The URL can be used to link to this page

DSAC Backup 12/01/2010DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING BACKUP DOCUMENTS DECEMBER 1, 2010 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE AGENDA December 1, 2010 3:00 p.m. Conference Room 610 NOTICE: Persons wishing to speak on any Agenda item will receive up to three (3) minutes unless the Chairman adjusts the time. Speakers are required to fill out a "Speaker Request Form," list the topic they wish to address, and hand it to the Staff member seated at the table before the meeting begins. Please wait to be recognized by the Chairman, and speak into a microphone. State your name and affiliation before commenting. During discussion, Committee Members may direct questions to the speaker. Please silence cell phones and digital devices. There may not be a break in this meeting. Please leave the room to conduct any personal business. All parties participating in the public meeting are to observe Roberts Rules of Order, and wait to be recognized by the Chairman. Please speak one at a time and into the microphone so the Hearing Reporter can record all statements being made. I. Call to Order - Chairman II. Approval of Agenda III. Approval of Minutes from November 3, 2010 Meeting IV. Public Speakers V. Staff Announcements /Updates A. Public Utilities Division Update — Nathan Beals B. Fire Review Update — Ed Riley C. Growth Management Division/Transportation Planning — Jay Ahmad D. Growth Management Division /Planning & Regulation Update — Jamie French VI. Old Business A. Update on Road Impact fee clarification from Reed Jarvi & finalize Law Enforcement Impact Fees [Amy Patterson] B. Update on the web portal for Planning & Engineering Reviews [Jamie French] C. Update on the comments for revisions [Jamie French] D. Discuss Impact Fees and gain DSAC recommendation [Tom Wides] VII. New Business A. Presentation from Mike Rosen from CBIA's committee's progress on revamping the LDC VIII. Committee Member Comments IX. Adjourn Next Meeting Dates January 5, 2011 GMD Conference Room 610 — 3:00 pm February 2, 2011 GMD Conference Room 610 — 3:00 pm March 2, 2011 GMD Conference Room 610 — 3:00 pm April 6, 2011 GMD Conference Room 610 — 3:00 pm May 4, 2011 GMD Conference Room 610 — 3:00 pm November 3, 2010 MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE November 3, 2010 LET IT BE REMEMBERED that the Collier County Development Services Advisory Committee, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 3:00 PM in REGULAR SESSION in Conference Room #610, Collier County Growth Management Division/Planning & Regulation, 2800 N. Horseshoe Drive, Naples, Florida, with the following Members present: CHAIRMAN: William Varian Vice Chair: David Dunnavant Ray Allain James Boughton Clay Brooker Laura Spurgeon DeJohn Dalas Disney Marco Espinar (Excused) Blair Foley Regan Henry George Hermanson David Hurst Reed Jarvi Robert Mulhere Mario Valle ALSO PRESENT: Nick Casalanguida, Deputy Administrator, GMD — Planning & Regulation Judy Puig, Operations Analyst — Staff Liaison James French, Director — Operations & Regulatory Management Jay Ahmad, P.E., Director — Transportation Engineering Tom Wides, Director — Operations Support, Public Utilities Amy Patterson, Impact Fee and Economic Development Manager Robert Wiley, Principal Project Mgr., Watershed Study Project /FEMA Nathan Beals, Project Manager — Public Utilities November 3, 2010 1. Call to Order: Chairman Varian called the meeting to order at 3:00 PM and read the procedures to be followed during the meeting. II. Approval of Agenda: Change: • Blair Foley requested to add the topic, LDC Amendments Subcommittee, under Item VI, Old Business," as "A." Robert Mulhere moved to approve the Agenda as amended. Second by Mario Valle. Carried unanimously, 13 -0. IIl. Approval of Minutes — October 6, 2010 Meeting: Change: • On Page 4, the first sentence was revised as follows: "Mr. Ahmad stated the at -grade improvements to the intersection at 41— 951 will begin ...... Dalas Disney moved to approve the Minutes as amended. Second by James Boughton. Carried unanimously, 13 -0. IV. Public Speakers: (None) V. Growth Management Division — Staff Announcements /Updates: A. Public Utilities Division Update: Nathan Beals, Project Manager • Discussion Group meeting was cancelled in October • Utilities Standards Committee meeting will be held on November 16`h • Public Utilities /RPZ Subcommittee will meet on: • Monday, 11/15, 3:00 PM and • Monday, 12/06, 3:00 PM Q: Has the Utilities Department provided all necessary information to Fire PlanlReview? A: Yes. Q: Did you meet with the Fire Code Officials concerning the 50 psi Proposal and what was the outcome? A: The data is under review and the topic will be included on the agenda for the Subcommittee meeting. B. Fire Review Update: Bob Salvaggio — Fire Code Office • The Monthly Report was submitted. • A total of 625 reviews were conducted in September. November 3, 2010 C. Transportation Planning Division Update: Jay Ahmad, P.E., Director - Transportation Engineering • Public Meeting:1- 75IEverglades Boulevard Interchange will be held on November 4`h at the Palmetto Elementary School (1 Orh Street SE) • "Cumulative Impact Study" for the Interchange will be conducted by the State prior to conducting the PD &E Study • The new process, which has not been implemented previously, may delay design of the Interchange • Goal: emphasize the importance of the project for the residents of Collier County D. Planning and Regulation Update: James French, Director — Operations and Regulatory Management Q. Concerning the website ( ''Permit- Tracking'), are you updating the page? A. Examining the digital submission process through email, we will post the comments to a webpage so the user will be able to access the page through the County's website. It will require additional maintenance by the County. The page should be online by December. Mr. French stated several Plan Reviewers voluntarily left Gary Harrison's area. Current "bottle- necks" are being reviewed to determine how to elevate the problem in Building Permits /Review. He will report on the situation within the next two months. (David Hurst arrived at 3:10 PM) Q. Is there any current information on the web portal for Planning and Engineering reviews? A. A meeting has been scheduled for November 12`h with Jeff Bender, CEO of Harris, the company that purchased "CityView" which is not up and running due to several issues. The County has paid for the server and for licensing. He will update the Committee at the next DSAC meeting. Q. What is the status of Building Permit Tracking on the webpage? A. Report all problems directly to Jamie French. He stated the problem is on the IT side. Q. Regarding "comments, " can the comments of the individual reviewers be sent as they are completed? A. The issue is re- submittal. You cannot resubmit until all comments are made. It was noted having the comments would allow revisions to be made while waiting for the final review. Mr. French will update the Committee at the next DSAC meeting. November 3, 2010 VI. Old Business: (Revised per amendment to Agenda) A. LDC Amendments Subcommittee —Blair Foley He outlined the following concerns: • Current redevelopment activity (existing and abandoned buildings) may not be "in tune" with LDC amendments • Time frames re: Extensions of Development Orders — need a strategy regarding continuing the extensions — clear instructions • Language changes — allow for flexibility in the Code ( "reasonableness ") • Suggested review of Codes for Landscaping, Parking, ADA, Architectural, Fire o Fire is requiring to see "everything" — and charges a review fee Bob Mulhere stated representatives of CBIA ( "Collier Building Industry Association ") were invited by the County Manager to review the Land Development Code and several Subcommittees were created. One of the Subcommittees specifically reviewed Redevelopment and Process. He will obtain a copy of CBIA's report, which proposes new LDC Amendments, for distribution to the Members (via the Staff Liaison). George Hermanson will contact CBIA to request a speaker for the next DSAC meeting. Chairman Varian suggested adding the topic to DSAC's December agenda. Regarding the ADA Code, it was noted the County cannot pass legislation that "waters down" the Federal regulations. A review and comparison of the Federal Code to the local Code was suggested. B. Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance — Robert Wiley, Land Development Services • The Planning Commission reviewed the draft of the Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance (October 21 s`) • PC had an issue with the notation inserted by DSAC: ["Flood proofing to just the Base Flood Elevation will result in a higher flood insurance premium rate for the structure because the flood insurance policy requires rating a structure at one foot below the flood proofing elevation."] • The PC would like to remove the notation and require flood proofing for a non- residential structure to be at one foot above the Base Flood Elevation. • The PC requested DSAC provide the cost implications to help make a final determination prior to the PC's next meeting on November 18`n There was a lengthy discussion of several issues including variables, gravity slope, size of the structure, effect on structural integrity, retail buildings, the installation of a panel system, the cost increment to flood proof from four feet to five feet, and the lack of a common scenario. It was noted legislation cannot protect everybody from every possible variation. It was also noted since there was no simple answer to determining the cost analysis, DSAC's language served as a warning to review FEMA's documents and regulations prior to making a decision. November 3, 2010 Nick Casalanguida suggested DSAC provide sample cost analysis for new construction and a remodel with a disclaimer that the figures can vary due to building size and other variables, and to note that costs for insurance are prohibitive and not quantifiable. Mr. Wiley will provide information concerning flood insurance premium rates. Dalas Disney volunteered to provide a detailed drawing and requested help with pricing. Chairman Varian suggested informing the Planning Commission that each situation should be reviewed on a case -by -case basis. He volunteered to assist Mr. Disney. (The documents will be sent to the Staff Liaison who will forward as appropriate.) VI. New Business: A. Water and Wastewater Impact Fee Studies — Tom Wides, Director — Operations Support, Public Utilities • Will present the proposed Fee adjustments to the Board of County Commissioners at the second Board meeting in January 2011 • Impact Fees — fund construction of capital projects • AFPI — funds payment of interest on the construction loans He outlined the Impact Fees for Water /Wastewater: • Current - $7,070 (per ERC — "Equivalent Residential Connection') • Proposed - $6,535 • Decrease — 7.6% AFPI ( "Allowance for Funds Prudently Invested "): • Current - $1,693 • Proposed-$1,511 • Decrease — 10.7% Combined Fees: • Current - $8,763 • Proposed - $8,046 • Decrease — 8.2% There are projects slated in the urban area for the next five years. Dalas Disney stated he would abstain from voting on any motions due to a conflict of interest. Projected collection of Impact Fees: $47.68M Growth Related Projects + Debt Service: $90.52M Shortfall: ($42.83M) November 3, 2010 Mr. Wides stated the new projects concern required upgrades to existing facilities as well as added capacity. Example: conversion to a Reverse Osmosis system. He will return to the next DSAC meeting with a specific list of projects, i.e., line items from the Capital Improvement Program (page 4). Q. Why does Collier County have (with the exception of the City of Marco Island) the highest water costs? (Page 34) Bonita Springs and Lee County are significantly lower. A. Our most recent capacity additions have been R.O. (reverse osmosis). The user rates for Collier County are approximately in the middle of the pack. It was noted Marco Island has not updated its Impact Fee Study since 2005. Tom Wides asked the Committee to direct questions to Judy Puig. He will return to DSAC with answers along with better definitions for "on -going