DSAC Backup 09/01/2010DEVELOPMENT
SERVICES ADVISORY
COMMITTEE
MEETING
BACKUP
DOCUMENTS
SEPTEMBER 1, 2010
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE
AGENDA
September 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 August 4, 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 the meetings from the Sub - Committee Utilities /RPZs [Bill Varian]
I. Minutes from 7 -27 -2010 BCC meeting
II. Minutes from 8 -13 -2010 Sub - Committee
III. Minutes from 8 -19 -2010 Sub - Committee
IV. Minutes from 8 -27 -2010 Sub - Committee (due to the short timeframe from the 8/27 subcommittee
meeting to this meeting, these minutes will be distributed during this meeting)
B. Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance — [Robert Wiley]
VII. New Business
A. A -128 Requirements for Spot Surveys & Affidavit's [Jamie French]
B. Indexing/Transportation cost & credit updates [Amy Patterson]
C. Sub - committee for EMS /Fire Impact Fee study [Amy Patterson]
VIII. Committee Member Comments
IX. Adjourn
Next Meeting Dates
October 6, 2010
November 3, 2010
December 1, 2010
January 5, 2011
February 2, 2011
March 2, 2011
GMD Conference Room 610 — 3:00 pm
GMD Conference Room 610 — 3:00 pm
GMD Conference Room 610 — 3:00 pm
GMD Conference Room 610 — 3:00 pm
GMD Conference Room 610 — 3:00 pm
GMD Conference Room 610 — 3:00 pm
August 4, 2010
MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Naples, Florida, August 4, 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
Blair Foley
Regan Henry
George Hermanson (Excused)
David Hurst (Excused)
Reed Jarvi (Excused)
Robert Mulhere
Mario Valle
ALSO PRESENT: Judy Puig, Operations Analyst — Staff Liaison
James French, Director — Operations & Regulatory Management
Nathan Beals, Project Manager, Public Utilities Division
Ed Riley, Fire Code Official, Fire Code Office
Jack McKenna, Manager — Engineering Review Services
Michael Greene, Transportation Planning Manager
Robert Wiley, Principal Project Mgr., Watershed Study Project/FEMA
August 4, 2010
I. Call to Order:
Chairman Varian called the meeting to order at 3:02 PM and read the procedures to be
followed during the meeting.
II. Approval of Agenda:
Clay Brooker moved to approve the Agenda as submitted. Second by Blair Foley.
Carried unanimously, 11 -0.
III. Approval of Minutes — July 21, 2010 Meeting:
Marco Espinar moved to approve the Minutes as amended. Second by Robert Mulhere.
Carried unanimously, 11 -0.
IV. Public Speakers:
(None)
V. Growth Management Division Staff Announcements/Updates:
A. Public Utilities Division Update: Nathan Beals, Project Manager
(Copies of a map and directions to the Utilities Discussion Group Meeting was
distributed to the Committee.)
• The Discussion Group will meet on August 17th at 2:00 PM
It was noted Paul Mattausch is unable to attend the first meeting of the Utilities /RPZ
Subcommittee to be held on August 13, 2010.
(Laura Spurgeon DeJohn arrived at 3: 07 PM.)
B. Fire Review Update: Ed Riley, Fire Code Official — Fire Code Office
• Monthly Report was submitted in Committee's information packet
o Number of reviews increased in June — total 801
• The contract with DeAngelis - Diamond was signed and construction of the Fire
Code building will begin in approximately six to eight weeks
C. Transportation Planning Division Update: Michael Greene, Transportation
Planning Manager
• Santa Barbara Boulevard Extension is open
• Bids for Davis (from Radio to 95 1) and for 951 (from Davis to Golden Gate
Canal) will be sent out by the end of the year
• Sidewalks and shoulders are being widened in the Naples Park area (15 block
project)
D. Planning and Regulation Update: James French, Director — Operations &
Regulatory Management
• Jack McKenna was hired as the County Engineer and Manager of Engineering
Review Services
August 4, 2010
• The position of Building Manager will be posted in the next week
o The position will be primarily administrative and the Manager will run
the day -to -day operation
o Gary Harrison remains as the Building Official
• Remodeling continues
• The next Kaizen Event (Process Improvement Event) will focus on Building
Inspections
• Where do redundancies exist?
