to 3.1x in fiscal 2022. Coverage of full obligations (COFO), having previously hovered around 3.3x over the past few years, declined to 1.8x in fiscal 2022 due to increased debt service costs. COFO excluding connection fees is also sufficient measuring 1.1x in fiscal 2022. Current days cash has increased over the past few years, to a high of 742 current days cash in fiscal 2021, but declined slightly to 660 current days cash in fiscal 2022. Overall, the liquidity profile is considered neutral to the assessment. Fitch's Analytical Stress Test (FAST) The FAST considers the potential trend of key ratios in a base case and a stress case. The stress case is designed to impose capital cost increases of 10% above expected levels and 149 https://wm.fitchratings.com/research/us-public-finance/correction-fitch-affirms-collier-county-water-sewer-district-fl-rev-bonds-at-aaa-outlook stable-31-05-2... 6/12 5/31/23, 3:43 PM Correction: Fitch Affirms Collier County Water -Sewer District, FL's Rev Bonds at'AAA';OutlookStable evaluate potential variability in projected key ratios. Fitch assumed operating revenue increases by an average of around 7% annually in 2023- 2027 while operating expenses increase by an average of around 9% over the same period. Fitch also made conservative assumptions related to net transfers and connection fees to closely reflect historical spending/collection patterns. Management's Cl P informed Fitch's base case, but adjusted the execution rate lower given historical actual capex spending patterns. Factoring in these assumptions, in the base case, leverage peaks at 2.5x in fiscal 2025 but declines thereafter, reaching 2.Ox by fiscal 2027. In the stress case, leverage peaks at 3.Ox in fiscal 2025, and declines thereafter, reaching 2.5x by fiscal 2027. The liquidity profile is expected to remain neutral to the assessment, with COFO of at least 2.4x and sound days cash annually. Sources of Information In addition to the sources of information identified in Fitch's applicable criteria specified below, this action was informed by information from Lumesis. REFERENCES FOR SUBSTANTIALLY MATERIAL SOURCE CITED AS KEY DRIVER OF RATING The principal sources of information used in the analysis are described in the Applicable Criteria. ESG Considerations Unless otherwise disclosed in this section, the highest level of ESG credit relevance is a score of'3'. This means ESG issues are credit -neutral or have only a minimal credit impact on the entity, either due to their nature or the way in which they are being managed by the entity. For more information on Fitch's ESG Relevance Scores, visit www.fitchratings.com/esg. FITCH RATINGS ANALYSTS Sebastian Palacio Bacchi Associate Director Primary Rating Analyst +1212 908 0590 sebastian.palaciobacchi@fitchratings.com 150 https://wm.fitchratings.com/research/us-public-finance/correction-fitch-affirms-collier-county-water-sewer-district-fl-rev-bonds-at-aaa-outlook stable-31-05-2... 7/12 5/31/23, 3:43 PM Correction:Fitch Affirms Collier County Water -Sewer District, FL's Rev Bonds at'AAA';OutlookStable Fitch Ratings, Inc. Hearst Tower 300 W. 57th Street New York, NY 10019 Teri Wenck, CPA Director Secondary Rating Analyst +1512 215 3742 teri.wenck@fitchratings.com Audra Dickinson Senior Director Committee Chairperson +1512 813 5701 audra.dickinson@fitchratings.com u 14 p1L«e7 ►11 f-14 &i Sandro Scenga New York +1212 908 0278 sandro.scenga@thefitchgroup.com Additional information is available on www.fitchratings.com PARTICIPATION STATUS The rated entity (and/or its agents) or, in the case of structured finance, one or more of the transaction parties participated in the rating process except that the following issuer's), if any, did not participate in the rating process, or provide additional information, beyond the issuer's available public disclosure. APPLICABLE CRITERIA U.S. Water and Sewer Rating Criteria (pub.03 Mar 2023) (including rating assumption sensitivity) Public Sector, Revenue -Supported Entities Rating Criteria (pub. 27 Apr 2023) (including rating assumption sensitivity) ADDITIONAL DISCLOSURES 151 https://wm.fitchratings.com/research/us-public-finance/correction-fitch-affirms-collier-county-water-sewer-district-fl-rev-bonds-at-aaa-outlook stable-31-05-2... 8/12 5/31/23, 3:43 PM Correction: Fitch Affirms Collier County Water -Sewer District, FL's Rev Bonds at'AAA';OutlookStable Dodd -Frank Rating Information Disclosure Form Solicitation Status Endorsement Policy ENDORSEMENT STATUS Collier County Water -Sewer District (FL) EU Endorsed, UK Endorsed DISCLAIMER & DISCLOSURES All Fitch Ratings (Fitch) credit ratings are subject to certain limitations and disclaimers. Please read these limitations and disclaimers byfollowing this link: https://www.fitchratings.com/understandingcreditratings. In addition, the following https://www.fitchratings.com/rating-definitions-document details Fitch's rating definitions for each rating scale and rating categories, including definitions relating to default. ESMA and the FCA are required to publish historical default rates in a central repository in accordance with Articles 