maintenance," and "improvements," and comparisons to other communities. The rate consultant will also attend the December meeting to answer the Committee's questions. B. Update: Library /Government Buildings, and Law Enforcement Impact Fees — Amy Patterson, Impact Fee and Economic Development Manager • Subcommittee Report for Library: (Mario Valle) There were no real issues and capacity is sufficient. The range of decrease is between 42 - 65% depending on the land use category. Ms. Patterson explained why certain buildings /parcels that were not owned by the Board of County Commissioners and the different values for land in each category. There are no plans to build new libraries in the next ten years. The goal is payment of the debt. She noted lower construction costs and land costs were the reasons for the decrease. Mario Valle moved to accept the Impact Fees Study for Library Buildings as presented. Second by George Hermanson. Carried unanimously, 14 -0. • Subcommittee Report for Government Buildings: The average decrease to residential is 25% and to commercial is 32 %. A question was asked concerning the reductions and why the amounts were not the same as in the Library Study. Amy Patterson noted the different distribution in land and building costs, and the style of libraries constructed were simpler. For Government, there is a mix of commercial and residential parcels. Heritage Bay (Immokalee /951) is the next parcel to be built. The figure for population increases was questioned and it was noted Comprehensive Planning provided the percentage (projection calculations as mandated by the DCA). There will be an adjustment reflecting the new Census numbers (2010) in the next Update Study (3 years). November 3, 2010 Mario Valle moved to accept the Impact Fees Study for Government Buildings as presented. Second by Robert Mulhere. Carried unanimously, 14 -0. Subcommittee Report for Law Enforcement: Law Enforcement Impact Fees will be increased in all of the residential categories and a majority of the commercial categories. Ms. Patterson noted the primary difference in the Fees between Law Enforcement and Libraries /Government Buildings was due to equipment costs (capital equipment) and the cost of an additional building ( "Special Operations "). There was an accounting for new inventory purchased between 2005, after the last Study was adopted, and 2006 of approximately $43M. There is a 26% to a mid -sized single - family home, or $92.00. She noted the cost for the Special Ops building was not passed on to the community because it was paid by the Sheriff s Department from a different funding source. There was also an increase in equipment costs for the EMS Study — equipment costs overall have not decreased. It was suggested to exclude the land values for all buildings except the substations. The number of computers in the Sheriffs Office and support staff was also questioned as well as the cost ($4,100) for laptop. (David Hurst left at 5: 00 PM), The Committee asked Ms. Patterson to return with clarifications and will follow -up on the two questions concerning Road Impact Fees from Reed Jarvi. Mr. Dunnavant withdrew his vote on Government Building Impact Fees. He stated he was opposed to the decrease as not sufficient. VIII. Committee Member Comments: Chairman Varian noted that Marco Espinar has been working out of state and has been excused for several meetings. The By -Laws permit six excused or unexcused absences per member, per year. Judy Puig stated he missed four (May, September, October and November) and may miss December. Next Meeting Dates: December 1, 2010 — 3:00 PM January 5, 2011 — 3:00 PM February 5, 2011 — 3:00 PM March 2, 2011 — 3:00 PM November 3, 2010 There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chairman at 5:11 PM. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE William Varian, Chairman The Minutes were approved by the Board /Committee on as presented , or as amended 1. Debt service on new facilities built with impact fees. The Collier County Water -Sewer District (the "CCWSD ") uses collected impact fees to directly pay for growth- related capital projects, thereby reducing the need to borrow or incur debt to finance the projects. However, as the CCWSD often does not collect enough impact fees in advance to pay for the total capital costs of the projects, the CCWSD must borrow to pay for a portion of the project costs or cash -fund some of the project costs with user rate revenues. The CCWSD growth- related annual debt service is $11.2 million, or approximately 51 % of the $21.9 million in total annual debt service (See attached Exhibit A). Impact fees can be utilized to pay for growth - related debt service. However, only capital costs are reflected in the impact fee calculations (i.e., no debt service). A summary of the Fiscal Year 2011 total debt service by issue follows: Summary of CCWSD Fiscal Year 2011 Debt Service Issue Amount Water and Sewer Refunding Revenue Bonds, Series 1999B $1,971,773 Water and Sewer Refunding Revenue Bonds, Series 2003B 4,835,050 Water and Sewer Revenue Bonds, Series 2006 4,974,053 State Revolving Fund Loan - CS 120597070 1,060,599 State Revolving Fund Loan - CS 120597090 886,480 State Revolving Fund Loan - CS120597100 1,463,311 State Revolving Fund Loan - WWG12059715L 01 440,335 State Revolving Fund Loan - WWGI2059715L 02 1,944,449 State Revolving Fund Loan - WWG120597151- 03 668,242 State Revolving Fund Loan - CS 12059715P 346,589 State Revolving Fund Loan - CS 120597175 363,094 State Revolving Fund Loan - W W597180 282,827 State Revolving Fund Loan - DWI 111 010 228,037 State Revolving Fund Loan - DWI I 11 020 469,429 State Revolving Fund Loan - DWI 111 030 1,165,258 State Revolving Fund Loan - DWI 111 040 776,190 Total Debt Service $21,875,715 1 2. Cost of projected future projects to be built with impact fees. As shown on Table 3, Page 14, Line 28 of the handout, the CCWSD has identified approximately $23.2 million in growth- driven water projects that may be funded entirely or in part by impact fees over the Fiscal Year 2010 to 2020 timeframe. For the wastewater system, as shown on Table 5, Page 21, Line 29 of the handout, approximately $9.4 million in growth- driven projects have been identified by the CCWSD. For each growth- driven project, the CCWSD makes a determination (based on the nature of the project) regarding the percentage of the total project cost that can be appropriately be funded through impact fees. 3. Debt service on existing facilities built or improved prior to impact fee institution or repairs maintenance not related to growth. Approximately $10.7 million or 49% of the $21.9 million in annual debt service has been recognized by the CCWSD as being allocable to renewals, replacements and enhancements of the system that are paid through user rates. Cost of projected future projects to be built /upgraded /repaired/maintained which do NOT service new growth. As shown on Table 1, Page 10, Line 7 of the handout, the online water system plants have 40.50% available capacity to serve new growth. With respect to the wastewater system, the online wastewater plants have 43.68% available capacity to serve new growth (Table 2, Page 12, Line 7 of the handout). In order to keep the facilities in a "ready -to- serve" condition to accommodate new growth, the CCWSD must perform: • Upgrades to maintain compliance with regulatory requirements. • Replacements of aging assets. The cost per Equivalent Residential Connection (ERC) of the available capacity increases due to: i) plant additions; and ii) replacements that are more expensive than the original assets being replaced due to inflation on construction costs. Of the $105.5 million in water system renewal, replacement and enhancement projects (Table 3, Page 16, Line 93 of the handout) designated by the CCWSD, only $26.8 million or 25.4% ($23.9 million of water treatment projects on Table 4, Page 18, Line 35 plus $2.9 million of water transmission projects on Table 4, Page 19, Line 47) affect the impact fee calculations. $78.7 million or 74.6% of the renewal, replacement and enhancement projects are not represented in the water impact fee calculations. For the $26.8 million in projects affecting the impact fee calculations, the original cost of the assets being replaced has been estimated at $13.3 million. The cost difference of $13.5 million ($26.8 million less $13.3 million) adds to the cost per ERC of available water system capacity. The allocation of the renewal, replacement and enhancement project costs for the water system is summarized in the following table: WATER SYSTEM Summary of Renewal, Replacement and Enhancement Capital Projects (Fund 412) Recognized in Impact Fee Calculation Total Adjusted Renewal, Amount Replacement, and Recognized Enhancement in Impact Pee Projects Calculations $105,453,802 $13,525,682 Percent of Total: 12.8% Allocated Cost Existing New Customers Growth 59.50% 40.50% $8,048,208 $5,477,474 7.6% 5.2% As shown in the preceding table, only about $5.5 million or 5.2% of the $105.5 million in water renewal, replacement and enhancement capital projects has been allocated to new growth in the water impact fee calculation. The allocated amount represents capital costs needed to keep the water facilities in a "ready -to- serve" condition to accommodate new growth. For the wastewater system, of the $197.2 million in renewal, replacement and enhancement projects ($189.5 million of wastewater projects on Table 5, Page 23, Line 91 plus $7.7 million of IQ water projects on Table 5, Page 23, Line 109 of the handout) designated by the CCWSD, only $42.3 million or 21.5% ($38.3 million of wastewater renewal, replacement and enhancement treatment projects on Table 6, Page 24, Line 23 plus $2.0 million of wastewater renewal, replacement and enhancement transmission projects on Table 6, Page 25, Line 41 plus $2.0 million of IQ water renewal, replacement and enhancement transmission projects of handout) affect the impact fee calculations. $154.9 million or 78.5% of the renewal, replacement and enhancement projects are not represented in the wastewater impact fee calculations. For the $42.3 million in projects affecting the impact fee calculations, the original cost of the assets being replaced has been estimated at $20.3 million. The cost difference of $22.0 million ($42.3 million less $20.3 million) adds to the cost per ERC of available wastewater system capacity. The allocation of the renewal, replacement and enhancement project costs for the wastewater system is summarized in the following table: WASTEWATER SYSTEM Summary of Renewal, Replacement and Enhancement Capital Projects (Fund 414) Recognized in Impact Fee Calculation Total Adjusted Renewal, Amount Replacement, and Recognized Enhancement in Impact Fee Projects Calculations Allocated Cost Existing New Customers Growth 56.32% 43.68% $197,190,711 $21,959,513 $12,367,598 $9,591,915 Percent of Total: 11.1% 6.3% 4.9% As shown in the preceding table, only about $9.6 million or 4.9% of the $197.2 million in wastewater renewal, replacement and enhancement capital projects has been allocated to new growth in the wastewater impact fee calculation. The allocated amount represents capital costs needed to keep the wastewater facilities in a "ready -to- serve" condition to accommodate new growth. 5. 