The URL can be used to link to this page

DSAC Backup 04/01/2009 R A-prJ> I ) 2c67 ~ Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Ine. ~ PLuming' and Engineering February 25, 2009 Ms. Amy Patterson Impact Fee Manager Collier County Financial Administration and Housing Department 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, Florida 34104 RE: Updated Indices Dear Ms. Patterson: Per direction provided by the Productivity Committee and County staff on February 18,2009 and during subsequent discussions, TOA calculated indices for the six fee areas by using the average cost changes over a two-year period instead of using a regression analysis. The six program areas for which indices were calculated are listed in the table on the next two pages. A two-year average as opposed to a three-year average is used to calculate indices because a two-year average is found to be more response to cost fluctuations. It should be noted that the County has a 15 percent cap in place during cost increases. [f any of the indices is above 15 percent, it is required thatthe County verifies this increase. It is recommended that such a cap should be implemented for cost decreases as well. In other words, ifany of the calculated indices is less than -IS percent, this cost decrease should be verified based on County building/infrastructure construction costs and land and equipment purchase prices. Calculation of two-year averages includes the following steps; . For building component, consistent with the adopted indexing methodology, the average of three indices is used. These indices are Engineering News Record's Building Cost Index, Turner Building Cost Index, and RS Means Index. . For equipment/vehicle component, the average of Producer Price Index for Public Furniture and Consumer Price Index is used. . Indices used both for buildings and equipment/vehicles are adjusted for local cost using updated multipliers (based on 2000 Public Use Microdata Sample (PUMS) and 2007 American Community Survey). These multipliers are only applied to the aggregate change from one year to another, and 1000 North Ashley Drive. Suite 100, Tampa, Florida 33602. Phone: (813) 224-8862 . Fax: (813) 226-2106 1595 South Semoran Boulevard, Building 7, Suite 1540, Winter Park, Florida 32792 . Phone: (407) 657-9210. Fax: (407) 657.9106 195 South Central Avenue, Bartow, Florida 33830. Phone: (863) 533-8454. Fax: (863) 533-6481 Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Ine. PLUllllng- amI Ellgilll'.t~rillg Ms. Amy Patterson February 25, 2009 Page 2 of 3 have minimal impact on the overall index. . Land index is based on the change in market value of all property in Collier County based on figures published by the Collier County Property Appraiser. . Two sets of indices are calculated. One set reflects 2008 indices and are based on 2006 and 2007 data, which is the comparable time period used to calculate previous indices that were calculated using the regression model. When the previous calculations for 2008 indices were prepared for the fee adjustment, costs were being updated from 2007 to 2008 levels based on historical data through 2007. The second set of indices are 2009 indices and calculated based on the average of 2007 and 2008 data, which is more current, and better reflects the recent decrease in land values. The following table presents these calculations. Table 1 Index Calculations Libraries 5.3% EMS 3.2% Fire Rescue 1.3% Government Buildin s 7.2% Law Enforcement 4.1 % Schools 6.5% (I) Calculated using 2007 and 2008 data (2) Calculated using 2006 and 2007 data (3) Calculated using 10-year historical data through 2007 (4) Adopted index in 2007, provided for comparison purposes 8.6% 9.8% 1.1% 10.8% 6.6% 10.1% 11.2% 13.0% 7.4% 11.9% 10.2% 11.7% 9.4% 11.8% 5.9% 9.8% 8.5% 9.7% 1000 North Ashley Drive, Suite 100, Tampa, Florida 33802 . Phone: (813) 224~8882 . Fax: (813) 226-2106 1595 South Samoran Boulevard. Building 7, Suite 1540, Winter Park, Florida 32792 . Phone: (407) 657-9210 . Fax: (407) 657-9106 195 South Central Avenue, Bartow, Florida 33830 . Phone: (863) 533.8454 . Fax: (863) 533-8481 Tindale-Oliver & A~sociates, lue. PI;ullllUg ;lll<1 EllgimTlillg Ms. Amy Patterson February 25, 2009 Page 3 0(3 If you should have any questions concerning these calculations, please do not hesitate to contact me or NilgUn Kamp. Sincerely, Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. ~ J'f ~d"~ Steven A. Tindale, P.E., AICP President 1000 North Ashley Drive, Suite 100, Tampa, Florida 33602 . Phone: (813) 224-8662 . Fax: (513) 226-2106 1595 South Semoran Boulevard, Building 7, Suite 1540, Winter Park, Florida 32792 . Phone: (407) 657-9210 . Fax: (407) 657-9106 195 South Central Avenue. Bartow, Florida 33830 . Phone: (863) 533-8454 . Fax: (863) 533-8481 Building Valuation Data Square Foot Construction Costs tabIe does not reflect accurate values for that purpose. However, the Square Foot Construc- tion Costs table can be used to determine too cost of an addi- tion that Is basically a stand-alone building which happens to be attached to an existing building. In the case of such addi- tions, the only alterations to the existing building would Involve the attachment of the addition to the existing building and the openings between the addition and the existing building. . For purposes of establishing the Pennll Fee Mulllpller, the es- timated total annual construction value for a given time period (1 year) is the sum of each building's value (Gross Area x Square Foot Construction Cost) for that time period (e.g., 1 year). . The Square Foot Construction Cost does not include the price of the land on which the building Is buill. The Square Foot Con- struction Cost takes Into acoount everything from site and foun- dation work to the roof structure and coverings but does not Include the price of the land. The cost of the land does not affect the cost of related node enforcement activities and Is not Included in the Square Foot Construction Cost. Square Foot Construction Costs" b, 0,' Group (2006 Intematlonal Building Code) Type of Constructbn IA IB IIA liB IliA IIIB IV VA VB A-1 Assembly, theaters. with stage 190.99 184.82 180.21 172.74 16021 159.43 167.13 148.15 142.53 AssemblY, theaters, without stage 176.23 170.05 165.44 157.97 145.44 144.66 152.37 133.39 127.86 A-2 Assembly, nlghtdubs 147.10 142.97 139.34 133.91 124.28 124.03 129.21 114.30 110.46 A.2 Assembly, restaumnts, bars, bal'1quet halls 146.10 141.97 137.34 132.91 122.28 123.03 128.21 112.30 109.46 A-3 Assembly, churches 176.78 170.61 165.99 158.53 145.96 145.18 152.92 133.90 128.38 A-3 Assembly, general, comm..mIV halls, 150.51 144.34 138.73 132.26 118.68 118.90 126.65 106.63 102.10 libraries. museums A-4 Assembly, arenas 17523 169.05 163.44 156.97 143.44 143.66 151.37 131.39 126.86 B Business 152.75 147.34 142.69 136.Q2 121.77 120.96 130.77 108.80 104.41 E Educatlona! 162.06 156.56 152.07 145.29 t34.07 130.89 140.53 119.73 115.17 F-1 Factory and industrial, moderate hazard 90.96 86.79 82.13 79.44 68.74 69.66 78.24 58.56 55.46 F-2 Factory and industrial, low hazard 89.96 85.79 82.13 78.44 68.74 68.66 75.24 58.56 54.46 H-1 Hgh Hazard, explosfves 85.25 81.08 77.42 73. 73 6421 64.13 70.53 54.03 N.P. H234 Hgh Hazard 8S.25 81.08 77.42 73.73 64.21 64.13 70.53 54.03 49.93 H-5 H'M 152.75 147.34 142.69 136.02 121.77 120.96 130.77 108.80 104.41 1-1 Institutional, supervise d environment 150.33 145.20 141.34 135.63 124.49 124.44 134.70 114.51 109.96 1-2 Institutional. hospitals 253.93 248.52 243.87 237.20 222.34 N.P. 231.95 209.39 N.P. 1-2 Instttutional. nursing homes 177.55 172.14 167.49 160.82 147.00 N.P. 155.58 134.05 N.P. ~-~ 1-3 Institutional, restrained 173.39 167.98 163.32 156.66 143.67 141.88 151.41 130.72 124.33 14 Instttutlonal. day care faclltles 150.33 14520 141.34 135.63 124.49 124.44 134.70 114.51 109.96 M Mercantile 109.31 105.19 100.55 96.13 86.08 86.83 91.43 76.10 73.26 R-1 Reskientlal, hotels 150.84 145.71 141.85 136.14 125.10 125.05 135.31 115.12 110.57 R-2 Resklential, multiple family 126.43 121.30 117.44 111.73 100.81 100.77 111.02 90.83 86.28 R3 Resk:lentlal, on6- and wo fanilv 119.76 116.4 7 113.63 110.52 105.39 105.13 108.64 99.79 94.06 R4 Residential, care/assisted living melHles 150.33 145.20 141.34 135.63 124.49 124.44 134.70 114.51 109.96 5-1 Stomae. moderate hazard 8425 80.08 75.42 72.73 62.21 63.13 69.53 52.03 48.93 5-2 Storage. low hazard 83.25 79.0B 75.42 71.73 6221 62.13 68.53 52.03 47.93 U utility, miscellaneous 64.30 60.80 57.19 54.31 4722 47.22 50.70 38.76 36.91 B. Private Garages use Utility, miscellaneous b. Unfinished basements (all use group) = $15.00 per sq. ft. c. For shell only buildings deduc1 20 percent. d. N.P. = not perm.tad 54 Building Safety Journal February 2007 COLLIER COUNTY INDEXING METHODOLOGY STUDY FINAL REPORT a;lN~"Y County "i;"'!i!ii!)HPFl'k"*4iR10/i111';""\4;:,nii!IW(i;;ii;'!;iii1:)f'''''''''ii\ilitkm March II, 2009 Prepared Jar: Collier County 3301 E. Tamiami Trail Naples, Florida 34112 Ph (239) 252-8999 Prepared by: Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. 1000 N. Ashley Dr., #100 Tampa. Florida, 33602 ph (813) 224-8862,fax (813) 226-2106 073037-02.08 Table of Contents Executive Snmmary ................................................................................................. 1 lutroduction ...... ...... ....... ...... ........... .......... ...................... ...... ........... ........ ........... .... 2 Evaluation of Current Index Composition ............................................................ 2 Indexing Methodology Evalnation ......................................................................... 4 Summary and Conclusions ..................................................................................... 18 List of Appendices: Appendix A - Indexing Methods Used by Other Jurisdictions Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. March 2009 Collier County Indexing Methodology Study Executive Summary Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. (TOA) was retained by Collier County to prepare a review of the adopted indexing methodology. The current adopted localized indexing methodology uses trend data and regression analysis, which moderate the changes in the index, and the effect of the index on the final impact fee schedules. When costs are increasing, the indexing methodology does not allow the index to increase as rapidly as actual cost changes occur. Similarly, when costs are decreasing, the index lags the actual reductions in costs. Given the current decrease in costs, Collier County is interested in a study that would review thc current process and explore potential changes to the current methodology. This Executive Summary provides a summary ofthe three primary findings: I. The current adopted methodology adjusts national, regional or statewide figures to local figures using wage rates to reflect local costs. The analysis found that although this adjustment is useful in capturing some of the difference between local and non-local costs, it does not have a significant impact on the final indices. As such, it is recommended that the County continue to adjust national, regional, and statewide figures to local costs. 2. The current adopted methodology uses regression analysis. Regression analysis tends to work well in smoothing changes over time when there are no significant fluctuations in the underlying data. The indices for seven ofCol1ier County's ten impact fee program areas arc based on relatively stable national or regional data. However, indices for the other program areas (transportation, regional parks, and community parks) are based on the change in land values and transportation construction costs, which fluctuated significantly over the past several years. When costs fluctuate heavily, the regression analysis reacts with a lag. 3. Given the above described findings, it is recommended that the County use two- year average data of locally adjusted indices for all program areas. This approach will result in indices that arc much more reactive to the changes in cost. Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. March 2009 Collier County Indexing Methodology Study Introduction Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. (TOA) was retained by Collier County to prepare a review of the adopted indexing methodology. In the early 2000s, Collier Connty started to index its impact fees. Historically, the County used national indices for most of the variables. However, over the past few years, there were concerns that national indices failed to represent the significant cost increases experienced in Collier County. As a result, the Collier County Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) requested a localized indexing study to better measure the increase in local infrastructure costs. TOA completed the localized indexing study in 2007, which was then adopted by the BOCC, and the initial set of new indices became effective in January of2008. Since then, costs have started to stabilize, and in some cases, to decrease. The localized indexing methodology uses trend data and regression analysis, which moderate the changes in the index. When costs are increasing, the indexing methodology does not allow the index to increase as rapidly as actual cost changes may occur. Similarly, when costs are decreasing, the index lags the actnal reductions in costs. Given this, Collier County is interested in a study that would review the current process and explore potential changes to the current methodology. This summary report is organized in the following manner: . Evalnation of Current Index Composition . Indexing Methodology Evaluation . Summary and Conclusions In addition, Appendix A presents a summary of indexing methods used by other jurisdictions. Evaluation of Current Index Composition The adopted indexing methodology relies on several indices. Some of these indices reflect national data that were adjusted to local cost levels through the use of labor wage rate comparison. Table I provides a summary of each index and its scope. As presented, three of the indices (Engineering News Record (ENR), Producer Price Index (PPI), and Turner Building Cost) provide national level data while Consumer Price Index (CPI) and RS Means provide regional data (such as the Miami-Fort Lauderdale area, or the City of Miami, etc.), and the Florida Department of Transportation (FOOT) provides state data. Finally, land valnes are provided at the local level. Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. March 2009 2 Collier County Indexing Methodology Study Table 1 Indices and Associated Data Sources Libraries 27% 13% 100% EMS 011'0 33% 33% 100% Fire Rescue 0% 100% 0% 100% Gov't Buildin s 0% 0% 11% 100% Law Enforcement 0(% 47% 10'Yo 100% Correctional 0% O(YO 0% 100% Parks (Re ional) 7(1'0 0% 0% 93% 100% Parks (Communi 38% 0% 0% 62% 100% Schools 79% 0% 9% 12% 100% Trans ortation 0% 79% 0% 21% ]00% Source: Collier County Indexing Study by Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. in association with Center for Urban Policy Research, June I 1,2007 and Collier County Impact Fee Studies Table I also presents the distribution oflocal, state, regional, and national data for the indices calculated for each impact fee program area. Based on the distribution of the inventory among land, buildings, equipment, and transportation costs, each impact fee is influenced differently by national, state, regional, or local data. As shown, the parks impact fee indices are affected mostly by local indices (land values); the fire rescue index is affected solely by regional data while the correctional facilities index is determined solely by national data; the transportation indcx is heavily determined by statewide data, while libraries, government buildings, and school impact fee indices are affected primarily by national data. 111e EMS impact fee index is influenced eqnally by all levels of data, and the law enforcement index is influenced mostly by national and regional data. This relation, in tnrn, determines the potential level of fluctuations. Historically, national and regional data have been more stable than state or local data. As such, indices that rely more heavily on national data do not fluctuate as much. Conversely, those that rely heavily on state and/or local data tend to fluctuate more. As mentioned previously, under the adopted methodology, national, regional and state indices are adjusted to local area cost levels. The next section of this report provides more detailed information on this adjustment process. Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. March 2009 3 Collier County Indexing Methodology Study Indexing Methodology Evaluation As mentioned previously, historically, Collier County calculated its indices based on straight averages and unadjusted national, regional and state fignres. The adopted methodology revised the original approach by adding two components: . Adjustment of national, regional, and statewide figures to local costs; and . Utilization ofregression analysis to smooth the fluctuations. In addition, multiple indices were used for each component of the inventory (buildings, equipment, transportation, etc.), with the exception ofland. This section reviews the impact of these revisions on the responsiveness of indices to annual fluctuations in cost. Adiustment to Local Costs The adopted indexing method adjusts national, regional and statewide figures to local costs through a comparison of change in labor rates in a given geographic area (state, nation, etc.) to South Florida (Collicr and Palm Beach Counties). Table 2 provides a comparison of unadjusted and adjusted indices. In addition, as mentioned previously, under the adopted methodology multiple indices are used for various components of the inventory (buildings, equipment, etc.). For the five-year period shown in Table 2, the original methodology that relied on unadjusted national variables results consistently in a lower index, with the exception of transportation. The transportation index decreased when adjusted becanse the addition of the Producer Price Index (PPI) for Highway and Street Construction moderated the impact of statewide cost increases. Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. March 2009 4 Collier County Indexing Methodology Study .... III o (J ClI C,) o ...J .. o - "'C Gl .... III III Gl ::::l U:s' "'Cc:( C III N-Gl Gl 0 C,) .cC"'C ClI g C I- ";: III ClI ::::l c..1Il E :u o > (Jill Gl .~ "'C C "'C Gl .... III ::::l "~ "'C ClI C ::J ~~~~~o~?f.t!. M 0......... ~ 0"-. ('1 CIO-.--< oOo::t\Ol.rlo::tlf) - ;.,;., c:"g :l ~ OrFJ ~ 6il ~ 0 -0 0"0 U.,g t> ;;; bJ) C 'X '" "0 .5 ~ "" -00 ~ '" S ~ :l '" ,= ,--0 ~ E 0" 0' 0 =- V)~ut- ..,: -Ei8 0"" u u ~~~~?l-'o~";f~~~~ ~r-~(,:c:'-rl'-':OO'- oco::tt-I.O'-O"'1"-r-.:o-: ~t!.~~~'ct-~ r<) 0'\ ~ ('! 0 r-.: N "T "T r...;.r;........ ~ en :::- 1.1 '" u :z:'6 01).5 ~ ;t. ~ '2f!. ~ 'of:. ~ ";f ~ .S -a NMI.Ov:(':(,!~r-c:;; 6 r-.: M o::t..,.. r<) "T o..,f 0 ;g...;:::: "5iJ :a c"O u.l " ~~~~~~~~'o~ E~ r-C:OC::C:~O;trlOOO\ o:::l OO"<1'"\Ol.OlfllflN\Do\..;:u [/) .:: '" ~ bJ)", ~ ':!: ':!( ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 'l( 8.~ ~~~~,!~~~~f-..c'"Ovi r-: M 'o::t -.:t N V"l o::t 0 ~ .:: (\) Vl -::: u o ".:.a u c C '"0.2 .~ ~~~~~~~it.'ef:~~1- r')O;V:f"! c:c:~r,!~c..a 00 M If) lr) ..,f \0 N If) ~ 13 "2 g t} 5 :l""- :..a'u ~~'t!-~~~~if-~ 5<t:a \OO"r-.q-~o;r-:oooo""O .::1 r-.: ~ ..,f ..,f ('l If) ..,f r'l (\) t- 0... ...... ~ 0 '-< ..coJ3 "0,,- :i':oo:?.8-aP-. o ("j co.. C:~3~'"O \0 0 U c:: <ii " u x ?f:.t:~ \0 lrl .f: "':N or, ~~~~~ o~oc:: r- 001"" <-Oln'o::t..n 'Cf~ 00 oj ~ ro.,..;-. .0 '" " '" - ~ ocr; uti] ILl Vi ro 13 e ~ ~ c..,. t/l 0... 1: 8 <r: on :a e::r: .5 v .... '"0 g- J3 ~ ~ '::f!. ~ '::f!. '::.f-. ,0 '::f!. '::f!. '::f!. ~ I- _ ~3;~3;b;~~~o g.., lJ10_dl.. "T \0 N M M M ..,f 0 ..,f 0 .2.,.c P-. -a c ell " " c CO" ~::~ ~ ~ U') ?fa ~ ti U 1;; ,. < 0 <~u "0 bJ) 1),.5 C 2dJ:g 5 'c "5 rFJ"'co t:~;f;f Nr-ir!~ r-.: ("~ "T "T ;f ';~ ;f M;;C: ;f ;f ;f ;f ;f o~ ;f ;f ;f r-r-:~c:c:OO~l"!O: r-.: (r') trl o.n ..,.. o:::t If) 00 u '" en '" :;; 'u o ~ ~ ~ <<l ~ bJ) " :9 '5 CO c o .~ 1:: o c.. ~ " e I-< ~ '" .2: 0-. 0:5 i,N OJ"" "0 :: c " r:;;;; The adjusted indices tend to capture the higher cost increases experienced in Collier County and, in general, provide somewhat higher indices. At the time of the study, the wage comparison was based on 2000 Pnblic Use Microdata Sample (PUMS) and 2005 American Community Survey (ACS) information. PUMS is a component of the Census data and is only npdated every 10 years. As such, an updated version is not yet available. However, since the completion of the study, the 2007 ACS has been published. Table 3 provides a comparison of multipliers incInded in the original indexing study and updated figures using 2007 ACS data. As presented, while the multipliers for construction costs continued to increase, the multiplier for the trucking industry decreased. It should be noted that the recent decrease in the labor component of construction costs is not yet reflected in the 2007 ACS figures. Table 3 Multiplier to Convert National/State/Regional Indices to South Florida(1) Nation to South Florida ENR Index Construction Industry 1.35 Turner Index 1.71 FDOT Urban Road Construction Construction Industr 1.15 1.29 Highway and Street Construction (8L5) 1.40 2.04 RS Means 1.90 2.04 Publie Furniture (PPI) 1.72 0.24 Florida to South Florida Nation to South Florida Miami to South Florida Nation to South Florida Miami~Ft. Lauderdale to South Florida CPt Truekin \nduslr 2.32 0.2 I (1) Source: Collier County Indexing Study by Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. in association with Center for Urban Policy Research, June I 1,2007 (2) Source: Center for Urban Policy Research These multipliers apply only to the change in indices from one year to another, which results in a moderate impact on the final indices. Figure I presents the change in actual library construction costs experienced in Collier County as well as estimated costs using unadjusted and adjusted national indices for the local cost differential. Prior to 2002, when costs were relatively stable, unadjusted national indices were accurate in reflecting changes in cost. However, with significant cost increases experienced over the past few years, the original method failed to predict Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. March 2009 6 Collier County Indexing Methodology Study actual costs experienced in Collier Connty. As presented, the adjustment for local costs still does not captnre the full cost change; however, it does bring the indices somewhat closer to actnal cost increases. Figure 1 Comparison of Actual Library Construction Cost Changes To Estimated Cost with Indexing $230 ~ Actual Cost per Sq Ft ___Indexed Cost $350 $330 $310 $290 $270 $250 $210 $190 $170 $150 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Source: Collier County Impact Fee Studies (1999,2002, and 2006) are used for actual cost figures. Cost adjustment with unadjusted indices are based on indices calculated using the historical method without adjusting for local cost. Cost increase with adjusted indices is calculated by applying the national indices to local cost and adding more indices for each variable. These figures reflect IO-year averages of applicable data and do not use the regression analysis. Figure 2 provides a similar example for transportation costs. The difference between national cost indices and Florida Long Range Estimates (LRE) figures for transportation infrastructure costs are presented in this chart. This difference further shows the need to adjust the non-local indices to obtain local area costs. Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. March 2009 7 Collier County Indexing Methodology Study Figure 2 Comparison of Transportation Cost Changes FOOT LRE vs. National PPI 0.00/0 40.0% 30.0% 20.0% 10.0% -10.0% 2001 2002 2003 2004 200S 2006 2007 2008 Source: FDOT Long Range Estimates (LRE) and PPI for Highway and Street Construction In conclnsion, the adjustment of national, regional, and statewide costs to local costs has a minimal impact on the overall index; however, this approach does result in figures more reflective oflocal costs. As such, it is recommended that Collier County continue to use this adjustment for fnture indices. TindaIe-Oliver & Associates, Inc. March 2009 8 Collier County Indexing Methodology Study ImDact of Rel!ression Analvsis The second adjustment made to the original method was the utilization of regression analysis of two- or three-year rolling averages to smooth the fluctuations in cost over time. As part of this current indexing methodology review, TOA conducted a sensitivity analysis of the regression analysis. This analysis showed that when costs are relatively stable, the utilization of regression analysis is beneficial in smoothing changes from one year to another. However, when there are large flnctuations in cost, the regression method responds with a significant lag both when cost are increasing and decreasing. The remainder of this section provides a summary ofthe results of this analysis. Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. March 2009 9 Collier County Indexing Methodology Study Historically, national and regional indices used for building and equipment/vehicle components of the inventory have been relatively stable. These indices include ENR Building Cost Index, Turner Building Cost Index, and RS Means Index for building cost; and CPI and PPI for Public Furniture for equipment and vehicle cost. Fignres 3 and 4 present trends in these indices along with a regression line that combines the impact of applicable indices for building cost and equipment/vehicle costs. Figure 3 Trends in Building Cost Indices and Regression Analysis 0.0% 40.0% 30.0'lIn 20.0% 10.0% -10.0% 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Source: ENR Building Cost Index, Turner Building Cost Index, RS Means Index Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. March 2009 10 Collier County Indexing Methodology Study Figure 4 Trends in EquipmenWehicle Cost Indices and Regression Analysis ! 40.0% 0.0% 30.0% 20.0% 10.0% -10.0% 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Source: CPI and PPI for Public Furniture As shown, utilization of regression analysis for these relatively stable indices tends to smooth the changes in cost from one year to another and does not have a significant impact on the index. Conversely, when there are significant flnctnations in the data, the regression analysis tends to create a significant lag, and not react as quickly as may be desired. Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. March 2009 11 Collier County Indexing Methodology Study Figure 5 presents trends in LREs published by FDOT and PPI for Highway and Street Construction. The figure plots the actual data, a two-year average of actual data, regression excluding PPI, and a blended regression. As shown, the plot of actual LRE figures results in a trend line that is highly sensitive to fluctuations in costs. The two- year average of LRE figures tracks the actual changes with a minimal lag. However, the regression analysis that nses only the LRE data reacts to the changes in cost with a significant lag. This lag is somewhat moderated by blending LRE data with PPI data; however, there is still a considerable lag compared to the utilization of a two-year average. Figure 5 FOOT LRE Trends 0.00/0 40.0% 30.0% 20.0% 10.0% -10.0% 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Source: Data from FDOT LREs and PPI for Highway and Street Construction Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. March 2009 12 Collier County Indexing Methodology Study Figure 6 demonstrates how the adopted model would function with a cost increase of 10 percent per year over the next three years through 2012. The chart plots historical data until 2009, and then assumes an annual cost increase of 10 percent. As presented, the regression analysis lags in capturing the observed changes in costs. Figure 6 Transportation Construction Cost Comparison of Average Changes and Regression Model Results with a 10% Annual Cost Increase from 2009 to 2012 0.0'1.. -. LRE Actual 30.0% 20.0% 10.0'1.. -10.00;., -20.0'% LRE Growth - 2 Yr Avg -30.0";', 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Source: Data from FDOT LREs and PPI for Highway and Street Construction for years 2005 through 2008, assumed 10 percent annual increase as of2009 Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. March 2009 13 Collier County Indexing Methodology Study Similarly, Figure 7 presents how the current adopted model would function with a cost decrease of 10 percent per year over the next three years, through 2012. Again, the regression analysis lags in capturing the observed changes in costs. Figure 7 Transportation Construction Cost Comparison of Average Changes and Regression Model Results with a 10% Annual Cost Decrease from 2009 to 2012 0.0% ""~, -I 0% Cost Growth Rate Regression 30.0'Yc, lO.O'}';, 10.00/" -10.0'% .20.0";', -.. LRE Actual LRE Growth - 2 Yr Avg -30.00;" 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Source: Data from FDOT LREs and PPl for Highway and Street Construction for years 2005 through 2008, assumed JO percent annual decrease as of 2009 TindaIe-Oliver & Associates, Inc. March 2009 14 Collier County Indexing Methodology Study In addition to transportation costs, land values also experienced sib'1lificant fluctuations over the past few years. Figure 8 presents the actual annual changes, 2- and 3-year averages, and the regression results for land values over the past eight years. As presented, actual changes are somewhat moderated by the two-year averages, and even more so with the utilization of three-year averages. The regression analysis, on the other hand, reacts to actnal changes with a significant lag. Figure 8 land Value Trends 40.0% 0.0% - .. 2-Yr Average "" w- Al;lual 30.00/0 20.0%) to.O% -10.0% 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Source: Countywide land value is limn Collier County Property Appraiser Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. March 2009 15 Collier COlmty Indexing Methodology Study Fignre 9 demonstrates actual cost changes from 2005 to 2009, and how the adopted model would function with a cost increase of 10 percent per year over the next three years, through 2012. The chart plots historical data until 2009, and then assnmes an annual cost increase of 10 percent. Similar to the results shown for transportation costs, the regression analysis of land values lags in capturing the observed changes in costs. The two-year average, on the other hand, follows the actual changes closely. Figure 9 land Values Comparison of Average Changes and Regression Model Results with a 10% Annual Cost Increase from 2009 to 2012 O.O'Y., 30.0% 20.0'Y" 10.0% -10.0% -20.0% -30.0";', 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Source: Countywide land values are from Collier County Property Appraiser for years 2005 tIuough 2008, and assumed 10 percent annual increase as of 2009 Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. March 2009 16 Collier County Indexing Methodology Study Similarly, Figure 10 presents actual cost changes from 2005 to 2009, and how the cnrrent adopted model would predict land valnes with a cost decrease of 10 percent per year over the next three years, through 2012. Again, the regression analysis lags in capturing the observed changes in costs. Figure 10 land Values Comparison of Average Changes and Regression Model Results with a 10% Annual Cost Decrease from 2009 to 2012 O.O'Yo ... Land Growth - Actual 30.0'1.. 20.0'Y.. 10.0% -10.0'1., -20.0% Land Growth - 2 Yr Avg -30.0'V., 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Source: Countywide land values are from Collier County Property Appraiser for years 2005 through 2008, and assumed 10 percent annual decrease as of 2009 In summary, regression analysis tends to smooth fluctuations over time, which causes it to lag in responding large fluctnations. For the majority of the Collier County impact fees, the utilization of regression analysis does not have a significant impact. These are the impact fees that utilize relatively stable national or regional data in the calculation of their indices, and include the following: . Libraries . Fire Rescue Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. March 2009 17 Collier County Indexing Methodology Study . EMS . Government Buildings . Schools . Law Enforcement . Correctional Facilities In contrast, indices for parks and transportation impact fees rely heavily on statewide and local data, which tend to fluctuate significantly. In these cases, the regression analysis responds with a lag. Summary and Conclusions A review of the adopted indexing model resn1ted in the following conclusions and recommendations: . There has been a definite difference between national cost increases and cost increases experienced in Collier County. As such, it is important to incorporate a local adjustment factor in indexing calculations. . The use of regression method tends to smooth out the differences from one year to another, and seems to work well during relatively stable periods. However, it does not respond quickly to large increases or decreases in costs. . Some of the policy options the County should evaluate include the following: I. The County may decide to use the regression method during periods when costs are increasing and use averages when costs are decreasing. This option would resnlt in revenue loss for thc Connty since the regression model slows down the increase in indices, whilc using averages responds more quickly to cost decreases. 2. The County may decide to use two- or three-year rolling averages, which somewhat smoothes out the impact, but is much more reactive to large fluctuations. If this is the case, it is recommended that the County continues to adjust the national, regional, and state indices for local cost. 3. Seemingly, the best option is to start using a two-year average method and not use the regression analysis as a means to stabilize costs from one year to Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. March 2009 18 Collier County Indexing Methodology Study another until the variation in costs over the last few years dissipates. It is also recommended that the Connty uses this approach not only during the periods when costs are decreasing, but also when costs are increasing. 4. Cnrrent1y, the County caps the increase in individual indices at 15 percent unless additional analysis is conductcd to verify the actual increase. It is recommended that the same 15 percent cap should be used when costs are decreasing (i.e., if the changes is greater than -15 percent, the decrease should be capped at 15 percent). Tindale-OIiver & Associates, Inc. March 2009 19 Collier County Indexing Methodology Study APPENDIX A Indexing Methods Used By Other Jurisdictions Methods Used by Other Jurisdictions As part of the methodology analysis, TOA contacted all Florida connties to understand whether they index their impact fees and, if so, which methods they use. The following bullets summarize the results of this survey. . Of the 67 Florida counties, 50 have implemented impact fees in at least one service area. . Currently, of the 50 counties, 6 have placed a moratorinm on impact fee collections due to current economic conditions. . Of the 50 connties, 20 counties index their impact fees in at least one program area. It is our understanding that none of these counties use a regression model or adjust the national indices for local cost. . The majority of the counties base their index on the following indices without adjusting for local cost: o ENR Construction Cost Index; o FDOT Cost Trends; o Consumer Price Index; o Land values o Florida Department of Education Student Stations Cost Factor Report A list of counties with impact fees is included in Table A-I. The list also indicates whether they index their fees and whether they have implemented a moratorium on impact fees. Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. March 2009 A-I Collier County Indexing Methodology Study Table A-1 Florida Counties with Indexing ii- ;:':"", ~ ~ .j Alachua y N Baker N N Bay N N Bradford Y Y Brevard N N Broward y N Charlotte y N Citrus N N Clay N N Col1ier y N Columbia N N De Soto N N Dixie N N Escambia N N Flagler Y N Gilchrist N N Glades y y Gulf y y Hardee N N Hendry Y Y Hernando N N Highlands Y N Hil1sborough N N Indian River N N Jefferson N N Lafayette N N Lake N N Lee N N Levy N N Manatee Y N Marion N N Martin N N Miami-Dade Y N Momoe N N Nassau N Y Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. March 2009 A-2 Collier County Indexing Methodology Study Table A-1 (continued) Florida Counties with Indexing W!Miii~~~~i!imb Okeechobee N N Orane Y N Osceola Y N Palm Beach Y N Pasco Y N Pine lias Y N P~k Y N Pntnam N N Santa Rosa N N Seminole N N St. Lucie Y N Sumter N N Volusia Y N Wakulla N Y Washington N N Source: County representatives and Municode Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. March 2009 A-3 Collier County Indexing Methodology Study ATTACHMENT "A" 2- Year Average - Indexing Scenarios Impact Fee 2-Year Average 2-Year Average 2006 and 2007 data 2007 and 2008 data Emergency Medical 9.80;', 3.2% Services Fire (Dependent Districts) 1.1%) 1.3% Government Buildings 10.8% 7.2% Law Enforcement 6.6(Y;) 4.1% Library 8.6'10 5.3% Educational Facilities 10.1% 5.2% (School) A. Patterson CDES 3/9/2009 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Recommendation to adopt a Resolution amending the Collier County Administrative Code Fee Schedule of development-related review and processing fees as provided for in The Code of Laws and Ordinances, Section 2-11 OBJECTIVE: To have the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) approve a resolution amending the Collier County Administrative Code Fee Schedule of development-related review and processing fees as provided for in The Code of Laws and Ordinances, Section 2-11. CONSIDERATION: The vast majority of operations within the Collier County Community Development and Environmental Services ~ivision (CDES) are fnnded by fees in the core service areas of building permits, building inspections, site plan reviews, and subdivision reviews. This proposal to amend the fee schedule does nol raise the level of any existing building or land use related fee, but in those areas instead encompasses a variety of fee clarifications, fees for activities newly enacted in the LOC or Florida Statute, optional fees for expedited service, and creates lower fees for narrower sections of existing fee covered activities that require less work Included with this Executive Summary are: Attachment "A"- the Resolntion, Attachment "B"- the revised COES Fee Schedule, Attachment "C"- COES Fee Schednle Strike-Through and Underlines, Attachment "0"- Specific Fee Language Side by Side. Also included as a separate attachment to the fee schedule is the February 2007 Construction Valuation Table referenced by the Fee Schednle. The following overview of the fee changes will use the numbering on Attachment "0", the fee side by side, which follows the actual order of changes on the fnll fee schedule attachments. Changes number I (sec A.2) and number 2 (sec C.8.c) are deletions of fees that are redundant or no longer applicable. Change number 3 (see FA.b) creates a fee for new LOC section 5.05.12, which is related to utility system facilities. Change numbers 4,5, and 6 (sec F.14, F.15, F.16) creates fees for new LOC sections 10.02.04 BA, 10.02.03 BA.b.i, and 9.03.07. Fee Schedule change number 7 (sec H.I) clarifies existing language. Change number 8 (sec K.8) creates a re- submittal fee consistent with other sections and a minor fee for Statute allowed extensions, versus a full submittal fee. Change number 9 (sec K.15) creates a consistent re-submittal fee. Change 10 (sec K.21) creates a notification fee consistent with other sections of the fee schedule, and is reflective of actual production and mailing costs. Fee Schedule change number II (sec K.30) is language revision for clarification. Change 12 (sec K.33.a) creates a fee for new LOC section 2.03.07 N.5. Change 13 (sec K.34) is a language revision for clarification. Fee Schedule change number 14 (LA) increases the fee for lien searches and related activities from $5 to $25, reflective of the actual costs incurred in this Fund I I I activity. Change 15 (see L.12) is a language revision for clarification. Change 16 (sec L.16 and L. 18) is a removal of redundant fee sections. Fee schedule change number 17 (sec L.25) creates a small fee for Statute allowed time extensions. Change 18 (sec V.I) removes subsection I of Screen Enclosnre fees, which is redundant with subsection 2. Change number 19 (see TT) allows for the recovery of actual costs for this Fund III function. Change 20 creates an optional Temporary Certificate of Occupancy fee to cover the costs of research and processing of this expedited process. These proposed fee changes were reviewed by the Development Services Advisory Committee (DSAC) at their April I, 2009 meeting. By a vote of xx-xx, DSAC recommended that these fees be In taking this action, DSAC felt that this proposal..... FISCAL IMPACT: This Executive Summary does not require, nor request, any increase in the current allocation of CDES operating or personnel expenses already approved by the BCe. GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: There are no growth management impacts. LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS: This request has been reviewed by the Collier County Attorney's Office, and is legally sufficient for the Board of County Commissioners consideration and approval. RECOMMENDATION: To have the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) approve a resolution amending the Collier County Administrative Code Fee Schedule of development- related review and processing fees as provided for in The Code of Laws and Ordinances, Section 2-11. PREPARED BY: Garrett Mullee, Manager. - CDES Operations Support EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners consider the recommendation by the Collier Connty Productivity Committee to utilize a two-year average to calculate the annual impact fee indexing, the reqnirements for which are set forth in Article III, Special Requirement" for Specific Types of Impact Fee.I', of Chapter 74 of the Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances such that this calculation method will update the adopted methodology in the approved "Collier County Impact Fee Indexing Study" in order to provide an approach for indexing that is more responsive to cost fluctuations; also based on the review, that the Board of County Commissioners provide direction to the County Attorney and the County Manager, or his designee, on proceeding with the preparation of the required ordinance amendment to implement the change to the indexing methodology and corresponding rate schedules, for Government Buildings, Law Enforcement, Dependent Fire, Emergency Medical Services and Educational Facilities Impact Fees, for consideration at a fnture regnlar meeting of the Board of County Commissioners, as an advertised public hearing OBJECTIVE: That the Board of County Commissioners (Board) consider the recommendation by the Collier County Productivity Committee to utilize a two-year average to calcnlate the annual impact fee indexing, the requirements for which are set forth in Article III, Special Requirements for Specific Types oj1mpact Fees, of Chapter 74 of the Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances (Code) such that this calcnlation method will update the adopted methodology in the approved "Collier County Impact Fee Indexing Study" in order to provide an approach for indexing that is more responsive to cost fluctuations; also based on the review, that the Board of County Commissioners provide direction to the County Attorney and the County Manager, or his designee, on proceeding with the preparation of the required ordinance amendment to implement the change to thc indexing methodology and corresponding rate schedules, for Government Buildings, Law Enforcement, Dependent Fire, Emergency Medical Services (EMS) and Educational Facilities (School) Impact Fees, for consideration at a future regular meeting of the Board of County Commissioners as an advertised public hearing. CONSIDERATIONS: Collier County has used impact fees as a funding source for growth- related capital improvements for various facilities since 1978 (Water and Sewer). The most recently adopted impact fee is the Law Enforcement Impact Fee which was adopted by the Board in 2005. In October of 2002, the Board directed that during the upcoming required three-year updates of the individual impact fees that methodology also be developed to provide for the annual indexing of the fees in the years between the formal updates. Impact Fees generate funds to be expended for capital improvements to public facilities necessitated by growth. Rate indexing provides additional funding for capital projects consistent with the increases in actual costs, promotes predictability of the annual revennes, rednces costs for services of rate consultants, allows the development and construction industries to plan more accurately for scheduled increases and helps to avoid large rate escalations caused by time lapses between formal studies. On February 28, 2006, the Board of County Commissioners directed that the indexing methodology for each of the impact fees be reviewed and revised, as appropriate, to reflect localized information and develop a legally defensible indexing program, specific to Collier County. This direction is consistent with Section 163.31801, Florida Statutes, which is the Florida Impact Fee Act 2006, requiring the most recent and localized data be nsed in impact fee calculations. This indexing study was completed by Tindale-Oliver and Associates, Inc. (Consultant) in association with Robert Burchell, Ph.D. from the Center for Urban Policy and Research, Bloustein School of Planning/Public Policy at Rutgers. The stndy was presented