11(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1060/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 and The Credit Rating Agencies (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 respectively. Published ratings, criteria, and methodologies are available from this site at all times. Fitch's code of conduct, confidentiality, conflicts of interest, affiliate firewall, compliance, and other relevant policies and procedures are also available from the Code of Conduct section of this site. Directors and shareholders' relevant interests are available at https://www.fitchratings.com/site/regulatory. Fitch may have provided another permissible or ancillary service to the rated entity or its related third parties. Details of permissible or ancillary service(s) forwhich the lead analyst is based in an ESMA- or FCA-registered Fitch Ratings company (or branch of such a company) can be found on the entity summary page for this issuer on the Fitch Ratings website. In issuing and maintaining its ratings and in making other reports (including forecast information), Fitch relies on factual information it receives from issuers and underwriters and from other sources Fitch believes to be credible. Fitch conducts a reasonable investigation of the factual information relied upon by it in accordance with its ratings methodology, and obtains reasonable verification of that information from independent sources, to the extent such sources are available for a given security or in a given jurisdiction. The manner of Fitch's factual investigation and the scope of the third -party verification it obtains will vary depending on the nature of the rated security and its issuer, the requirements and practices in the jurisdiction in which the rated security is offered and sold 152 https://wm.fitchratings.com/research/us-public-finance/correction-fitch-affirms-collier-county-water-sewer-district-fl-rev-bonds-at-aaa-outlook stable-31-05-2... 9/12 5/31/23, 3:43 PM Correction:Fitch Affirms Collier County Water -Sewer District, FL's Rev Bonds at'AAA';OutlookStable and/or the issuer is located, the availability and nature of relevant public information, access to the management of the issuer and its advisers, the availability of pre-existing third -party verifications such as audit reports, agreed -upon procedures letters, appraisals, actuarial reports, engineering reports, legal opinions and other reports provided by third parties, the availability of independent and competent third- party verification sources with respect to the particular security or in the particular jurisdiction of the issuer, and a variety of other factors. Users of Fitch's ratings and reports should understand that neither an enhanced factual investigation nor any third -party verification can ensure that all of the information Fitch relies on in connection with a rating or a report will be accurate and complete. Ultimately, the issuer and its advisers are responsible for the accuracy of the information they provide to Fitch and to the market in offering documents and other reports. In issuing its ratings and its reports, Fitch must rely on the work of experts, including independent auditors with respect to financial statements and attorneys with respect to legal and tax matters. Further, ratings and forecasts of financial and other information are inherently forward -looking and embody assumptions and predictions about future events that by their nature cannot be verified as facts. As a result, despite any verification of current facts, ratings and forecasts can be affected byfuture events or conditions that were not anticipated at the time a rating or forecast was issued or affirmed. The information in this report is provided "as is" without any representation or warranty of any kind, and Fitch does not represent or warrant that the report or any of its contents will meet any of the requirements of a recipient of the report. A Fitch rating is an opinion as to the creditworthiness of a security. This opinion and reports made by Fitch are based on established criteria and methodologies that Fitch is continuously evaluating and updating. Therefore, ratings and reports are the collective work product of Fitch and no individual, or group of individuals, is solely responsible for a rating or a report. The rating does not address the risk of loss due to risks other than credit risk, unless such risk is specifically mentioned. Fitch is not engaged in the offer or sale of any security. All Fitch reports have shared authorship. Individuals identified in a Fitch report were involved in, but are not solely responsible for, the opinions stated therein. The individuals are named for contact purposes only. A report providing a Fitch rating is neither a prospectus nor a substitute for the information assembled, verified and presented to investors by the issuer and its agents in connection with the sale of the securities. Ratings may be changed or withdrawn at any time for any reason in the sole discretion of Fitch. Fitch does not provide investment advice of any sort. Ratings are not a recommendation to buy, sell, or hold any security. Ratings do not comment on the adequacy of market price, the suitability of any security for a particular investor, or the tax-exempt nature or taxability of payments made in respect to any security. Fitch receives fees from issuers, insurers, guarantors, other obligors, and underwriters for 153 https://wm.fitchratings.corryresearch/us-public-finance/correction-fitch-affirms-collier-county-water-sewer-district-fl-rev-bonds-at-aaa-outlook stable-31-05-... 