• Where does waste exist?
• Goal: cost savings and quicker inspections
• 14 new laptops were purchased for the Building Inspectors from "found
money" (from 111 Fund)
VI. Old Business:
A. Utilities Subcommittee Status and Action Item (July 27th BCC meeting) Update:
David Dunnavant (for David Hurst)
• Commissioner Halas thought the "Health/Safety /Welfare" issue meant
imminent danger until David Hurst explained there were back -flow prevention
devices in places and the system was not breaking down
• He informed the BCC that DSAC created a Subcommittee to vet the issue and
requested 90 days to complete the assignment
• The BCC directed the Subcommittee to make a determination regarding the
Health/Safety /Welfare component of the RPZ issue and present a report at the
BCC's September 14th meeting
• It was suggested to add an additional meeting to the Subcommittee's schedule
of August 13th and August 27th
Discussion:
• It was noted the monthly cost for a six -inch meter is $700 while an 8 -inch
meter is $1,200 in addition to the installation costs.
• Concerning the Boil Water Alerts /Notices Log, a request was made for the
document to note the cause for each incident, i.e., a break, or a contamination,
or a found down - stream connection.
It was suggested the first Subcommittee meeting should focus on the Health/Safety and
Welfare issue and examine the metering component at a later meeting.
• A Committee member noted the Water Department did not offer a basis for its
claim of "Health/Safety /Welfare" issues and additional information is
necessary in order to make a determination.
Comments:
• "If there is no retrofit of RPZs for older projects, how can the issue be an
"imminent danger ?"
• "If it's truly a problem, RPZs should be installed everywhere —not just on new
proj ects."
August 4, 2010
Ed Riley asked for the following information to be supplied:
• What is proposed to be adopted in the Ordinance?
• What is currently being enforced under the Ordinance?
• What particular regulations are in place?
Judy Puig will schedule a third meeting and email the date to the Subcommittee
members. All information is to be submitted to Ms. Puig and she will distribute it to
DSAC members as well as to the Subcommittee members.
It was suggested evidence in the form of research should be presented regarding
nationwide "best practices" (concerning RPZs) to determine what is prudent and
practical as well as safe.
B. Multiple Inspections, Stats, Discounts Update: James French, Director —
Operations & Regulatory Management
• The issue is multiple inspections for a single trade
o It was noted only three Inspectors are capable of performing multiple
inspections
o Other factors include the size of the property and location of the site
• The cost of doing business will determine whether or not it is feasible to offer a
discount for multiple inspections conducted at the same time
• Less than 15% of the client base will be eligible for any type of discount
• Another concern is to re- establish a small (reasonable) amount of Reserves
• The question is being examined in order to make a fiscally responsible decision
using a Cost -Base Model
o Options will be presented to DSAC in the near future
Suggestion: Offer a re- inspection fee credit
Re: "CityView" — anticipated "go live" date is January, 2011
• '95% of the IVR has been paid
C. Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance: Robert Wiley, Principal Project
Manager, Watershed Study Project /FEMA
(Copies of the Approved Draft of the Flood Management Prevention Ordinance were
distributed to the Committee.)
Issues to be considered:
• There has been controversy concerning a facility proposed to be built in a
beach park due to the cost to comply with flood elevation levels and
handicapped accessibility regulations.
• Does the Ordinance provide some flexibility regarding the definition of
"hardship" and /or granting of a variance for public facility projects.
Jamie French stated FEMA indicated it would re- evaluate the County's Community
Rating System if a variance had been granted to the project.
August 4, 2010
Robert Wiley confirmed FEMA reviews and approves the Ordinance. If an Ordinance
does not comply with FEMA's basic principles, it will be rejected and a County will
lose discount points for flood insurance premiums.
Comments:
(Page 30) The last sentence of Paragraph B, Section 6: Variance and Appeals
Procedures, notes an appeal may be made to the Circuit Court.
o Suggestion: Contact the County Attorney's Office for clarification
since other sections in the LDC are specific regarding which type of
appeal can be made, i.e., either for a full trial or a review ( "De Novo"
or "Certiorari. ").