to the Board of County Commissioners on May 22, 2007 for their review, consideration and direction. The Board accepted the findings of the report and directed the County Manager (or his designee) to finalize the study, prepare the necessary amendments to the Code to incorporate the changes to the indexing methodologies and the corresponding changes to the impact fee rate schedules for consideration by the Board of County Commissioners as an advertised public hearing. The "Collier County Impact Fee Indexing Study" and associated rate schedules were adopted by the Board on June 26, 2007 via Ordinance No 2007-57 with a delayed effective date of Jannary I, 2008. Currently each of the County's twelve (12) impact fees has an adopted methodology for annual indexing which is specific to the individual impact fee. The "Collier County Impact Fee Indexing Study," identifies four measures (land costs, building costs, building equipment costs and transportation costs) to be used, alone or in combination, to calculate the annual index for each of Collier Connty's impact fees. The adopted methodology then uses the calculated indexes over a 10 year period fitted with a linear regression analysis. This method has an overall smoothing effect on the index and therefore the index is slower to increase in years of escalating costs and slower to decrease in years that costs are declining. The following chart provides the indexes which generated the cnrrent adopted fees for EMS, Fire (Dependent Districts), Government Buildings, Law Enforcement, Library and School Impact Fees. Impact Fee Category Indexing Percentage of Increase Adopted: June 26, 2007 Effective: January I, 2008 EMS l1.8% Fire (Dependent Districts) 5.9% Government Bnildings 9.8% Law Enforcement 8.5% Library 9.4% School 97% The Productivity Committee conducts a review of certain impact fees being updated or indexed (on a rotating schedule) to determine if the fee structure increases are justifiable. At their meeting held on October 15, 2008, the Productivity Committee discussed in length impact fee indexing for EMS, Fire (Dependent Districts), Government Buildings, Law Enforcement, Library, and School. The update studies for the remammg six impact fees (Water, Sewer, Correctional Facilities, Transportation, Community and Regional Parks) are in the process of being completed or have completed and therefore are not subject to indexing on this annual rotation. At the October 15, 2008 meeting, the Productivity Committee unanimonsly approved the following recommendation relative to the proposed impact fee indexing: "That the Board of County Commissioners defer a decision on impact fee adjustments as proposed until such time the methodology can he reassessed. " While the Productivity Committee and the Development Services Advisory Committee (DSAC) each reviewed the cnrrent indexing methodology prior to its adoption by the Board in 2007, and theoretically agreed with the findings of the report based on the "sound technical practices" (Productivity Committee) and "first-class quality and technical merits of the stndy" (DSAC), the Productivity Committee has requested that the Board temporarily defer impact fee indexing to allow the Productivity Committee roughly 3-4 months to re-analyze the methodology. This reqnest was due in part to the desire of the Productivity Committee to consider the appropriateness of an indexing model that is more sensitive to the current economic conditions. On October 28, 2008 at the regular meeting of the Board of County Commissioners, under the Communications Section of the Agenda, the Board directed that the Productivity Committee be afforded the opportunity to review the indexing methodology consistent with the Committee's request. The Board also agreed that thc County's impact fee consultants, Tindale-Oliver and Associates would assist with the review. During the December 17, 2008 Productivity Committee review of the "Collier County Transportation Impact Fee Update Study" (Update Study) the committee also recommended, by a majority vote, that all of the impact fee rates be rolled back to the rates in effect on December 31, 2007. This gnidance was provided in addition to the recommendations given related to the Update Study. On January 13, 2009 and February 10, 2009, the Board provided direction related to the implementation of the Update Stndy and corresponding rate schedule and the change to the timing of payments to obtain a Certificate of Adequate Public Facilities (COA). The Board elected not to implement the rollback recommendation of the Productivity Committee. Therefore, on January 21, 2009, the Productivity Committee provided further direction to staff and the impact fee consultant to facilitate the completion of a report on indexing options for the Committee's review. On February 18, 2009, the Productivity Committee reviewed the materials prepared and presented by the impact fee consultant and determined that the methodology for annual indexing should be revised from the current use of regression analysis to the use of the average cost change over a two year or three year period, as this method is intended to be more responsive to cost fluctuations. This recommendation was approved unanimously by the Committee. The impact fee consultant has since determined that the two year average shonld be utilized for the purpose of the indexing calculation because of its responsiveness to cost changes. This approach is consistent with the Productivity Committee's recommendation. The table below provides a side-by-side comparison of the scenarios for each of the impact fees that are scheduled to be indexed. Column "B" represents the proposed index using the adopted regression analysis model and Column "C" provides the index using the two-year average. Column "C" also utilizes the most current data available for the indexes and therefore reflects the Productivity Committee recommcndation. A B C Impact Fee Category Calculated Index Using Calculated Index Using 2- Adopted Regression Year Average (2007 and Analysis 2008 data) Emergency Medical Services 13% 3.2% F ire Protection (Dependent Districts) 7.4% 1.3% Government Buildings 11.9% 7.2% Law Enforcement 10.2% 4.1% Library 11.2% 5.3% School 11.7% 6.5')10 As displayed in the chart above, the calcnlation utilizing the two-year average is more sensitive to cost fluctuations than the adopted methodology using regression analysis. While none of the indices reflect a negative number, there is a significant downward trend in the percentages. It is also important to note that of the index measures (land costs, building costs, building equipment costs and transportation costs) the greatest changes have been in the areas of land cost and transportation costs. The types of impact fees being reviewed in this cycle have the greater weight of the index placed in building costs and equipment costs where the downward trend is not as dramatic. A comparison of the two-year average calculation using 2006 and 2007 data versus 2007 and 2008 data is provided as Attachment "A" in order to provide an example of the ongoing changes. In the fnture, as costs begin to increasc this method will also quickly capture any upward trends. In the event that the Board elects to implement the Productivity Committee's recommendation and amend the indexing methodology to utilize the two-year average calculation, the indices will continue to be calculated and revised annually consistent with the new approach. Additionally, in the event that the index for a specified impact fee equals a 15 percent or greater change, the cost increase will be verified through bid data, land purchases and other available data, as recommended by the Consultant and legal counsel in order to the accuracy of the calculation. Upon receiving direction from the Board related to this item, staff will provide the Development Services Advisory Committee (DSAC) with a full report for their review and recommendations. STAFF ANALYSIS/RECOMMENDATIONS: With the change to a two-year average, the percentages by which the impact fee rates will bc adjusted have been greatly reduced. However, as stated above, none of the indices reflect a negative number which would translate to a reduction in fees. The recommendation by the Productivity Committee provides an option to continue with the concept of indexing while utilizing a model that is sensitive to cost fluctuations. By retaining the provision that any change of 15% or more (increase or decrease) must be verified, the accuracy of the calculation will be scrutinized and the volatility of the two- year average will also be reviewed. While the adopted indexing methodology utilizing the regression analysis is technically correct and legally defensible, the currcnt economic conditions dictate that a different methodology is appropriate. In the event that the Board is seeking to take action that will not result in the increase of any impact fees, the corresponding action may be to accept the Productivity Committee's recommendation to utilize the two-year averagc for calculation of the indices and amend the Code requirements to reflect that direction. However, the Board would also direct that the rate schedule changes generated by the application of the index would not be implemented duc to the economic downturn. As stated above, thc impact fees that are subject to this cycle of indexing are scheduled for a full review during Calendar Year 2009. Therefore, the Board shonld also determine if it is appropriate to delay the schednled reviews. Staff recommends that if the Board elects this course of action that it be limited to this Calendar Year with staff reporting back to the Board in November or December (2009) in order to develop a schedule for indexing and full studies. This action would not affect the ongoing Parks Impact Fee Update Study or the Correctional Facilities Impact Fee Update Study, as those are required 2008 update studies that are nearing completion and will be presented to the Board at a future date. Water and Sewer Impact Fces are scheduled for indexing in 2009 and will proceed on that schedule nnless otherwise directed by the Board. FISCAL IMPACT: The following chart provides a comparison between the application of the current indexing methodology (regression analysis) and the proposed revised indexing methodology (two-year average) and the dollar difference between the two indices for each of the individual impact fees for a 2,000 square foot (living area) single family home. Impact Fee Current Rate Indexing Indexing $ Difference (Per Dwelling (Regression) (2- Year Average) Between Regression Unit) and 2- Year A vera!!e Emergency $125.26 $141.67 $129.27 ($12.40) Medical Services Fire Protection $1,032 (IC) $1,108.37 (IC) $1,045.42 (IC) ($62.95) lC Isles of Capri (IC) $I,776(OFD) $],907.42(OFD) $1,799.09 (OFO) ($108.33) OFO and Ochopee (OFO) Government $886.09 $991.53 $949.89 ($41.64) Buildings Law Enforcement $344.54 $379.68 $358.67 ($21.01) Library $553.84 $615.87 $583.19 ($32.68) School $10,098.98 $11,280.56 $10,755.41 ($525.] 5) While the chart above provides a comparison between the two indexing calculations, the chart below provides the changes to the impact fee rates, by category, based on the Prodnctivity Committee's recommendation to utilize a two-year average for the calculation. As stated above, none of the indices reflect a negative number therefore the below reflects increases to the adopted rates. Impact Fee Current Rate Indexing Dollar Increase (Per Dwelling Unit) (2- Year Average) Emergency Medical $]25.26 $129.27 $4.01 Services Fire Protection Isles of Capri (Ie) $1,032 (IC) $1,045.42 (IC) $ 13.42 (IC) and Ochopee (OFO) $1,776 (OFO) $1,799.09 (OFO) $23.09 (OFD) Government Buildings $886.09 $949.89 $63.80 Law Enforcement $344.54 $358.67 $14.13 Library $553.84 $583.19 $29.35 School $10,098.98 $10,755.41 $656.43 TOTAL INCREASE $781.14 Total impact fees for a 2,000 square foot (living area) single-family home currently total $35,657.1], on Connty Water and Sewer service. The indexing changes above would increase the total to $36,438.25. This equates to a 2% increase in the total impact fees for a single-family home. However, these numbers do not take into acconnt the rednctions to the Road Impact Pees that are proposed to become effective on June 8, 2009. The associated reduction to a 2,000 square foot single-family home is $1,150.55 which is 10% in that category. The following are additional examples of the total impact fee increases related to indexing for common land uses. As stated above, these numbers do not reflect the Road Impact Pees proposed to become effective on June 8, 2009, which reflect downward adjustments to the General Industrial and Office categories and an increase in the Retail category. Land Use Current Total Total Impact Fees Dollar Increase Impact Fees* After Indexing* (2 Year Average) Retail $248,066 $249,531 $1,465 10,000 square feet Office $254,025 $254,882 $857 10,000 square feet General Industrial $136,314 $136,762 $448 10,000 square feet * Includes estimated Water and Sewer impact Fees. Actual Water and Sewer Impact Fees are calculated on infol111ation that is specific to the proposed construction. Revenue projections related to the indexing of the individual impact fees depend heavily on the permitting trends during the time period of the impact fee increase. Any changes in permitting activity and trends associated with the size of new homes and/or commercial and other non- residential buildings being constructed in Collier County will directly affect this impact fee revenue stream. In accordance with Section 163.31801, Florida Statutes a minimum 90-day notice is given after the final adoption of an impact fee or impact fee increase and the implementation of the fee. This allows permits that are "in process" via a complete building permit application to remain at the then current ratcs and are thcrefore not snbject to imposition of increased impact fees. Because of the decline in construction activity impact fee revenue has also been significantly rednced. Based upon actual impact fee collections and current permitting activity and forecasts, the following is the projected change in impact fee revenne associated to the indexing rate revisions assnming that development activity remains constant. Any further decline in activity will also directly affect the impact fees collections. Additionally, any increases to the impact fee revenue generated by this proposed change will not be recognized in Fiscal Year 2009 due to the timeframe for public hearing and adoption and the required 90-day notice period. Impact Fee Potential Increase in Annnal Collections Based on Current Activity Emergency Medical Services $6,500 Fire Protection - Dependent Districts $74 Isles of Capri and Ochopee Government Buildings $57,000 Law Enforcement $13,400 Library $18,000 School $200,000 Finally, the six impact fees above are scheduled for a full update study (3 year) as required by Section 74-502 of the Code which requires that impact fees be reviewed "at least every three years." The cost of an annual update generally ranges from $60,000 to over $100,000 depending on the scope of work. The average cost of the most recent studies was $70,600. The cost of these studies is incurred by the applicable impact fee trust fund for which the study is being conducted. GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: The concept of annnal indexing is consistent with Objective 1.2 of the Capital Improvement Element (CIE) of the Collier County Growth Management Plan (GMP), which states: "Future development will bear a proportionate cost of facility improvements necessitated by growth." Impact Fees generate funds to be expended for capital improvements to pnblic facilities necessitated by growth. Rate indexing provides additional funding for capital projects, promotes predictability of the annual revenues, reduces costs for services of rate consultants, allows the development and construction industries to plan more accnrately for scheduled increases and helps to avoid large rate escalations caused by time lapses between formal studies. Additionally, this approach is consistent with Section 163.3180 I, Florida Statutes, which is the Florida Impact Fee Act 2006, requiring the most recent and localized data be used in impact fee calculations. LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS: Attorney will work with staff to simple majority vote. -JAK No legal issues are presented at this time. The County implement Board direction. This is a regular item requiring RECOMMENDATION: Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners (Board) consider the recommendation by the Collier County Productivity Committee to ntilize a two-year average to caIcnlate the annual impact fee indexing, the requirements for which are set forth in Article III, Special RequirementsJar Specific Types of Impact Fees, of Chapter 74 of the Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances such that this calculation method will update the adopted methodology in the approved "Collier County Impact Fee Indexing Study" in order to provide an approach for indexing that is more responsive to cost flnctuations; also based on the review, that the Board of County Commissioners provide direction to the County Attorney and the County Manager, or his designee, on proceeding with thc preparation of the required ordinance amendment to implement the change to the indexing methodology and corresponding rate schedules, for Government Bnildings, Law Enforcement, Dependent Fire, Emergency Medical Services and Edncational Facilities Impact Fees, for consideration at a future regular meeting of the Board of County Commissioners as an advertised public hearing. Prepared by: Amy Patterson, Impact Fee and Economic Development Manager CDES Responses to DSAC issues raised at the last meeting. A. Dumpster permits should be combined with building permits in most cases. Accessory structures have to be permitted separately so the main structure can receive its CO. If there is a dumpster on 0 set of plans then it is the some as having 2 separate structures. It is possible that we cauld hold up the CO because the plan was not complete. Even if the site had 2 permit numbers on the same set of plans if one foiled the other could not be approved. B. Public and private schools should be treated equally Public schools are deemed to be an authority with junsdictlon and in essence is the" own permitting authority and as such their plans are not subject to county review Not so with private schools. Exemption of pnvate schools would require a policy change from the Board as well as subsequent amendments to the LOC.. C. The EAC and PAB should be combined since Ihere is so much overlap in their reviews. The Staff time necessary to attend and prepare for both meeting could be cut In half Perhaps the combined Committee could have 3 members from lhe EAC and 6 members from the PAB. This issue is dead. BCC will advertise for new membership D. Attendance of Pre-application Meetings should be optional for the Applicant. The fee would still be collected In the event tb."-9J2Q1lcaQLg~ercISe_';Jlle uS.e._QfJb.e~QJ211QQ but Applicant and Staff time could be saved.1 I have no problem making this a option but if the applicant decides to forgo a pre-app and we reject an application for insufficiency it counts as a first submittal and the applicant is charged the 2"d submittal fee when they reapply. This idea was discussed a few years ago when we split 113/131 fees and it was decided that the time spent was worth the meeting. Personally, I believe that we are going to end up extending the review time as a result as issues related to the application/interpretatIOn of the code that could have been discussed at a pre-app will end up being delayed and become part of the review process E. Is the Software implementation including too much customization thereby prolonging the implementation? [Space Inserted] There's a no, yes, no answer to this one. For Phose 1, Code Enforcement, it was one department with simple processes so this wasn't an issue, and the Phase went live pretty quickly. For Phase 2, Planning, customization is one of perhaps three issues that has slowed things down. For Phase 2 a lot of customization couldn't be avoided, our LOC requirements are in fact different and more complex than most other jurisdictions, and there is no out of the box type solution. We don't have the option of changing processes that are dictated by law. Other factors in this phase going slow include it's simply bigger, the other phases involve one department, this involves Zoning, Camp Planning, Engineering, Environmental, Impact Fees, PUO Monitoring, and a variety of reviewers in other ~ivisions. The other slow down reason was that Municipal was acquired by another company during the Phase, Harris Computer Systems, and that diverted their focus for a few manths during the transition in management. For Phase 3, Building, it's just one department that does things like most other building departments in Florida, and we do not anticipate much customization and a quick turnaround like with Code. F. Confirm that all of lhe scanned documents Will be available to all departments and to deSign professionals Yes, all scanned documents ore readily accessible through Webxtender, which County staff can hove on account issued by IT. As for the design professionals and members of the public, the recards deportment has a station set up in their area for external customers to have staff assisted access. No access is available via the internet. G. Building square footage for impact fee calculations should not include vents and shafts in accordance with building code. Impact fees are based on the square footage based on the information on the cover sheet. Shafts and vents can be excluded from total square footage calculations. H. Delete 50508 in its enlirety. The architectural provisions of the code which were substantially revised and relaxed in 2004. If there are specific sections that are difficult to understand or Implement we can look at them. Architectural standards help preserve and protect the identity of a commumty (as well as property values) 1. Review fees are simply too high. They should be no more than 2% of construction for SOP's and subdivision plans. Rezoning fees should be proportionately lower also. In some cases, county review fees are higher than what we charge to prepare the work. The county only has to review our work, and their fees should be much lower. Many ancillary fees should be eliminated. The basic fee should cover everything. Fire reviews should be eliminated unless a fire review is actually necessary. The CDES fee schedule is based on the cost of services provided. The only way fees can be reduced is if the services ore subsidized by the generol fund. 2. Limit the number of reviewers on applications. SOP's and subdivisions shouldn't have more than 6 or so reviewers: zoning, engineering, landscaping, utilities. environmental, and transportation are the critical reviews. Others can be folded into these. This would also reduce staffing requirements and reduce operating cost commensurate with fee reductions. It would also greatly speed up review times, which is the major complaint with county reviews. Reviews performed ore pursuant to the we. In addition to the disciplines noted stoff conducts architectural and water management reviews. 