1 mentioned and would like to have a comparison chart and /or table for the rates people pay in the me jurisdictions that were compared in the impact fee chart for utilities (Figure 1, page 34 of the info provided us prior to the last DSAC meeting). Please see Exhibit B, Chart attached. EXHIBIT A Source: Materials for FY 11 Budget provided by Collier County Office of Management and Budget Fund 411 Fund 413 Funds 411 & 413 Fiscal Year Water Impact Fee Fund Sewer Impact Fee Fund Total Impact Fee Funds 2009 4,621,070 6,534,110 11,155,180 2010 5,548,324 5,524,023 11,072,347 2011 5,606,924 5,624,423 11,231,347 2012 5,687,826 5,499,876 11,187,703 2013 5,687,826 5,499,876 11,187,703 2014 5,687,826 5,499,876 11,187,703 2015 5,687,826 5,499,876 11,187,703 2016 5,687,826 5,499,876 11,187,703 2017 7,447,895 5,627,057 13,074,952 2018 7,449,285 5,627,157 13,076,443 2019 7,447,438 5,627,024 13,074,462 2020 7,449,971 5,627,207 13,077,178 2021 7,453,933 5,627,493 13,081,426 2022 8,818,406 4,262,777 13,081,182 2023 8,817,653 4,262,723 13,080,376 2024 8,820,701 4,262,943 13,083,644 2025 8,818,225 3,475,840 12,294,065 2026 8,817,653 1,806,356 10,624,009 2027 8,818,415 500,066 9,318,481 2028 8,248,794 500,176 8,748,970 2029 7,670,553 500,025 8,170,578 2030 6,920,262 500,050 7,420,312 2031 6,923,129 500,257 7,423,386 2032 6,920,415 500,061 7,420,476 2033 6,919,577 500,000 7,419,577 2034 6,919,931 500,026 7,419,957 2035 6,920,186 500,044 7,420,230 2036 6,919,834 500,019 7,419,853 188,568,311 84,331,105 272,899,416 Source: Materials for FY 11 Budget provided by Collier County Office of Management and Budget Table 1 Collier County Water -Sewer District Water and Wastewater Impact Fee Study Development of Existing Water Production / Treatment Facility Capacity Available to Serve Svstem Growth Line Water No. System 1 Existing Permitted Plant Capacity of System (MMDD -MGD) (1) 54.000 Adjustment to Reflect Average Daily Demand 2 of Water Treatment System (MGD) (2) (9.000) 3 Dependablc Treatment Plant Capacity (ADD) 45.000 4 Average Daily Demand - Existing System (3) 26.776 5 Remaining Capacity (ADD) at Existing Plant 18.224 6 Percent of Total Capacity Remaining 40.50% 7 Percent of Total Capacity Recognized 40.50% Capital Costs of Existing Facilities 8 Existing Facility Costs (4) $ 300,105,838 9 Additional Costs (5) 29,116,915 10 Less Assumed Retirements (6) (12,011,279) 11 Less Grant Funds and Other Contributions (7) (969,055) 12 Total Applicable Capital Costs of Existing Facilities $ 316,242,418 13 Estimated Amount Allocable to Future Growth $ 128,078,179 MGD = Million Gallons Per Day MMDD = Maximum Month Daily Demand ADD = Average Daily Demand Footnotes on page 11. 10/27/2010; 2:02 PM 10 611][41 Collier County Water -Sewer District Water and Wastewater Impact Fee Study Development of Existing Water Production /Treatment Facility Capacity Available to Serve System Growth Footnotes (q Amounts reflect MMDD ucalmem capacity of facilities as provided by he District The permed ed capacities of the two individual regional ladlnus are 22 o MMDD -MOD (NoNt County Regional Water 'l ecanent Plant) and 32 0 MMDD -MGD (South Cmi Regional Water Treatment Plant) (2) With respect to the water facilities, the plant carioca, is expressed on a maximum month daily demand basis To be consistent with the level of service requirement, for the water system_ the plant capacity was adjusted to reflect an annual average daily demand basis A maximum month daily demand to annual average daily demand peaking fast., of 1.20 was milized as supported by finished water flow data contained in the Monthly Operating Reports filed with the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) as shown below Fiscal Year 1996 Fiscal Year 199] Fiscal Year 1998 Fiscal Year 1999 Fiscal Year 2000 Fiscal Year 2001 Fiscal Year 2002 Fiscal Year 2003 Fiscal Year 2004 Fiscal Year 2005 Fiscal Yem 2006 Fiscal Year 2007 Fiscal Year 2008 Fiscal Year 2009 Fouracen Year Maximum Fourteen -Year Average Factor Utilized in 2008 Water Master Plan Update Factor Utilad By PRMG For Impact Fee Detemunation Purposes 1 25 1 17 1 20 1 20 54000MMDD -MGD C'opecity / 120 Peaking Factor = 45OWADD- MGD Capacity 540001- tits 45W0 °9000 (3) Reflects the highest reported average daily demand experienced by, me District's water treatment facilities for the rourteen Fiscal Year period ended 2009 as shown below Water Maximum Period Reported ADD ( *) 2678 (•) aeremq: rs mmse m Ibommu 2 Or oppncxble e1 still nail( ennaN data (4) Amounts denved From Appendix A (available upon request), reflect only water supply or production and treatment facility costs accounted for within the water system operations, shown as follows Amount ( ") Water Supply ('axis $71,116,705 Water 'IY.raw Costs 226,189,133 Total S3W,105,838 (•) Derived from Appendix A- I -me 5836. (5) Amounts shown derived from'rable 4, regecC a) upgrades and additions to existing plant which would be allocable in pact to System growth (moved capacity), and i if faahty additions which are all ecable to both ex fisting and new users of the water system Derivedfroii Exlstingeolumnm Table4- See Line 36 of Table4. (b) Derived from Estimated Original Cost column in I able 4- See Line36of Table4. (7) Amounts shown derived (roan Lane 5837 of Appendix A (available upon request. 10/27/2010, 3 -40 PM Maxnnuin Annual Month Daily Average Daily Demand Demand(MGD) (MOD) Praising Factor 1480 1856 125 1665 1954 1.17 1197 21 06 1 17 1977 ^_387 If _2_'5 2639 1.19 2.168 2492 1.14 2290 2645 115 2269 2674 1.18 2440 26 35 1 08 25.83 2857 111 2600 3171 1.22 2678 3234 1.21 23.11 2604 1.13 237 2817 124 Factor Utilad By PRMG For Impact Fee Detemunation Purposes 1 25 1 17 1 20 1 20 54000MMDD -MGD C'opecity / 120 Peaking Factor = 45OWADD- MGD Capacity 540001- tits 45W0 °9000 (3) Reflects the highest reported average daily demand experienced by, me District's water treatment facilities for the rourteen Fiscal Year period ended 2009 as shown below Water Maximum Period Reported ADD ( *) 2678 (•) aeremq: rs mmse m Ibommu 2 Or oppncxble e1 still nail( ennaN data (4) Amounts denved From Appendix A (available upon request), reflect only water supply or production and treatment facility costs accounted for within the water system operations, shown as follows Amount ( ") Water Supply ('axis $71,116,705 Water 'IY.raw Costs 226,189,133 Total S3W,105,838 (•) Derived from Appendix A- I -me 5836. (5) Amounts shown derived from'rable 4, regecC a) upgrades and additions to existing plant which would be allocable in pact to System growth (moved capacity), and i if faahty additions which are all ecable to both ex fisting and new users of the water system Derivedfroii Exlstingeolumnm Table4- See Line 36 of Table4. (b) Derived from Estimated Original Cost column in I able 4- See Line36of Table4. (7) Amounts shown derived (roan Lane 5837 of Appendix A (available upon request. 10/27/2010, 3 -40 PM Line No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Table 2 Collier County Water -Sewer District Water and Wastewater Impact Fee Study Development of Existing Wastewater Treatment Facility Capacity Available to Serve System Growth Existing Plant Capacity of System (MMADF -MGD) (1) Adjustment to Reflect Capacity on Average Daily Flow Basis (2) Dependable Treatment Plant Capacity (ADF) Average Daily Flow - Existing System (3) Remaining Capacity (ADF) at Existing Plant Percent of Total Capacity Remaining Percent of Total Capacity Recognized Capital Costs of Existing Facilities Existing Facility Costs (4) Additional Costs (5) Less Assumed Retirements (6) Less Grant Funds and Other Contributions (7) 12 Total Applicable Capital Costs of Existing Facilities 13 Estimated Amount Allocable to Future Growth MGD = Million Gallons Per Day MMADF = Maximum Month Average Daily Flow ADF= Annual Average Daily Flow Footnotes on page 13. 10/27/2010; 2:04 PM 12 Wastewater System 40.100 (9.254) 30.846 17.372 13.475 43.68% 43.68% $ 308,856,061 40,223,404 (19,831,106) (1,931,715) $ 327,316,644 $ 142,971,910 Table 2 Collier County Water -Sewer District Water and Wastewater Impact Pee Study Development of Existing Wastewater Treatment Facility Carmen, Available to Serve System Growth (p Amounts reFlect perained MMADF'wasrewerer treatment plant cepadry of faoili[ies. The pertained capacities of dte individual regional facilities ere 24.1 MMADF -MGD (North County Water Reclamation Facility) and 16.0 MMADF -MGD (South County Water Reclamation Facility). (2) With respect to the existing wastewater facilities, the plant capacity is expressed on a maximum month average daily flow basis. 'fo be consistent with the level of service requirements for the wastewater system, the plant capacity was mlluswd to reflect an annual average daily flow basis using a peaking factor of 1.30. A summary of the (ounce. fiscal year acmal wastewater flows is summarized below. As can be seen based on the actual reported flow dare, the capacity adjustment factor averaged 1 24. Fiscal Year 1996 Fiscal Year 1997 Fiscal Year 1998 Fiscal Year, 1999 Fiscal Year 2000 Fiscal Year 2001 Fiscal Year 2002 Fiscal Year 2003 Fiscal Year 2004 Fiscal Year 2005 Fiscal Year 2006 Fiscal Year 2007 Fiscal Year 2008 Fiscel Year 2009 Founwn-Year Maximum Ibuneen -Year Average Factor Utilind in 2008 Wastewater Master Plan Update Factor Utilized By PRMG For Impact Fee Determination purposes Annual Maximum Month Average Daily Average Daily How (MUD) Flow (MGD) Peaking Factor 8.744 I 1 450 1 31 10065 12,494 134 9.962 14.180 1.42 10.499 15 944 1 52 12.362 15.800 128 15.100 16600 LID 15528 20.led 130 15.600 17279 111 15.921 18.899 1.19 16.323 19306 1.18 17 372 19 890 1.14 15.633 18391 1.18 15601 18290 1.17 13.837 15920 1.15 40.100 MMDD -MGD Cspaciry / 130 Peaking Factor 30.846 A.ADD -MUD Capacity 40.100 Less 30.846 = 9.254. (3) Reflects the highest reported average daily flow experienced by the District's wastewater treatment facilities for the bounce. Fiscal Year period ended 2009 as shown below. Wastewater Maximum Period Reported AADF (') 17.372 Pl Rdoo.'ns ma.e e, Yoernom 2 farnpphcable m' ,nmb Irow do. (4) Amounts derived from Appendix A (available upon request), reflect only wastewater treatment and effluent disposal and associated reclaimed facility costs accounted for within the waste, tiro ,,tam operations, shown as follows. Wastewater I Trounent Costs Reclaimed Facility Costs Total Amount(') $267,507.177 41,288,884 $308,856,061 ( ") Derived Four Appendix A, Line 5836. (5) Amounts shown derived from Fable 6, reflect: it upgrades and additions to existing plant which would be allocable it pan to system growth, and of facility additions which are aH.c.ble to both existing and new users of the wastewater system. Derived from laisdng colunm in'I'able 6 -See Lines 24 and 52 of1'able 6. (6) Derived from I surro ed Original Cost cobnnn in Table 6 -See Lmes 24 and 52 of able 6. (7) Amounts shown derived from Line 5837 of Appendix A (available upon request) ($26,305 r $2,434,207= S2,460,512)_ 10/27/2010', 3 42 PM 13 1 52 1 24 130 1 30 Line Protect Fund No No No Table 3 Collier Council W star -Sewer District Water and Wastewater Impact Fee Study Soommor, f W Cranial - Innouncurarm, P,.er.. By Plant Function Thurman Fl 2020 AdluaaruuB to Remove General- Adjustments For Related and Other Project Costs Mayer! Pr'-1 Costs to Fixed Assets to Unmerited Not Recogmved m Be C.noment With Net Amount Capnal Cost Fee Determinates Existing Capaaty For Future FV' 2010 to 2020 (1) Process Assumptions Expenditure F-wriu al 3upp6 arm - Treatment & FUND 411 GROWTH -DRIVEN WATER PROJECTS 1 70899 411 NTRW- Ha Wellfield 5 85,000 S - $ - 5 85000 S 85,000 S - S - 2 70899 411 NERW`TP WeJfitd H UST) 415) 91 759 - - 91759 91,719 - - 3 70908 411 NERWTP Phase i B WeIlfield 7,000 - - ?0IXI ?OPd - - 4 75005 411 WeIlfield Program Management 68,343 - - 68343 68,343 - - NCRWTP Hum TDS RO Desigq Conatmctiun and _ 71022 411 Supply(.onnmetien bemuse 2016) 5269009 - - 5,269009 5,269,009 - - 6 70154 411 Land Acqum6on for NERWIP Plant 4,841 - - 4841 4,841 - - NEI VTP- New 5 MGD Wale, Treatment Plam 7 70902 411 construction after 2028) 85,00() - - 85 000 85,OW - - NERW'FP - New 5 MGD Water Treatment Plam 8 70902 411 (FUND 415) 208000 - - '_00,000 2M,000 - - 9 75012 411 Project ManagemendOvera , aht of NE Program 291446 - - 291,446 291,446 - - 10 70097 411 SCRWJP 12 MGD RO Ex 11$315 - (118,315) - - - II 70892 411 SCRWTP Ee,gramu -Ea 1528,311 - 11528,311) - - - - 12 7(892 411 SCRWTP Exparmn- E, (FlWD 41 t) 6(19,452 - (609,452) - 13 70(45 411 FDOT JOmt PrOJect Ag,eemen¢ - Water 65)2,500 - - 6.512500 - 6,51^ -500 - 14 70071 411 CLOUT Utility Relocares 6,275,000 - - 6275,000 - 6,275,000 - 15 70151 411 95136' WM- Dacia (FUND 415 2,347 - (2,347) - - - - 16 70152 411 951300"WM- RSHW41 Ind - (160) - - - " 17 7007 411 Manatee Road n-MG Storage Tank 182.059 - - 182059 - 182,059 - 18 75018 441 Financial Serer, 11H,375 (199,375) - - - - " 19 70070 411 Water Master Plan Updates 40,000 (400,000) 20 70202 411 faunty UnImes Standards 38,300 (38,300) - - - 21 70900 411 SERWTP WeIlfield Study 165,884 (165,884) 22 75MO 411 Grant APpbeznons - Water 25,000 (25.000) - - - - 23 75010 411 Evaluation 9f Orm"'ee UUl" System 491,399 (491399) - - - 24 75014 411 Growth Managemem Plan Update 60,000 (60000) - - - - " 25 75017 