10/12 5/31/23, 3:43 PM Correction:Fitch Affirms Collier County Water -Sewer District, FL's Rev Bonds at'AAA';OutlookStable rating securities. Such fees generally vary from US$1,000 to US$750,000 (or the applicable currency equivalent) per issue. In certain cases, Fitch will rate all or a number of issues issued by a particular issuer, or insured or guaranteed by a particular insurer or guarantor, for a single annual fee. Such fees are expected to varyfrom US$10,000 to US$1,500,000 (or the applicable currency equivalent). The assignment, publication, or dissemination of a rating by Fitch shall not constitute a consent by Fitch to use its name as an expert in connection with any registration statement filed under the United States securities laws, the Financial Services and Markets Act of 2000 of the United Kingdom, or the securities laws of any particular jurisdiction. Due to the relative efficiency of electronic publishing and distribution, Fitch research may be available to electronic subscribers up to three days earlier than to print subscribers. For Australia, New Zealand, Taiwan and South Korea only: Fitch Australia Pty Ltd holds an Australian financial services license (AFS license no. 337123) which authorizes it to provide credit ratings to wholesale clients only. Credit ratings information published by Fitch is not intended to be used by persons who are retail clients within the meaning of the Corporations Act 2001.Fitch Ratings, Inc. is registered with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission as a Nationally Recognized Statistical Rating Organization (the "NRSRO"). While certain of the NRSRO's credit rating subsidiaries are listed on Item 3 of Form NRSRO and as such are authorized to issue credit ratings on behalf of the NRSRO (see https://www.fitchratings.com/site/regulatory), other credit rating subsidiaries are not listed on Form NRSRO (the "non-NRSROs") and therefore credit ratings issued by those subsidiaries are not issued on behalf of the NRSRO. However, non-NRSRO personnel may participate in determining credit ratings issued by or on behalf of the NRSRO. dv01, a Fitch Solutions company, and an affiliate of Fitch Ratings, may from time to time serve as loan data agent on certain structured finance transactions rated by Fitch Ratings. Copyright © 2023 by Fitch Ratings, Inc., Fitch Ratings Ltd. and its subsidiaries. 33 Whitehall Street, NY, NY 10004. Telephone: 1-800-753-4824,(212) 908-0500. Fax: (212) 480-4435. Reproduction or retransmission in whole or in part is prohibited except by permission. All rights reserved. READ LESS SOLICITATION STATUS The ratings above were solicited and assigned or maintained by Fitch at the request of the rated entity/issuer or a related third party. Any exceptions follow below. ENDORSEMENT POLICY 154 https://vmw.fitchratings.com/research/us-public-finance/correction-fetch-affirms-collier-county-water-sewer-district-fl-rev-bonds-at-aaa-outlook stable-31-05-... 11/12 5/31/23, 3:43 PM Correction:Fitch Affirms Collier County Water -Sewer District, FL's Rev Bonds at'AAA';OutlookStable Fitch's international credit ratings produced outside the EU or the UK, as the case maybe, are endorsed for use by regu Iated entities within the EU or the UK, respectively, for regulatory purposes, pursuant to the terms of the EU CRA Regulation or the UK Credit Rating Agencies (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, as the case maybe. Fitch's approach to endorsement in the EU and the UK can be found on Fitch's Regu I atoryAffairs page on Fitch's website. The endorsement status of international credit ratings is provided within the entity summary page for each rated entity and in the transaction detail pages for structured finance transactions on the Fitch website. These disclosures are updated on a daily basis. US Public Finance Infrastructure and Project Finance North America United States 155 https://wm.fitchratings.com/research/us-public-finance/correction-fitch-affirms-collier-county-water-sewer-district-fl-rev-bonds-at-aaa-outlook stable-31-05-... 12/12 6/25/2021 Fitch Rates Collier County Water -Sewer District, FL's Rev Bonds'AAA'; Outlook Stable Fitchnatings RATING ACTION COMMENTARY Fitch Rates Collier County Water -Sewer District, FUs Rev Bonds'AAM; Outlook Stable Fri 25 Jun, 2021- 5:20 PM ET Fitch Ratings - Austin - 25 Jun 2021: Fitch Ratings has assigned a'AAA' rating on the following Collier County Water -Sewer District, FL (the district) revenue bonds: Approximately $137.6 million water and sewer revenue bonds, series 2021. The bonds will be sold via competitive bid on July 7. Proceeds will be used to fund system capital projects and associated issuance costs. Fitch has also affirmed the ratings on the following district bonds: --$48.1 million water and sewer refunding revenue bonds, series 2016; --$76.2 million water and sewer revenue bonds, series 2019. Additionally, Fitch has assessed the district's Standalone Credit Profile (SCP) at'aaa'. The SCP represents the credit profile of the system on a standalone basis irrespective of its relationship with the credit quality of the county (Issuer Default Rating AA+/Stable). The Rating Outlook is Stable. 