[ De initions:
Trial De Novo — refers to a new trial on the entire case conducted as if there had been
no trial in the first instance. "De novo" is a Latin expression meaning "anew ... from
the beginning." A trial de novo is usually ordered by an Appellate Court when the
original trial fails to make a determination in a manner dictated by law.
Writ of Certiorari — an order a higher court issues in order to review the decision and
proceedings in a lower court and determine whether there were any irregularities.]
• (Page 30) (Paragraph C -1, under Appeals Procedure) There is a 10 -day
deadline to file an appeal.
o How will notification be made? When does the 10 days start to run?
Suggestion: The process should be explained/clarified.
Mr. Wiley reviewed the following:
• Flood proofing — the recommendation was to place flood proofing at the Base
Flood Elevation ( "BFE "). The building will be rated at one -foot below BFE.
Flood proofing to the BFE is the minimum criteria for insurance.
Suggestion: Insert a clause in the Ordinance advising the lowest flow in a non-
residential building can be built to a level one -foot ABOVE the BFE.
Example: In an AE Flood Zone (Coastal surge, wave heights less than 3 feet),
if a non - residential building is flood proofed to one -foot above the BFE
(Note: the building will be rated at the BFE), the premium for $100,000 of
insurance coverage will cost $1,100.
If the same building is flood proofed at the BFE (the building will be rated at
one -foot below the BFE), the same policy will cost approximately $4,300.
• (Page 11) Regarding "Repetitive Loss," the reference to "substantial damage"
and "cumulative substantial improvements" was removed from the definition in
the Ordinance to allow owners to add to the value of the structure (with an
addition) during a 12 -month period without reducing its risk.
August 4, 2010
• (Page 25) There are some interior areas of the County along the canals that will
be designated as "AE Flood Zones." The current map does not (and the new
map will not) identify "flood ways." Criteria for "de- minimus impact" has
been inserted to protect the single build applicant. Without it, an applicant
must demonstrate that the work performed within a riverine plus any other
possible work that may ever occur within the AE Flood Zone will not raise the
Base Flood Elevation by more than one foot, and a detailed Engineering
Analysis for the entire AE Flood Zone must be submitted.
(Page 21) The entire page, "Building Pad, Building Floor and Slab Minimum
Elevations," returns to the Ordinance the language contained in the Building
Code Ordinance which was inadvertently deleted when the new Building Code
was adopted last year. The BCC approved the reinstatement under a Consent
Agenda. The language was revised to include local building criteria.
Judy Puig noted the August 5th meeting of the Planning Commission was cancelled
and it may not meet on August 19th. The next scheduled meeting is in September.
Consensus: Defer any decision until DSAC's September 1St meeting to allow
Committee members to read the Ordinance and research/obtain information from other
professionals regarding specific issues.
(Added Issue) New Preliminary Flood Zone Maps
Public meetings will be held every evening during the week of August 16tH
Representatives from FEMA and County Staff will be present to answer questions
concerning the impact to flood insurance policies. Homeowners can view the existing
and proposed Flood Zones for their property. After the Ordinance is drafted, there will
be a 90 -day period for homeowners to file comments, protests, and /or appeals. The
schedule and location of meetings is on the County's website.
(Blair Foley left at 4:05 PM.)
VII. New Business:
A. Welcome to Jack McKenna, Manager — Engineering Review Services
Jamie French introduced and welcomed Jack McKenna as the County Engineer.
Mr. McKenna gave a brief background of his education and work experience. He had
been the Resident Engineer for the County during the early `80s and was replaced by
Stan.
B. "800 Inspections:" Daryl Hughes, Jack McKenna
• Inspections include right -of -way, landscaping, irrigation, handicapped
accessibility issues
• What is the anticipated turn- around time? How many re- inspections are
necessary?
• The process is under review to determine what inspections are needed and if
efficiencies can be designed into the system.
August 4, 2010
Suggestion: Identify the top five site - related issues /areas of concern that necessitate
re- inspections to help eliminate the problems and create more first -time approvals by
developing an educational process (i.e., workshops) for applicants.
VIII. Committee Member Comments:
• Subject: Public Utilities and comments made at BCC Meeting
DSAC was derided for "abandoning" the Utilities Subcommittee.