411 PUD Hydraulic Analysis P3,686 1443,686) - - - - 16 75019 411 AUIR Update 31440 (31 440) - - - - - 27 75020 411 LDC Review and Amendment 45,000 (45,000) - - - - TOTAL FUND 411 GROWTH - DRIVEN PROJECTS S 23230,624 $ (1,900,084) % (2,258,584) S 19,071,956 S 6,102397 S 12,969,559 S - 28 FUND 412 RENEWAL, REPLACEMENT & ENHANCEMENT WATER PROJECTS 29 70030 412 South RO WeIlfield Repair $ 2,950,000 S - S - S 2.950,000 S 2,950,1300 S - $ - 30 70095 412 Facility Rehab 4,967 - - 4,%7 4,967 - - 31 70158 412 Tamiami Well Replacement Program 7,543 - - 7,543 7,543 - - 32 71004 412 Raw Water Booster PS Rehabrlvy lmprevemems 19,749 - - 19,749 19,749 - - 33 71005 412 Fadlu, Rellabdo, 13,161 - - 13,161 13,161 - - 34 71%7 412 Weilfield'fmhnical Support Projects 2,425,621 (2425,621) - - - 35 71006 412 NCRWTP RO WeIlfield 51,076 - - 51,076 51,076 - - 36 75005 412 WeIlfield Program Management 2,083,495 (2,083495) - - - - - 10/27/201, 2 '05 PM 14 Table 3 Collier County Water -Sewer District Water and Wastewater Impact Fee Study Sprnman of Water Capital Imnrovemem Proe m B, Most Toxicity. Throaeb Fl 2020 37 11000 38 70069 39 70094 40 71002 41 71043 42 71052 43 71054 71057 71063 '1066 72520 70032 70006 70020 71065 2008 -1 70034 70035 70009 70019 70023 7(y)45 70071 7030'- 71010 710i0 71070 70010 70024 IM36 70037 412 Ad, ustments to 412 NCRWTP Emergency Generator Rehab 412 NCRWTP RO Reliability Remove Genital- Adjustments For 412 supply 412 Related and Other Freight Cos. Moved NCRWTP Sand Filters 74 70015 412 Prpl em Costs to Fixed Aawts to 7, 70059 412 Esnmatcd Not liemgmzed m Be Content With Net Airport Functional Category Lure P,-I Fwd Capital Cost Fee Determination Existing Capauty For Future Supply and Storoga Pumping No Ne No Pinter, Deacnpnon FY 2010m 2020 (1) Process Assumption Expendlmres Treatment &Transmission Datnanni 37 11000 38 70069 39 70094 40 71002 41 71043 42 71052 43 71054 71057 71063 '1066 72520 70032 70006 70020 71065 2008 -1 70034 70035 70009 70019 70023 7(y)45 70071 7030'- 71010 710i0 71070 70010 70024 IM36 70037 412 NCRWTP DIW2 C. Rep 412 NCRWTP Emergency Generator Rehab 412 NCRWTP RO Reliability 70 70124 NCRWTP Hmh TDS RO Des;gn. Copetrmunin and 412 supply 412 NCRWTP RO Membrane Replacement 412 NCRWTP Sand Filters 412 412 412 412 412 412 412 412 412 412 412 412 412 412 412 412 412 412 412 412 412 412 412 412 412 67 70022 412 68 71009 412 69 70038 412 70 70124 412 71 71055 412 72 71056 412 73 70041 412 74 70015 412 75 70021 412 7, 70059 412 77 70078 412 78 70882 412 79 71007 412 10,27/2010, 2 .05 PM NCRWTP Ineumeniauon and Controls As Built NCRWTP RO Process lmp-renent (Ime¢tage Booster) NCRWTP- VFD Upgrades NCR" TP Technical Sopporr Pr jet NCRWTP Nanofilrer Replacement NCRWTP Piping Mod;ficanons SCRWTP Upgrad, SCRWTP Odnr Control SCRWTP Technical SuplPrt Prn3ect, SCRWTP RO Membrane Replacement SCRWTP Reactors Rehab Isles of Capri Repump Station Rehab Cene- Cmuncel on Conrail Program Cross - Connection ('omroi Program Fire Hydrant Replacement FDOT Item Prole, Agreements - Water C'CDOI' 1dpm R,lecm e(2) CR 951 Widening (iG Distbunon System Renewal and Repli cxment Primary I nsuramission Rehabdnev.n Potable Water Interconnect Water Meter Renewal & Replacemem W ate, Mere, Renewal & Replacement Fire Line Metering AMR of Large Meters Security Renovator- Public Udine, Opernau is Center Secunry Upgrades Water Power Systems Water Dlsmbmmn Telemetry Waver System SCADA/felemetry Improvements Water System SCADAffelemetr4' Software Water Lightning Protection General Legal Sersuces FP &l. Thermal Imagmg4Energy Conervatlon Dist button Warehouse Distnbonon Warehore Billing System Energy Efficiency 40,000 - 2 355,279 48,636 9,50o,805 001 000 - 10,450 - 51,257 (51 257) i00," 454,946 008 374 LOW,000 1 5,000 23 460 I M020 _,620484 00,00], 200,000 550,000 372,629 15,773 290 3 loot" 329,644 19411 5,000 19,558 058 1 035,667 006 778,379 13,]O,IX10 3,400,000 200,000 (3,008,374) (2,620,484) 96,386 (96,386) 2,731,642 - 680,000 21,312 (21,312) 3,307,090 (3307090) 29,562 (29,562) 390,000 - 10,3582 (106,582) 825,000 (825,000) 41,M2 550,000 25,000 165,845 (765.845) 26,172 - 157'3296 15 40,000 40,000 2355,279 2,355,279 48 636 48 636 $506.805 8,506,805 1,0w,000 1,000,000 W 650 10 450 1000000 1000,000 1,454,946 1 454,946 1,000,000 150,000 23,460 184,0_'0 "'000 20,000 550,000 372,629 15,173 290 300,000 329,644 19,451 5 000 951R018 1,035,667 3,006 779,379 13 70,000 34 W 000 200,000 2,731 642 680 000 390,000 41 042 25,000 26,172 1000.000 - - 150,000 23,4110 I M,020 1000,000 200 000 550,000 - 372,629 - - 157'3296 - - 3 300,000 - 1329,644 19451 5,000 - - 1955$058 - 1015,667 - 3 006 778,379 - - 13.700.000 - - 3,400,000 200,000 2,731642 - - 680 000 390,000 41 042 25 000 26,172 Tablet Collier Counts, Water - Sewer District Water and Wasteemer Impact Fee Study Summary of Water Casual Improvement Proton.. Be Plant Function Throueh FY 2020 Adustmmus 10 Line No Prgen No Fund No Pored Desmiption Emmated Capital Cost FY 2010 to 2020 (1) Rem", (m eral- Related and Other Prmeot Costs No, Recoutmed In Fee Demtmmaeon Process Admrtments For Protect Costs Moved to Fixed Assets to Be Consistent With Exalt, Comadry Assumptions Net Amount For Furore Expendnures Supply and Treatment Funcnonal Category Storage, Pumping & Truor -Orson Distribution 80 71058 412 hater Legal Services 1,775,000 (1)75,0)) - - - - - 81 74310 412 SRF Procurement - Water 336,126 (336,126) - - - - - 82 70042 412 Unity Ordinance Enforcement Application 20,WO - - - - - - 83 75018 412 Financial Services 386,500 (386500) - - - - - 84 70011 412 CTS Layer Vt'SD -WTR 15,170 - - 15,170 - - 15170 85 7W14 412 Asset Ali mnent and Verification 264,483 (264,483) - - - - - 86 7018 412 Permit Data Base 150000 (150.000) - - - - - 87 70202 412 County Utilities Standard 26,626 (26.626) - - - - - 88 71012 412 Asset Manaeemenr, 255070 (2,525070) - - - - - 89 71047 412 10.Year Water Supply Plan 224,748 (224,748) - - - - - 90 75(A7 412 Water Minter Plan Update) 4)J000 (400 000) - - - - - 91 7509 412 Gant Applieanons -Water 25000 (25,)0) - - - - - 9? 75019 412 AUIR I'pdate 25,00 (25 MO) - - - - - TOTAL FUND 412 RENEWAL REPLACEMENT & 93 EN. ANCEMF.NT WATER PROJECTS $ 105,453,802 $ (21,47956D) $ - S 83,954,242 $ 23847906 S 2,942768 S 57,163,569 94 Total Water Prolms- Fiscal Yems'_OI (to 2020 $ 128684427 S (23379,644) S (2 ,258,584) $ 103,026199 $ 29,950,303 $ 15,912.327 S 57.163,569 95 Percent ofTmal 100.ow, 29 67t 15441. 5548% Foomotes. (D Based on mf rotation contained in the 2010 to 2020 Water System CIE provided by the County (2) A portmn ofthe vests.171h( rd canon proleds may he e nolfic to be iecocered tom impact fees 10/27/2010, 2 .05 PM 16 Table 4 Collier Count, Water -Sewer District Water and Wastewater Impact Fee Study Sununan of Water Capital Improvement Program Recoemmil in System Impact Fee - Fiscal fears 2010 Through 2020 Assumed Adjusted Original Estimated Percentto Line Project Project In -Service Original Amount Recognized (5) Recognize For No Project Description Cost (U status Date (2) Cost (4) Existing Expansion Future Expansion FISCAL FEAR 2010 TO 2020 CAPITAL PROJECTS TREATMENT PROJECTS t� FUND 411 GROWTH- DRIVEN WATER [ TREATMENT PROJECTS I NERWTP Wellfield S 85,000 Furore - S - $ - $ - S 85,000 000% 2 NERWTP Wellfield (FUND 415) 91,759 Future - - - - 91,759 000% 3 NERWTP Phase I Wellfield 7,000 Future - - - - 7,000 0.00% 4 Wellfield Program Management 68,343 Future - - - - 68,343 000% NCRWTP High TDS RO Design_ Construction and 5 Supply (construction begins in 2016) S269,009 Upgrade - - s,269,009 - - 000% 6 Land Acquisition for NERWTP Plant 4,841 Future - - - - 4.841 0.00% NERWTP -Nero 5 MOD Water Trzatrnent Plant 7 (cnnstr Mml after 2028) 85,000 Future - - - - 85,000 0 00% NERWTP - New 5 MGD Water Treatment Plant 8 (FUND 415) 200,000 Future - - - - 200,000 000% Project Management/Oversight ofNE Program 291446 Future 29L446 000% P9 TOTAL FUND 411 GROWTH - DRIVEN WATER 10 TREATMENT PROJECTS S 6,102,397 S - S 5,269 009 $ S 83,3388 000% FUND 412 RENEWAL, REPLACEMENT & ENHANCEMENT WATER TREATMENT PROJECTS II South RO Wellfield Repair S 2.950,000 Replacement 1992 S 1455,405 $ 2,950,000 S - $ - 0.00% 12 Facility Rehab 4,967 Replacement 1992 2,451 4,967 - - 0.00% 13 Tomato Well Replacement Program 7 543 Replacement 1992 3,722 7,543 - - 000% 14 Raw Water Booster PS Reliability Improvements 19,749 Reliability - - 19,749 - - 0.00% 15 Facility Reliability 13,161 Reliability - - 13,161 - - 0.00% 16 NCRWTP RO Wellfield 51,076 Reliability - - 51,076 - - 000% 17 NCRWTP DIW2 Csg Rep 40,000 Replacement 1992 19.734 40,000 - - 0,00% 18 NCRWTP Emergency Generator Rehab 2355,279 Replacement 1992 1,161,995 2,355279 - - 000% 19 NCRWTP RO Reliability 48,636 Reliability - - 48,636 - - 000% NCRWTP High TDS RO Design.. Construction and 20 Supply 8,506,805 Upgrade 1992 4,196,897 8506,805 - - 0.00% 21 NCRWTP RO Membrane Replacement 1,000,000 Replacement 2008 806,519 1000,000 - - 0,00% 22 NCRWTP Sand Filters 10,450 Replacement 2008 8,428 10,450 - - 000% 10/27/2010; 3:49 PM 17 Table 4 Collier Cori W atei Sewer District Water and Wastewater Impact Fee Study Sum mary of Water Capital Improvement Program Recognized in System Impact Fee - Fiscal Years 2010 Through 2020 36 TOTAL WATER TREATMENT PROJECTS S 29.950303 S 12,011 279 S Assumed - S 833 388 0,00% TRANSMISSION PROJECTS Adjusted Original Estimated FUND 411 CROW'TH- DRIVEN WATER Percent to Line Project Project In- Service Original Amount Recognized (5) Recognize For No Project Description Cost(1) Status Date (2) Cost (4) Existing Expansion Future Expansion 6,512,500 5 - $ - 0.00% 38 CCDOT Utility Relocates 6,275000 Replacement 1994 3,291,980 NCRWTP RO Process Improvements (Interstage - - 000% 39 Manatee Road 6 -MG Storage Tank 182 -059 Upgrade - - 23 Booster) 1000,000 Upgrade 1992 493,358 1,000,000 - - 0.00% 24 NCRWTP - VFD Upgrades 1,454946 Upgrade 1992 717 -809 1,454,946 - - 000% 25 NCRWTP Nanofilter Replacement 1000,000 Replacement 2008 806,519 1000,000 - - 0.00% 26 NCRWTP Piping Modifications 150,000 Upgrade 1992 74,004 150000 - - 000% 27 SCRWTP Upgrade 23,460 Upgrade 1992 11,574 23,460 - - 0.00% 28 SCRWTP Odor Control 184,020 Upgrade - - 184,020 - - 000% 29 SCRWTP RO Membrane Replacement 1,000,000 Replacement 2008 806,519 1 WOW - - 0.00% 30 SCRWTP Reactors Rehab 200.000 Replacement 1992 98,672 200,000 - - 0.00% 31 Security Upgrades 2,731642 Upgrade 1992 1,347,676 2,731,642 - - 0.00°0 32 Water Power so stems 680000 Upgrade - - 680,000 - - 0.00.. 33 Water Lightning Protection 390,000 Upgrade - - 390,000 - - o0o °,o 34 Enert Efficiency 26,172 Upgrade - - 26,172 - - 0.00 " /0 IOTAL t UND 412 RENEWAL, REPLACEMENT& EMIANCEMENT WATER TREATMENT 35 PROJECTS S 23.847,906 S 12,011279 $ 23,847,906 $ - S - 000% 36 TOTAL WATER TREATMENT PROJECTS S 29.950303 S 12,011 279 S 29,116.915 S - S 833 388 0,00% TRANSMISSION PROJECTS FUND 411 CROW'TH- DRIVEN WATER TRANSMISSION PROJECTS 37 FOOT Joint Proect Agreements- Water S fi 512,500 Replacement 1994 S 3,416 576 S 6,512,500 5 - $ - 0.00% 38 CCDOT Utility Relocates 6,275000 Replacement 1994 3,291,980 6,275,000 - - 000% 39 Manatee Road 6 -MG Storage Tank 182 -059 Upgrade - - 182,059 - - 0.00% TOTAL FUND 411 GROWTH - DRIVEN WATER 40 TRANSMISSION PROJECTS $ 12,969 -559 S 6,708,556 S 12,969,559 S - $ - 0.00% 10/27/2010; 3:49 PM 18 Table 4 10/27/2010; 3:49 PM 19 Collier County Water -Sewer District W ater and Wastewater Impact Fee Study S of %N.ten Capital I p t Program Recosionimil in System Impact Fee- Fiscal fears 2010 Through 2020 Assumed Adjusted Original Estimated Percent to Line Project Project In- Service Original Amount Recognized (5) Recognize For No Project Description Cost (1) Status Date (2) Cost (4) Existing Expansion Future Expansion FUND 412 RENEWAL, REPLACEMENT & ENHANCEMENT WATER TRANSMISSION PROJECTS 41 Isles ofCapri Repump Station Rehab S 550,000 Upgrade - S - S 550,000 $ - S - 000% 42 FDOT Joint Project Agreements - Water 1.329,644 Relocation 1994 697.555 1329,644 - - 0.00% 43 CCDOT Utility Relocates (2) 19,451 Relocation 1994 10,204 19,451 - - 000-1. 