156 https://vmw.fitchratings.conVresearch/us-public-finance/fitch-rates-collier-county-water-sewer-district-fl-rev-bonds-aaa-outlook stable-25-06-2021 1/12 6/25/2021 Fitch Rates Collier County Water -Sewer District, FL's RevBonds'AAA'; Outlook Stable ANALYTICAL CONCLUSION The'AAA' rating and 'aaa' SCP assessment reflect the district's low leverage ratio, as measured by net adjusted debt tofu nds available for debt service, within a framework of very strong revenue defensibility and low operating risk. The district's very strong revenue defensibility assessment of'aa' is supported by its fundamental role as the exclusive retail water and sewer service provider in an area with favorable demographic trends. The district has independent legal ability to set rates and rates are affordable to the vast majority of its customers. The system's operating risk assessment of 'a'features a low, albeit growing, operating cost burden and moderate life cycle investment needs supported by adequate capital investment. Leverage has been consistently low, below 2.Ox in each of the last five audited years. Although the district has a large capital improvement plan (Cl P) to implement over the next five years, its robust liquidity position, disciplined rate setting, and growth are expected to support a sustained low leverage through Fitch's scenario analysis consistent with the high rating. CREDIT PROFILE Located along the Gulf of Mexico in southwestern Florida, Collier County is the largest county in the state encompassing 2,026 square miles and includes a portion of the Everglades National Park. It is home to popular destinations including the city of Naples and Marco Island. In 2020, the county had an estimated population of 385,000. The district provides retail service to the unincorporated communities within the county through about 80,000 mostly residential customer accounts, serving an estimated 302,000 residents. The district has ample raw water supply and water and sewer treatment capacity to meet expected demand for the foreseeable future. Water supply is regulated by the South Florida Water Management District under a consumptive use permit that expires in 2036. The district has a total permitted groundwater allocation of 56.1 million gallons per day (mgd), and a treatment capacity of 52 mgd, both of which compare favorably to average daily demand of about 25 mgd. Wastewater is treated by four district -owned and operated wastewater treatment plants, and combined treatment capacity of 42.6 mgd is well in excess of average annual demand. The district also provides reclaimed water to over 50,000 end users that include golf courses, parks and schools, as well as residential and commercial 157 https://vmw.fitchratings.conVresearch/us-public-finance/fitch-rates-collier-county-water-sewer-district-fl-rev-bonds-aaa-outlook stable-25-06-2021 2/12 6/25/2021 Fitch Rates Collier County Water -Sewer District, FL's RevBonds'AAA'; Outlook Stable areas. Capital projects are underway to expand service to growing areas within its service territory and to maintain system assets in good condition. Fitch considers the district a related entity of the county for rating purposes given its dependent relationship as an enterprise unit of the county. The credit quality of the county does not currently constrain the bond rating. However, as a result of being a related entity, the issue ratings could become constrained by a material decline in the county's general credit quality. Coronavirus Considerations The outbreak of coronavirus and related government containment measures have not materially impaired the district's financial performance to date. While collections were slower during the pandemic, these did not materially affect the strong financial posture of the district. Management reports that only about 1.5% of accounts were late at the height of the pandemic. The moratorium on account disconnects was suspended early this month. KEY RATING DRIVERS Revenue Defensibility'aa' Affordable Rates and Very Favorable, Growing Service Area Revenue defensibility is very strong at'aa'. Revenues are received entirely from the county's exclusive right to provide retail water and wastewater services within its service area. The county has independent rate -setting authority, and utility bills are deemed affordable for the vast majority of the population. The district has experienced strong customer growth and economic indicators are slightly better than the national average. Operating Risks'a' Low Operating Cost Burden and Continued Ongoing Capital