3. Establish better liaison or coordination with other departments (e.g. transportation) who must review applications to improve the timeliness of their review and eliminate complications from last-minute staff comments. Thank you and noted. 4. Reduce the sidewalk requirements, especially on external roads. A property owner shouldn't be responsible for building sidewalks that aren't on his property. The county should do this if they want sidewalks. Tronsportotion issue.. 5. Reduce the requirements for SOPA's and SOPI's. Most SOPA's should be handled as SOPI's, and most SOPI's should be handled as field changes. Larger tolerances in building square footage should also be allowed without triggering an SOPA. The SOP requirements have been combined and reduced and narrowed down over the past years. Please cite speCifics so thai we have a clearer understating of the request 6. Reduce or eliminate the requirement for boundary surveys on all submittals. In most cases, a legal description is sufficient. After all, that's all that appears on someone's deed. Agree. only as far as the term "all submittals" is concerned because we've had parcels well Within the boundary of large sites where there is no chance that the construction will result in encroachments and no need for a "survey". a simple legal descnption will do, but the person that makes the call should probably be the County Surveyor and he should be allowed to issue a letter stating why the survey isn't reqUired. BUT. we thmk that all single family building permit submittals should have a boundary survey so that we can see encroachments and existing easements... that's where we've had the most problems gomg to the BCC 7. Stop requiring the SFWMD permit before SDP or subdivision approval. This could be changed to requiring the SFWMD permit before construction begins. That's what is used to be. Permits are required by stoff to assure that approved plans conform to the approved district permit. 8. Stop requiring conservation easements over all native vegetation. This should only be required for larger preserves as part of state and/or federal permits. Also stop requiring preserve management plans on all native vegetation. Po lie}' 6.1.1 OJ (~llh(;' COf/serva/ion and ( '(Jus/al /\4anugement J:'/emef/t wus amended asf()/I()~l's: "Areas thatluftill tht' nulive V('KetU/101I re/Nllion slandards and criteria nl/his polin.! shull he .'leI aside as preserve areas. AfI.--e(Jn-sifi.! ffF {{!IsJyjt-site presl!rve areas shall he id.cY/ti:,+iL'd as ,,':.:P::1t3.';'" lrm..:ls 8-1::,1 profee/ed by a permanent conservation ctlSL'Jr::::1.' mecbanism to prohibit further developnwnt, consistent with the requirements of Ihis policv UW1YI!e !!.l.l2fLmonent conservation mechan ;'liJ!J...)rLCludi n e- COf/Sf rvat ion easemen 1~~:L.!..((gJii!gfjjQ~J:!-E2g_Lijj_c.slg]!{;:lQJ2me n ( mav varv based on vreserve area Sl~ tvoe oj' develofJmenl qPP.r.QJ!..91._.~Y1d J2!b.r;t f(u;.tors, as set fiJrlh in the Countv 's land develop_melJLtezulations. ,. To sati.l/.j; Ihe requirements of Policy 6. J. J (3) in an allempt 10 reduce the time and expense needed 10 prepure and process conservation easements, stqfl proposed eliminating the requirement for conservation easemenls .Ii)r smaller preserves. During the 200H puhlic hearings a/ the C( '1'( '. the CCPC directed slatf to work wilh the ('ounlv AlIorney Otfice 10 "-,plore olher (v!)(!S qj'legal instruments in lieu olcof}servution easemenls. llle Planning ('ommission expressed their desire to have all preserve areas recordl!d hI' some type of legal instrument, so thl!Y could he accessed Ihmagh the puhllc records. Wilh Ihe help of Ihe ('ountJ' Allornn' Otfice a comparison }j)us made hetwl!en easements und rt'slriClh'e ('ovenanls. Per Ihi! direction (~/lhe ('('PC andfrom Ihe ana~vsis provided h.v the ('OHnly AIIOrll(!Y Office. statl recommends Ihat conservution easements continu(! /() he requiredf{)r (/11 preserves Stqff recommended lust cycle, not re(juiring preSf!rve management plan..,. .Ii)r preserves I(!ss than 5 acres in size and 'where listed or prolf!C/ed species are not utJ/i:::inj!, the presen'es. The CCPC' was fi)r the most parI in agreement \>vilh this amendment and slaflM--'ill prohah~v make a similar recommendation Ihis (yel/!. 9. For properties undergoing renovation or expansion, reduce the requirements to upgrade existing properties to current codes. This should apply to the building and site work including landscaping, ADA accessibility, sidewalks, ete. We should be encouraging improvement of property, not discouraging it by making it too costly. Staff recognizes the need to amend the LOC to allow for a proportionate applicotion of the requirements in the LOC for properties being redeveloped/rehabilitated. That said, staff needs industry input and involvement to understand how best to amend the code to achieve this objective while at the same time assuring that improvements proportionally eliminate existing nonconformities. 10. Sites under 10 acres and 2 acres impervious should only require water quality stormwater detention, not the 25-year storm attenuation (SFWMD rules exempt these sites from their requirements). According to the SFWMD. their rules exempt those small sites from permit procedures. not from permit rules 40E-400.315 No Notice General Permit lor Aetivities in Uplands. (I) A no notice general permit is hereby granted for the construction or alteration afminar systems located entirely within uplands, provided that the proposed system meets all of the follovving criteria: tal The total project area is less than 10 acres; (bl The total proiect area involves less than 2 acres of impervious surface; (c) No activities will impact wetlands or other surface waters; (d) No activities afC conducted in, on, or over wetlands or other surface waters~ (e) Drainage facilities shall not include pipes with diameters gn:atcr than 24 inches or the hydraulic equivalent and shall not utilize pumps in any manner~ and (I) The project is not part of a larger common plan of development or sale. (2) A no notice general permit is herehy' granted tiJr the construction or alteration of surface water management systems, provided that the SUrhKl' vvater management system meets all of the conditions of paragraph (a), be 1m",', and all thresholds and conditions of at least one of the paragraph (b) or (c) below. (a) General Conditions. I. The surface water management system design plans must be signed and scaled by' a professional engineer or other individual authorized by Imv; 2. The surface vvater management systl'm must meet the LTltl'ria spl'cilied in Rules 40E-4.301 and 40E-4.302. F.Al'.: 3. The project must not bl' located in natural water bodil'S. viable wetlands habitat, waters of the state, or a Flonda Outstanding V\'akr as lisll:d in Rule 62-302.700, F.A.C.~ and 4. The pennittee must have obtained a vvorks of the District permit pursuant to Chapter 40E-6, F.A.C., if the project proposes to connect with, place structures in or across or otherwise make use of works of the District. Specific Authority 373.044,373.113,373.118,373.171,403.813,403.814 F5. Law Implemented 373.118, 373.413,373.416,373.426 FS. History- New 10-3-95, Amended 4-14-03 The District and our engineering department both agree that the rule means both water quality and quantity but generally the 3 in. 0 bleeder passes more than the minimum allowable anyway. A three inch bleeder under a foot of head will pass about. 25 cfs. which at the maximum allowable rate of 15 cfs is good for a 1.6 acre site.. and many of our baSinS have allowable rates much lower than that. Even after we lose the delegation. SFWMD says that we still have to check the sites that fall under the 10/2 rule 11. Stop requiring ADA sidewalks "to the public road." The intent here is to provide ADA access between buildings and vehicles in the parking lot, not beyond which there is no need for such access. Agree. 12. Impact fees are astronomical and discourage growth and development. They are actually more significant in construction than some of the actual construction features. The county should look at reducing them (particularly roads) and look for alternate, broader-based funding sources (ad valorem tax, real estate exchange tax, sales tax, etc.). The requirement for prepayment of 50% of road impact fees should be ended. The cost is simply too burdensome for builders, developers and lends, and is actually chasing away potential businesses and industry from the area. Noted. This is not a staff issue as it is a policy issue which needs to be addressed to the Board. 13. Architectural guidelines should be relaxed, especially for site work. Foundation landscaping should be more flexible to allow narrower landscape strips. Pavers shouldn't be required. Benches and other amenities shouldn't be required. I do not understand the comment regarding site work or flexibility of foundation landscaping. Please clanfy. 14. Architectural guidelines should be relaxed for buildings in industrial parks and similar developments where architecture is not as important as function. Some industrial parks should be allowed to look like industrial parks. Architectural for Industnal areas are applicable to those projects that abut arterial or collector roads or are Within 300 feet of residential (and PUDs but there aren.t many industnal PUDs) Industrial buildings warehousing and dlstnbutlon and storage bUIldings are all spectftcally identified In the Code and have relaxed standards The vanatlon In massing and fagade treatments are applicable only to those facades facing the street and/or residential. 15. MANY codes should be changed for the Immokalee area, especially landscaping and architectural guidelines. This may require a separate code for Immokalee, which may be in progress, but this needs to be on the front burner as Immokalee may be key to the county's economic growth. Changes to both the lAMP in the GMP and modification to the LDC have been submitted by the Immokalee CRA and are currently under review. c "l~i _._-^.~#-----.----".-..~.~._~^ y c " u " y f~. -,,--.,.. ". . "'~'____'_0' '0" COLLIER COUNTY COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DEVELOPMENT AND FEE SCHEDULE Bee Proposed version, April 14, 2009 Contents: A) ADMINISTRATION B) BLASTING PERMITS & INSPHTJONS C) LNYIRONMFN']Al./],ANI)S('APIN(j l)) LXCAVATlON PHtMITS E) FIRE CODE RI':VIEvV FITS F) SITI: DI':VLJ.tWMEN'[' PJ./\NS G) SUBDIVISION H) I:NejINEERING INSPECTION !TI~S J) TEMPORARY USE FITS .1) WELL PERMITS/INSPEC"TJONS K) ZONIN(.i/I.AND LISE PI'TITIONS Ll MISC!-:LLANEO!JS M) BUILDING PERMIT APPLlC/\ nON FIT N) BtJlLDINC; J11J{MIT [,ITS 0) j,:UTTRICAL PlJ{MIT I'U:S III Pl.liMHIMj PERMIT rl:'l-:s Q) MITIl/\NIC/\L I'LRl\.1lT ITT:S R) FlRL PRFVENTION /\l\<D CO\TRO[ ['IJ<l\.'lIT 1,'1,]-<"; S} MOBIL!:] [Ol\.1J:.'()I-FICI TRI\J[IJ{ /\1\1) OTIUR ![{I\II L1< PI.RMJlIIT'1 T) ('I !]CKU,:S i\ND SIi'vllli\!{ STRU ''II Wl-S IJ) POUL OR SPA l'U{r-.-lIT rlTS V) SCIU:I'~ J-:NCLUSUI{I PUUvllT & PA!'J ROOI. FITS W) S]GN PLR\1IT 1.I-1,:S X) CONVEN]lNCL PERM]T F!:FS Y) REV]SION AND AS BUILT PLAN REvn.:\\" FEES~ CORRFCT]ONS TO PI.ANS Z) PERMIT EXTENSION AA) DEMOLITION OF BUILDING OR STRtJCTURL PFRMIT FEES HB) PRE-MOVING INSPECTION FEES CCI INSPECTION I'U,S DD) RI'INSPECTION IUS I]:) FAILUR].: TO ()tHAI:\.I\ PERMIT FF) LlCENS]NG Ci(Jj lJl1PIICATI; I'LRMll CARDS ] 11]) CHANt;!: 01. ('O!\iTRACTOI{ OJ{ SIII3CONTKAtT<)j{'i 11\ PLR\1IT FIT RI:H;~US J.lJ RH_'ORD RURIFVAI KK) COPY FITS 1.1.) RLSLARC] I MM) SIIBSCKIPTION SI-:R VJe]. NN) ]-:L]TTRON]C DATA CONVLRSION SURCI1ARCiJ. 00) RHj]STRAT]ON OF RLNTAL U\\,[LLlNGS PI') CERTIFICATE TO BOARD IH:ILD1NCi QQ) ADDITIONAL ITL Rl,YUNU PROVISIONS RR) RLHIND PROVJSIO!\S SS) ADDITIONAL FIT PROVISIONS TT) PLI~llC VLH]CIJ,: l-Cll{ fllRL FI':I':S lIlI)"P/\YMENT 1l\J LIU! OF'" H]: P)f{ flATIJ,^",i\YS (SIl>I-\\,\I,KS ,'\\il) I~IKI' L\NJ:S) VV) OPTIONAL l:'XI'l'DIIl:t) HI IIlDIN(i l'I'RVJlT 1'1 I\N I~ I,VI1'WS WW) FLNCI'S XX) crrnlJ-'ICA II 01' ()( '('IIP,\NCY Fees are in bold CDES Financia] Administration, rev OJ! 18/09 Iv.,. 2 .2 2 3 4 4 5 6 6 7 7 9 II II 12 12 11 13 13 11 IJ IJ 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 15 I" ]5 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 17 17 17 17 18 18 18 18 19 19 rag\.: 1 FEES ARE ESTABLISHED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS RESOLUTION, AND CANNOT BE WAIVED OR SUSPENDED WITHOUT AN ACTION BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS. ANY QUESTIONS CONCERNING THE APPLlCABII.ITY OF FEES SHALL BE CONCLUSIVELY DETERMINED BY THE DIRECTOR OF TilE APPROI'IA 1'1' DEPARTMENT. AS APPI.ICABLE. WHERE AS PART OF A REZONING. PLAT OR SIMILAR APPI.ICATION TYPI'., THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DIRECTS APPROVAL OF I'UTURL DEVELOPMI'NT ORDERS DIFFERENT FROM THE STANDARD TYPE OF APPROV AL PRO(TSSLS REQUIRED, THE DIRECTOR OF THE APPROPRIATE DEPARTMENT SHAI.I. DETERMINE THE FEES TO BI, APPLIED TO THE PROCESS NECESSARY TO MEET THE BOARDS REQUlRLMENTS IHE APPLlCAlll.I FEES SHALL BE 1'1 lOSE WHICH MOST CLOSELY RESEMBLE T!-IOSE CHARGED FOR SIMILAR PROCLSSES INCLUDING EXTRA FEES FOR ADVERTISING AND THE I.IKL. A) ADMINISTRATION I) Official Interpretation Request of Land Development Code (LDC), Growth Management Plan (GMP), or Building Construction Administrative Code (Administrative Code). Based on staff hours: Less than 20 hours $1,500.00,20 to 40 hours $3,000.00. more than 40 hours $5,000.00 2) N/A 3) Determination of Vested Rights. $100.00 (plus the County's out-ot'pocket expenses associated with hearing officer and hearings) 4) Appeal of Vested Rights Determination. $100.00 5) Amendment to Land Development Code. $3,000.00 6) Appeal afan Administrative Decision (as may be provided for in the Collier County Administrative Code or the LDC). $1000.00 (non-refundable) 7) Appeal to Board of Zoning Appeals or Building Board or Adjustments and Appeals (as may be provided for in the Collier County Administrative Code or the LDC). $1,000.00 (non-refundable) B) BLASTING PERMITS & INSPECTION I) 30 day permit fee, non-refundable payable upon application. $250.00 2) 90 day permit fee, non-retimdable payable upon application. $600.00 3) Yearly permit fee, non-refundable payable upon application. $1,500.00 4) Renewal permit fee, non-refundable payable upon application. $200,00 5) After-the-fact fee, due to blasting without a permit. $10,000.00 6) Fine fee, per detonated shot with after-the-faet permit. $200.00 7) Handler fee. for handler who assists the user or blaster in the use of explosives. $100.00 8) Blasting Inspection Fee. $200.00 (per inspection) 9) Inspection fees shall be paid upon issuanc!.: ora blasting permit based on the estimated number of blasts. Upon completion. fees will he adjusted to relled actual number of blasts. C) ENVIRONMENTAL/LANDSCAPING 1) Site Clearing Permit first acre or fraction oran acre. $250.00 each additional acre or fraction of an acre. $50.00 ($3.000.00 maximum) 2) Agricultural Land Clearing a. Land Clearing Notification $250.00 CDFS l'inam:ial Admnl1stnlti\HL rn (l.;': 1 X/Ii\) 1\\ page 2 b. Land Clearing Permit $250.00 each additional acre or traction of an acre. $50.00 ($3,000.00 maximum) 3) Landscape Tree Removal Fee $250 4) Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) $2,500.00 I,,, 1st submittal and 2"" submittal if applicable, 3rd submittal $1,000.00, 4th and subsequent submittals $500.00 each 5) Landscape Re-inspection I" $50.00, 2"" $75,00, every inspection afterward $100,00 6) Vehicle on the Beach Permit Application. $250.00 (Permit fee shall be waived for public and non-profit organizations engaging in environmental activities for scientific, conservation or educational purposes). 7) Beach Nourishment Permits - $400 8) Special Treatment Review a. First five acres or less. $400.00 b. Each additional acre, or traction thereof. $50.00 ($5.00000 Maximum) c. nia 9) Coastal Construction Setback Line (CCSI.): a. CCSL Permits $400.00 b. Variance - Petition. $1000.00 10) Sea Turtle Permit- a. Sea Turtle Handling Permits. $25.00 b. Sea Turtle Nesting Area Construction Permit. $200.00 c. Sea Turtle Nest Relocation. $100.00 II) Vegetation Removal Permit a. First acre or fraction of an acre less. $250.00 b. Each additional acre. or fraction thereof. $50.00 ($3,000.00 Maximum) 12) After-the-fact Environmental or Landscape Permits a. CCSL Variance Petition. 2x normal fee b. All other Environmental or Landscape Permits. 4x normal fee 13) Informal Wetland Jurisdictional determination for single family parcels up to 5 acres - $300.00 14) Conservation Easement review fee - $300.00 application fee plus the following additional site fee: $200.00 for CE acres less than 5 acres; $400.00 for CE area between 5 acres and 10 acres; $600.00 for CE area greater than 10 acres and less than 20 acres: $800.00 for CE areas between 20 and 50 acres; and an additional $200.00 for every 40 acres of CI: area ovcr 50 acres. 15) Listed or Protected Species review fee (when an EIS IS not required) - $1000.00 D) EXCA V A nON PERM ITS I) Annual Renewal. $300.00 2) Application (Private). $400.00 3) Application (Commercial). $2,000.00 4) Application (Development). $400.00 5) $200.00 per inspection paid in advance for 12 months 6) Reapplication: $300.00 plus $200.00 per month inspection fee 7) Cubic Yardage Review Fee: $200,00 first 5000 cy, plus $10.00 per additional 1000 cy with a maximum of $20,000.00 8) Time Extension. $150.00 plus $200.00 per month inspection fee 9) After-the-fact [:xcavation Penn it. 4x application fee 10) Over excavation penalty fee per yard. Plus Permit/Review $0.05 per cubic yard fee, unless maximum have been paid, ~Slin=""~~m'm"'"t~m_"'03~K!09IW~_____. .~~___. page 3 E) FIRE CODE REVIEW FEES 1) Fire Code Review fees associated vvith each of the following processes: $200.00 $]50.00 $]00.00 $]SU.OO $IOO.OU $150.00 $100.00 $]00.00 $IOO.()(I $]()O.OO $ I 00.00 $200.00 $ I 50.00 $150.00 $150.00 $100.00 $]00.00 $150.00 SDP ~ Site Development Plan SDPA - Site Development Plan. Amendment SOPI - Site Development Plan, Insubstantial SIP - Site Improvement Plan SIPI - Site Improvement Plan. Insubstantial PSP - Prelimin<:lry Subdivision Plans PSPA - Preliminary Subdivision Plans. Amendment PPL - Plans & Plat. Subdivision FP - Final Plat CONSTK. - Construction Plans. Subdivisioll'l!tilities lep - ('onstrUl,.:tlon Plans, Insubstantial DRl - Development of Regional Impact m. DOA - Development Order. Amendment PUDZ - Planned Unit Development, Rezone PUDA - Planned Unit Development, ^mendmcnt POI - Planned Unit Development. Insobstantial RZ - Rezone, Regular Zoning CU - Conditional Use a. b. c. d. e. f. U b' h. I. J. k. I. n. o. p. q. r. F) SITE DEVELOPMENT PLANS I) Site Development Plan Review (SDP) $5000.00 a. plus $40.00 per DIU b. plus $100.00 per residential building structure c. plus $.10 per square foot for non-residential exct:pt that structurt:s designed ext.:lusively for parking (parking garages) shall be t.:ulculated at $.05 per squarc.' foot d. plus $200.00 pcr building for non-residcntial c. Additional fees for 3111 revicvv SI.OOO.OO. 4\h rt:vicw SI,500.00, Sib review $2,000.00, 6th and subsequent reviews $2,500.00 When a building consist of both residential and non-residential (commercial, retail. office) uses, the following fees will apply. a. $5000.00 base fee plus $40.00 per DIU b. $200.00 per building for non-residential c. plus SO.IO per square foot ofnon-residentiallloor area d.. Additional fees for yd review $1,000.00, 4\h review SI,500.00, Slh review S2,OOO.00, 6th and subsequent reviews S2,500.00 2) Pre-application fee. $500.00 (to be credited toward application fee submittal) a. Second and subsequent pre-app meetings at the applicant's request shall not be credited towards application fees. b. Second and subsequent prc-app meetings at staffs request will be held at no charge to the applicant. c. Applit.:ations submitted 9 months or more after the date of the last pre-app meeting shall not be credited towards application tees and a new pre-application meeting will be required. 3) Simultaneous Review Fee (planning review of simultaneous building permit applications) $100.00 per building permit application. 4) Site Development Plan Insubstantial Change a. Site Developnli..:nt Plan Insubstantial ChangL' S400.00 fur first sheet SIOO.OO for each and every additional sheet submitted CDES Financial Administratioll, r..:v 03/ 18/D" lw p<lge 4 b. Sitt: Developm~nt Plan Insubstantial Change !()r Public Utility System Ac(essory' Uses. $500.00 for the first sheeL $125.00 /(Jr cal.:h and every additional sheet. C. Additional fees for yo review $11000.00, 4th Revicvv $11500.00, sth and subsequent review $2,000.00 5) Site Development Plan Conceptual Review (CSP), Unitied Development Plan (UDP), Neighborhood Park Site (NPSP) $750.00 6) Site Improvement Plan Review (SIP). $1000.00 (plus Engineering review fees) 7) Utility Plan Kevinv & Inspedion Fecs- a. Constru(tion Document Rcvicw. O.751Yu ofprobablc water and/or sewer constru(tion costs b. Construdion Inspection. 2.25U;l) of probable water and/or sewer construction costs c. Construction Document Kcsubmission or Document Modification, submit as insubstantial change. 5150.00 lel[ first sheet, $7S.00 for each additional sheet 8) Engineering Site Plan Review Fcc a. Construction Documents Review Fee 0.75lYu of probable Paving, Grading, Drainage, Lighting, Code Minimum Landscaping, and any other appurtenant cost of construdion b. Construction Inspection 2.25u;;, of probable Paving, Grading, Drainage, Lighting, Code Minimum Landscaping, and any other appurtenant (ost of construction 9) Site Development l'lan Amendment (SDP^! $2,SOO.00, a. Plus $40.00 per DIU plus $100.00 per reSidential building structure b. plus $.10 per square foot c. plus $200.00 per building lelf nUIHesldential d. Additional fees jelr 3rd review $1,000.00, 4th Review $1,SOO.OO, 5th and subsequent review $2,000.00 10) SBR Fees a. Pre-Acquisition Meeting $500.00 (no retunds or credits) b. Pre-application fee. $500.00 (to be credited toward application fee upon submittal) (all normal pre- application provisions apply) c. SBR Fee $5000.00 with hourly rc<:onciliation at project completion for hourly variation greater than 10%, tinal project charges at $100.00 per hour jel[ all associated staff hours I I) Violation of the (onditions of approval of the SDpiSIP or installation of improvements, (Iearing, or other land alteration not depicted on, or othenvise authorized as a part orthe approved SDp/SIP. 4x the SIP/SOP application fee 12) Request for alternative architectural design $500.00, no separate or additional fee for appeals to, or requests for assistance from, the Architectural Arbitration Hoard 13) Site Development Plan Sheet change out (per CDI'S policy guidelines) $3S.00 per page. 14) Town Home Site Plan Review - $6.000.00 base fee. additional fees Ie". .J'" review $1,000.00. 