44 CR951 WidemngGG 5,000 Replacement 1994 2,623 5,000 - - 000°ia 45 Primary Transmissoo Rehabilitation 1,015,667 Replacement 1994 543,330 1.035,667 - - 000% 46 Potable Water Interconnect 3,006 Reliabilit, - - 3,006 - - 000% TOT AL FUND 412 RENEWAL, REPLACEMENT& ENHANCEMENT WATER TRANSMISSION 47 PROJECTS S 2,942,768 S 1,253.713 S 2,942,768 S - S - 0 00% 48 TOTAL TRANSMISSION PROJECTS S 15,912,327 S 7.962;L69 5 15.912327 S - S - 000 ° -a 49 Total Treatment and Transmission Projects S 45.862,630 S 19,973,547 $ 45,029 242 S - S 833,388 000% 10/27/2010; 3:49 PM 19 Table 4 Collier County, Water -Sewer District Water and Wastewater Impact Fee Study Summary of Water Capital Improvement Program Recognized in System Impact Fee- Fiscal fears 2010 Through 2020 (1) Amounts shown are derived from Table 3 and do not include any capital expenditures classified as distribution - related. (2) Original in- service date is the weighted average acquisition date ofexisting fixed assets in the category that were acquired prior to Fiscal Year 1999 It was assumed that no assets purchased after 1999 would be replaced during the projection period_ (3) Average service lives based on the estimated in-service lives of water assets by functional category per listing shown in Appendix A (available upon request). (4) Amount shown was determined by discounting the protected (replacement) cost by an inflationary factor- based on historical and projected construction cost index inflation as measured by the Engineering News - Record- applied to the estimated number ofyeam in set ice . (5) For replacement projects only amount derived by subtracting the estimated original cost from the new project cost lost asset addition). Note. With respect to capital projects associated with plant upgrades, the following were assumed. New = Project designated for capacity expansion only Upgrade = Protect designated to improve existing capacity facilities Replacement= Protect which removes original asset from service but necessary for providing service to District customers_ Relocation = Projcd which removes original asset from sets ice, and usually replaces it with on asset designated for capacity expansion. Redundancy _ Project which pow ides redundancy to existing capacity and not an increase in capacity to serve new growth Reliability = Pro ject wit ich provides addi formal tel iabi his to existing capac i ly and not an increase in capacity in seine new growth. Future = Reflects project which extends beyond the planning horizon (Fiscal Year ending 2020) in this report _ System = Project that benefits existing, expansion and future customers. New / Future N/NE = Protect identified as having a new and future component (see previous descriptions) that benefits new and future customers in the northern part of the District service area (the area to be served by the NCRWTP and NERW I P). New / Future S /SE - Project identified as having a new and future component 'see previous descriptions) that benefits new and future customers in the southern part of the District service area (the area to be served by the SCRWTP and SERWTP). 10/27/2010; 3:47 PM 20 Table 5 Culliar Cnonn WnmrSVer, DbOin W ao-r and W a9 r..I,r Impact Fa, SI..) b ODD FUND 414 RENEWAL, REPLACEMENT A ENHANCEMENT WASTE. ATER Adiuz PROJECTS Remove Ge enl- JO 72500 414 SOW]COOnnI&, I.,lcmrnumn- Nbern Gav9 Flain amd MHS S 81,139 5 - S 8]4,139 S - S - 5 874 139 Y 31 72542 Relaled and Other NoMCount, ]&I lmplcmcoulmn- Pnmar, Garin Mam A MHS 66529 - 1,129 - 66529 32 73050 414 Sc— Line Rehab 11511mPlemenmion }GraIII Cwral la¢uk Pr jcvl Cas - 1068323 - - 1069323 33 7304' 414 POT IOU, Pralea 4grrcmaus -Sexer 404812 Ert —erd Nm RecoUbacdm Ne, Amoonl - 34 93.1 Farto.bal C..,ci, COOT UnIIq Relrca¢si 11 19517 Fwd 19311 - (y.., Can Fee Dqe m For Famm 414 Nmghbmhm3 Enbanca —I Pr.R— I-0 —Quit, W'mcr 1me P"re, - 1 U 4116 34 ]39]2 414 Ee ndwr T,,.-,.J Trensbe -ion Collection Aorage; Tranarr -- Dmirib.. 111 Yo No 414 Collenions Fewer, Mam Rmwal 6' ReplacemeIII Program 281319 281319 - 2.1319 - 38 77.3 414 Gmi, SPmmr Tcchvicd Sappan RIND 413 GROWTH- DRD'EN WASTEWATER PROJECTS 114611 39 111. 414 I 1201. 41= VBRFVmcM.0 S 320,48] S - 1 32046] S - 5 320de] S - _ 71045 413 MOT binl Prmcet 4greemen4 -Sex, 1831. 506 - 1X3]500 - IX315W 105935 - - 73110 414 CCDOT Uv6q Relrcales 92` WO - 935000 - 925.000 316.699 4 93132 413 Eb, Se—, Force M,n 413J80 - 41180 - .0.b - - - & from) 73W6 413 CR911 lb- o..... 4111. - 40 -149 - 40.149 - - 6 71'46 -1 413 Pam, SUVOn lmpmrern,", 14061 - 14,061 - - 14,.1 - - 1 72546 -2 413 P— PStan- Tarbe-mom UJND 4153 1894 - IBW - - INW 8 12549 413 Ramp Srar— lmp— emenls(FUND 415) 6311,1 - 6314100 - 6311W 9 0970 413 Jr., Sraie. I.,., I.-. RTD) 4111 11902 - 72902 - - 17W2 W 12VU -1 413 MPS mc,har —l.."c bren6 -Impazl el 71h - 4570 - 45.]50 II 7254 &2 413 MPS Mecbwcal finro er.IFLTvD 415) 1.]51]61 - 1151.]63 - 17511. 12 ]30]9 413 Ma IJr Pumping Smut - Imma4alre Rao "Cle 951 51.3 - 59843 - 59843 - - - 13 73930 471 NCWRF CAP BEG ID6 13.095 - SSR685 11R685 - - - - 14 73 111 413 NEWRF - Land Ae9mnuon I,lU - 6141 b341 15 73156 -1 413 NFWRF - De,Ipp At ConslNNm l..KUachon after 20281 585114 - 58I OV0 5.5,01. - - - 16 7e 1112 413 NEWRF- Der, A Cmswclion(FUND 415) 317 IN, - 1119 +2 317 922 17 75012 413 ProIm MUUgemen00, emgM1wf NE P,E,— 291,446 - 291,446 291446 - - - IF RWI 413 SEWRF Land A... 13324 - 534th 53324 19 74310 413 SPY Pmca —e., 36o,04Vl (3600001 - - 20 15018 413 Filuncul Sersias 197973 1191.973) 21 70202 413 Count, 11.11-I 5lmdards 2.11. 12R NU) - - - - - 22 13066 412 W....er Mancr Plan I pule, 51721011 VIRA01 23 71. 413 Gan, Applications- Wazlex'eNr 211. (25,000) - - - - - 24 15010 414 Eealum,on oFOrangertcc Uu1i95es¢m 2W0MI (200,000) 25 75014 413 Gox9l Managemem Plan Upda,e 60.1100 (60 000) - - - " 26 ]501] 413 PUD 9, dard. Aral, 40686 (403,686) 27 15019 413 AUIR Upd. 31,440 131441N ,a 75020 40 LOC Re,—, and Amendmen, 511,011 (so ow) - - - 29 TGTAL FUND 413 GROWTH- DRIVEN WASTEWATER PROJECTS S 9350.845 S (1856593) S ]302"6 S 1.812]18 S '0246]1 1 664 -85] S - S - FUND 414 RENEWAL, REPLACEMENT A ENHANCEMENT WASTE. ATER PROJECTS JO 72500 414 SOW]COOnnI&, I.,lcmrnumn- Nbern Gav9 Flain amd MHS S 81,139 5 - S 8]4,139 S - S - 5 874 139 Y 31 72542 414 NoMCount, ]&I lmplcmcoulmn- Pnmar, Garin Mam A MHS 66529 - 1,129 - 66529 32 73050 414 Sc— Line Rehab 11511mPlemenmion }GraIII Cwral la¢uk We 313 - 1068323 - - 1069323 33 7304' 414 POT IOU, Pralea 4grrcmaus -Sexer 404812 - 405812 - 405FI2 - 34 93.1 414 COOT UnIIq Relrca¢si 11 19517 - 19311 - 19517 - 35 73301 414 Nmghbmhm3 Enbanca —I Pr.R— 1 .183406 - 1"1.1. - - 1 U 4116 34 ]39]2 414 Wendomere Rehab lal 421, - 1654'_6 - - 165426 32 09]4 414 Collenions Fewer, Mam Rmwal 6' ReplacemeIII Program 281319 281319 - 2.1319 - 38 77.3 414 Gmi, SPmmr Tcchvicd Sappan 14.60h S. 114611 39 111. 414 Force Main TSMiW SappDA 1620..0 1161011.181) - - - 4b 72549 414 LS Mxb.e.] lmprornmeou 6898812 - 6899812 - - 6..X12 41 72550 414 LSSe— clamFM 105935 - 105935 - - 1115,935 42 72551 414 IS Em,gma, P.—,r C ideal Suoor3 316699 - 316199 - - 316.699 LS FttiLg Rehab (Cir it E.,.ee, Sim and Splll Conulnmem. 5— a-11HVAC /Landscape 43 72552 414 & from) 9915. - `721'5119 - - 9915119 44 72553 414 LS Odo,/CD,rasion C.bb., 392513 - 392313 - - 392513 45 n. 411 War /Corwrion COnwl 348 348 348 10/272010, 2 51 PM 21 Table C011icr('none Water -Sea er Dimity Water and Wrmaater Impact Fee Studp 5111111.1 of WUteaat,,G flat m m Proeam Br Plant Fumtion ThrouM Fiscal Year 2020 Afteacroccon to Remo,, Geneml- Relaled and Odo, theme C.I Eat —dod Non F,te.,ixd in N¢Amounl Funcvanallioca- Lmc N,., Fwd Capiul cod Fee DCmmvnoua, For F.— Initial — Quality dient 1e. No A. Fro¢ DC¢n FT 20101, 2120 (1 ) Prw:css Emevdilmes Treaunem Transmismon Collection St..,, Trarmmnlon Dun bmmn e6 71.72 414 Se—, Colt .... I Faill0 50996 - 511.'YM 50016 49 20046 414 Lift Smnven,Sub -Metal Pump Snucna Technical Schoen 281010 Q401IDOIn0 - - - 48 20030 411 M.- Auu ans(Gnl/MecbanluVEm'vomnenull Technical Suppan 341010 (14OMdid - - - 49 221. 414 MPS Fxilo, Rehab 4.842 - 1842 4 X42 i, 20082 414 NCWRF H, III E, na... 49700 1497tf) - - - 51 22506 414 NCWRF Rrncw Shed, Pump Nwm 42 - 42 42 - 52 2292 414 NC" lFR<hab 9.139 - 9,139 1"1 - - 53 9950.1 414 NCI RF(ompbencc A95 wan¢ 11,9069')3 - 11.1,1!) 11 to. - IT 7311112 414 NCWRF hiring, the Gap 24111.181 - 26.111.111 2401X101 - 55 "oet, 414 NCWRF dc.,h S'ne. ,1X.53! 17a ITS 628.535 - 5ei 321). 414 NCWRF IlrMial S,pAn Prmeeta 12842.224 (17 947 52 20026 414 MITana Det, ljenwn Wnll Pmsuce A' Sam 212132 - 212.132 213.132 - - 58 2IX122 414 SCWRFhpan N Anahsa @Pmass 11231 - 112A1 112,5110 - - 59 22519 414 SCWRF?,— i"Conuol hidden, 1115321 1115321 1111321 - 60 22534 414 SCWRFRobb 118126 - 118171 118,176 - 61 "1" 411 P 111. an SCWRF WW 1,b 21026 3(P5 25026 - - !� 23969 414 SCWRF Technical Supron FrycclS 11997.84 11 SIA 8X41 o_ 20022 41, $ecwlnRee,1tin-I- 1.61,1' Chi— Qpeaeona C a¢T " „tyro - 60 1)10 201n 2Mnn 2101 64 92505 414 S<omm utonne r °.5001 55001w 18333? Ili i1i Ill ;3 65 IOSI 44 eoll<coons Pont, S".l I-nonedl S.".t IINn WO (101..01) - - - - 66 91053 414 NCWRFP. —IS, a.. TComlml S.p1n 25500110 2.550,111 - - 67 90055 elf SCWRF Power S, den, TRhmral S.pp.n 1.1ded (190$0001 - - - - 18 72541 414 11' SCADA 8ofmam& Suppwl ke,.—SP 30526 (10,5201 - - - - 69 73922 414 Waalenaler( .II¢n,w S9em SCADATII ... 1 1424,121 (1624.121) 711 93964 4H Wasanaae SCADA thi,timrnu 2.,681 (21681 - - - - 71 ".,1 414 11 SCAPA4 nN.mrnun, G3U (IW 113,111111 - - - - 72 7011 414 SCARF SCAPA &InsWmcnmlsslo 60071ed (10101 7i 7111.4 414 Celle,,. — WghNln. RO4cron(MPS) 112510 - 112, lin - 1.125111. - 74 201.15 414 NCWRF LIphming N.lncn.a ".lied - 311211 ?dId t1,. - - 25 20029 414 SCWRF LIghming Predi And .IInd - 611-01 2.00110 - - 26 2121 414 FPd L Thermal lmagmg7Ene, ( .nwn.,- 82 A(A 1.10001 - - - 77 23071 411 Ehhr, Effoccnc. 36,077 - 16027 36 077 - 78 739” 414 Ei11in, SCacm ISI 3' - - M 750la 414 FivannalSo —es 362,49 (36],473) _ 872 20042 414 Unlit, Drducenee Enrwlemcnl Apd—on 20000 120,000) .1 2105a 414 waaaenar Legal Son— 101).,0(,0 (1,0 CC - - - 82 72511 414 De<mlmlaai.nm. of Conran Be, WU 13012 0:012) - - - 83 2111 414 GI La7ea WSD -W. in 13 OW - 13ted - - 13,01 84 2112 414 GIS Co,oni WSD-Wa. 2.13. - 2.138 - - 2,138 85 2114 414 Mesel Alignment and Vcnf lion 265,149 1265.1491 .6 211202 414 Count, Mitchel 5wdm3 26,626 (26.626) - - - - e7 9165 414 Assn Managem.nt 2527,625 12529.625) - - - - .N 2517 414 Wssun'aler Mine, Pon Up&ws 11.1 deed (111,.011) - - - - 10/2/2010, 2 :51 PM 22 Table S Coll —Count, Wm S—cr Din W 2Dr and %aummrr ImMn Fee Stud% Summan of Wa lmsamr Caniul lmnmvemenl Proe am B, Plam Function Tbmuffi Fival tear 2020 .Adlueunanu 4o Remmn Cxnnal- Rd.Ndand OUR, R—,. z EN.1 C. NO Recogm 1— Nel Amounl Funcuonal Ca¢ROrc 1. PrS. Fund Capiul202 Fe=Dnaminauoa Fm F'uwm Imgalion Quality WaD 90 No No P ]m Descnpuon Fl "2V10 m 20ZO (q Pmces Eayeadilmn Teeaun..nl Tausmrsmn Coll=clwn SYOm¢u Tnnzmisswn Oisvibunon 91 95003 414 l — dppluauons- Wssmx'amr 90 75019 4H A1- IN 12250111 21 o. 2i .1.q TOTAL HTND414 RENEWAL REPLACEMENT& ENHANCEMENT 0.ASTEWATER VI PROJECTS 1 IR9516A82 S 1136534 S03 S 5298.1129 S 383(S7154 S .1131N23 $ 12S"W2 z 5 FUND A 3 GROWTH -DRIVEN IRRIGATION QL'ALITP WATER PROJECTS 92 92516 41, IQ Wmn M.", P6n O'd— b 306.060 S 13.060) S - S z - S - 1 - S - 93 24311 413 R,d.- dWmcrTra —a nMam 34646 (!C646) 94 TOTAL FIND 4134ROWTH -DRlk EN]ARICAT10 % 01:AL C Y WATER PR0JPf15 S I.,. S 13411 7(10 S - } - S - S (I) Baad on mF—m ....... m lLe 2010 m 2020 Wasuwver 5p'sttm CIP po,id<d by Ne Counq' rz) Avomnn nrm=anal,nfaemo<aunn vml =a.ma,xdTe,bl�mx re=a.,�a rrvm,mv,al ra: 1 w 1 - $ FUND 414 RENEWAL, REPLACEMENT& ENHANCEMENT IRRIGATION - S - 1 I1. UW $ QUALM WATER PROJECTS 95 24026 414 10 Bo,—, S- 96 24W1 414 Soud. Regmnal RMaimW Wa¢r SIora, Pond 92 94030 414 IQ Wu., ASR 9S 94050 41T E ,I, Lakes Nwre lnmgmne Crnm W 94023 414 P=1—, B1. Mgmion I. 7N15 414 IQ WUU Sonrcc 1n¢unuon ml 9427 414 IQ W.uT A.. R.d Meurz 102 94401 414 IQ Wa¢T TmM —1 Suppon PTo,N 103 7.51 414 IQ Poa, TaMical Suppan 104 24033 414 IQSCADA Impmz m-N Io5 7n 2 414 IQSncm SGa DATO— u, (1pkT,d6 106 7". 414 IQ I— L,R., P-1 D- 107 72516 414 RalaunM 1 a,, Al.., Plan 109 72516 414 IQ WmeT Uxr R1.