Suggestion: Public Utilities will notify DSAC of its meeting schedule so DSAC's
(Civil Engineer) members can attend the Utilities Subcommittee meetings on a
rotating basis. Also suggested: appoint an Industry Representative to attend the
meetings and report to DSAC.
Discussion:
• Public Utilities has an obligation to bring policy changes to DSAC for review
o DSAC will make a recommendation to the BCC
• Materials are to be provided in advance for review by Members
o Not the day before or the day of the DSAC meeting
• Utilities can present its changes to DSAC in an intelligible manner — all of the
technical specifications do not need to be outlined — for DSAC members to make a
well - informed decision.
o If Utilities recommends changes that are not currently implemented by
other municipalities, justification must be presented (in lay -men's terms)
why such changes are necessary and the costs for same.
• Robert Mulhere will not attend the September 1" meeting.
Next Meeting Dates:
September 1, 2010 — 3:00 PM
October 6, 2010 — 3:00 PM
November 3, 2010 — 3:00 PM
December 1, 2010 — 3:00 PM
There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned
by order of the Chairman at 4:56 PM.
August 4, 2010
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
ADVISORY COMMITTEE
William Varian, Vice Chairman
The Minutes were approved by the Board /Committee on ,
as presented , or as amended
Office of the Fire Code Official
Summary of Plan Review Activity
July -10
Architectural Reviews
424
Sprinkler Reviews
57
Underground Reviews
20
Fuel & LP Gas Reviews
6
Hoods & FSUP Reviews
6
Alarm Reviews
160
SDP Reviews
68
Total # of Plans Reviewed
741
Number of Work Days
21
Average # of Plans Reviewed per Day
35
ASAP Reviews per Building Department: 1 Architectural
1 Minor Electrical
14 Low Voltage
23 Air Conditioning Change -out
Total # of ASAP Reviews`: 39
Total ASAP Reviews per Day 2
*Overtime Reviews are not included in this figure
Scheduled Meetings /Hours: Ed:
36.00 Hrs.
Bob:
45.50 Hrs.
Jackie:
0,83 Hrs.
Ricco:
62.34 Hrs.
Maggie:
6.83 Hrs.
Classes and Seminars attended by FCO:
None
Total Overtime Hours for the Fire Code Office -
*Overtime Hours Reimbursed by Contractors -
In addition to the above - mentioned tasks, The Fire Code Official's Office fields
numerous phone calls, walk -ins, field inspections and impromptu meetings.