4'h review $1,500.00, 5th review $2,000.00, 6th and subsequent reviL'w' $2,500.00. 15) SDP Extension - $ISO.OO 16) Post Take Site Plan Base Fee 5\,000.00. Resubmillal Fcc $250.00 each submittal, $3,000.00 additional if objection filed. G) SUBDIVISION I) Lot Line Adjustment (LLA) and Lot Split Review $2S0.00 2) Subdivision Review Fees (PPL). (PPLA)- CDLS l-'inaneial Administration. rev O],i18i09 lw page 5 L-_~_~ __ a. Construction Documents Review Fec O.751Yo of probable Paving, Grading, Drainage, Lighting, Code Minimum Landscaping and any other appUl1cnant cost of construction b. Subdivision Inspection Fcc 2.25(% of probable Paving, Grading, Drainage, Lighting, Code Minimum Landscaping, and any other appurtenant cost of construction c. Construction Document Rcsubrnission or Document Modification -Submit as Insubstantial Change $400.00 for first sheet. $100.00 h" each additional sheet d. Subdivisions Subdivisions lrd and subsequent additional reviews - $500.00 Substantial deviat ions from approval construction documcnts $500.00 e. 3) Subdivision, Preliminary Plat (PSP)- a. Petition Application $1000.00 plus $5.00 per acre (or traction thereo!) for residential. plus $10.00 per acn: (or fraction thereol) for Ill.)!l-residenti(l!: (mixed use is residential) 4) Subdivision final Plat (FP) $1,000.00 plus $5.00 per acre (or fraction thereol) for residential, $1000.00 plus $]0.00 per acre (or fraction thereol) for nonresidential; (mixed use is residential) 5) Additional review of construction plans for phased construction of subdivision improvements. $1000.00 per phase 6) Two-year Extension $150.00 7) Water and Se\\'er I:acilities Construction Document keview 0.75(% of probable water and/or sewer construction costs 8) Construction ])ocument Resubmission or Documcnt Moditication O.251YtI of probable water and/or sewer construction costs a. 3rd and subsequent re-submittals - $500.00 9) Water and Sewer Facilities Construction Inspct:tion Fee 2.25'XI ofprobablc \vater and/or sewer construction costs 10) Violation of the conditions of appruval of approv'l'd construction plans or installation of improvements, clearing, or other land alteration not dl:plctcd on, or otherwise authorized as a part of the approved construction plans or permit...h the PPI.. f}PI.A, PSP. CNSTR or hnal Plat Rcviev..' Fee (FP). II) Administrative Amendment $250.00 H) ENGINEERING INSPECTION FEES I) Engineering Inspection fec $150.00 per set of required engineering inspections charged at time of building permit issuance. 2) Re-inspection fees: 1'1 re-inspection $75.00, 211d re-inspection $100.00, 3rd and thereafter re-inspection $125.00 I) TEMPORARY lJSE PERMITS I) Beach Events Permits- a Individual Permit $100.00 b. Block "r 25 calendar days S2,250.00 c. Block of 50 calendar days $4,500.00 d. Block of75 calendar days $6,750.00 e. Block of 100 calendar days $9,000.00 f. Block of 125 calendar days $11,250.00 g. Block or 150 calendar days $13,500.00 (,DES hnancial Administration. r..:v iJJ,' I Kill9 h\ page 6 2) Temporary Use Permit Special Sales & Events. $200.00 3) Model Homes and Sales Centers $500.00 4) Construction and Development Mobile home, Agricultural Zoning, and Temporary use for "Coming Soon" sign $125.00 5) Residential and Non-Profit Garage and Yard Sale J>LTrnits No Char~l' 6) Temporary Use Amendment. SIOO.OO 7) Renewals or extensions n:qul..:stcd after the expiration date $200.00. 8) Temporary' Use Permit lor Special Lvenls requiring Bee approvaL including Circus and Camival Permits. $275.00 9) Political Signs (Bulk Temporary Permit) $5.00 10) Fees for Temporary Use permits issued Aller the Fact. A TF: 2x normal fee J) WELL PERMITS/INSPECTIONS I) Hydraulic elevator shalt permit S300.00 2) Test hole permit (including 1st sis holes) $300.00. each additional hole $20.00 3) Well permit (abandonment) $50.00 4) Well permit (construction, repair, or combined construction and abandonment at one site) $300.00 5) Well permit (monitoring) $150.00 6) Well Permit (modil1cation of monitor/test well to a production \vell) $75.00 7) Well Reinspections a. First Reinspection $75.00 b. Second Reinspection $100.00 c. Third Reinspection $150.00 8) After the fact vvell permits 4x normull~e per violation. NOTE: Multiple wells may be allO\vcd on one permit. but each \vellmust be accounted for and the appropriate fee shall be charged for each viell in acconJa!Kl' Vlith tile abllVl' listed schedule. K) ZONING/LAND lJSE PETITIONS I) Pre-application meeting Ice $500.00 (to be credited toward application Ice upon submittal) a. Second and subsequent pre-app meetings at the applicant's request shall not be credited towards application fees. b. Second and subsequent pre-app meetings at statl's request will be held at no charge to the applicant. c. Applications submitted 9 months or more after the date of the last pre-app meeting shall not be credited towards application fees and a neV\' pre-application meeting will be required. 2) Alcoholic Bcvcrage or ServiL:e Station Separation Requirement Waiver $1000.00 3) Boat Dock Extension Petition $1,500.00 130(lt Lift Canopy Administrative Review $500.00 4) Conditional Use Permit $4.000.00 \\'hcnlilled with Rc;;one Petition (SJ.500.00) Additional fee for 51h and subsequent reviews 20.~) of original ICe 5) Conditional Use Monitoring Revievv'" $750.00 6) Conditional Use Extension $3,OOO.Ot) CUES hnanclal AdmilllstratiOlL rev OJ...] Xil)') 1\\ page 7 7) DRl Review (In addition to cost of rezone) $10,000.00 plus $25.00 an acre (or traction thereot) Additional fee for sth and subsequent reviews 20UA, of original fee Amendments deemed to be minor in nature, that is requiring minor strike thru and underline text amendments of no more than 10 different lines of text changes in the DR! will be capped at $13.000.00. Any amendment which includes a map and text change will be assessed the full fee (no cap). 8) DRUDO Amendment $6,000.00 plus $25.00 per acre (or traction thereot) rhe acreage charge does not apply for amendments which only change the build-out date orthe DO for a time period of less than five years. Additional fee for 5111 and subsequent reviews 20o;() of original fee. a. DRI Extension - $100.00 9) DRlABN DRI Abandonment $1,500.00 10) Flood Variance Petilion $1000.00 II) Interim Agriculture Use Petition $350.00 12) Non-Conforming Use Change/Alteration $1,500.00 13) Parking Exemption $1,500.00. Additional fee for 5'" and subsequent reviews n 20% of original fee. 14) Parking Reduction (Administrative) $500.00 15) Rezone Petition (PUD to PUD): $8,000.00 plus $25.00 an acre (or traction thereot) (Requires a submittal ofa new PUD document), additional fee for 51h and subsequent reviews 20% of original fec. 16) Property owner notil1cations: $1.50 non-certified mail, $3.00 ccrtit1ed return receipt mail (Petitioner to pay this amount prior to advertisement of petition) 17) Planned Unit Development Amendments (PUD) $6,000.00 plus $25.00 an acre or traction of an acre. (Substantial changes to the text and Master Plan), Additional fee for 5th and subsequent reviews 200/0 of original fee. Text changes that do not impact the Master Plan $6,000.00 (the $25.00 an acre lee will not apply. Amendments deemed to be minor in nature that is requiring minor strike thru and underline amendments of no more than 10 difl"erent lines of text changes in the PUD w'ill be capped at $9,000.00. Any amendment which includes a map and text change will be assessed the full fee (no cap). 18) Planned Unit Development Amendment -Insubstantial (PDI) $1,500.00 requires a hearing by the CCPC only for a minor change to the PUll Master Plan, PUll Minor Change (PMC) $1,000.00 (Administrative Review for minor change to the Master Plan) 19) Rezone Petition (Regular) $6,000.00 pillS $25.00 an acre (or traction thereof). Additional fee for 5'" and subsequent reviews - 20'Yo of original fee 20) Rezone Petition (to PUD) $10,000.00 plus $25.00 an acre (or traction thereot). Additional fee for 5'" and subsequent reviews 200/0 of original fee. 21) Street Name Change (Platted) $500.00 plus $1.50 for each property owner requiring notification of proposed street name change 22) Un-platted street name or project name change: $100.00 per application tee pillS $50.00 per additional hour or Partial hour of research required to process application, not to exceed $500.00 23) Variance petition: $2,000.00 residential. $5,000.00 non- residential. Additional fee for 51h and subsequent Reviews 20lYo of original fee. 24) Variance (Administrative) $1,000.00 25) Zoning Certil1cate: Residential: $50.00. Commercial: $125.00 (,DES l-'inancial Administratioll. fl'\' (Hi] X/09 Iv. page S 26) PUD Extension Sun Selting: $1000.00 27) Sign Variance Petition: $2000.00 28) Stewardship Receiving Area Petition (SRA): $7000.00 per SRA plus $25.00 per acre for. Stewardship Sending Area Petition (SSA): $9,500.00, Stewardship Receiving Alternative Deviation Design (SRDD) $500.00. SRA Amendments deemed to be minor in nature, that is requiring minor strike thru and underline text amendments of no more than 10 different lines of text changes in the SRA will be capped at $10,000.00. 29) After-the-Fact Zoning/Land Use Petitions 2x the normal petition fee 30) Land Use Petition Continuances Including Appeal of an Administrative Decision and Appeal to Board of Zoning Appeals a. Requested after petition has been advertised $500.00 b. Requested at the meeting $750.00 c. Resultant additional required advertising charged in addition to continuance fees. 31) PUD and SRAMonitoring (one-time charge at time ol'building permit pick-up) a. $100.00 per dwelling unit hlr residential construction within a PlID and SRA ($3.00000 maximum fee per building permit appliGllion) b. $().12 per square root for non-residential construction vvithin a PUD and SRA ($3,000.00 maximum fee per building pcrmit application) 32) Any legal advertising required during any CDLS activity or approval process will bl.: charged in addition to stated fees, at actual costs. CDES reserves the right to charge an estimated amount with the initially required project fees, and will reconcile and adjust such charges against actual legal advertising recording billings at at the completion of the project. 33) Mixed Use Project (MUP) $2,500,00 a. Mixed Use Project Deviation $1,000.00 34) Amplified Sound Permit $300.00. 35) Planned Unit Development (PlID) closeout application and processing: a. PUD's up to 50 acres: $5,000.00 b. Plm's over 50 acres up to 250 acres $7,000.00 c. PUD's over 250 acres; $9,500.00 36) Development of Regional Impact (DRI) closeout application and processing $10,000.00 L) MISCELLANEOUS I) Reserved 2) Reserved 3) Official Zoning Atlas Map Sheet Puhlications, maps, and reports shall be copied at actual cost. 4) The following fee shall be assessed for all Lien Search Requests and Payoff Requests: $25.00/per request. 5) The fee for researching records, ordinances, and codes shall be at no charge for the tirst hour, then at the base salary hourly rate of the staff member conducting the service for time in excess of I hOUL 6) The fee for creating and designing special computer generated reports that are not a part of regular standard reports shall be at no charge for the first hour, then at the base salary hourly rate of the staff member conducting the service for time in excess of 1 hour. CDI.:S rinanci<ll AdminiStralion. n:v O]/I!Si()91w page 9 7) CD Burning: $5.00 8) Complete sets ofOfjJcial Zoning Atlas Map Sheets $100.00 per set 9) Staffshalll:harge the following fees for duplication of public records: a. $O.l~ hn each (1Il(' sidt:J photocop) Dr documcnts ll:sS than 11 x 17 inches b. $0.20 for each two sided photocopy or documents less than 11 x] 7 inches c. $1.00 for each l:crlitled copy or a public rc<.:ord. 10) Property Notification Address Listing" a. M S Exce I spreadsheet on Disc $70.00 b, Print out on Paper $75.00 I $0.05 for evcr)' record over 1500 c. Mailing I.abel> $80.00 I $0.06 for evOf] record over 1500 d. Print out on Paper + Mailing Labels $85.00 i $0.11 lor every record over 1500 11) Comprehensive Plan Consistency RcviC\v a. CU's $300.00 b. Rezoning $750.00 c. PUD's or PUD Amendments: $2250.00 d. Letter ofGMP consistency to outside agencies: $250 e. SRA - Stewardship Receiving Area - $2,250.00 f. DRI - Development of Regionallmpacl - $2,250.00 g. FlAM Fiscallmpacl Analysis - $4,000.00 12) Plan Review Fee (for planning review of all building permit applications) a. Permit Application - Complex (more than one trade): $125.00 per building permit application, 2nd review Soulll of fee, Jrd and subsequt:nt 25lYo Dr lee (2nd and suhsequent review fees related to Zoning approvals onlv) b. Pcr~it Application Basic (no trade or one tradd: S50.00 per building permit application, 2nd review 50lYu of fee, 31d and subsequent 25lX) of ICe (2"d and subsequent revinv ICes related to Zoning approvals only) 13) Project Meetll1gs: Ai.:tive applications under rL'vi<:w for the following projed types vvill be afforded one inter- departmental meeting at no charge: Planned Unit Development re~/,onings and Site Development Plan applications (except for conceptual Sill' plan approval and insubstantial change approval). Meeting requests for all other application types and additional meetings ""ill he subject to the following fees: a. Meetings with Departmental Projed Approval Staff member per applicant request, reviews and petitions in progress, $150.00 per one hour minimum, $75.00 per ;Iz hour thereafter. Additional Department staff attending meeting per applicant request $7S.00 per 1/2 hour per staff member. b. Inter-Departmental Project Meeting per applicant request, site plan reviews and land use petitions in progress, $500.00 per one hour minimum, $250.00 per I/Z hour thereafter. 14) Adequate Public Facilities a Planning Applications requiring COA process review (such as FP's, PPL's & SIP's, SDPs) $200.00 + 25.00 per residential dwellmg unit or 25.00 per 1000 sq II commercial ($5000.00 maximum) b. Building permit applications requiring COA process review not covered under 12.a above $100.00 per building permit application. 15) Zoning Confirmation Letters a. Standard Response $100.00 (includes up 10 I hour research) b. Extended Research $100.00 per hour (any response with research in excess or I hour) 16) NiA 17) CDD a. Community Development District $15,OOU.OO b. Chapter 189 Special District Inckpendcnt or lkpcndcnl, $15,UOO.OO CDI~S Financial Administratiun, r..;\ UJ/ I X/09 Iw page 10 .------.------- --. ----- - .-.-.------------ - ~-------_..-------------~-_.. 18) GMP Amcndment a. Small Scale $9000.00 b. General $16,700.00 c Legal advertising In addition to sub-sections a and b fees, lind subject to applicable fee schedule provIsions. d, Pre-application meetings for GMP consistency for development orders and zoning/land use petitions: $250 c. n/a 19) Application for issuance TDR. $250 (non-rcfundable): plus $25 per TDR issued and recorded (total lees not to exceed $2.750.00) 20) Engineering Services a. Vacation ofTasements: $2.000.00 21) Building Board of Adjustments and Appeals $250.00 22) Early Work Authoril.ation ~E\VA) permIt: $SOO,OO (does not include site clearing fee). 23) Legal Non-conforming Lot (I.NC) $100.00 24) Vested Rigbts Determination (VRD) $1,500.00 25) Time Extension $150.00 M) BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION FEE I) A permit application lee shall be collected at time of applying for a building permit. The permit application fee shall be collected when the plans are submitted f(Jr review. The fee shall be applied toward the total permit fee. The applicant shall forfeit the application Ice if the application is denied or if the application is approvt:d and tht: permit is not issued within the time limitation as stated in Section 103.6.1.1 of the Collier County Ordinance No. 91~56, as amended. 2) Application lee will be computed as follows: a. 251Yc) of total Building Permit Fee ($.15 isq ft new residential and commercial, $.075 shell and warehouse) 3) Minimum fee of $75.00 lor each of the following: plumbing: mechanical (A/C); electrical: lire: and building, Minimum lee lor all other applications $50.00 4) The balance of the total permit fee will bl: collected at the time of issuance ofthl' permit and will include any fee adjustments necessary. N) BUILI)ING PERMIT FEES 1) The tee for a building permit shall be computed as 1~)llov."s Such fees shall be either based on the contractor's valuations of constrw.:tion (ost or based 011 square footage. Minimal ac(cptcd calculated costs of construction are set l"orth on the attached Building Valuation Data lable - Ice Building Valuation Data .Table, produced February, 2007. Valuation of construt:tion costs of less than $750.00 - No permit or fee is required, but construction must comply with all County Codes and Ordinances. I r inspcctions arc requin:d by the Building Official or requested by the applicant the appropriatL' fees shall be paid. EXCEPTION: All work involving structural components and/or fire rated assemblies requires permits and inspections regardless of construction cost, signs must secure permits as stated in Collier Collier County Ordinance No. 2002-0 I. as amended. (,DES rinanciul ^dministratioll. rev OJ/] 8/()9 h.,. page J] a. Valuation "I' construction costs 01'$750.00 through $4,999.99 $SO.OO plus $SO.OO application per inspection as,required. h. New construction greater than 500 square feet I. residential at $0.29 per square foot (living area) II. warehouse,ishell at $0.145 per square foot (total area) iii. build-out at $0.145 per square foot (total area) iv. commercial,l institutional at $(),29 per square foot (total area) c. Alterations. other construction, and new con-;trllctioll under son square feet (both residential and commercial) minimum fee ol"$l()(),OO for olle required inspection. plus $50.00 for each required additional inspection. SlOt) plus O.3ol~ll)rdcclar('d valuation in excess 01'$5,000 0) ELECTRICAL PERMIT FEES 1) The fees for electrical permits for new structures or placement or relocation of structures sh<:lll be computed as follows: a. $0.40 per ampere rating of all single-phase panel boards. b. $0. t 5 per ampere rating f()r switch or cin.:uit whichever is greater, if item # I above does not apply. c. When not a complete installation, all switch and circuit breakers ahead of panel boards shall be computed at $O.IS per ampere. d. Permit fees for any change in electrical installation shall be computed at the above rates for that portion ornev.' and/or increased fees in existing electricall~1Cilities. c. The minimum for any electrical penlllt shall be $75.00 per unit or tenant space r Fitly percent (501~J) in additional fee costs shall be added to all above fees for thn:l' phase installations. EXCEPTION: Ordinary repairs limited to a $200 valul' or less may be made without a permit. Repairs must comply with all County Codes and Ordinances. If inspl'ctions are required by the Building Official or requested by the applicant, the appropriate recs shall be paid. P) PLUMBING PERMIT FEES 1) The following fee calculations shall be applied separately \\"hen the permit involves mixed occupancies a, Residential occupancies: J'he fee for a plumbing permit shall be computed at the rate of$75.00 to be charged for each living unit with om: to three bathrooms. An additional fee of$IO.OO will be assessed for each additional bathroom b. Nonresidential occupancies: The fee for a plumbing permit shall be computed by the following methods, whichever is calculated to be the greatest fee: I. The rate of $3.00 per 425 square feet of floor area. or fraction thereof; or 2. Institutional facilities, hospitals, schools, restaurants and repairs in any occupancy classification shall be charged at the rate of$l.OO per fixture unit or 3. Minimum 01'$75.00 for each occupancy or tenant space. 2) Grease traps: An additional fee of $50.00 sh<:lll be assessed for each grease trap. 3) The cost for retrolit piping shall he computed ai the minimum fee of$50.00 per tloor for each main riser. 4) I'he \:ost ora perrnit for lawn sprinkler systems shall bl..: \:omputcd using the dollar valuation as shown under Section M of this Resolution. 5) The minimum plumbing permit tee shall he $75,00. CDLS hnancial Administration, rev O]iIXj()l) Iw page ]2 Q) MECHANICAL PERMIT FEES 1) The follo\\'ing fee calculations shall hi: applied sl'paralely when the permit IIlvolves mixed occupancies. a. Residential occupancies: The mechanical pl:rmit fees shall be computed at the rate of$75.00 for each living unit up to three tons of air conditioning. Each additional ton or part thcrcot' shall be $3.00 per ton. b. Nonresidential occupancies: The mechanical permit fees shall be computed by one of the following methods, whichever is calculated to be the greatest ICe: TIll.: rate or $75.00 for the first three tons or three horsepower of air conditioning or other mechanical systems per tenant space, each additional ton of air conditioning or horsepower shall be $3.00; or The rate of $3.00 per 425 square teet of 1I0or area, or fraction thereoL 2) The cost of retrofit piping shall be computed at the minimum fee of $50.00 per 1I0or for each cooling tower, or $50.00 for the first 3 horsepovvef and $3.00 f()I" l:ach additional horsepower, \vhichever is greater. 3) The minimum mechanical permit fee shall he $75.00. 4) A permit for the change out of components shall be calculated at the above mechanical permit fee rate or the minimum fee whichever is greater. R) FIRE PREVENTION AND CONTROL PERMIT FEES I) The fees and exemptions set li,rth in the "Exhibit Il" affixed hereto and made a part of this Schedule of Development Revicvv and Building Permit Fce::> shall dpply to Fire Prevention and Control Permits for both the independent and dependent fire distri<.:l'i. S) MOBILE HOME/OFFICE TRAILER ANI> OTHER TRAILER PERMIT FEES J) The permit fee shall be $50,00 to set-up a singJc-widc trailer or mobik home un an approved site plus electrical, plumbing, mechanical and lire protection fees as applicable. 2) The permit fee shall be $75.00 to set-up a double wide or larger mobile homes on an approved site plus electrical, plumbing, mechanical and fire protection fees as applicable. T) CHICKEES AND SIMILAR STRUCTURES 1) The permit fee will be based upon a calculated cos1 of construction 01"$4.00 per square foot under roof or the contractor':> estimated cost of COnS1f\.lction. whichever is greater. The fee will then be calculated in accordance with Section N of this Resolution. Additional penn!t fees for electric, plumbing, mechanical, fire. etc., will be charged when applicable, U) POOL OR SPA PERMIT FEES I) For construction or each public pool or spa the fee shall be a. Valuation of construction costs of up to $4,999.99. $100.00 b. Valuation of construction costs of $5000.00 through $49.999.99: $80.00 plus $7.00 per thousand dollars, or fraction thereof, of building valuation in \:xcess 01"$2,000.00. c. Valuation of construction costs of $5IJ.IJOOOO through $1 ,IJOO.OOOOIJ $333.00 plus $3.