Investment 158 https://vmw.fitchratings.conVresearch/us-public-finance/fitch-rates-collier-county-water-sewer-district-fl-rev-bonds-aaa-outlook stable-25-06-2021 3/12 6/25/2021 Fitch Rates Collier County Water -Sewer District, FL's RevBonds'AAA'; Outlook Stable Operating risks are considered low based on a low but growing operating cost burden. In addition, healthy capital investment has resulted in a 42% life cycle ratio with planned CI P projects that are expected to maintain assets in good condition. Financial Profile'aaa' Strong Margins and Liquidity Support Low Leverage Net adjusted debt to adjusted funds available for debt service is exceptionally low, below 1.0x and forecast to remain within the'aaa' assessment through the scenario analysis despite planned implementation of large CIP. ASYMMETRIC ADDITIVE RISK CONSIDERATIONS No asymmetric additive risk considerations affected this rating determination. RATING SENSITIVITIES Factors that could, individually or collectively, lead to positive rating action/upgrade: --Not applicable given the'AAA' rating. Factors that could, individually or collectively, lead to negative rating action/downgrade: --Increased leverage exceeding4.Ox over a sustained period resulting from deterioration of financial margins and/or capital spending beyond the current expectations. --Deterioration of the operating risk profile assessment to'bbb' would result in negative rating action. BEST/WORST CASE RATING SCENARIO 159 https://vmw.fitchratings.conVresearch/us-public-finance/ftch-rates-collier-county-water-sewer-district-fl-rev-bonds-aaa-outlook stable-25-06-2021 4/12 6/25/2021 Fitch Rates Collier County Water -Sewer District, FL's RevBonds'AAA'; Outlook Stable International scale credit ratings of Sovereigns, Public Finance and Infrastructure issuers have a best -case rating upgrade scenario (defined as the 99th percentile of rating transitions, measured in a positive direction) of three notches over a three-year rating horizon; and a worst -case rating downgrade scenario (defined as the 99th percentile of rating transitions, measured in a negative direction) of three notches over three years. The complete span of best- and worst -case scenario credit ratings for all rating categories ranges from 'AAA' to' D'. Best- and worst -case scenario credit ratings are based on historical performance. For more information about the methodology used to determine sector -specific best- and worst -case scenario credit ratings, visit https://www.fitchratings.com/site/re/10111579. SECURITY The bonds are senior lien obligations payable from net revenues of the district's water and sewer system (the system) and system development fees. The bonds are additionally secured by a cash -funded debt service reserve fund. REVENUE DEFENSIBILITY Revenue defensibility is very strong and assessed at'aa'. All revenues are derived from monopolistic services in a growing service area with favorable demographic trends and strong rate flexibility. Water and sewer rates are set by the county commissioners absent additional oversight. The district reviews service rates every two years to ensure rates are sufficient to cover all system costs. Modest rate increases have been implemented annually over the last five fiscal years. For fiscal 2021, the district increased rates by 2.9%. Based on Fitch's standard usage of 7,500 gallons per month for water and 6,000 gallons per month for sewer, the combined bill totals about $120 per month which is considered to be affordable to about 80% of the population. The local economy is centered on tourism, agriculture, fishing, ranching and forestry, with a growing healthcare and technology presence. Area demographics are very favorable, with rapid customer growth, median household income approximately 11% higher than the U.S. and unemployment that typically bettered the national average over the last five years. For 2020, the unemployment rate for Collier County was 6.9%, which was below the U.S. rate of 8.1%. Consistent with the economic recovery, county unemployment levels for April 2021 have improved to 3.8%, well below the 5.7% national level. Connections have increased 160 https://vmw.fitchratings.conVresearch/us-public-finance/fitch-rates-collier-county-water-sewer-district-fl-rev-bonds-aaa-outlook stable-25-06-2021 5/12 6/25/2021 Fitch Rates Collier County Water -Sewer District, FL's RevBonds'AAA'; Outlook Stable rapidly with two recent acquisitions, and more growth is expected from new development in the northeast area of the county. OPERATING RISKS The district's operating risk profile is assessed at'a', which considers its low but growing operating cost burden and moderate life cycle ratio supported by adequate capital investment. Fitch calculates the operating cost burden as the ratio of total annual operating costs including depreciation and net transfers to total million gallons (mg) of water produced and sewer flows treated. The system's operating cost burden has trended upward over the previous five fiscal years, registering at $9,288 per mg in fiscal 2019. This is just below the $9,500 per mg threshold for