= Srvd, 6493. MAR 300) T0T 4L FUND 414 RENEWAL . REPLACEMENT& ENHANCEMENT IRRIGATION 109 QUALITS'WATER PROJECTS 110 11221, WOI Toul u- ullaT- dl- . —Qua6n A.."Pro'111 -F-1 YTars 211101. ID2V III Peram of TONI (I) Baad on mF—m ....... m lLe 2010 m 2020 Wasuwver 5p'sttm CIP po,id<d by Ne Counq' rz) Avomnn nrm=anal,nfaemo<aunn vml =a.ma,xdTe,bl�mx re=a.,�a rrvm,mv,al ra: 1 w 1 - $ IODOW 1 - S - S - 1 I1. UW $ - 17 412 12412 11 412 " YW9G - 901V44 9011A - N., 5091 I xO - I3aw - - l RO 491895 491.895 - - 411 i.1F ' 2541596 .2 541 - - - - - - I,OW.00o nnnnnWl - - - - 6493. MAR 300) - 122TT00 11221, WOI - DPLD1. - 4rdIro1X10 - - - 4110.1.. - 331,R O350oO - - - - - 1 2675929 S 1'745695) $ 1,930 144 S - S - 1 - $ 191625V $ 13894 1 2.659.262 S (1M477T)21 $ 62 412 469 $ 4.119872 S 711N 494 S 13292959 $ 1916.2511 S 13994 10000% 6429% 1132%. 2131% 3016 002% 10127/2010,2'.51 PM 23 Table 6 Fumre E - S Collier Chants, W'arer -Serer District - S - S 558,b85 Water aad W'asmwater Impact Fee Steely 6341 Future Summary of Wastewater Capital Improvement Premium Recoaniaed in System Impact Fee - Fiscal Years 2010 Throueh 2020 - - Assumed 6,341 Percent Adjusted Onginal Estimated To Line P", Project la- Service Original Amount Rciu, izcd(5) Reoognlze No P feet D,,eepeuc Cpit(l) Status D... (2) CO. 0) Existing Expansion Fumre /DlraO For Expansion TREATMENT PROJECTS FUND 413 GROWTH -DRINTF W ASTEW'ATER TREATMENT PROJEC75 I NEWRF ( ' AP BTG 306 _ NEWRF - Land Aectesm. NEWRF- pan, & Consbnatltmn (c0nsmcdan after 2028) 4 NEWRF - Design& Combecu0o(F(JND 415) IsmjM ManagemenVOversight of NE Pmgem 6 SEWRF Land Acquisition 7 TOTALI'l413GROWTH -DRl WASTEWATER TREATMENT PROJECTS FUND 414 RENEWAL. REPLACEMENT & ENHANCEMENT WASTEWATER TREATMENT PROJECTS 8 NCWRF Renew Sludce Pump R90m 9 NCWRF Rehab !o NEWRF Compliance Assurance II N'C'WRF Bridge the Gap 12 NCWRF Bleach System 13 SIT and Deep Injection Well Pressure Sy stem 14 SCWRF Capacity Amd"n, & Pmcess 15 SCWRF Process Central Building 16 SCWRF Rehab 17 Remove¢ SCWRF WW Lab 18 Seventy Reamen0ns- Public UUlmas Operations Cemar See my Ilpgmdes 20 NEWRF Lighming I'maceret 21 SCWRF Ughtn!np Protectipn 22 l F.Bide r, TOTAL Fl, VI 414 RENEWAL_ REPLACEMENT & ENHANCEMENT WASTEWATER 23 TREATMENT PROJECTS 24 TOTAL TREATMENT PROJECTS TRANSMISSION PROJECTS FUND 413 GROWTH -DRIVEN WASTEWATER TRANSMISSION PROJECTS 25 VBR FOrce Main 26 FDOT lent Prgm Agreements - Sewer 27 CCDOT Utility Relocates 28 East Sewer Force Main 29 CR 951 16" Force Main 30 MPS Mechaical impmvements - Impact 31 MPS Mechanical lmprovemeots(PtJND 415) 32 Master Pumpinu Smtion- Immokalee Road/ CR 951 $ 558,685 Fumre E - S - S - S - S 558,b85 000% 6341 Future - - - - 6,341 000 °% 585,000 Future - - - - 585,000 000 °% 31),922 Fumre - - - - 317,922 000% 291,446 Future - - - - 291,446 000% 53,324 Fume - - - - 13,324 000°/ S 1812718 S - S - S - S 1,812,718 000% S 42 Replacement 1993 S = 4 42 S - E - 000% 9 -139 Replacement 1993 4,712 9,119 - - 000 %. 11906813 Upgrade 1993 6139487 11906873 - - 000°. 24.000.000 Upgrade 1993 !2.375,012 24,000000 - - 000 e 678,135 Replacement 1993 349,870 678535 - - 000 °m 212,132 Upgade - - 112132 - - 0X% 112,500 Upgrade - - 112,100 - - 000°.5 105,321 Upgade - - 101,321 _ _ 000". 118.126 Replacement 1993 60,934 118,176 - - 0111% 25026 Replacement 1993 12.904 25026 - - 000% 20,000 Upgade 1993 10313 20000 - - 000% 181,331 Upgrade 1993 94,131 183333 - - 000% 300,000 Upgrade 1991 154,688 300000 - - 000% 600,000 Upgrade 1993 309375 bw000 - - 000% 36,077 Upgrade 1993 18-602 36,077 - - ON% S 38307,154 S 19530,450 S 38307,154 S - S - 000"0 S 40,119,872 S 19,530,450 S 38307,154 S - $ 1812,718 000% $ 320,487 New - E - S - S 320,487 S - 100.00% 1837,500 Replacement 1994 964,870 1,837,500 - - 0,00". 925,000 Replacement 1994 485,717 925,000 - - 000°/. 44,180 New - - - 44.180 - 100.00% 40,149 Nave - - - 40,149 - IW00% 45,750 New - - - 45,750 - 10000". L751,763 Na. - - - 1,751,763 - 10000". 59,843 Ni,. - - - 59,843 - 1 W ow, 1027/2010, 3 '.50 PM 24 10/272010', 3 '.50 PM 25 Table 6 Collier Co.., N'ater -Sewer District N "aar and W'astewatee Impact Fee Sind, Summary of Wastewater Capital Imnrovement Pcaeram Recoenhoes) in Syrtem Imnact Fee- Fiscal Years 2010 Throoah 2020 Aasomed Percent Adjusted Original Estimated To Line P ject Par, In- Service Original Airport Recogmzed(1) Recognize No protect Description Cost(1) Stems Date (2) Char (4) Existing Expansion Train, /Direct For Expang on 33 TOTAL FUND 413 GROWTH - DRIVEN WASTEWATER TRANSMISSION PROJECTS S 5,024571 E 1450,587 $ 2,262,500 S 2.262,191 S - 4502% FEND 614 RENEWAL REPLACEMENT & ENHANCEMENT N ASTE W ATER TRANSMISSION PROJECTS 34 FOOT IOmt Pryer, Ageaaenra - Sewer S 405,812 Relocation 1994 S 213,092 E 405,812 $ - $ - 000°/° is (CLOT I b1h, Reloestes[I] 19,517 Relocation 1994 10,248 19517 - - 000% 36 Collecuons Forty Main Renewal& Replacement Program 281319 Replacement 1991 143,258 281119 - - 000 °ie 37 MPS Fadliry Rehab 4,842 Replacement 1993 2466 0842 - - 000 °e 38 Seconne Renovations- Public Unlives Operations Center 20,000 Upgrade 1993 10185 20,00 - - 0.o0% 39 Seuonry Upgrades 183,333 Upgrade 1993 03360 183.333 - - 000% 40 Co lxdons Ggbtning Protection (MPS) 1.125000 upgrade - - 1.125,000 - - 000°/° TONAL FUND 414 RENEWAL, REPLACEMENT & ENHANCEMENT WASTEWATER 41 TRANSMISSION PROJECTS 5 '_,039923 S 422,608 S 2 ,039,S2_3 S - S 0.000 42 TOTAL TRANSMISSION PROJECTS $ 7064494 S 1923.195 $ 4.802.323 S 2162121 S - 3202 °6 IRRIGATION QUALITY WATER TRANSMISSION PROJECTS FIND 413 GROWTH - DRIVEN IRRIGATION QUALITY WATER PROJECTS ?a IQ Water Master Plan Updates S - NIA - S - S - S - S - 0WA. 44 Reclaimed Water Trmsmission Man - NIA - - - - - 000% TOTAL FUND 413 GROWTH- DRIS'EN IRRIGATION QUALITY WATER TRANSMISSION 45 PROJECTS S - S - S - S - S - 000m FUND 414 RENEWAL REPLACEMENT & ENHANCEMENT IRRIGATION QUALITY WATER TRANSMISSION PROJECTS 46 IQ BOwter Stance S 100000 Replacement 1992 S 49,385 S 100,000 S - S - 000% 47 South Regional Re Iaimcl Water Storage Pond 17,412 Replacement 1992 8,590 1 7,412 - - 0000 48 IQ Water ASR 906,944 Upgrade - - 906,944 - - a 0% 49 IQ Water S.'re Integration 491995 Replacement 1992 242.680 491995 - - 000% 50 IQ Water Lighming Protecdnn 400000 Upgrade - - 400,000 - - 0000 TOTAL FLTD 414 RENEWAL, REPL.ACEMEN'1 & ENHANCEMENT IRRIGATION 51 QUALITY WATER TRANSMISSION PROJECTS S 1,916,250 $ 300656 S 1,916,250 5 - $ - 000% 52 TOTAL IRRIGATION QUALITY WATER TRANSMISSION PROJECTS S 1918250 E 300,656 S 1,916,250 S - S - 000% 53 Total Capital P ;acts- Fiscal Years 201CM2020 S 49,100,616 % 21,754301 5 45,025,72] S 2- 262,121 S 1812.718 461 %° 10/272010', 3 '.50 PM 25 Table 6 Collier County W ater -Sewer District W ater and Wastewater Impact Fee Study Surname, of Wastewater Capful Improvement Proeram Recoanrsed m System Immd Fee - Fiscal Years 2010 Thamdr 2020 (I) Amounts shown are denved from Table 5 and donor include any capital expenditures classified as collection-related (2) Original in- service date is the weithtud so trade ac,mxdon dam or existing fixed assets In the category that were acquired prior to Fiscal Year 1999 It was assumed that im assets puahased after kocal Year 1999 would be replaced oaring the ptelection pound. p) Atcraee serum lives based on the csumated :n -sery :rn laves of wasmwaur sensors by fnctmnal category per using shown In Appendix A (resalable upon "ties) (4) Amount shown was determined by discounting the p Jected (replacement) cos by an In0enonan facmr- based on historical and p Jeered construcron cost index Inflation as measured by the Enenee ne News - Record - applied to the estimated number ofvears In service. (5) For replacement praects only amount derived by subtracting the estimated original cost from the new pr jeer —1 (her asset accurate). Nom Wnh respect rat capital prymsassmieted wth plantupg.do,, the following were assumed New - Project designated for .,act, expansion only Upgrade- project designated tp improve existing capacity facilities Replacement = Project which removes notarial asset from sers'ice but necessary for prov:dine service to District customers RNoaation =Ram which removes original asset from service , and usually replaces it with an asset desigmted for.pcin expansion Redundancy = Prye,t which provides redundanq in ex:sdng capes, and not an increase !n capacity to serve new growth. Reliability = Projm which provides additional reliability to existing capacity and not an increase in capacity to serve new growth. Puure - Reflects ptpject which exmnds beyond me planing boozed (Fiscal Year ending 2020) in this repon System = Prgcl that benefits existing copmesums and future customers. New / Future NME- Protect identified as hati tit a new and future component (see prevlws deseripn onsI Thar benefits new and future customers in the northern pen of the District serv'i. area (the area to be zee ed by the NCRN'TP and NERWTP) New / Future S /SE= Pro, cal dent, food . having a new and furore component (see previous descn pti on%) that benefits new end facto mstomers :n the southern pan of the District semen area (the area to be served by the SCR WTP and SERWTP). 1027/2010, 3 '.54 PM 26 Line No Collier County Water -Sewer District I Existing Rates Effective October I, 2010 Proposed Rates Effective October 1. 1011 Collier County Water -Sewer District Fiscal Year 2011 Water and Wastewater User Rate Study Water System Comparison of Typical Monthly Residential Bills for Water Service 0 2,000 4,000 Gallons Gallons Gallons Residential Service for a 5/8" or 3/4" Meter 1 6,000 8,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 50,000 75,000 100,000 illons [21 Gallons Gallons Gallons Gallons Gallons Gallons Gallons S17.63 $22.47 $27.31 $33371 $40.65 $4793 $72.13 $96.33 $301.83 5543.58 5785.33 1763 22.47 27.31 1 33.37 4065 4793 72.13 96.33 301.83 543.58 785 33 11/16/2010, 12 '.45 PM Surveved Florida t "tilitim: Bonita Springs Utilities, Inc. [3] $12.17 $1949 826.81 $34.73 $4301 551.89 576.43 $104.09 5284.09 5434.09 5584.09 } 4 Cis of Bradenton 1279 16.81 22.03 2845 34.87 41.29 57.34 73.39 169.69 249.94 330.19 5 Charlotte Counts [3] 21.77 31.11 4045 49.79 6053 71.27 103 72 141 29 400.3 7 622.12 843.87 6 Desoto Counts [3] 19.10 2948 39.86 51.54 6452 7750 11645 16895 479.75 739.25 99895 7 Enelewood Water Dounct 15 62 1948 23 34 2720 32.34 4162 78.58 131.02 53242 866.92 1201.42 8 FGUA - Golden Gate (Collier County) [31 2552 3706 48.60 60.14 7282 8550 12150 15750 42780 653.05 87830 " 9 FGUA - Lehieh Acres System (Lee CnorA) [3] 13 58 23 52 33 46 43.40 54 84 66 28 97 10 131 38 354 88 541 13 727 38 10 City of Fort Myers 8.74 17.30 25.86 37.65 52.67 67 be 114.59 184.99 60739 959.39 1,311.39 I I Hillsborough County [3] 10.01 16.87 23 73 31.77 4099 50 21 73.26 102.46 30826 49251 676.76 12 Lee County [3] 10.60 1628 21.96 27.64 3462 41 60 61.00 8428 24718 382.93 518 68 133 Manatee County [3] 7.14 10.52 13.90 1728 21.50 25 72 3627 61.37 28717 47552 66377 14 City fM.. Island [3] 30.83 38.53 46.23 53 93 6163 69 33 88.58 10783 313.75 50625 69815 15 City ofNaples [3] 15.96 18 54 21 12 23.70 26.28 2886 35 31 46.61 13701 233.76 33051 16 City of Nunn Port [3] 15.67 22.37 2907 39.1 I 49.15 6321 10541 162.99 665.49 1,084.24 1,50299 17 Okeechobee Utility Authority [3] 1944 . 27.64 37.90 50.22 62.54 74.86 105.66 13646 32126 475 26 62926 18 Cis of Punta Gorda 14. 18 2078 . 27.38 3398 40.58 47.18 6618 85.18 218.48 337.73 467.18 19 City of Sarasota 13.23 18.57 23.91 30.19 36.47 45 27 73.87 106.87 399.51 65551 91151 20 Sarasota County (31 15.15 20.03 2491 3107 37.23 47.89 85.01 136.11 505.71 813.71 1,12171 fkkjf yiy )1 Surveyed Florida Utilities' Average S1564 $2247 $2947 1 S3729 $4592 $55 45 $83.13 $117.90 $370.02 $584 63 $79981 6 t j I J Unless otherwise nom4 amounts shown reflect residevual rates in effect (),nuber 2010 yid are exclusive o(taxes or franchise fees, iCany, and reflect rates charged for inside the city service All rates are as reposed by the respectue utility. This comparison is intended to show comparable charges for sunilar service for comparison proposes only and is not intended to be a complete listing ofall rates and charges offered by each listed utility 121 Reflects System average monthly use for typical iudividuNly uncured residential wsmnter. 