Office of the Fire Code Official
2800 N. Horseshoe Dr.
Naples, FL 34104
Fire Plan Review - Time Frame Summary
July -10
Number Number Average #of 1st %of 1st Percentages
Of of Time in Reviews Reviews Within Time
Reviews Days Days Approved Approved Frames
Architectural Reviews
Total
424
578
1.36
1st Review
311
492
1.58
239
77%
100/10 Days
8 Day Max
2nd Review
99
73
0.74
100/3 Days
3rd Review
12
12
1.00
100/3 Days
4th Review
1
1
1.00
100/3 Days
5th Review
1
0
0.00
100/3 Days
Total 2 -6 Reviews
113
86
0.76
100/3 Days
3 Day Max
Fire Sprinkler Reviews
Total
57
58
1.02
1st Review
41
51
1.24
27
66%
100/10 Days
4 Day Max
2nd Review
15
7
0.47
100/3 Days
3rd Review
1
0
0.00
100/3 Days
Total 2 -3 Reviews
16
7
0.44
100/3 Days
2 Day Max
Underground Reviews
Total
20
23
1.15
1st Review
11
16
1.45
3
27%
100/10 Days
4 Day Max
2nd Review
9
7
0.78
100/3 Days
Total 2nd Review
9
7
0.78
10013 Days
2 Day Max
Fuel & LP Gas Reviews
6
6
1.00
Total
1st Review
6
6
1.00
5
83%
100/10 Days
2 Day Max
Total 2nd Review
0
0
0.00
Hood & FSUP Reviews
6
5
0.83
Total
1st Review
3
2
0.67
2
67 %s
100/10 Days
1 Day Max
2nd Review
3
3
1.00
100/3 Days
Total 2nd Review
3
3
1.00
100/3 Days
1 Day Max
Fire Alarm Reviews
Total
160
132
0.83
1st Review
103
99
0.96
70
68 %
100/10 Days
2 Day Max
2nd Review
49
28
0.57
100/3 Days
3rd Review
7
4
0.57
100/3 Days
4th Review
1
1
1.00
100/3 Days
Total 2-4 Reviews
57
33
0.58
100/3 Days
2 Day Max
Summary
1st Review
475
666
1.40
346
73%
100/10 Days
Corrections
198
136
0.69
100/3 Days
Overall Totals
673
802
1.19
Office of the Fife Code Official
2800 N. Horseshoe Dr.
Naples, FL 34104
July 27 -28, 2010
Item #I OE
RECOMMENDATION TO RESCIND THE ADMINISTRATIVE
STAY OF THE REQUIREMENT FOR REDUCED PRESSURE
BACKFLOW PREVENTERS ON FIRE SERVICE LINES, AND
REQUIRE RETROACTIVE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE
REQUIREMENT TO JUNE 89 2010 — MOTION TO CONTINUE
UNTIL AFTER DSAC RECOMMENDATIONS HAVE BEEN
HEARD AND BY THE FIRST BCC MEETING IN SEPTEMBER,
2010 — APPROVED
MR. OCHS: This is Item 10E. It's a recommendation to rescind
the administrative stay of the requirement for reduced pressure
backflow preventers on fire service lines and required a retroactive
Page 219
July 27 -28, 2010
implementation of the requirement to June 8, 2010.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You know, before we get into a
big presentation on this one, these seem to be very lengthy, these
presentations. I would like DSAC's recommendations prior to the
board making this decision. That's what we had directed. We don't
have their recommendations, so I'm going to make a motion to
continue this item.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I've got a problem with this. I'd
like to hear staffs side of the story on this. I believe when this came
before the commission --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Sir, can we take that
conversation outside back here? I can't hear Commissioner Halas.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, sorry. Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I believe that came before the
Board of County Commissioners on July -- or June 8th or 9th,
whatever it was. And I don't believe staff got their fair time to go --
give us a presentation on what we -- what has been found in the
community, and I believe that we need to give staff equal time to
come forward and give a quick presentation on some of the problems
that have been found in the community.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I believe they are due their
ample time after we get DSAC's recommendation.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Let's -- and I tend to agree. And let me --
let me ask staff. There are two issues here. One is the metering of the
fire water supply and the other is the backflow preventers.
MR. MATTAUSCH: You understand that absolutely correct.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Now, do we have -- we've got --
we've got some people represented here. Do we have someone who
can speak for the DSAC? Okay. And your name?
MR. HURST: David Hurst.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: David, could you come up to the
Page 220
July 27 -28, 2010
microphone, please?
MR. HURST: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I want to -- want to ask you -- well, first
I want to ask Paul Mattausch. Have you agreed to postpone the
metering of the fire water? Fire water. That sounds like something
you drink, right?
MR. OCHS : That's right.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: We need some about now.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, I need some fire water.
MR. MATTAUSCH: Yeah. For the record, Paul Mattausch, the
director of the Water Department.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: So you've agreed to postpone that issue?
MR. MATTAUSCH: We have agreed to postpone the fire water.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: So your issue is only with the backflow
preventers.
MR. MATTAUSCH: That is correct.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And what is your concern about
backflow preventers?
MR. HURST: For the record, David Hurst, WilsonMiller, stand
(sic) tech, representing DSAC.
DSAC's contention is that we didn't have enough time to review
this, this latest report. Essentially -- and I can give you a quick
timeline.
On July 21 st, approximately four hours prior to our three o'clock
meeting, we received a report from public utilities dated July 6th in
which it supported their request to rescind the Board of County
Commissioners' administrative stay of the reduced pressure assembly.
And it gave us four hours to review the report before we met with
public utilities at the DSAC meeting.
At the meeting we didn't feel -- trying to kick it around, we didn't
feel like we had enough discussion to where we felt like this item had
been properly vetted, not only with DSAC, but with local fire districts
Page 221
July 27 -28, 2010
as well as the industry.
To that end, I was requested to propose a motion to the board
from DSAC with the recommendation. And if you'd like to hear it, I
can go ahead and read that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Oh, that's all right. I understand. You
were -- you just were looking for some more time --
MR. HURST: Yes, sir 90 days.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- to do the evaluation?