the current assessment. Most of the growth in operating expenditures is related to personnel growth to contend with its growing service area as the district acquired two smaller utilities over the last five years. The county plans to continue expanding service to new developments in the growing northeast area. Fitch expects growing demand will offset expenditure growth to maintain a low operating cost burden, but cautions that material growth in the operating cost burden and/or weakening of the life cycle ratio could result in a weakening of the operating risks profile. The district has a moderate life cycle ratio, ranging from 39% to 42% from fiscal years 2016 through 2020. Annual capital investment as a percent of depreciation averaged 81% through the same period. This is expected to increase with the current Cl P. The district's fiscal 2021- 2025 CIP totals $489 million and is currently expected to be funded predominantly with pay -go sources and about 30% debt. The CIP projects are primarily for ongoing repair and replacement needs with projects focused on additional distribution and conveyance in order to provide redundancy between both water and wastewater treatment plants for system- wide service reliability. Other projects included in the five-year ClP are for expansion needs in the central and northeast areas of the county where customer growth has accelerated. FINANCIAL PROFILE The financial profile is assessed at'aaa' with metrics that have been consistently strong and stable. The district's leverage ranged from about 1.0x to 1.4x over the last five fiscal years as the district implemented annual rate increases while also experiencing rapid growth. For the 161 https://vmw.fitchratings.conVresearch/us-public-finance/fitch-rates-collier-county-water-sewer-district-fl-rev-bonds-aaa-outlook stable-25-06-2021 6/12 6/25/2021 Fitch Rates Collier County Water -Sewer District, FL's RevBonds'AAA'; Outlook Stable fiscal year ended Sept. 30, 2020 the district's leverage was only 0.9x due to its robust unrestricted cash reserves. The liquidity profile, while neutral to the financial profile assessment, has also remained strong and stable. The liquidity cushion averaged over 620 days from fiscal years 2016 to 2020. Coverage of full obligations was 3.2x in fiscal 2020 while Fitch calculated all -in debt service coverage was 3.6x. Fitch's Analytical Stress Test (FAST) The FAST base case is informed by the district's forecast, which Fitch deems reasonable in light of continued growth and historically conservative forecasting. The district's operating revenues grew 4.4% despite the pandemic in fiscal 2020. Forfiscal 2021, operating revenue growth is projected to be close to 5%, which takes into consideration a 2.9% water and sewer rate increase and rebounding demand from tourism. The FAST also incorporates 4%-5% water and sewer rate increases for fiscal years 2022 to 2024, implementation of the district's five-year Cl P and the current debt issuance. The county is considering allocating a portion of the county's awarded American Rescue Act funds to the district. If awarded, these funds would be used for accelerating Cl P projects and possibly provide near -term ratepayer relief. The FAST base case output reflects our expectations that the district will maintain very low leverage right below 3.0x, consistent with the assessment. The FAST stress case, which layers an additional 10% in capital spending on the base case, shows leverage increasing but staying under 4.Ox over the forecast period. SOURCES OF INFORMATION In addition to the sources of information identified in Fitch's applicable criteria specified below, this action was informed by information from Lumesis. REFERENCES FOR SUBSTANTIALLY MATERIAL SOURCE CITED AS KEY DRIVER OF RATING The principal sources of information used in the analysis are described in the Applicable Criteria ESG CONSIDERATIONS 162 https://vmw.fitchratings.conVresearch/us-public-finance/fitch-rates-collier-county-water-sewer-district-fl-rev-bonds-aaa-outlook stable-25-06-2021 7/12 6/25/2021 Fitch Rates Collier County Water -Sewer District, FL's RevBonds'AAN; Outlook Stable Unless otherwise disclosed in this section, the highest level of ESG credit relevance is a score of'3'. This means ESG issues are credit -neutral or have only a minimal credit impact on the entity, either due to their nature or the way in which they are being managed by the entity. For more information on Fitch's ESG Relevance Scores, visit www.fitchratings.com/esg VIEW ADDITIONAL RATING DETAILS FITCH RATINGS ANALYSTS Gabriela Payne, CPA Director Primary Rating Analyst +1512 215 3731 gabriela.gutierrezpayne@fitchratings.com Fitch Ratings, Inc. 2600 Via Fortuna, Suite 330 Austin, TX 78746 Kristen Reifsnyder Director Secondary Rating Analyst +1646 582 3448 kristen.reifsnyder@fitchratings.com Douglas Scott Managing Director Committee Chairperson +1512 215 3725 douglas.scott@fitchratings.com MEDIA CONTACTS Elizabeth Fogerty New York +1212 908 0526 elizabeth.fogerty@thefitchgroup.com Additional information is available on www.fitchratings.com APPLICABLE CRITERIA 163 