(1) pcr thousand dollars, or fraction then:01", of building valuation in excess of$50,()OO.00 d. Valuation ofconstruc1ion costs over S 1.000,000.00: $3.474.00 plus S3.UO per thousand dollars, or fraction thcn:ol". ol"building valuation in excess ufSI.OOO,OOO.OO 2) For construction of each priva\l: pool or spa the Il:c shall be' $50.00 application plus $50.00 per inspection as required V) SCREEN ENCLOSURE PERMIT & PAN ROOF FEES I) N/A 2) The screen enclosure or roof fee will then be calculated in accordance with Section N of this Resolution. CDrs hmUll:ial ^dminislratioll. rev OJ/! X/09 1\\ page 13 W) SIGN PERMIT FEES I) Sign permit fees will be calculated in accordance with all applicable Building Permit Fees and Electrical Permit Fees outlined in this document, the Collier County Development I:cc Schedule. I'he minimum building permit fee t()f sign shall bl: $75.00. 2) Multiple signs of the same type (i,e.. \ovall signs) and for a single project may be allo\\icd per one permit, hov,.'evcr an appropriate fee shall be charged for each sign in accordance with the schedule set forth in the above subsection I of Sign Permit Fees. X) CONVENIENCE PERMIT FEES I) Convenience permits are issued in blocks of to each. Only licensed contractors are eligible to purchase convenience permits are limited to the use specified on the permit. The fee for a book of 10 convenience permits is $500.00 ($50.00 fee per inspection, I inspection only) Y) REVISION AND AS BUILT PLAN REVIEW FEES; CORRECTIONS TO PLANS I) PERMIT AND Pl.AN REVISIONS The lee l'or each permit revision submitted alter permit issuance shall be calculated using tee schedules outlined in Sections N through R above. rhe minimum pennit fee for revisions to permitted projects shall be $50.00. 2) AS BUILT PLANS The fee for "As Built" plan review shall be ten (10%) percent of the original building permit fee or $150.00, whichever is greater, but shall not exceed $500.00. The fee is intended to cover the cost of reviewing amended building plans in the office to determine that change orders and various field changes are in compliance with the minimum construction and fire codes of Collier County. The following are required for as-built drav.,.,'ings rcvie\v: a. An itemized list of all changes made after permit plan approval. b. As-built plans that have all changes madc after permit plan approval "clouded". c. As-built plans and changes shall be signed and sealed by the engineer and/or architect of record. 3) CORRI'C liONS TO PI.ANS a. First Corn:ction to Plans. No charge b. Second Correction to Plans. $75.00 c. Third & subsequent correction to plans. $100.00 Z) PERMIT EXTENSION 1) The filing fee for each permit extension shall be equal to 10% orthe original building permit fee or $100,00, whichever is greater, but shall not exceed $500.00. The filing fee is intended to cover the cost of reviewing existing or amended building plans to determine and verify code compliance AA) DEMOLITION OF BUILDING OR STRUCTURE PERMIT FEES I) The permit fee shall be $25.00 application I," the demolition orany building or structure: plus $50.00 per inspection as required. BB) PRE-MOVING INSPECTION FEES I) The fee shall be $150.00 for the pre-moving inspection of any building or structure. CC) INSPECTION FEES I) A charge of $20.00 per inspection shall be assessed for inspections for which a permit is not necessary. 2) A user fee 01'$120.00 shall be assessed for all inspections on a time specllkd basis. 3) First Partial inspection for single-family,' & tenant buildout. No charge 4) Second & subsequent partial inspections for singlc~nlmily & tenant buildout. $25.00 CDES Financial Administration, rev 03!JXi091w page 14 DO) REINSPECTlON FEES I) Re-inspections for any type of building permit. or required Engineering re-inspections, shall result in an additional fee of $75.00 per inspection for the first re~inspection, $] 00.00 for the second re-inspection and $125.00 for the third and each successive re-inspection. EE) FAILURE TO OBTAIN A PERMIT 1) Where work for which a permit is required is started or proceeded with prior to obtaining said permit and where such action was cited by Code l':nforccment or by Contractor Licensing and resulted in a finding of violation from either the Code Enforcement Board, the Special Magistrate, or the Contractor Licensing_Board, or as directed by the Board of County Commissioners the fees herein specified shall be 4x the regular fee. 2) Where \\'ork for vvhich a permit is required is started or proceeded with prior to obtaining said permit and where a contractor or agent/provider V','hcrc thl: building official or zoning director (for cases involving land development) deems that the contractor/provider should have known that a permit was required but voluntary' seeks compliance by obtaining thi.' m.'cessary permits to abate the violation the fees herein specified shall be 2x the regular fcc. 3) Where work for \vhich a permit is required is started or proceeded with prior to obtaining said permit and where an ovvneribuilder seeks voluntary compliance by obtaining said permit the fees assessed will be 2x the regular rate as defined in this fee schedule. 4) Where work for which a permit is required is started or proceeded with prior to obtaining said permit and where the unpermitted work was completed by other or prior to the current owner/builder's ownership of the property an where the current owner/builder seeks voluntary compliance by obtaining said permit to assure compliance with all applicable codes the fees will be assessed at the regular rate as defined in this fee schedule. 5) The payment of such fee shall not relieve any person from fully complying with the requirements of any applicable construction code or ordinance in the execution ofthc vvork, or from any penalty prescribed within any construction code, law or ordinance of Collier County. FF) LICENSING 1) The fee for licensing items is as follows: a. Letters of Reciprocity. $25.00 b. Contractors Change of Status. (active to dormant) $10.00 c. Voluntary Registration orState Ccrtilied Contral:tors. $tO.OO d. Pictures. $2.00 c. Laminating $I.()O (per lkense) r. "ee fur a 6 month temporary contractors license $25.00 g. Certified l:opies of Lxperience letters $35.00 h. Duplicate or replacement (or Competency cards) $25.00 I. Second entity application fee $50.00 2) Certificated ufCompetency (Annual) a. Contractor Initial License Fee Renewal Fee b. Specialty Contractor Initial License Fec Renewal Fee c. Journeyman Initial License Fee Rcncv.ia I Fee $150.00 $100.00 $135.00 $ 85.00 $ 50.00 $ 25.00 3) Dormant Certilicates of Competency (Annual) CDLS financial Administralion, rev OJ/18i09 lw page 15 a. Contractor b. Specialty Contractor c. Penalty fees after 9/30 $100.00 $ 85.00 $ 10.00 per month until 12/31 4) Reinstatement of Delinquent License a. Contractor b. Specialty Contractor c. Journeyman d. Examination Administrative Fee $150.00 plus back years $135.00 plus back years $ 50.00 plus back years $100.00 good for 6 months GG) DUPLICATE PERMIT CARDS I) The fee shall be $S.OO for the issuance of a duplicate pennit card for whatever reason. HH) CHANGE OF CONTRACTOR OR SIIBCONTRACTORS I) To record a change of contractor or subcontractor, on a permit that has been issued, the fee shall be $50.00. This fee includes the issuance ora new permit card. II) PERMIT FEE REFUNI>S 1) If requested, in writing by the o\\'ner or his authorized agent, 500/0 of the fees charged, other than the application fee, may he refunded provided that a pennit has been issued, construction has not commenced, and the refund is applied for prior to the cancellation of the permit. JJ) RECORD RETRIEVAL 1) No charge for retrieving records from inactive or remott: storage including microfilmed documents KK) COPY FEES I) The fee for blueprint and miscellaneous copying shall be as follows: a. Microfilm copies, of documents less than [Ixl? inches: $0.15 other sizes at cost of production. b. Microfilm or Blueprint copies: 18 X 24 $1.25 per page 30 X 36 $2,50 per page 30 X 42 $3.25 per page 34 X 44 $5.00 per page c. Community Development self--service copier, public access and not related to public record retrieval or public n:cord copies: docum~nts less than 14x8_~ inches $0.15 per page inclusive or sales tax. " LL) RESEARCH I) The fee for researching records, ordinances, and codes shall be at no charge for the lirst hour. then at the base salary hourly rate of the staff member conducting the service for time in excess of I hour 2) The fee for creating and designing special computer generated reports that are not part of the regular standard reports shall be at no charge for the first hour, then at the base salary hourly rate of the stalTmember conducting the service for time in excess of I hour. MM) SUBSCRIPTION SERVICE The fee for one-year subscription service to be mailed quarterly shall be $15,00 per year. The subscription year is from Oct. 1 through Sept. 30. NN) ELECTRONIC DATA CONVERSION SURCHARGE I) A surcharge in the amount of 30/0 of the building permit application fce, with the minimum surcharge being $3.00 and the maximum being $150.00, will be CDES hnancial Administration, n:v OJilHiUlj 1\\ page 16 applied to every building permit application submitted. A flat tee ofS3.00 per pCJlllil will be charged l<)r those permits for which an application fee is not required per item (M) oftbis Schedule 00) REGISTRATION Of RENTAL I>WELLlNGS 1) The fee for n:gistration of rental d\\'cllings is as foIl0\\'5: a. Initial Registration Fce - S30.00/per property b. Annual Renewal. $20.00/per property c. Annual Late Fee. $1O.00/pcr day per property up to a maximum of$SO.OO d. The term "property" means a parcel or contiguous parcels with any number of rental units located thereupon under common ownership and/or management. 2) Rental Inspection a. Rental Inspection . $200.00 per unit b. Rc-inspection Fcc - $50.00 per n.~-inspcction per unit. c. Rental inspections shall nol be required for rental units on property covered by a Florida Department of Business and Professional Regulation ("DBPR") license. ^ copy ot'the current DaPR license shall be provided with the initial rental registration and all subsequent rental rene\val applications. 3) Any unpaid fees may be pursued by the Collier Manager or designee through a collection agency. PP) CERTIFICATE TO BOARD BUILJ)JNG I) Initial Boarding Certilicate . $() 2) Boarding Certificate Extension. $150 QQ) ADDITIONAL FEE REfUNI> PROVISIONS I) Requests for fee vvaivcrs may only' be approved by the Board of County' Commissioners. Waiver requests for development review and building permit l\:es shall be submitted in writing din:clly to the appropriate Community Development & Environmental Services Division St;;lll who vvill prepare an executive summary for consideration by the Board. Such requests shall include a statement indicating the reason for the fee waiver request and, if applicable, the nature of the organization requesting the fee waiver. RR) REFUND PROVISIONS 1) PAYMENT OF fEES: Full payment of fees is required for a complete application. Department policy requires full payment of fees at the time of application submittal. No work will begin on staff review of the application until all fees arc paid in full. If full payment of fees is not received witbin 14 calendar days of application submittal, the application will be considered void. At this point, a new application and full payment of fees will be required to proceed with a project. 2) rhere will be no refund of Planning. EnvironmentaL or I~llgineering related fees, except those applications which hav-: been deemed not sufficient fnr staITreviL'\v and art.' withdrawn within 30 day's of notification will be entitled to a 500'0 refund. Alter 30 days tJ'om such notification. there will be no refund ofsuhmitted fees. 3) In no cases will there be refunds tl:Jf pre-application fees, data conversion fl:es, appeals of administrative decisions, or appeals to the Board of Zoning Appeals or Building Board of Adjustment. 4) If stan error causes the inappropriate or unnecessary' filing of an application and payment of fees, 100 percent of all inappropriate tees. shall be relunded upon written request and with the concurrence of Department management. CDFS Financial Auministration, n:v OJi\R/09 Iw page 17 SS) ADDITIONAL FEE PROVISIONS 1) In those cases where alternative methods or timing of payments for CDES services and./ or fees listed in this schedule associated vvith SBR reviews are deemed to best serve the public good, the Community Development and Environmental Services Administrator will have the authority to approve such alternatives. Such alternative mLlst be in writing and signl'd by all principals involved. In no case shalllinal CO. or such cl..'rtifications ofprojed (olllpletcness be issued unlil payments due C!)!:S arc received in fulL 2) All hourly fees arc computed and charged from actual Divisional time tracking records. 3) All acreage totals used in fee calculations will be rounded up to the nearest \-vhole acre. 4) When deemed essential for project review or approval, there will b~ no additional charge for any' meetings requested hy CDES stalf TT) PUBLIC VEHICLE FOR HIRE FEES I) fhc following fees shall be assessed for the PubliL' Vehicle for Ilirc Program: (In the event that the background check ll:c charged to the county l'\ceeds the minimum fee estiiblished hy the county. the applicant(s) shall h~ responsible for the actual cost or the s~arch) a. Initial Application fee (new Companies) - $200 b. Initial Certificate to Operate (Fob I-Jan 31) - $325.00 c. Annual Certificate to Operate Renewal $325.00 d. Late Fee for CTO Renewal $200.00 e. Sub-Certificate Application Fee (New Companies) - $100.00 f Sub-Certificate - $162.50 g. Annual Sub-Certificate renewal - $162.50 h. l.atc Fee lilf Sub-Certificate Renewal - $100.00 J. Vehicle Decal - $50.00 J. I'emporary Vehicle Decal $5.00 per vehicle/per day k. Temporary Vehicle Decal (In case of inoperahle decaled vehicle) - $5.00!per vehicle I. Driver Identification Card (Initial/Rene\.val) - $75.00 per driver tn, ~lId Driver Identification Card - $25.00 n. Replacement Driver ID - $10.00 o. On~site Vehicle Permitting - $15.00 per vehicle UU)"PA YMENT IN LIEU OF" FEE FOR PATlIWA YS (SIDEWALKS, AND BIKE l.ANES) 1) Calculated using the CUITcnt Florida Department of Transportation (I:DOT) construction costs or an engineering estimate not to c\:ceed twenty-five percent (2)0'0) of the submitted application request's total project cost VV) OPTIONAL EXPEDITED BUILDING PERMIT PLAN REVIEWS I) Optional expedited building permit plan review fee shall be 30% of the huilding permit ICe (additional to futl building permit fees) with a minimum fee of$50.00 a. Participation in the optional expedited review program is subject to limited availability, applications will be accepted on a first come first served basis. b. Review completion times are guaranteed to equal. or be less than, one half of the normal advertised completion timeframcs. Should the expedited review exceed this guaranteed completion time, the 300/0 optional expedited building permit review fee will be refunded to the applicant, and all nonnal permit fees will apply. Such guarantee and refund provisions shall apply lo reviews. and do not infer or relate to approvals. l. Optional expedited building. permit revicvv fees shall be due at the time of building permit application submission. CDES Financial ^dminislratit11l. n:v OJ"" 1 X/09 Iw page 18 d. Any required re-submissions of pl'rmit applications' leading to rc-n:vil.:ws, \'v'hen due to applicant insufficiencies. shall be subject to additional optional expedited building permit plan review fees ifan additional expedited revie\\' is requested by the applICant for the re-revievv, and shall be calculated against re-submission charges. WW) FENCES I) $50.00 application fee plus $50.00 per inspection as required. XX) OPTIONAL TEMPORARY CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY I) $250.00 for commercial. over 31l.IlOO sq. h S500.00. 2) SIOO.OO for rCSldential This is the last page of the CDES Fee Schedule CDES Financial Administrauon, n.:v OJ/IX/()9 Iv... page 19 <.:::: " (71f:; "r C -~--....-.._-"'".,_...-, ,~.----.._- " < y " M STRIKE-THROUGH AND UNDERLINE COLLIER COUNTY COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DEVELOPMENT AND FEE SCHEDULE Bee proposed version, April 14. 2009 Strike-through and Underline Contents: ,1\) ADMINISTRAI'ION B) HLAST1NCi PERMITS & INSPITIIONS C) ENVIRONMI-NIALil,ANDS('/\PIN(i 0) EXCAVATI()N PERJ\.1ITS 1') F]RE CO])E REV]EW H:!S F) S]TE DEVEI.OPMENT PI.ANS G) SUBDIVISION II} ENGINEERING INSPfTTION FFl:S [) TEMPORARY llSE IT':LS J} WU,J. I'FRM1TS/INSPI:CTIONS K) ZONING.!] ,/\N[) I!S!' PFT1TI()NS L) M!SCLLLA\iH)IJS M) BUILDJN(j P!J{MIT i\PPIICYIJON HT N) HIJlLDIN(j PFRJ\.1IT I-LLS 0; ITH'TR1C'i\1. PUC\tlIT H)<'<"; P) PLUMBING f'l:IH..11T F1'LS Q) MECHANICAL PI:RMIT FELS R) FIRE PRI~vTNTION AND CONTROL P!:I{MIT Fl-TS S) MOBllJ: HOMI~,iOFFICr: ']'[{i\]U:R AND OTI]ER TRAIILR pr:RMIT I-'ITS T) C1-IlCI\:I:I:S AND SIMIl.AR STRLI( 'TlJRI;S tll POOL OR SPA l'UUvllT rl]:s V) SCRI'TN I;NCU)SIII<L PLRMII & P.\N RO(W FITS W) SIGN PLRMIT IT:!,,'; Xl C()NVLNILNCI PLRMIT nTS Yl RFVISIOt\ AND AS IH!!LT P[.A~' I<E'v'IF\\' ITTS: CORRI:( lIONS I (l PI ./\NS I) PI-:RMlT 1':XlL\S!O'\ AA) !)]-MOLlT!ON OJ- IHQIUIMi OK "}ll<l :CTU<I ['llnHII.ITS l{[~) PRI>MOVIr\(j !:,\;SPH'TION I:I.]:S ee) lNSPI'("[")(lN III'S [)!)) RI.INSPI.:CTI(JN I'LLS IT) 1...\ III JlU': j'() (HH.\IN i\ PIRl\.lrI I.T) LlCLNSINCi GU) DUPliCATE ['LRMIT CMH)S III [) CHANUE or CONTRACHJR OR SU8CONTRNTORS [I) PERM[T FEI: RITlJNDS JJ) Ri'CORD RETR]EVAI. KK) COPY FITS. l.l.) RESEARC]] MM) SUHSCRIPTION SI;RVICI.' NN) ELECTRONIC DATA CONVERSION SURCIlARCJ!; 00) RLGISTRATION 01; RI.:NlAL DWLLLlN(iS PP) cr:RTIl-"ICATL TO BOARD BUILDINCi Q()) /\[)DITIONAI I'Ll RutiN!) PI<( )VISIONS RR) RI:HIND I'ROVIS)ONS SS) .!\DDITIONi\I HT PROVISIONS IT) Pl!I~L1C VLlllell.: I. OJ{ IlIKE ITLS \lU} "PA YMLNT)~ L11.:U OF'" HT r(m PATII\\iA YS (SIDLWALKS. AND HIKL lANLSJ VV) OPTIONAL LXP1TJITH) IH!lI [)!Ne; PLRMIT PIAN Rl-:VlLWS v,,'W) FI:N(:I.:S XX) CLRlIFICA1L OF OCCl:P.-\NCY Fees are in bold ("DES Financial Adminislr<\th11l. 1<:\ 1)~;IX;()9 h\ .2 2 2 3 4 4 .5 6 6 7 7 9 ]] ]] ]2 ]2 13 ]3 1.1 13 ]' ~, IJ ]4 ]1 ]4 14 ]4 ]4 15 ]5 ]S ]S ]6 ]6 ]6 ]6 ]6 ]6 .17 17 ]7 ]7 ]7 ]7 ]8 ]8 ]8 ]8 ]9 ]9 page I FEES ARE ESTABLISHED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS RESOLUTION, AND CANNOT BE WAIVED OR SUSPENDED WITHOUT AN ACTION BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS. ANY QUESTIONS CONCERNING THE APPLICABILITY OF FLES SHALL BE CONCLUSIVELY DETERMINED BY TilE DIRFCTOR OF Till' APPROPIA IT DEPARTMENT. AS APPLICABLE WHERE AS PART OF A RUONING. PLAT OR SIMILAR APPLICATION TYPE. THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DIRECTS APPROV AI. m H ITURL DI.VELOPMLNT ORDERS DIFFERENT FROM THE STANDARD TYPE OF APPROV AL PROCESSI'S REQUIRED, THE DIRECTOR OF TilE APPROPRIATE DEPARTMENT SHALL DETERMINE THE FEES TO BE APPLIED TO TilE PROCESS NECESSARY TO MEET TilE BOARDS REQUIRLMENTS THE APPL.lCABLF EEES SIIALL BE TIIOSE WIIICH MOST CLOSELY RESEMBLE TIIOSE CHARGED FOR SIMILAR PROCESSES INCLUDINC, EXTRA EEES FOR ADVERTISING AND TilE UKE. A) ADMINISTRATION I) Ofliciallnterpretation Request of Land Development Code (LDC), Growth Management Plan (GMP), or Building Construction Administrative Code (Administrative Code). Based on staff hours: Less than 20 hours $1,SOO.IlO. 20 to 40 hours $3,000.01l. more than 40 hours $S,IlOO.1l1l .2:1 ~Hh'rprt>\dlHH+lt.';;!H1;:'~.t"+th+HH.kd int.{\Ht+IHlltHH.~. Hh i1 idl!tllt-',t.. p,,'jllHH1 (11 h'qttt>"'h4.1 (+urIH~ .,11FtkWtH-P-Hh:'+tl j\!d-n ~2:;;-n)H) 3) Determination of Vested Rights. S100.00 (plus the County's out-of-rocket cxpenses associated with hearing ollicer and hearings) 4) Appeal of Vested Rights Determination. $lllll.Oll 5) Amendment to Land Development Code. $3,01l0,1l1l 6) Appeal of an Administrative Decision (as may be provided for in the Collier County Administrative Code or the LDC). $]()1l0.1l0 (non-refundable) 7) Appeal to Board of Zoning Appeals or Building Board of Adjustments and Appea!s (as may be provided for in the Collier County Administrative Code or the LDC) $I,OOIl.1l1l (non-refundable) B) BLASTING PERMITS & INSPECTION I) 30 day permit fee. non-refuodable payable upon application. $2S11.1111 2) 90 day' permit fee, non-refundable payable upon application. $600.00 3) Yearly permit fee, non-retlllldable payable upon application. $],500.00 4) Renewal permit lee. non-refundable payable upon application. $2110.1111 5) After-the-hlet fee, due to blasting without a permit. $]O,OOO.1l1l 6) Fine fee. per detonated shot with after-the-fact permit. $200.00 7) Handler fee, lor handler who assists the user or blaster in the use of explosives, $100.00 8) Blasting Inspection Fee. $200.00 (per inspection) 9) Inspection lees shall he paid upon issuam:e or a blasting permit based on the estimated number of blasts. Upon completion, fees will he adjusted to reflect actual number ofhlasls. C) ENVIRONMENT AL/LANDSCAI'ING I) Site Clearing Permit. lIrsl acre or fraction of an acre $250.00 each additional acre or fraction of an acre, $SIl.IlO ($3.000.00 lllaxilllulll) 2) Agricultural Land Clearing a. Land Clearing Notilication $2S0.1111 CDFS Financial Administration, ro,:v 03/18109 Iw page 2 b. Land Clearing Permit S2S0.00 each additional acre or traction ofan acre. SSO.OO (S3,000.00 maximum) 3) Landscape Tree Removal Fee $250 4) Environmental Impact Statement (ElS) S2,SOO.00 for I st submittal and co" submittal if applicable, 3rd submittal SI,OOO.OO, 4th and subsequent submittals SSOO.OO each 5) Landscape Re-inspcction I" SSO.OO, 2"" S7S.00. every inspection afterward SIOO.OO 6) Vehicle on the Beach Permit Application. S2S0.00 (Permit fee shall be waived for public and non-protlt organizations engaging in environmental activities for scientific, conservation or educational purposes). 7) Beach Nourishment Permits - $400 8) Special Treatment Kcvicw a. First five acres or less. $400.00 b. Each additional acre, or fraction thereof. SSO.OO ($5,000.00 Maximum) (-; J1rl:-'-a.ppl-it-a{-H+I-I+F-h!~+.i-ng.. $.2-S#;~)--f-li:;.}-he---l rU{4+t~I'H)War4-af}rl~i-€at+Hl+,rel! HIHHl'~Hbm.j.Ha-I-j 9) Coastal Construction Setback l.ine (CCSL): a. CCSL Permits S400.00 b. Variance - Petition. SIOOO.OO 10) Sea Turtle Permit- a. Sea Turtle Handling Permits. S2S.00 b. Sea Turtle Nesting Area Construction Permit. $200.00 c Sea Turtle Nest Relocation. SIOO.OO 11) Vegetation Removal Permit a. First acre or frac.:tion or an aCfe less $250.UO b. Each additional acre. or Iraction thereof SSO.OO ($3.00000 Maximum) 12) After.the-fact Environmental or Landscape Permits a. CCSL Variance Petition. 2x normal fee b. All other Environmental or Landscape Permits. 4x normal fee 13) Informal Wetland Jurisdictional determination for single family parcels up to 5 acres - $300.00 14) Conservation Easement review fee - S300.00 application fee plus the follO\ving additional site fee: S200.00 for CE acres less tban 5 acres: S400.00 for CE area between 5 acres and 10 acres; S600.00 for CE area greater than 10 acres and less than 20 acres; $800.00 for CE areas between 20 and 50 acres; and an additional $200.00 for every 40 acres of CE area over 50 acres. 