131 Utility is emrendy unsolved in a ram study, is planning to conduct a rate study, or plans to unplement a mm revision or price index /pass- through tubm vrent u,don the neat melee ttavihs following the comparison preparation date. 11/16/2010, 12 '.45 PM Collier County Water -Sewer District Fiscal Year 2011 Water and Wastewater User Rate Study Wastewater Svstem Comparison of Tvpica[ Monthly Residential Bills for Wastewater Service Line No. Description 0 Gallons 2000 Gallons 4,000 Gallons -1.100", allons 8 000 Gallons 10,000 Gallons 15,000 Gallons '-0,000 Gallons 50,000 Gallons 75,000 Gallons 100,000 Gallons 587.68 Collier County Water -Sewer District Ciry of Bradenton 18 90 2234 27.87 3549 43 11 50.73 69.78 88 83 203 13 1 Existing Rates Effective October 1, 2010 $26.94 $34 52 $42.70 349.68 $5726 $6484 $83.79 $83.79 583.79 $8379 58379 2 Proposed Rates Effective October 1, 2011 26.94 34 52 42.10 4968 57.26 64 84 83.79 83.79 83.79 83.79 83.79 Florida Utilities: 3 Bonita Springs Utilities, Inc [3] $28 48 535.88 $43.28 $50 68 $58 08 $6548 $83 98 $87.68 $87.68 587.68 587.68 4 Ciry of Bradenton 18 90 2234 27.87 3549 43 11 50.73 69.78 88 83 203 13 298 38 393 63 5 Charlotte County [31 2770 35 42 43.14 50 86 58.58 6630 66.30 66 30 6630 66.30 66.30 6 DeS9m Counts [3] 23 50 36 02 48 54 61 06 73 58 86 10 8610 86.10 86.10 86 10 86.10 7 Englewood Water District 22 72 28.72 34.72 4072 46.72 5272 6792 82 72 172 72 24792 32272 8 FGUA - Golden Gate (Collier County) [3] 33 30 4660 59.90 73.20 73.20 7320 73 20 7320 7320 7320 7320 Q FGUA - Lehigh Acres System (Lee Corm,') [31 22 82 38.52 54 22 69 92 69 92 69.92 6992 6992 69 92 6992 6992 10 City of Fort Myers 14.78 35.66 56.54 7970 10514 13058 13058 13058 13058 130.58 13058 11 Hillsborough County [3] 14.96 23 34 31.72 40.10 48.48 4848 4948 48.48 48,48 48.48 48.48 12 Lee County [31 16.62 25.80 34.98 44.16 5334 5793 5793 57.93 57.93 5793 5793 13 Manatee County 131 17.33 25,49 33.65 41 81 49.97 5813 6629 66.29 66.29 6629 6629 14 City of Marco Island (3] 25.14 35.08 45.02 54 96 54.96 54.96 54.96 54 96 54.96 54.96 54.96 IS Ciry of Naples[31 16.98 24.08 31.18 3828 45.38 52.48 5248 5248 52.48 52.48 52.48 16 City ofNorth Pon [3] 25.12 36 04 46.96 57.88 68.80 7972 90.64 90.64 9064 90.64 90.64 17 Okeechobee Utility Authority [3] 2191 35 23 48 75 62 27 75.79 89.31 123.11 156.91 359.71 52871 69771 r 18 City of Punta Gorda 25.24 28.18 3112 34.06 37.00 39.94 39.94 3994 39.94 3994 3994 19 City of Sarasota 1820 2880 39.40 5188 64.36 76.84 108.04 13924 326.44 482.44 63844 20 Sarasota County t3] 15.81 30.89 45.97 61 OS 76.13 91.21 91.21 91.21 91.21 91.21 91 21 21 Surveyed Florida Utilities' Average 521.63 $31.78 $42.05 55267 361.25 569.11 $76.70 $82 41 $115 43 $14294 S17046 [1 ] UNess other a noted amounts shown reflect residential rates in effect October 2010 and are exclusive oftaxes or franchise fees, uOr, , and reflect rates charged for inside the city scroce5PAI1 rates are as reposed by the respective utility . This conmursen is intended to show comparable charges for similar service for companson purposes only and is not intended to tae a cwa,A.w Iowa, of all rates and charges offered by each listed uNity- 121 Reflects System average monthly use for typical individually metered residential customer. 131 C@dity is currently involved in a to stud,, is planning to conduct a are study, or plans to Implement a rate revision or price index / pass - through adjustment within the now molve months following the comparison preparation date. 1 1 / 16/2010; 12 45 PM Collier County Water -Sewer District Fiscal Year 2011 Water and Wastewater User Rate Study Water and Wastewater System Comparison of Typical Monthly Residential Bills for Combined Water and Wastewater Service Line N'o. Description 0 Gallons 2000 Gallons 4,000 Gallons 6,000 Gallons 2 8,000 Gallons 10,000 Gallons 15,000 Gallons 20,000 Gallons 50,000 Gallons 75,000 Gallons lou'un0 Gallons 31.69 Collier Coanty Water -Sewer District 4990 6394 77.98 92.0'_ 127.12 16122 37282 5483'_ 7'38^- 5 Charlotte County [3] 49.47 I Existing Rates Effective October 1, 2010 $44.57 556 99 $69.41 583.05 $9791 S112 77 $155 92 5180.12 $385 62 $62737 5869.12 2 Proposed Rates Effective October 1, 2011 4457 5699 6941 8305 9791 112.77 15592 180.12 385.62 627.37 869.12 Florida Unlines: 3 Bonita Springs tAiliueS, lnn[31 $40.65 555.37 S7009 $8481 $10109 $11737 $16041 $19177 $371.77 5521.77 $671.77 4 City of Br.denlon 31.69 39.15 4990 6394 77.98 92.0'_ 127.12 16122 37282 5483'_ 7'38^- 5 Charlotte County [3] 49.47 66.53 8359 10065 119.11 137 57 17002 207 59 466.67 69842 910.17 6 DeSoto Counts [31 42.60 6550 8840 11260 138.10 163.60 202.55 25445 565.85 825.35 1084.85 Enghov.c d Water District 3834 4820 58.06 6792 7906 95 34 146.30 213 74 705.14 1.114 64 1,524 14 8 FGI,A- Golden Gore (Collier Contras) [31 5882 83.66 10850 13334 146.02 15870 19490 230.70 501.00 72625 951.50 9 FGUA - Lehr Acres System (Lee Counts) 13] 3640 6204 . 87 68 113 32 124.76 136.20 167.02 201 30 42480 611 05 797.30 10 Gts of Fort Myers 2352 52.96 8240 117 35 11781 19827 245.17 315 57 71797 1 089 97 1 441.97 11 kidlsbarough County [31 24 97 4021 55 45 71 87 89.47 9869 121 74 15094 356 74 540 99 12524 12 Lee Counts [3] 2722 4208 . 5694 71.80 87.% 9953 118.93 14211 305.11 44086 57661 13 Manatee County 131 24,47 3601 4755 59.09 7147 8385 10256 12766 35356 54181 730.06 14 City of Marco Island 131 55.97 7361 9135 108.89 116.59 12429 143.54 16279 36871 56121 753.71 15 Gs of Naples [3] 32.94 4262 52.30 61.98 71.66 8134 8779 99.09 18949 28624 382.99 16 City of Nom Pon [31 40 79 5841 7603 96.99 117.95 14293 196.05 25363 756.13 1.174.88 1593,63 17 Okeechobee I cloy Autbortry [31 41.15 62.87 8665 112.49 13833 164.17 228.77 293.37 68097 1,003 97 1,326 97 18 Cov of Punta Gonla 39.42 4896 58.50 68.04 7758 8712 106.12 125.12 25842 37767 507.12 19 City of Sarasota 3143 47.37 6331 8207 . 100.83 12211 181.91 24611 725.95 1.13795 1,54995 20 Sarasota County [31 30.96 5092 70.88 92 12 11336 139.10 17622 227 32 596.92 90492 1,21292 21 Surveyed Fonda Utilities Avenge $37.27 $54.25 $7153 $8996 $10717 $12457 $159.83 520031 $485.45 572757 $97026 [I ] Unless o�herwise Doted, amounts shown reflect residental rates m effete October 3010 and are ezclusiva of taxes or franchise fees if any, and reflem razes charged for inside theeiry service All rates are as reported by me respesin- uehry Tha oomparison is imended m show comparable charges for similar service lnr comparison purposes only and is nog intended to beg complete hrting of all rues and charges offered by each lined mihty. [21 Reflects System average monthly use for typical mdlvidually metered residential customer. [31 lhibry is mnently Invoked m a rue zwdy, is planning m wndud a rate study, or plans m implement a mm revision or price index / pss-through adjusombn vathm the neat twelve months follovving the comparison preparation dare 11/16/2010, 12 :45 PM Collier County Water -Sewer District Reflects rates effective in October 2010 Comparison of Monthly Bills for Combined Water and Wastewater Service for Single Family Residential Customers Using 6,000 Gallons $160.00 $140.00 $120.00 $100.00 $80.00 $60.00 $40.00 $20.00 $0.00 A. 15,6 �1 04�� 4' { o�4JO AGO AGO � �^ GO �� A0+ GO G0�51' ��i0 O O v os�4o vti+ �� Gti�•l C1 o�ooa G1,� � O�G ��5�� 5�� 4 50� O,S��¢ �, 50� G� G,,� LGOv 04 �O �tiv w�•S 4 {�4 ��,54 �� o��w 4G�+ 0� 4 [ *] Utilities in CAPITALIZED letters: i) are involved in rate study; ii) are planning to conduct rate study; or iii) will implement rate revision or price index / pass- through adjustment within twelve months 11/16/2010; 12:45 PM Office of the Fire Code Official Summary of Plan Review Activity October -10 Architectural Reviews Sprinkler Reviews Underground Reviews Fuel & LP Gas Reviews Hoods & FSUP Reviews Alarm Reviews SDP Reviews Total # of Plans Reviewed Number of Work Days Average # of Plans Reviewed per Day ASAP Reviews per Building Department. Total # of ASAP Reviews". Total ASAP Reviews per Day "Overtime Reviews are not included in this figure Scheduled Meetings/Hours'. Classes and Seminars attended by FCO: 10/1 Executive Fire Officer, National Fire Academy Emmisburg, MO - Continued from previous month 10/12 -10113 Building Commission Meeting, Gainesville Classes Taught by FCC: 10/18 Architectural Plan Review Class, 2 hours Architect Convention, Naples Total Overtime Hours for the Fire Code Office - 0 'Overtime Hours Reimbursed by Contractors - 0 In addition to the above mentioned tasks, The Fire Code Official's Office fields numerous phone calls, walk -ins, field inspections and impromptu meetings. oeo, of m. m. com off I 1.c N rave... rr 34104 Ed: Bob Jackie: Ricco. Maggie Participant Robert Salvaggio 405 82 29 3 10 156 57 742 21 35 3 Per County 3 County Projects 17 AC Change Outs 12 Low Voltage 4 Tents 39 2 32,00 His 16 58 His 267 His 48.42 Hrs. 10.46 Hrs. Ed Riley Instructor # of Participants Robert Salvaggio 30 orcme of the Fite Cctle Ofar 2900 IN Horseshoe Or Naples, FL 34100 Fire Plan Review - Time Frame Summary October -10 Number Number Average #of let %of tat Percentages of of Time in Reviews Reviews Within Time Reviews Days Days Approved Approved Frames Architectural Reviews Total 406 887 2.19 list Review 291 768 2.64 217 75% 100/10 Days 7 Day Max 2nd Review 96 95 0.99 100/3 Days 3rd Review 11 13 1.18 100/3 Days 4th Review 6 10 1 67 100/3 Days 5th Review 1 1 1.00 100/3 Days Total 2 -6 Reviews 114 119 1.04 100/3 Days 3 Day Max F re l nkler Reviews Total 82 97 1.18 1 at Review 55 81 1.47 31 66% 100110 Days 6 Day Max 2nd Review 17 11 0.65 100/3 Days 3rd Review 7 5 0.71 100/3 Days 4th Review 2 0 0.00 100/3 Days 5th Review 1 0 0.00 100/3 Days Total 2 -5 Reviews 27 16 0.59 10013 Days 3 Day Max Undemround Reviews Total 29 64 1.86 1st Review 22 52 2.36 17 77% 100110 Days 4 Day Max 2nd Review 5 1 0.20 100/3 Days 3rd Review 2 1 0.50 100/3 Days Total 2 -3 Reviews 7 2 0.29 10013 Days 1 Day Max Fuel & LP Gas Reviews 3 2 0.67 Total tat Review 3 2 0.67 3 100% 100/10 Days 1 Day Max 2nd Review 0 0 0.00 Total 2nd Review 0 0 000 Hood 8 FSUP Reviews 10 12 1.20 Total tat Review 8 10 1.25 5 63% 100110 Days 3 Day Max 2nd Review 2 2 1.00 10013 Days Total 2nd Review 2 2 1.00 100/3 Days 2 Day Max F re Alann Reviews Total 166 217 1.39 1st Review 111 179 1.61 80 72% 100/10 Days 6 Day Max 2nd Review 43 36 0.84 100/3 Days 3rd Review 2 2 100 100/3 Days Total 2 -3 Reviews 45 38 0.84 100/3 Days 2 Day Max Summary tat Review 490 1092 2.23 363 72% 100110 Days Corrections 196 177 0.91 100/3 Days Overall Totals 685 1269 1.86 orcme of the Fite Cctle Ofar 2900 IN Horseshoe Or Naples, FL 34100 PLANNING RELATED REVIEW TYPES Current Fee Charged for 1 st Review of Cu; rent Permit Types the FCO Reviews NEW Proposed Plan Review Fee for 1 st Review of Current and New Permit Types the FCO Reviews 1 ARC - Alternative Architectural Design $ 150.00 $ 150.00 1 2 ASV - Administrative Sign Variance $ 50.00 $ 50.00 2 3 AVA - Administrative Variance '4 0 0 3 4 BID - Boat Dock ru i), 4 5 CARN - Carnival/Circus Permit $ 100.00 $ 100.00 5 6 CNST - Construction Plans $ 100.00 $ 100.00 6 7 CSP - Conceptual Site Plan 7 5, 0 C1, 7 8 CU - Conditional Use $ 150.00 $ 150.00 8 9 CUE - Conditional Use Extension $ 50.00 $ 50.00 9 10 . DOA - Development Order Amendment $ 150.00 $ 120.00 10. 11 JDRI - Development of Regional Impact $ 200.00 $ 200.00 111 12 DRIA -Development Order Abandonment No Charge 121 13 ICP - Insubstantial Change to Construction Plan $ 100.00 $ 100.00 13 14 LDCA - Land Development Code Amendment 14 15 MUP - Mixed Use Project $ 200.00 $ 200.00 15 16 MUPD - Mixed Use Project Deviation 150.00 16 17 NPSP - Neighborhood Park Site plan 3 50,00 17, 18 NUA - Non-conforming Use Alteration $ 100.00 $ 100.00 18 19 NUC - Non-Conforming Use Change S 100,00 19 20 PDI - PUD Insubstantial Change $ 100.00 $ 100.00 20 21 PMC - PUD Minor Change $ 50.00 $ 50.00 21' 22 PNC - Project Name Change J 0 22 23 PPL - Plans and Plat Construction $ 100.00 $ 100.00 23 24 PPLA - Plans and Plat Construction Amendment $ 50.00 $ 50.00 24 25 PREP - Pre-Application Meeting $ 75.00 $ 75.00 25 26 PREQ - Pre-Acquisition Meeting S `5,, 0 26 127 IPSP - Preliminary Subdivision Plat $ 150.00 $ 150.00 27 128 PSPA - Preliminary Subdivision Plat Amendment $ 100.00 $ 100.00 28 PLANNING RELATED REVIEW TYPES ,CURRENT Plan Review Fee Charged for 1 st Review of Current Permit Types the FCC Reviews NEW Proposed Plan Review Fee for 1st Review of Current and New Permit Types the FCO Reviews 29 RUDA - Planned Unit Development Amendment $ 150.00 $ 125.00 29 30 PUDR - PUD to PUD Rezone S 125,00 30 31 PUDS - PUD Sunsetting 50,00 31 32 PUDZ - Planned Unit Development $ 150.00 $ 150.00 32 33 RZ - Rezone $ 100.00 $ 100.00 33, 34 SBDC - School Board Determination of Completeness No Charge 34 35 SBR - School Board Review No Charge 35 36 SBRI - School Board Review Insubstantial Change No Charge 36 37 SDP - Site Development Plan $ 200.00 $ MOM 37 38 SDPA - Site Development Plan Amendment $ 150.00 $ 150.00 38. 