https://vmw.fitchratings.conVresearch/us-public-finance/fitch-rates-collier-county-water-sewer-district-fl-rev-bonds-aaa-outlook stable-25-06-2021 8/12 6/25/2021 Fitch Rates Collier County Water -Sewer District, FL's RevBonds'AAA'; Outlook Stable Public Sector, Revenue -Supported Entities Rating Criteria (pub. 23 Feb 2021) (including rating assumption sensitivity) U.S. Water and Sewer Rating Criteria (pub.18 Mar 2021) (including rating assumption sensitivity) ADDITIONAL DISCLOSURES Dodd -Frank Rating Information Disclosure Form Solicitation Status Endorsement Policy ENDORSEMENT STATUS Collier County Water -Sewer District (FL) EU Endorsed, UK Endorsed DISCLAIMER ALL FITCH CREDIT RATI NGS ARE SU BJECT TO CERTAIN LIMITATIONSAND DISCLAIMERS. PLEASE READ THESE LIMITATIONSAND DISCLAIMERS BY FOLLOWING THIS LINK: HTTPS://\MNW.FITCH RATINGS.COM/UN DERSTANDINGCRED ITRATINGS. IN ADDITION,THE FOLLOWING HTTPS://WWW.FITCHRATINGS.COM/RATING- DEFINITIONS-DOCUMENT DETAILS FITCH'S RATING DEFINITIONS FOR EACH RATING SCALE AND RATING CATEGORIES, INCLUDING DEFINITIONS RELATING TO DEFAULT. PUBLISHED RATINGS, CRITERIA, AND METHODOLOGIES ARE AVAILABLE FROM THIS SITE ATALLTIMES. FITCH'S CODE OF CONDUCT, CONFIDENTIALITY, CONFLICTS OF INTEREST, AFFILIATE FI REWALL, COMPLIANCE, AND OTHER RELEVANT POLICIES AND PROCEDURES ARE ALSO AVAILABLE FROM THE CODE OF CONDUCTSECTION OF THISSITE. DIRECTORS AND SHAREHOLDERS RELEVANT INTERESTSARE AVAILABLE AT HTTPS://WWW.FITCHRATINGS.COM/SITE/REGULATORY. FITCH MAY HAVE PROVIDED ANOTHER PERMISSIBLE SERVICE TO THE RATED ENTITY OR ITS RELATED THIRD PARTIES. DETAILS OF THIS SERVICE FORWHICH THE LEAD ANALYST IS BASED IN AN ESMA- OR FCA-REGISTERED FITCH RATINGS COMPANY (OR BRANCH OF SUCH A COMPANY) CAN BE FOUND ON THE ENTITYSUMMARY PAGE FORTHIS ISSUER ON THE FITCH RATINGS WEBSITE. COPYRIGHT 164 https://v ww.fitchratings.com/research/us-public-finance/fitch-rates-collier-county-water-sewer-district-fl-rev-bonds-aaa-outlook stable-25-06-2021 9/12 6/25/2021 Fitch Rates Collier County Water -Sewer District, FL's RevBonds'AAA'; Outlook Stable Copyright © 2021 by Fitch Ratings, Inc., Fitch Ratings Ltd. and its subsidiaries. 33 Whitehall Street, NY, NY 10004. Telephone: 1-800-753-4824,(212) 908-0500. Fax: (212) 480-4435. Reproduction or retransmission in whole or in part is prohibited except by permission. All rights reserved. In issuing and maintaining its ratings and in making other reports (including forecast information), Fitch relies on factual information it receives from issuers and underwriters and from other sources Fitch believes to be credible. Fitch conducts a reasonable investigation of the factual information relied upon by it in accordance with its ratings methodology, and obtains reasonable verification of that information from independent sources, to the extent such sources are available for a given security or in a given jurisdiction. The manner of Fitch's factual investigation and the scope of the third - party verification it obtains will vary depending on the nature of the rated security and its issuer, the requirements and practices in the jurisdiction in which the rated security is offered and sold and/or the issuer is located, the availability and nature of relevant public information, access to the management of the issuer and its advisers, the availability of pre- existing third -party verifications such as audit reports, agreed -upon procedures letters, appraisals, actuarial reports, engineering reports, legal opinions and other reports provided by third parties, the availability of independent and competent third- party verification sources with respect to the particular security or in the particular jurisdiction of the issuer, and a variety of other factors. Users of Fitch's ratings and reports should understand that neither an enhanced factual investigation nor any third -party verification can ensure that all of the information Fitch relies on in connection with a rating or a report will be accurate and complete. Ultimately, the issuer and its advisers are responsible for the accuracy of the information they provide to Fitch and to the market in offering documents and other reports. In issuing its ratings and its reports, Fitch must rely on the work of experts, including independent auditors with respect to financial statements and attorneys with respect to legal and tax matters. Further, ratings and forecasts of financial and other information are inherently forward -looking and embody assumptions and predictions about future events that by their nature cannot be verified as facts. As a result, despite any verification of current facts, ratings and forecasts can be affected by future events or conditions that were not anticipated at the time a rating or forecast was issued or affirmed. The information in this report is provided "as is" without any representation or warranty of any kind, and Fitch does not represent or warrant that the report or any of its contents will meet any of the requirements of a recipient of the report. A Fitch rating is an opinion as to the creditworthiness of a security. This opinion and reports