15) Listed or Protected Species review fee (when an E1S is 110t required) - SJ()OO.OO 0) EXCAVATION PERMITS I) Annual Renewal. S300.00 2) Application (Private) S400.00 3) Application (Commercial) S2,OOO.OO 4) Application (Development). S400.00 5) $200.00 per inspection paid ill advance for 12 months 6) Reapplication: $300.00 plus $200.00 per month inspection fl'e 7) Cubic Yardage Review I.'ee S200.00 ilrst ,000 cy. pillS SIO.OO per additional 1000 cy with a maximum of $20.000.00 8) rime Fxtension. $150.00 plus $200.00 per month inspection fee CDI:S Financial Administration, r..:v OJil!:Si09 hv page J 9) Atler-the-fact Lxc(ivation Permit ..h application fee 10) Over excavation pen<:llty fee per yard. PIllS PcrmiL'Revinv $0.05 per cubic yard fee.. unless maximum have been paid. E) FIRE CODE REVIEW FEES I) Fire Code Review fees associated with each of the following processes: a. SOP - Site Development Plan S200.00 b. SDP A - Site Development Plan, Amendment SISO.OO c. SDPl - Site Development Plan, Insubstantial SIOO.OO d. SIP - Site Improvement Plan SISO.OO e. SIPI - Site Improvement Plan. Insubstantial SIOO.OO f. PSP - Preliminary' Subdivision Plans SISO.OO u PSPA - Preliminary Subdivision Plans, Amendment SIOO,OO b h. PPL - Plans & Plat. Subdivision SIOO.OO I. FP - Final Plat SIOO.OO I CONSTR - Construction Plans, Suhdivision'lltilities $100.00 k. Ie? - Construction Plans, Insubstantial SIOO.OO L DR] - Development or Regional Impact S200.00 m. DOA ~ Development Order, Amendment SISO.OO n. PU DZ - Planned Unit Development, Rezone SISO.OO o. PUDA - Planned Unit Development. Amendment SISO.OO p. PDI - Planned Unit Development. Insuhstantial SIOO.OO q. RZ ~ Rezone, Regular loning SIOO.OO r. eLl - ConditionallJse SISO.OO F) SITE DEVELOPMENT PLANS I) Site Development Plan Review (SDP). SSOOO.OO a. plus S40.00 per DIU b. plus SIOO.OO per residential building structure c. plus $.10 per square foot for non-residential except that structures designed exclusively for parking (parking garages) shall be calculated at S.OS per square toot. d. plus S200.00 per building for non-residential e. Additional fees for 3rd review $1,000.00, 4th revie\v $1,500.00, 5(h review $2,000.00, 6th and subsequent reviews S2,SOO.00 When a building consist of both residential and non-residential (commerciaL retail, office) uses, the following fees will apply a $5000.00 hase fee plus $40.00 per IH I b. S200.00 per building for non-residential c. plus SO. I 0 per square foot or non-n:sidential /lom area d.. ^dditional fees for 3rd review $1,000.00. 4th revicV\,' $1,500.00, )111 revievv $2,000.00. 6th and subsequent reviews $2,500.00 2) Pre-application fee. SSOO.OO (to be credited toward application ICe suhmittal) a. Second and subsequent pre-app meetings at the applicant's request shall not be credited towards application fees. b. Second and subsequent pre~app meetings at staffs request will be held at no charge to the applicant. c. Applications submitted 9 months or more after the date of the last pre-app meeting shall not be credited towards application fees and a nnv pre-application meeting will be required. 3) Simultaneous Review Fee (planning review of simultaneous building permit applications) $100.00 per building permit application. 4) Site Development Plan Insubstantial Change a. Site Development Plan Insubstantial Change. $400.00 for tirst sheet $100.00 for each and every CDES Financial Administration, [I.;'V O]/]8i091,,' rag~ 4 additional sheet submitted. b. l2l'\,l'ltmlT)\,'l11_11IJ]] J It'_lJIX?tamlqJl,'I)_;)llgt:l~lC1J~.IbIJ~' t :tUjls _)Y"-'';:IL\ ;\~~;~;?i_tJ.I~'U>s:.s-__~~(WJt() li1Uh(' I i r~ l.~bt;,~L 11i.LJ_~JJQ_h'U;jJSJL;l!ld l:\S.t}ji~iQ_i!JS2-'1b!L>Jl~S~~. C. Additio~al fees for 3rd revie~ $1,000.00, 4lh Review $1,500.00, 5th <:Ind subsequent review $2,000.00 5) Site Development Plan Conceptual Review (CSP), Unified Development Plan (U[)P), Neighborhood Park Site (NPSP) $750.00 6) Site Improvement Plan R~vi~\\' (SIP) $1000.00 (plus Engineering revil'v,.' lCes) 7) Utility Plan Rl.'vi~vv & Inspection F~l'S- a. Construction Document Revi\:\v. O.75lYt) nr prob<:lblc V.iater <:Ind,'or se\ver construction costs b. C\)Ilstruction Inspection. 2.25(Yt, of probable VI'atcr and/or s~v~/er construction costs c. Construction Document Resubmission or Document Modification, submit as insubstantial change, $150.00 for Ilrst sheet, $75.00 tor each additional sheet 8) Engineering Site Plan Review Fee a. Construction Documents Review Fee 0.75'V. of probable Paving, Grading, Drainage, Lighting, Code Minimum Landscaping, and any other appurtenant cost of construction b. Construction Inspection 2.2S(Yu of probable Paving, Grading, Drainage, Lighting, Code Minimum Landscaping, and any other appurtenant cost of construction 9) Site Development Plan Amendment (S[WA) $2,500.00. a. Plus $40.00 per I)iU plus $100.011 pcr residential building structure b. plus $.1 () per square foot c. plus $2011.00 per building tor non-residential d. Additional fees I,,, 3rd review $1,000.00. 4th Review $1,500.00. 5th and suhsequent review $2,000.00 10) SBR Fees a. Pre-Acquisition Meeting $500.00 (no relunds or credits) b. Pre-application fee. $5011.00 (to be credited toward application fee upon submittal) (all normal pre- application provisions apply) c. SBR Fee $SOoo.no vvith hourl~/ reconciliation at project completion for hourly variation greater than 10%, final project charges at $1 on.oo pl.'r hour for all assm:iatcd stalf hours I I) Violation of the conditions of approval of the SI)P'SIP or installation of improvements. clearing, or other land alteration not depicted on. or otherwise authorized as a part of the approved SDp/SIP. 4x the SIP/SDp application fee 12) Request for alternative architectural design $500.00, no separate or additional fee lor appeals to, or requests for assistance from, the Architectural Arbitration Board. 13) Site Development Plan Sheet change out (per CDES policy guidelines) $35.00 per page. [41 To\\n 11011]<..' Site I'lan RI.'vil'\\- S6JHW,OU basL' ke. additional h..TS hlr y-i rn..LG_~\5_LQQQ,90..~1~:_X~:\0l~ ~h~~~_,!)(i':-:,:~.-.I:I.;~I.~::~\;~'..~.i,~'.~.!.~.!;.l)(~._.(-l~-II..~~!I.i\i.~;i.l.b.;~'g,~;~;~i;;',h'-~\~~J:~_~~V~!)Jt""- Ls..1 SDVJ.\l~n"'l( 'lL_~_S I ~(htIO .lh_! 1\1...1 I :11':l' 1<\11 tiL d H:I"\~! .'l.. .SI.Ollll.OH. RL'\1i!111;)1 ].,'<': S250,t10 l';)LI)'lIhlnIIJ~lL. $3.~UO.O._U~I_,~~hjjl.l,_1.lliltJJ G) SUBDIVISION I) Lot Line Adjustment (LLA) and Lot Split Review $250.00 2) Subdivision Review Fees I PPL). (PPLA) - ('DES Financial Adminislralion. rev OJ/IK/()q 1\\ page 5 a. Construction Documents Revic\v Fee O.75(YtI of probable Paving, (,rading, Drainage, Lighting, Code Minimum Landscaping and any other appurtenant cost of construction b, Subdivision Inspection I'"ee 2.250;\, of probable Paving_ Grading, Drainage, Lighting, Code Minimum Landscaping, and any other appurtenant cost of construction c. Construction Document Resubmissioll or Document Moditication -Submit as Insubstantial Change $400.00 for first sheet, $100.00 for each additional sheet d. Subdivisions 3rd and subsequent additional reviews - $500.00 e, Subdivisions Substantial deviations from approval construction documents $500.00 3) Subdivision. Preliminary Plat (PSP)- a. Petition Application $1000.00 plus $5.00 per acre (or traction thereof) for residential, plus $10.00 per acre (or fraction thercol) for non-residential; (mixed use is n:sidential) 4) Subdivision Final Plat (1'1') $1,000.00 plus $5.00 per acre (or fraction thereof) for residential, $1000.00 plus $10.00 per acre (or fraction thereof) for nonresidential: (mixed LIse is residential) 5) Additional review of construction plans for phased construction of subdivision improvements, $1000.00 per phase 6) Two-year l'.xtension S150.00 7) Water and Scwa Facilities Constructioll Documcnt Review O.75(~J of probable water and/or se\ver construction custs 8) Construction Document Resubmission or Documcllt Modillcation O.25(Y.1 of probable water and/or sewer construction ClJsts a. 3rd and subsequent re-subminals - $500.00 9) Water and Sewer Facilities Construction Inspection Fee 2.250/0 of probable water and/or sewer construction costs 10) Violation of the conditions of approval of approved construction plans or installation of improvements, clearing, or other land alteration not depicted on, or otherwise authorized as a part of the approved construction plans or permit. 4x the PPL, PPLA, PSP, CNSTR or Final Plat Review Fce (FP). II) Administrative Amendment $250.00 H) ENGINEERING INSPECTION FEES 1) Engineering Inspection Fee $150.00 f'H:'T H:'s-idl.'IH+a18\H'HiHg H-ltH (lr'at'i..:'-e.,...\l-f-Y";{H1iAUn~1:t\ R:'sffit4l-t:-ht~-dy,.enitl-g lHiil {"'-Htt-k d-l- dUptt''\\\-f\-lV)-, per L'llginL'cllng irr-.pl'cl h1!):-i CI1<11::;',,-d ;ll tim\..' llt building perin it 1:-i:iUan\..L~ 2) Re-inspection Fees: 1,1 re-inspcction $75.00, 2'1,1 re-inspection $100.00, 31d and thereafter re-inspection $125.00 I) TEMPORARY USE PERMITS I) Beach Events Permits- a. Individual Permit $100.00 b. Block 01'25 calendar days $2,250.00 c. Block of 50 calendar days $4,500.00 d. Block of 75 calendar days $6,750.00 e. Block of 100 calendar days $9,000.00 1'. Block of 125 calendar days $11,250.00 g. Block of 150 calendar days $13,500.00 2) Temporary Use Permit Special Sales & I'vcnls. $200.00 C[)!:S FimU1CW! Administration, rev ()Ji!Ki(Jl) hI page 6 3) Model Homes and Sales Centers S500.00 4) Construction and Development. Mohile home, Agricultural ZOlll11g. and Temporary use for "Coming Soon" sign S\25.00 5) Residential and NOll-Profit Garage and Yard Sale Permits No Charge 6) l'emporary U5C Amendmcnl. SIIlO.OO 7) Renewals or extensions requested allcr the expir(:lrion date S200.00. 8) Temporary the Permit for Special Events requiring Bee approval, including Circus and Carnival Permits. S275.00 9) Political Signs (Bulk Temporary Permit) S5.00 10) Fees for Temporary Use permits issued Aller the Facl, AT"": 2x normal fee J) WELL PERMITS/INSPECTIONS I) Hydraulic elevator shaft permit S300.00 2) Test hole permit (including 15t six holes) S300.00. each additional hole S20.00 3) Well permit (abandonment) S50.00 4) Well permit (construction. repair, or combined construction and abandonment at one site) $300.00 5) Well permit (monitoring) S150.00 6) Well Permit (modification of monitor/test well to a production well) S75.00 7) Well Reinspections a. First Rcinspectioll $75.00 b. Second Reinspection S\OIl.OO c. Third Reinspeetion S150.00 8) After the fact WL'll permits 4\ normal fee per violation. NOTE: Multipk \vclls may he allowed Dn one permit. but each \\TII must hL' accoullted for and thc appropriate fee shall be charged for cadl well in <lccordancc \vith the abllVL' listed ,",chcduk. K) ZONING/LAND LISE PETITIONS I) Pre-application meeting lee S500.00 (to be credited toward application fee upon submittal) a. Second and subsequent pre-app meetings at the applicant's request shall not be credited towards application fees. b. Second and subsequent pre-app meetings at staffs request will be held at no charge to the applicant. c. Applications submitted 9 months or more after the date of the last pre-app meeting shall not be credited towards application fees and a new pre-application meeting will be required. 2) Alcoholic Beverage or Service Station Separation Requirement Waiver Sloon.oo 3) Boat Dock Extension PetitIon SI,500.00 Boat l.ift Canopy Administrative Review S500.00 4) Conditional Lise Permit S4,OOO.OO when tilled with Rezone Petition (SI,500.00) Additional fee !()r 5'" and subsequent reviews 201X, of original fce 5) Conditional Use Monitoring Review: S750.00 6) Conditional Use Extension S3,OOO.00 7) DR! Review (In addition to cost ofrezond $10,000.00 plus $25.00 an acre (or fraction thereof) Additional fee for 5th and subsequent revie\\'"s 20'X, of original fee ^ml~ndments deemed to be minor in nature, that is requiring minor strike thru and underline text amL'ndmcnts ol'no more than ]0 dill~rent lines of text changes CDLS FInancial i\dminislratioll. rev ()3/]X/091w pagt: 7 in the DRl will be capped at $13.000.00 Any amendment which includes a map and text change will be assessed the I\dl fee (no cap). 8) DRJlDO Amendment $6,000.00 plus $25.00 per acre (or li'action thereol) The acreage charge does not apply for amendments Voihich only change the build-out date of the DO for a time period of less than live years. rur dnd ~Ull\""'ljll"-'IIlI\_'\I...,_\\" 2(J"" ul teL'. <,ILJ)J\l [~1""}1,'~ i ~),!J._: :)J ItlJ.J~g 9) DRIABN DRl Abandonment $1,500.00 10) Flood Variance Petition $]000.00 11) Interim Agriculture Use Petition $350.00 12) Non-Conforming Use Change/Alteration $1,500.00 13) Parking Exemption $1,500.00. Additional fee for 51h and subsequent revic\vs 2()O;() of original tee. 14) Parking Reduction (Administrative) SlSOO.OO 15) Rezone Petition (PU I) to PUI) I: 58,000.00 plus $25.00 an acre (or fraction thereol) (Requires a submittal of a new Pl i1) dOCLlment).'\Jlilt!iHi:!i 1.....- I~)[ ;;' ,md'.,1i\'<'qU\.'li\ !"('\ In'. " 'Ii('" d) 'lrlglil~ll kt, 16) Property owner notifications: $1.50 non-certified mail, $3.00 (crtified return receipt mail (Petitioner to pay this amount prior to advertisl:ment of petition) 17) Planned Unit Development Amendments (PlJD) $6,000.00 plus $25.00 an acre or traction of an acre. (Substantia] l.:hangcs to the text and Master Plan). Additional fee for 5111 and subsequent reviews 20tJ/o of original f<:e. Text changes that do not impact [he Master Plan $6.000.00 (the $25.00 an aere f<:e will not apply. Amendments deemed to be minor in nature that is requiring minor strike thru and underline amendments of no morc than] () different lines of text changes in the pun will be capped at $9,000.00. Any amendment which includes a map and text change will be assessed the lull fee (no cap). 18) Planned Unit Development Amendment - Insubstantial (PDI) $1,500.00 requires a hearing by the CCPC only I(lf a minor change [0 the pUD Master Plan. PUI) Minor Change (PMC) $1,000.00 (Administrative Review for minor change to the Master Plan) 19) Rezone Petition (Regular) $6,000.00 plus $25.00 an acre (or fraction thereof), Additional fee for 5'h and subsequent reviews - 200;() or original tee_ 20) Rezone Petition (to pUD) $]0,000.00 plus 525.00 an acre (or traction thereol), Additional fee for 5'h and subsequent reviews 20'Vtl of original fee. 21) Street Name Change (P]atted) $500.00 plus S-l.HH ~L~~ for each propert) O\vner requiring notification of proposed stn:et name change 22) Un-platted street name or project name change $IO().OO per application fee plus $50.00 per additional hour or Partial hour of research required to process application. not to exceed $500.00 23) Variance petition: $2,000.00 residential, $5,000.00 non- residential. Additional lee for 51h and subsequent Reviews 20o;() of original fl:c. 24) Variance (Administrative) $1,000.00 25) Zoning Certificate: Residential: $50.00, Commercial: $125.00 26) pUD Extension Sun Setting: $]000.00 27) Sign Variance Petition: $2000.00 CDI~S Fmanr.:ial Auministration, rev 03/IKi09l\.\ page 8 28) Stewardship Receiving Area Petition (SRA): $7000.00 per SRA plus $25.00 per acre for. Stewardship Sending Area Petition (SSA): $9,500.00, Stewardship Receiving Altemative Deviation Design (SRDD) $500.00. SRA Amendments deemed to be minor in nature, that is requiring minor strike thru and underline text amendments of 110 more than] 0 ditlerent lines oftt..:xt changes in the SRA will be capped at $10,000.00. 29) After-the-Fact Zoning/Land Use Petitions 2x the normal petition fee 30) Land Use Petition Continuances ;11\ '\jl)"I\'d: ,d ,Iii iVt; ! h.', i ':(di d:ld l)(Jdrd t)!" /lHl1I1;1 :\\1II,-o;il-, a. K.equcstl:d after petition has been advertised SSOO.OO b Requested at the meeting $750.00 c. Resultant additional required advertising charged in addition to continuance fees. 31) PUD and SRA_Monitoring (one-time charge at time of building permit pick-up) a. $100.00 per dwelling unit for residential construction within a PUD and SRA ($3,000.00 maximum fee per building permit application) b. $0.12 per square foot for non-residential construction within a PUD and SRA ($3.000.00 maximum fee per building permit application) 32) Any legal advertising required during any CDES activity or approval process will be charged in addition to stated fees. at actual costs. (,DES rl'scrves the right to charge an estimated amount with the initially required project fees. and will reconcile and lIdjust such charges against actual legal advertising recording billings at at the completIon of the project. 33) Mixed Use Project (MUP) $2,500.00 ;J )<:\'I:dl~'!_~ ~1/IV(l.i)(1 34) (:~t1(k)t'FS-efYI11~ Area Pe-nnil '\J1ll'llI"ll'd \ound 1\ 1'11\01 S300.00. 35) Planned Unit Development (PUD) closeout application and processing: a. PU[)'s up to 50 acres: $5,000.00 b. PliD's over 50 acres up to 250 acres $7,000.00 c. PUD's over 250 acres: $9,500.00 36) Development of Regional Impact (DRI) closeout application and processing $10,000.00 L) MISCELLANEOUS I ) Reserved 2) Reserved 3) Official Zoning Atlas Map Sheet Publications, maps, and reports shall be copied at actual cost. 4) The following fee shall be assessed for all Lien Searches ~t1-1e--,St>-an:ht>"'i and or Payoff Requests: S5A.J-4 ~25.1Hl,/per request. 5) The fee for researching records. ordini1ncl.:s. and codes shall be alno charge for the first hour, then at the base salary hourly rate of the starr memher conducting the service lor time in excess of I hour. 6) The fe\.' for creating and designing special computl'f generated reports that are not a part of regular standard reports shall he at no charge for the first hour, then at the hase salary hourly' rate of the staff member conducting the service for time in excess of I hour 7) CD Buming: $5.00 8) Complete sets of Official Zoning Atlas Map Sheets $100.00 per set. CDES Financial Administration, rev 03!18/09 lw page 9 9) Staff shall charge the following fees for duplication of public records: a. $0.15 for each one sided photocopy or documents less than 11 x I 7 inches. b. $0.20 tl,r each two sided photocopy of documents less than II x 17 inches. c. $1.00 for each certified copy ofa public record. 10) Property Notification Address Listing: a. MS Excel spreadsheet on Disc $70.00 b. Print out on Paper $75.00 t $0.05 for cv~ry record over 1500 c. Mailing Labels $80.00 -j $().06 for evcry record over 1500 d. Print out on Paper I Mailing Labels $85.00 I SO. I 1 for every record over 1500 II) Comprehensive Plan Consistency Rl:view a. Clf s $300.00 b. Rezoning $750.00 c. PUD's or PUD Amendments: $2250.00 d. Letter ofGMP consistency to outside agem:ks: $250 e. SRA - Stewardship Receiving Area - S2,250.()() f DRI - Development of Regional Impact - S2,250.00 g. FlAM F'iscallmpact Analysis - S4,OOO.OO 12) Plan Review Fcc (for planning review orall huilding permit applications) a. I Hlt:::'_ (,Inn:-.l'('nnll ,(,I\i\lij C',Ii')P!,'\. I.ll1\\f~ \)\,111 (llle trJ~k) $125.00 per building permit application, 2nd review SOtY-1 or ree, )'d and subsequent 25~1 of fee (2nd and subsequent review rees related to Zoning approvals only) b. ~*f*e,"s.ftt'FHHts r~,.;r!JliL,'\ppLi\;'ltjqll n,t>j~ll,l~l.Jr~!.~k,-~)I_~~]JgJIiEltU: $50.00 per building permit application, 211tl review 5WYo of fee, 3nl and_subsequent 250/0 of fee (2nd and subsequent review fees related to Zoning approvals only) 13) Project Meetings: Active applications under review for the following project types will be afforded one inter- departmental meeting at no charge: Planned Unit Development re-zonings and Site Development Plan applications (except for conceptual site plan approval and insubstantial change approval). Meeting requests for all other application types and additional meetings will be subject to the following fees: a. Meetings with Departmental Project Approval Staff member per applicant request, reviews and petitions in progress, $150.00 per one hour minimum, $75.00 per 1/2 hour thereafter. Additional Department staff attending meeling per applicant request $75.00 per 1'1 hOLlr per slaff member. b, Inter-Departmental ProjCl:\ Meeting per applil:<.lnl requl:st, site plan reviews and land use petitions in progress, $500.00 per one hour minimum, $250.00 per ~; hOLlr then:aher. 14) Adequate Public Facilities a. Planning Applications requiring COA process review (such as FP's, PPL's & SIP's. SDPs) $200.00 ~ 25.00 per residential dwelling unit or ' 25.00 per 1000 sq It commercial ($500000 maximum) b. Building permit applications requiring COA process review not covered under 12.a above $100.00 per building permit application. 15) Zoning Confirmation Letters a. Standard Response $100.00 (includes up to I hour research) b. Extended Research $100.00 per hour (any response with research in excess of I hour) 16) l-t-Hltl+~.,l,ell~r Appeal-S2S4.-....0 17) CDD a. Community Development District $15,000.00 b. Chapter 189 Special District, Independent or Dependent, $15,000.00 18) GMP Amendment a. Small Scale $9000.00 C[)LS FindIKlal,\rJmil1hlralinn, n:v ()J/ISiOY h\ page 10 b. General $16,700.00 c. Legal advertising in addition to sub-sections a and h fees, and subject to applicable tee schedule provisions. d. Pre-application meetings for (iMP consistency for development orders and zoning,iland use petitions: $250 t'. !)rt:'-itpplH'i:HlOfl iltt'1:'1 H+~"'" loll" i. ,\.I P dill',';hlHlt'l!! fkiH +lHl" "'l25H fhl lh' tl,~'dtlt'd h~\"'df\j rlpr~lf,Hi'nH l~t'- HfHH+ "Hf)HHil,1it 19) Application for issuance ['DR. $250 (noll-rl'fundablcl; plus $25 per TDR issued and n.'corded (total fees not to exceed $2.750.(0) 20) Engineering Services a. Vacation of Easements: $2.000.00 21) Building Board of Adjustments and Appeals $250.00 22) Early Work Authorization (EW A) permit: $500.00 (does not include site clearing Ice). 23) Legal Non-conforming Lot (I.NC) $100.00 24) Vested Rights Determination (VRD) $1,500.00 f,'its'f!>)_~,)_!!5130.HO M) BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION FEE 1) A permit application fee shall be collected at time of applying f()r a huilding permit. l'he permit application fce shall be collected when the plans are submitted for review. The ICe shall he applied toward the total pem1it fee. The applicant shall forfeit the application fee if the application is denied or if the application is approved and the permit is 110t issued \vithin the time limitation as ')tated in Section 103.6.1.1 of the Collier County Ordinance No. 91-56, (1') amended 2) Application fee will be computed as follovvs: a 25t~1 ol'total Building Permit Fcc ($.15 sq It new n:sidential and commercial, $.