39 SDPI - Insubstantial Change to SDP $ 100.00 $ 100.00 391 40 SIP - Site Improvement Plan $ 150.00 $ 150.00 40 41 SIPI - Insubstantial Change to SIP $ 100.00 $ 100.00 41 42 SNNP - Street Name Change Unplatted 00) 42 43 _SNR - Street Name Change $ 100.00 $ 65.00 43 44 ISRA - Stewardship Receiving Area $ 1,000.00 $ 1,000.00 44 45 SRAA - Stewardship Receiving Area Amendment $ 300,00 45 46 SRDC - Stewardship Receiving Area Determination of Completeness $ 150.00 46 47 SRDD - Stewardship Receiving Area Alternative Deviation Design $ 150.00 $ 150.00 47 48 SV - Sign Variance $ 50.00 $ 50.00 48. 49 FU - Temporary User Permits I 00,M; 491 50 UDP - Unified Development Plan $ 150.00 $ 150.00 50 51 IVAC VA -Variance I $ 100.00 $ 100.00 51 52 - Vacate S 100.00 52 Memo To: Amy Patterson, Impact Fee Manager From: Steve Tindale and Nilgun Kamp Date: November 22, 2010 Re: Collier County Transportation Impact Fee Cost and Credit Update Study This memorandum includes our responses to the questions related to the carrying cost portion of the transportation impact fee. Questions and Responses Question 1: Please review the methodology for calculating the carrying cost. If' /z of the TIF is paid up front, there should be an up -front credit that would be calculated differently. I believe that 'h paid in advance should be credited in the first few years, not applied after the total interest as a deduct. Plus, there should be positive interest at the interest rate in the early years since there is a positive balance from the '/z paid in advance prior to Year 3. (pg. B -30). Carrying Cost Calculations: County Roads Amount Phase Timing Borrowed (2) Design Year 1 $59,780 Total Amount Carried (3) $59,780 Interest Paid $2,989 Design Year 2 $59,780 $119,560 $5,978 ROW Year 3 $450,500 $570,060 $28,503 ROW Year 4 $450,500 $1,020,560 $51,028 Constr. /CEI /Util. /Mit. Year 5 $1,219,280 $2,239,840 $111,992 Constr. /CEI /Util. /Mit. Year 6 $1,219,280 $3,459,120 $172,956 Total Carrying Cost Per Lane Mile (5) $373,446 Percent of Impact Fees Paid in Advance (6) 50% Net Carrying Cost per Lane Mile(' 1 1 $186,723' Response 1: Reducing the amount borrowed by 50% first and then calculating the interest Tindale- Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier County Transportation November 2010 1 TIF Cost and Credit Update Study income gives ma the same net carrying cost per lane mile shown in the table, In addition, currently, the County collects less than 5O96nf the impact fee upfront; however, the study included this higher estimate to account for any interest earned. During the next update study, mm will try to get more precise estimates of the portion collected and any interest earned. Question 2: Doesn't the state pay carrying coo mm part of their program? Since state funds typically pay for state roads, should this really be included? (pg. B-31). Response 2: Yes, but regardless uf who pays for it, the carrying cost b; one ofthe cost items associated with building roadways. The transportation impact fee isasystem-wide impact fee regardless of which entity has jurisdiction over the roads that are in Collier Cuunty. |n other words, vve are not calculating a county ora state fee, Amsuch, ownenship/juhmdiction does not change how much it costs to build them. |n addition, vvegive credit for all o/ the State spending on capacity expansion projects inCoUierCounty, VVn hope these responses are helpful. Please let ua know if you have any other questions or need further information. Tindole-Oliver &Aa000iatea Inc. Collier County Transportation November 2010 2 T|F Cost and Credit Update Study Collier County Govern ent Water and Wastewater Impact Fee Study for Collier County Water -Sewer District Results as of December 1, 2010 FIrT I Impact Fees Allowance for Funds Prudently Invested (AFPI) Fees Summary of Recommendations to Board of County Commissioners PUblic Utilities Division 2 a ]LI Q MAk Purpose of Impact Fee Use of Impact Fees Proposed FY 2011 Calculated Impact Fees Capital Improvement Program Effect of Relocation Projects on Impact Fee Summary of Impact Fee Calculations Recovery of Growth Related Capitals Costs and Debt Service Impact Fee Comparisons Reasons Why Impact Fee Differ Among Utilities Standards For Inclusion of Capital Project Costs in Impact Fee Calculations i I , lic Utilities Division r ERC = Equivalent Residential Connection In 2008, Combined Fees Lowered By $269 or 3.7% Total Reduction Since 2008 = $804 [$535 + $269] or 11.0% PUblic Utilities Division Existing and Proposed FY 2011 Calculated Water and Wastewater Impact Fees Per ERC Proposed FY 2011 Difference System Existing Calculated Amount Percent Water $39575.00 $39290.00 ($285.00) (8.0 %) Wastewater $39495.00 $39245.00 ($250.00) (7.2 %) Total $79070.00 $69535.00 ($535.00) (7.6 %) ERC = Equivalent Residential Connection In 2008, Combined Fees Lowered By $269 or 3.7% Total Reduction Since 2008 = $804 [$535 + $269] or 11.0% PUblic Utilities Division Driven By Capital Costs of Facilities in Service Recover Total Cost Per ERC to Accommodate New Growth Must Upgrade System as Needed to Maintain Compliance with Regulatory Requirements Asset Sustainability Public Utilities Division au Minimal Growth - Related Capital Projects County Currently Anticipates That Current Capacity Online Will Be Sufficient to Handle Growth Through FY Summary of Capital Improvement Program ($ millions) FY 2010 to FY 2020 Wastewater and Water IQ Water Total System Capital Improvement Program: Growth- Related Projects $23.2 $9.7 $32.9 Renewal and Replacement Projects 105.5 197.2 302.6 Total Capital Improvement Program $128.7 $206.9 $335.6 Source: Current District Water and Wastewater Capital Improvement Program Public Utilities ivision Capital Improvement Program FY 2010 to FY 2020 (cont.) Capital Expenditures Primarily to: Upgrade /Improve System Replace Assets Reaching End of Service Life I To Be Funded Mainly Through User Rate Revenues Impact Fee Collections Anticipated to Be Used to Pay for Portion of Growth-Related Debt Service Growth-Related Debt Service Currently $11.1 Million Per Year Annual Impact Fee and AFPI Fee Collections Projected to Be Less Than Annual Growth-Related Debt Service Deficit Must Be Funded from Monthly User Rates No General Government Taxation or Fee Support to District Public Utilities i_ vision I Effect of Relocation Projects on Impact Fee Calculations Description Water Wastewater Combined Starting Trans mission Component of Impact Fees Cost of Existing Transmission Facilities $106,999,568 $73,265,456 Number of ERCs That Could Be Served By Facilities [1] 128,571 123,385 Cost Per ERC $832.22 $593.80 $1,426.02 Relocation Projects Cost of Relocation Projects (FDOT and CCDOT) $14,136,594 $3,187,828 $17,324,423 Less Estimated Cost of Original Fixed Assets Being Replaced (7,416,315) (1,673,927) (9,090,242) Cost Difference $6,720,279 $1,513,902 $8,234,180 Trans mission Component of Impact Fees If Relocation Projects Were Removed Adjusted Cos t Number of ERCs That Could Be Served By Facilities [1] Adjusted Cost Per ERC Fee Difference [1 ] Given current and level of service standard. $100,279,289 $71,751,555 128,571 123,385 $779.95 $581.53 $1,361.48 1 $52.27 $12.27 $64.541 Public Utilities Division Summary of Impact Fee Calculations Line No. Description Water Wastewater TREATMENT AND TRANSMISSION COMPONENTS Starting Cost Per ERC of Treatment and Transmission Facilities Cost of Existing Facilities With Available 1 Capacity to Serve New Growth $398,186,292 $375,048,503 2 Number of ERCs That Could Be Served By Facilities 128,571 123,385 3 Cost Per ERC $3,097.00 $3,039.67 Capital Improvement Program Capital Projects Representing New Facilities and Upgrades to 4 Existing System $7,416,888 $5,124,068 5 Replacement Capital Projects 37,612,354 42,163,830 6 Less Estimated Cost of Original Fixed Assets Being Replaced (19,973,547) (21,754,301 7 Cost Difference $25,055,694 $25,533,597 Adjusted Cost Per ERC of Treatment and Trans miss ion Facilities Adjusted Cost of Existing Facilities With Available 8 Capacity to Serve New Growth [Line 1 + Line 7] $423,241,986 $400,582,100 9 Number of ERCs That Could Be Served By Facilities 128,571 123,385 10 Adjusted Cost Per ERC $3,291.88 $3,246.61 11 Calculated Impact Fee (Rounded) $3,290.00 $3,245.00 ,f � Recovery of Growth-Related Capita_. Costs and Debt Service x Annual Impact Fee and AFPI Fee Collections Not Anticipated to Be Sufficient to Pay For All Growth - Related Projects and Debt Service Over Next Few Years Deficit Must Be Funded Through Monthly User Rates Projected Recovery of Growth- Related Capital Costs and Debt Service Through Impact Fees and AFPI Fees [1] Fiscal Year Ending September 30, Description 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 TOTAL Projected Impact Fee Collections $6.54 $6.54 $6.54 $6.54 $6.54 $6.54 $39.21 Projected AFPI Fee Collections 1.15 1.28 1.51 1.51 1.51 1.51 8.47 Total Collections $7.69 $7.81 $8.05 $8.05 $8.05 $8.05 $47.68 Growth- Related Projects in CIP (Funds 411 and 413) $10.36 $0.33 $2.03 $6.33 $0.33 $3.83 $23.22 Growth- Related Debt Service [2] 11.14 11.14 11.14 11.14 11.14 11.61 67.29 Total Growth- Related Projects and Debt Service $21.49 $11.47 $13.17 $17.47 $11.47 $15.45 $90.51 Difference ($13.81) ($3.65) ($5.12) ($9.42) ($3.42) ($7.40) Total Difference ($42.83) Impact Fee Starting Fund Balances $16.34 Total Amount to Be Recovered From Existing Customers During Forecast Period $( 26.49) [1] Numbers shown are in millions of dollars. 121 Based on Countv FY 2011 Budget. i� loY,000 $8,000 $7,000 $6,000 $5,000 $4,000 $3,000 $2,000 $1,000 $0 �ty a�°ee Go � P 0 '•` c G° �A 0 ot �er KN ay +� 0 N ° � 5 �e !y '0 & ° o o "0 Ap ,00 e �G ti� wt C, ` o (0 � ee e y V a \eG 0G'o yG aa ka Quo '��° rQey G ra0 ° J \� N 5 Ok G Q a�G *,035 oyea`�o� °��` 5Q,` a Public Utilities Division Source of Supply Time Elapsed Since Last Proximity to Source of Impact Fee Review Supply Density Within Service Type /Complexity of Area /Size of System Treatment Utility Life Cycle Effluent Disposal Method (Growth-Oriented Vs. Availability of Grant Mature) Funding to Finance CIP Level of Service Per ERC Standards Administrative Policies Public Utilities Division No Distribution and Collection Projects Included ProJ'ect Is Growth - Driven or Provides a Sy stem- Wide Benefit, the Cost of Which Should Be Shared By New Growth Connecting to System R Sustainability ProJ'ect Will Result in Fixed Asset(s) Being Added to System Project Cost Is Unlikely to Be Treated as an Operating Expense Project Is Not Anticipated to Be Funded Through Grants or Other Contributed Capital Public Utilities Division m Overview of AFPI Fees and Proposed FY 2011 Calculated Fees AFPI Fees First Adopted in 2006 17 Paid at the Same Time as Impact Fees Impact Fees Recover Capital (Principal), AFPI Fees Recover Incurred Financing Costs Public Utilities Division 1 7 Reduction of Impact Fees and AFPI Fees Since 2008 Public Utilities Division 18 Proposed FY 2011 Prior -to -2008 Current Calculated Proposed Difference Proposed Difference Fees Fees Fees from Current Fees from Prior -to -2008 Fees Impact Fees Water $3,616 $3,575 $3,290 ($285) -7.97% ($326) -9.03% Wastewater 3,722 3,495 3,245 (250) -7.15% (477) - 12.82% Total $7,339 $7,070 $6,535 ($535) -7.57% ($804) - 10.95% AFPI Fees Water $1,056 $934 $856 ($78) -8.33% ($200) - 18.96% Wastewater 688 759 654 (104) - 13.76% (34) -4.91% Total $1,745 $1,693 $1,511 ($182) - 10.76% ($234) - 13.42% Combined Water $4,673 $4,509 $4,146 ($363) -8.05% ($527) - 11.27% Wastewater 4,411 4,254 3,899 (354) -8.33% (511) - 11.59% TOTAL $9,084 $8,763 $8,046 ($717) -8.18% ($1,038) - 11.43% Public Utilities Division 18 �!► ., of Recommendations Board of # unty Commissione ■ Recognize That the Proposed Fees Support "Growth Paying For Growth" Policy • Adopt Proposed FY 2011 Calculated Fees and AFPI Fees Impact Public Utilities Division 119 Public Utilities Division 20 PUBLIC UTILITIES - CONTACT Tom Wides — Director- Operations Support Phone• e-mail: ThotnaswideS-,,( 2 Margie Hapke — Division Analyst Phone: 239 - 252 -2679 K Operations e -mail: Ma -@-(g�igliapke(a�co,ilierQov.net Public Utilities ivision 21