made by Fitch are based on established criteria and methodologies that Fitch is continuously evaluating and updating. Therefore, ratings and reports are the collective work product of Fitch and no individual, or group of individuals, is solely responsible for a rating or a report. The rating does not address the risk of loss due to risks other than credit risk, unless such risk is specifically mentioned. Fitch is not engaged in the offer or sale of any security. All Fitch reports have shared 165 https://vmw.fitchratings.conVresearch/us-public-finance/fitch-rates-collier-county-water-sewer-district-fl-rev-bonds-aaa-outlook stable-25-06-2021 10/12 6/25/2021 Fitch Rates Collier County Water -Sewer District, FL's RevBonds'AAA'; Outlook Stable authorship. Individuals identified in a Fitch report were involved in, but are not solely responsible for, the opinions stated therein. The individuals are named for contact purposes only. A report providing a Fitch rating is neither a prospectus nor a substitute for the information assembled, verified and presented to investors by the issuer and its agents in connection with the sale of the securities. Ratings may be changed or withdrawn at any time for any reason in the sole discretion of Fitch. Fitch does not provide investment advice of any sort. Ratings are not a recommendation to buy, sell, or hold any security. Ratings do not comment on the adequacy of market price, the suitability of any security for a particular investor, or the tax-exempt nature or taxability of payments made in respect to any security. Fitch receives fees from issuers, insurers, guarantors, other obligors, and underwriters for rating securities. Such fees generally vary from US$1,000 to US$750,000 (or the applicable currency equivalent) per issue. In certain cases, Fitch will rate all or a number of issues issued by a particular issuer, or insured or guaranteed by a particular insurer or guarantor, for a single annual fee. Such fees are expected to vary from US$10,000 to US$1,500,000 (or the applicable currency equivalent). The assignment, publication, or dissemination of a rating by Fitch shall not constitute a consent by Fitch to use its name as an expert in connection with any registration statement filed underthe United States securities laws, the Financial Services and Markets Act of 2000 of the United Kingdom, or the securities laws of any particular jurisdiction. Due to the relative efficiency of electronic publishing and distribution, Fitch research may be available to electronic subscribers up to three days earlier than to print subscribers. For Australia, New Zealand, Taiwan and South Korea only: Fitch Australia Pty Ltd holds an Australian financial services license (AFS license no. 337123) which authorizes it to provide credit ratings to wholesale clients only. Credit ratings information published by Fitch is not intended to be used by persons who are retail clients within the meaning of the Corporations Act 2001 Fitch Ratings, Inc. is registered with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission as a Nationally Recognized Statistical Rating Organization (the "NRSRO"). While certain of the NRSRO's credit rating subsidiaries are listed on Item 3 of Form NRSRO and as such are authorized to issue credit ratings on behalf of the NRSRO (see https://www.fitchratings.com/site/regulatory), other credit rating subsidiaries are not listed on Form NRSRO (the "non-NRSROs") and therefore credit ratings issued by those subsidiaries are not issued on behalf of the NRSRO. However, non-NRSRO personnel may participate in determining credit ratings issued by or on behalf of the NRSRO. SOLICITATION STATUS 166 https://vmw.fitchratings.conVresearch/us-public-finance/fitch-rates-collier-county-water-sewer-district-fl-rev-bonds-aaa-outlook stable-25-06-2021 11/12 6/25/2021 Fitch Rates Collier County Water -Sewer District, FL's RevBonds'AAA'; Outlook Stable The ratings above were solicited and assigned or maintained by Fitch at the request of the rated entity/issuer or a related third party. Any exceptions follow below. ENDORSEMENT POLICY Fitch's international credit ratings produced outside the EU or the U K, as the case may be, are endorsed for use by regulated entities within the EU or the U K, respectively, for regulatory purposes, pursuant to the terms of the EU CRA Regulation or the U K Credit Rating Agencies (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, as the case may be. Fitch's approach to endorsement in the EU and the UK can be found on Fitch's Regulatory Affairs page on Fitch's website. The endorsement status of international credit ratings is provided within the entity summary page for each rated entity and in the transaction detail pages for structured finance transactions on the Fitch website. These disclosures are updated on a daily basis. US Public Finance Infrastructure and Project Finance North America United States ga ('set', ' 732-ckh-767', ' U SE R_I D' ); 167 https://vmw.fitchratings.conVresearch/us-public-finance/fitch-rates-collier-county-water-sewer-district-fl-rev-bonds-aaa-outlook stable-25-06-2021 12/12