(ns shell and warehouse) 3) Minimum fee 01'$75.00 tor each of the following: plumbing: mechanical (A/C): electrical: fire: and building, Minimum fee for all other applications c, $50.00 4) The balance of the total permit fee will be collected at the time of issuance of the permit and will include any fee adjustments necessary. N) BUILDING PERMIT FEES I) The fee for a building permit shall be computed as follows: Such fees shaH be either based on the contractor's valuations of construction cost or bClscd on square l()otage. Minimal accepted calculated costs of construction are set f()rth on the ,1Itached Building Valuation Data Table - Ice Building Valuation Data Table, produced February, 2007. Valuation or construction costs of less than $750,00 - No permit or fee is n:quired, but construction must comply with all County Codes and Ordinances. [f inspections arc required by the Building Omcial or requested by the applicant, the appropriate eel's shall be paid. EXCEPTION. All work involving structural components and/or lire rated assemblies requires permits and inspections regardless of construction cost, signs must se\:ure permits as stated in Collier Collier County Ordinance No. ~002-0 I, as amended. a. Valuation of construction costs of $7)0.00 through $4.999.99 $50,00 plus $50.00 application per inspection as)\.'quired. CDES Financial Adminislmtion, rev 03!lXi09 hv page II b. New construction greater than 500 square feet I. residential at $0.29 per square foot (living area) 11. warehouse/shell at $0.145 per square foot (total area) iii. build-out at $0.145 per square root (total area) IV. commercial / institutional at $0.29 per square foot (tota] area) c. Alterations, other construction, and new construction under 500 square feet (both residential and commercial) minimum fee of$100.00 for one required inspection, plus $50.00 for each required additional inspel:tion. $100 plus 0.300A) ofdec]ared valuation in excess 01'$5,000 0) ELECTRICAL PERMIT FEES I) I"he fees for electrical permits for n~w structures or plal:ement or relocation of structures shal] be computed as folhl\\'s' a. $0.40 per ampere rating of all singk-phasL' panel boards b. $0.15 per ampere rating for switch or circuit \vhichcver is greater. 11' item t-J I above docs not apply c. When not a complete installation, all SVl,'ih.:h and circuit breakers ahead or pane] boards shall be computed a\ $0.15 per ampere d. Permit fees for any change in electrical installation shall be computed at the above rates for that portion of ne\-v and/or increased fees in existing electrical facilities. e. The minimum for any electrical permit shall be $75.00 per unit or tenant space f. Filly percent (50'V.) in additional fee costs sball be added to all above fees for three phase installations. EXCEPTION: Ordinary repairs limited to a $200 value or less may be made without a permit. Repairs must comply with al] County ('odes and Ordinanc('s. I f inspections arc required hy the Building Official or requested hy the applicant. the appropriate fees shall he paid. P) PLUMBING PERMIT FE~:S I) The following fee calculations shall be applied separately when the permit involves mixed occupancies. a. Residential occupancies: The fee t(X a plumbing permit shall be computed at the rate 01'$75.00 to be charged 1'01' each living unit with one to three bathrooms. An additional fct:..' 01'$10.00 will be assessed for each additional bathroom b. Nonresidentia] occupam:ies: The teL' 1'01' a p]umblllg permit shall he computed by the j()lIov'iing methods, vvhichcvcr is calculated to be the greatest fL'e: I. The rate of$3.00 per 4~) square feet of nom an:a, or traction thereof: or , Institutional facilities, hospitals, schools, n:staurants and repairs in any m:cupancy classification shal] be charged at the rate of$1.00 per fixture unit or 3. Minimum 01'$75.00 for each occupancy or tenant space. 2) Grease traps: An additional fee 01'$50.00 shall be assessed for each grease trap. 3) The cost for retrofit piping shall be computed at the minimum fec 01'$50.00 per tloor for each main riser. 4) The cost o1'a pemit for lawn sprinkler s~ystcms shall be computed using the dollar valuation as shown under Section M l)fthis Reso]ution. 5) The minimum plumbing permit fee shall be $75.00. CDES Financial AdminiSlration, r..:v ()]/IX/09 I\'i pag..: 12 Q) MECHANICAL PERMIT FEES 1) lhe following fee calculations shall be applied sl'paratel:y V\.hen the permit involves mixed occupancies. a. Residential occupancies: The mechanical permit fees shall he computed a1 the rate 01'$75.00 for each living unit up to three tons or air conditioning. Lach additIOnal ton or part thereof shall be $3.00 per ton. b. Nonresidential occupancies: The mechanical permit fees shall be computed by one ol'the following methods, whichever is calculated to be the greatest fee: The rate 01'$75.00 for the first three tons or three horsepower of air conditioning or other mechanical systems per tenant space, l.'ach additional tOil of air conditioning or horsepower shall be $3.00: or ['he rate of $3.00 per 425 squan: feet of !loor area, or fraction thereof 2) lhe cost ofretroftt piping shall be computed at the minimum fee 01'$50.00 per 1100r for each cooling tower, or $50.00 for the first 3 horsepower and $3.00 for each additional horsepower. which~ver is greater. 3) The minimum mechanical permit fee shall be $75.00. 4) A permit for the change out of components shall be calculated at the abov~ mechanical permit fee rate or the minimum fee whichever is greater. R) FIRE PREVENTION AND CONTROL PERMIT FEES I) The fees and exemptions set forth in the "Exhibit B" aftixed hereto and made a part of this Schedule of Development Review and Building Permit Fees shall apply to Fire Prevention and Control Penn its for both the independent and dependent tire districts. S) MOBILE HOME/OFFICE TRAILER AND OTHER TRAILER I'ERMIT FEES I) The permit fee sholl be S50.00 to sd-up a .:;inglc-\\idc trailer or ml)bilc home on an approved silt: plus electrical, plumbing. mechanical and tire protection lees as applicable. 2) The permit fee shall be $75.00 to set-up a double ".ide or larger mobile homes on an approved site plus electrical. plumbing, mechanical and fire protection fees as app]icable. T) CHICKEES AND SIMILAR STRUCTURES I) The permit fee will be based upon a calculated cost of construction of $4.00 per square foot under roof or the contractor's estimated cost of construction, whichever is greater. The fee will then be calculated in accordance with Section N of this Resolution. Additional permit fees for electric, plumbing, mechanical, fire, etc., will be charged when applicable. U) POOL OR SI'A I'ERMIT FEES 1) For construction oj' each public pool or spa the fee sha]1 be a. Valuation of construction costs of up to $4,999.99. $100.00 b. Valuation of construction costs of $5000.00 through $49,999.99: S80.00 plus $7.00 per thousand dollars, or fraction thereof, of building valuation in excess 01'$2,000.00. c. Valuation of construction costs of $50,000.00 through $1,000,000.00: $333.00 plus $3.00 per thousand dollars, or fraction thereof, ofbui]ding valuation in excess 01'$50,000.00, d. Valuation of <:.:onstru<:.:tion costs over S 1.000,000.00: $3.474.00 plus $3.00 per thousand dollars, or fraction thereof. of bui lding valuation in ~xcc,," of $1,000,000.00. 2) For construction of each private pool or spa the fee shall be' SSO.OO application plus $50.0tl per inspection as required. V) SCREEN ENCLOSlJRE PERMIT & I'AN ROOF FEES tl ('oflslfH€H<.-+fl-f"hl" -;1 lallh,;t'dkHl"Ht:!d. dS!+lliows CDES Financial Administration, rev OJ/iR/09 Iw page i3 d ,'>,.I..'F\;'t'fll-\\lt;! ,!;2.HH ~,\.'F"q fl \'; nt1-\'1 dlt:"d i?--.\ r,,~t:h \\ dll" ()l1j\ l h hH11\H\)f., "SJ.UHper...q.f1 \,j'nOt.)!' M\:'a"~,S"rl"t'H\Nd~Lr()H,lyl c, j",'\\r"liHg ROt+L~2.00 pel "tj. H,'t;lf Ihlllr dn!d \ ....\.T<2l'1\ \Valls(IHf~ I 2) The screen enclosure or roof fee will then be calculated in accordance with Section N of this Resolution. W) SIGN PERMIT FEES I) Sign permit fees will be calculated in accordance with all applicable Building Permit Fees and Electrical Permit Fees outlined in this document the Collier County Development Fee Schedule. The minimum building permit fee for sign shall be $75.00. 2) Multiple signs orthe same type (i.e., wall signs) and for a single project may be allowed per one permit, however an appropriate fee shall be charged for each ~ign in accordance with the schedule set forth in the above subsection] of Sign Permit h:es, X) CONVENIENCE PERMIT FEES I) Convenience permits are issued in blocks of 10 cacho Only licensed contractors are digiblc to purchase convenience permits are limited to the use specified on the penniT. The fee for a book of 10 convenience permits is $500.00 ($50.00 fee per inspection. I inspection only) Y) REVISION AND AS BUILT PLAN REVIEW FEES; CORRECTIONS TO PLANS I) PERMIT AND PLAN REVISIONS The lee for each permit revision submitted afler permit issuance shall be calculated using fee schedules outlined in Sections N through R above rhe minimum permit fee for revisions to permitted projects shall be $50.00. 2) AS BUILT PLANS The fee I(lf "As Built" plan review shall be ten (10%) percent of the original building pennit fee or $150.00, whichever is greater, but shall not exceed $500.00. The fee is intended to cover the cost of reviewing amended building plans in the office to determine that change orders and various field changes arc in compliance vvith the minimum construction and fire codes of Collier County. The following are required for as-built drawings review: a. An itemized list of all changes made after permit plan approval. b. As-built plans that have all changes made afler permit plan approvat "clouded". c. As~built plans and changes shall be signed and sealed by the engineer and/or architect of record. 3) CORRITTIONS TO Pl.ANS a. First Correction to Plans No charge b. Second Correcllnn to Plans. $75.00 C. Third & subscqucm correction to plans. St()O.OO Z) PERMIT EXTENSION I) The tiling fee t{)r each permit extension shall be equal to tW~1 of the original building permit fee or SIOO.OO, whichever is greateL but shall not exceed $500.00. The tiling fee is intended to cover the cost ofrcviewing existing or amended building plans to determine and verify code compliance AA) DEMOLITION OF BUILDING OR STRUCTURE PERMIT FEES I) The permit fee shall be $25.00 application lor the demolition of any building or structure; plus $50.00 per inspection as required. BB) PRE-MOVING INSI'ECTION FEES I) The fee shall be $150.00 for the pre-moving inspection of any building or structure. CDES Financial ^dministratillll. r.;v OJ/ I 8/09 h\' page 14 CC) INSPECTION FEES 1) A charge of $20.00 per inspection shall be assessed for inspections for which a permit is not necessary. 2) A user ree 0[$120.00 shall be assessed for all inspections on a time spcdficd basis. 3) First Partial inspection for single-tamily & tenant buildout. No charge 4) Second & subsequent paJiial inspections fur single-ramily & tenant buildout. $25.00 DO) REINSPECTlON FEES I) Re-inspections for any type of building permit, or required Engineering fe-inspections, shall result in an additional fee of$75.00 per inspection for the first re-inspection, $100.00 for the second re-inspection and $125.00 for the third and each successive re-inspection. EE) FAILURE TO OBTAIN A PERMIT 1) Where work for which a permit is required is started or proceeded with prior to obtaining said permit and where such action \....a5 cited by Code Enforcement or by Contractor Licensing and resulted in a finding of violation from either the Code Enforcement Board, the Special Magistrate, or the Contractor Licensing~Board, or as directed by the Board of County Commissioners the fees herein specified shall be 4x the regular fee. :n Where work for whidl (:l permit is required is st3l1ed or proceeded \vith prior to obtaining said permit and where a contractor or agent/provider where the building ol'licial or zoning director (for cases involving land development) deems that the contractor/provider should have known that a permit was required but voluntary seeks compliance by obtaining the nl'cessary permits to ahate the violation the fees herein specified shall be 2\ the regular fee. 3) Where work for which a permit is required is started or proceeded \vith prior to obtaining said permit and where an o\vner,/builder seeks voluntary compliance by obtaining said permit the fees assessed will be 2x the regular rate as defined in this fee schedule. 4) Where work for which a permit is required is started or proceeded with prior to obtaining said permit and where the unpermitted \.vork was completed by other or prior to the current owner/builder's ownership of the property an \vhere the current owner/builder seeks voluntary compliance by obtaining said permit to assure compliance \vith all applicable codes the fees will be assessed at the regular rate as defined in this fee schedule. 5) rhe payment of such fee shall not relieve any person tram fully complying with the requirements of any applicable construction code or ordinance in the execution of the work, or from any' penalty prescribed within any construction code, law or ordinance of Collier County. FF) LICENSING I) The fee for licensing items is as follows: a. Letters of Reciprocity. $25.00 b. Contractors Change of Status. (activl' to dormant) $10.00 c Voluntary Registration of State Certified Contractnrs, $10.0() d. Pictures. $2.00 e. Laminating $1.00 (per license) r Fel' for a 6 month temporary' contractor's llcenst' S25.00 g. Certiiied copil's of Experience letters $35.00 h. Duplicate or replacelllent (ofCornpt:kncy cards) $25.00 1. Second entity application fee $50.00 2) Certificated of Competency (Annual) a. Contractor Initial License Fee Rt:ncwal Fee b. Specialty Contractor Initial License Fee $]50.00 $]00.00 $135.00 ('DES Financial ^UlllilllstratiOll. rn IIl/lX,/()l} Iw page 15 Renewal Fee c. Journeyman Initial I ,iccnse Fcc Renewal h..~L' $ 85.00 $ 50.00 $ 25.00 3) Donnant Certifil:atl's of Competency (Annual) a. Contractor $100.00 b. Specialty Contractor $ 85.00 c. Penalty rees afler 9/30 $ 10.00 per month until 12/31 4) Reinstatement of Delinquent License J. Contractor b. Specialty' Contractor c. Journeyman d. Examination Administrative Fcc $150.00 plus back years $135.00 plus back years S 50.00 plus back years S I 00.00 good Ie)]' 6 months GG) DUPLICATE PERMIT CARDS I) The fee shall be $5.00 for the issuance of a duplicate permit card for whatever reason. HH) CHANGE OF CONTRACTOR OR SUBCONTRACTORS I) To record a change or contractor or subcontractor. on a penn it that has been issued, the fee shall be $50.00. Thi~ fee includes the issuance ofa new permit card. II) PERMIT FEE REFUNDS I) If requested, in writing by the ov'mer or his authorized agent, 50";() of the fees charged, other than the application fee, may be refunded provided that a pemlit has been issued, construction has not commenced, and the refund is applied for priorto the cancellation oCthe permit. JJ) RECORD RETRIEV AL 1) No charge for retrieving re<:ords from ina<:tivc or remote storage including minotilmed documents KK) COPY FEES 1) The fee for blueprint and miscellaneous copying shall be as follows: a. M icrolilm copies, of documents less than 11,\ I 7 inches: SO.15 other sizes at cost of production. r Microlilm or Blueprint copies: 18 X 24 $1.25 per page 30 X 36 $2.50 per page 30 X 42 $3.25 per page 34 X 44 $5.00 per page g. Community Development self-service copier, public access and not related to public record retrieval or public record copies: documents less than 14x8.5 inches $0.15 per page inclusive ofsa\es tax. LL) RESEARCH 1) The fee for researching records, ordinances, and codes shall be at no charge for the first hour, then at the base salary hourly rate of the staff member conducting the service for time in excess of I hour 2) The fee for creating and designing special computer generated reports that are not part of the regular standard reports shall be at no charge for the first hour, then at the base salary hourly' rate orthe staff member conducting the service for time in cxcess llr I hour CDES !-'inalH;iill AdmimstwtlUI1. rev OJ"" I X/ljl) 1\\ pilgC [6 MM) SUBSCRIPTION SERVICE The fee lor one-year subscription scrvicl' tI) be Illailed quarkrly shall be $1::;.00 per year. The subscription y'car is from Oct. ] through Sept. 30. NN) ELECTRONIC DATA CONVERSION SURCHARGE I) A surcharge in the amount of 3'Yu of the building permit application fee, with the minimum surcharge being $3.00 and the maximum being $150.00, will be applied to every building permit application submitted. ^ fiat fee of $3.00 per permit will be charged for those permits for which an application fee is not required per item (M) of this Schedule 00) REGISTRATION OF RENTAL DWELLINGS I) The fee for registration or n:ntal dvvellings is as follovvs: a. Initial Registration "ce - $30.00/pcr property b. Annual Renewal - $20.00iper property c. Annual Late Fee - $IO.OO/per day per property up to a maximum of$80.00 d. The term '.property.... means a parcel or contiguous parcels with any number of rental units located thereupon under common o\'mcrship and/or management. 2) Rentallnspection a. Rentallnspectll," - $200.00 per umt b, Re~inspection Fee - $50.00 per n:-inspl'Clion per Ulllt c. Rental inspections shall not be required for rental units on property covered by a I.'lorida Department of Business and Prolt.'ssional Regulation r'[)BPR") license. i\ (DP) or the current DBPR license shall be provided with the initial rental registration and all subsequent rental renewal applications. 3) Any unpaid fees may be pursued by the Coll]er Manager or designee through a collection agency. PP) CERTIFICATE TO BOARD BUILDING I) Initial Boarding Certificate - $0 2) Boarding Certificate Extension - $150 QQ) ADDITIONAL FEE REFUND PROVISIONS I) Requests for fee waivers may only be approved by the Board of County Commissioners. Waiver requests for development revic\v and buildinp. permit fees shaH hI.' submitted in V\Titing directly to the appropriate Community Devclopment & Environmental Services Division Stare who will prepare an executive summary for consideration by the Board, Such requests shall indude a statement indicating the rcason for the fee waiver request amI. If applicable. the nature orthe organinilion requesting the fee waiver RR) REFUND PROVISIONS I) PA YMENT OF FEES: Full payment of fees is required Illr a complete application. Department policy requires full payment of fees at the time of application submittal. No work will begin on staff review of the application until all fees an: paid in full. If full payment of fees is not received vvithin ]4 calendar days of application submittal, the application \vill be considered void. At this point. a new application and full payment or ICes \vill be required 10 proceed w'ith a project. 2) Th~re will be no n:funJ of Planning, Lnvironmental. or Lllginccring related fees. except those applications which have been deemed not sufficient for staff'rcvicw and arc withdra\-vn \-vithin 30 days of notification will be entitled to a 50Uiu refund. After 30 days from such notification, there will be no refund of submitted fees. 3) In no cases will there be refunds lor pre-application fees, data conversion fees, appeals ofadministrativc decisions, or appeals to the Board of Zoning Appeals or Building Board of Adjustment. CDES Finam;ial i\dminiSlHl1ioll. H.'\ O)iIHi091\\ page 17 4) If staff error causes the inappropriate or unnecessary filing of an application and payment of fees, 100 percent of al] inappropriate fees, shall be refunded upon written request and with the concurrence of Department management. SS) ADDITIONAL FEE PROVISIONS 1) In those cases where alternative methods or timing of payments for (,DES services and or fees listed in this schedule associatt:d with SBR revil'ws arc deemed to best serve thl: public good, lhl: Community Development and Environmental Services Administrator \vill have the authority to approve such alternatives, Such alternative must be in VI,riting and signl.,.'d by all prim;ipals involved. In no cas\.' shall final CO. or such certifications of project completeness be is'iueu until payments due Cl)LS arc recl~ived in full. 2) All hourly fees are computed and charged from actual Divisional time tracking rl:corus. 3) All acreage totals used in fee calculations \vill be rounded up to the nearest whole acre. 4) When deemed essential for project review or approval, there will be no additional charge for any meetings requested by CDES stall. TT) PUBLIC VEHICLE FOR HIRE FEES 1) The following fees shall be assessed for the Public Vehicle for Hire Program: (Ill dll' 1..'\Ult thelt tIll l),t~kgl~}Ulld c[l~_~k il'V tlh: Illi[ltlUt!lll rl'~~ l'\Labli:-;hcd h)'!ll' l'oJ!!Jty. tht;__~\ppllCdl!ll~) h~' n.'_'-{\onc.ibk Eq-llw ,H_'tLl~II(u:::>1 n(thv 'i~_ar(h) a Initial Application fee (nev,' Companies).. $200 b Initial Certificate to Operate (Feb I-.lan 31) - $325.00 c. Annual Certilicate to Operate Renewal $325.00 d. Late Fee t(Jr CTO !{enewal $200.110 e. Sub-Certificate Application Fee (New Companies) - $100.00 f Sub-Certificate - $162.50 g. Annual Sub-Certificate renewal- $162.50 h. Late I'ee lor Sub-Certificate Rencwal- $100.00 I. Vehicle Decal - $50.00 J. Temporary Vehic]e Decal $5.00 per vl.'hicle/per day' k. Temporary Vehicle Decal (In case of inoperable decall:d vehicle) - $5.00/per vehicle 1. Driver Identification Card (]nitiaL'Rl.'l1e\\al) .. $75.00 per driver m. 211d Driver IdentlticatlOn Card - $25.00 n !{eplaeement Ilrivcr Ill.. $lll.llO o. On-site Vehick Permitting - $15.00 per vehicle UU)"PA YMENT IN LIEU OF" FEE FOR PATllWA YS (SIDEWALKS, ANI) BIKE LANES) I) Calculated using the current Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) construction costs or an engineering estimate not to exceed twenty-iivc percent (25%) of the submitted application request's total project cost. VV) OPTIONAL EXPEDITED BUILDING PERMIT PLAN REVIEWS I) Optional expedited huilding permit plan review lee shall be 30% ofthe building pennit fee (additional to full building permit fees) with a minimum fee of $50.00 a, Participation in the optitllla] expedited n.:vie\v program is subject to limited availability, applications will be accepted on a lirst come lirst servl.d basis. b. Revicvv completIon times arc guaranteed to equal. or be less than, one half of the normal advertised completion lime frames. Should the expedited rcvie\v exceed this guaranteed completion time, the 30% optional expeditL'd building permit review fee will be refunded to the applicant, and al1 norma] permit fees will apply. Such guarantee and refund provisions shall apply to revieV\'"s, and do not infer or relate to approvals. c. Option a] expedited building permit rL'view fees shall be due at the time of building permit application submission. CDLS l-'inanCIaI ^rJlllinl~lralinn, Tn ()J,' I X.'()l) Iv. page ]!-; d. Any required re-submissions ofpl:rmit applications' leading, to re-revit.:ws, when due to applicant insufficiencies, shall be subject to additional optional expedited building permit plan review fees ifan additional expedited reviev..' is requested by the applicant for the re-review, and shall be calculated against re-submission charges. WW) FENCES I) $50.00 application fee plus $50.00 per inspection as required. XX) Olllionalfemnoran ('erlifil'ate OfOtTlIlJl111n I) _ _ $1~f.l: (Hl1~!~_~~(2m,lJ)~:I"<i<1 j '" ,~..l,,\\'L>(l,{)fg.! ,>~L_jl"S5,~! ~.1...,~JV . ,; J $JJl (!,~()l;E)l:"r.~ >j(.J,~Ji(i~~J This is the last page of the CDES Fee Schedule CDI':S I:inanciul Administralmn, n:v O]ijX!09 h rag\.' ]9