MR. HURST: And to set up a subcommittee, which we have
already established. And I think the first date is August 13th.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Now, our Water Department's
concern is that backflow preventers are a safety measure.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Health, safety.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And it's sort of critical that we make
some decisions with respect to that. And if we improperly extend that
decision and something happens and somebody gets sick as a result of
unintended -- or backflow, then we could be liable.
So, now, what I don't understand is, why does it take 90 days for
you to develop a position on backflow preventers?
MR. HURST: Well, if I might be clear. There seems to be an
impression that there is no backflow prevention in Collier County.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, well --
MR. HURST: The current standard that Collier County uses is
compliant with AWWA requirements as well as Florida
Administrative Code. It's a double detector check assembly on
dedicated fire lines. That's the standard. It's working.
The other fact I'd like to point out is, if we have a problem
tomorrow and this gets approved today, the current ruling would not
affect the existing system because it's in the future. It's not retroactive.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's right, yeah.
MR. HURST: So what we're talking about is asking for a
specific period of time to evaluate it with the industry and the fire
Page 222
July 27 -28, 2010
districts, who are supportive, I might add.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And who -- why can't you get it done in
less than 90 days though?
MR. HURST: Ninety days was just the amount of time that we
agreed on. You know, if the board were to direct us to do it sooner,
you know, we'd do everything in our power to do that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, I would -- I would think we should
be able to get this resolved and back to the board the first meeting in
September for us.
MR. HURST: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I don't know why it would take longer
than that.
MR. HURST: Well, currently what we're looking at is a
subcommittee of approximately I I people, and that consists of people
from the industry as well as county staff, as well as DSAC as well as
the fire district. So in some sense it's herding cats. But, again, we
would do everything we can to expedite that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. I think that at one time DSAC
had a subcommittee for this, and they said, well, this is not really in
our purview. We're just going to drop it. And I believe the water
department tried to get some stimulation from DSAC to help them in
regards to addressing this particular issue.
And it's my understanding that you haven't been forthright in
making sure that those problems were addressed as -- am I pretty
much on the paper here?
MR. HURST: I'm not quite sure I follow you.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. Paul, haven't you made
some gestures for -- to get DSAC to make some -- to get together to
come up with some proposals?
MR. MATTAUSCH: DSAC, back in 2006, decided to disband
the subcommittee that was -- the utility code subcommittee because
Page 223
July 27 -28, 2010
the members of the DSAC didn't have time to do that. We requested
that they continue that subcommittee, and it was determined at the
following meeting that they would disband the committee.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And have you made any overtures
to them in regards to trying to get someone to work with you in
regards to addressing this issue?
MR. MATTAUSCH: We -- we prepare a report to them on a
monthly basis, and so a lot of these issues do get reported to them. A
couple of the members of the DSAC have been on and off a
quasi - subcommittee that we have continued because the utilities felt
that was important.
So at times there have been one or two members of DSAC on
that committee.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. My final question is, this is
a health, safety problem; is that correct?
MR. MATTAUSCH: That is correct.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. So we (sic) need to do is get
some clarification and get some agreement by the first meeting in
September. Can that be done?
MR. HURST: I will do everything I can.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, we've got to make sure that
we get this taken care of because backflow preventers are -- in regards
to -- where people tap in, whether it's irrigation or whatever else, and
that's into the drinking water supply, and that's the biggest problem I
think that we're concerned about is making sure that we do not have a
health, safety, welfare problem here with the water system, okay.
MR. HURST: If I might expound on that a little bit. I don't think
that we don't have a system in place to address that, and that's the
concern is that we're leapfrogging into a requirement that's going to
have other implications, cost implications down the road, and they
haven't been properly vetted. There has been some discussion on it.
There's some disagreement as to whether or not the county views
Page 224
July 27 -28, 2010
it as a no- impact proposal, and the truth is that to the industry there is
an impact associated with it, and that's another reason why the fire
districts are interested. And so that's why we feel it's properly vetted.
As far as health, safety, welfare goes, this is, again, standard of
the industries, AWWA approved, and also Florida Administrative
Code approved, what is currently in place, not the RPZ requirement,
which is also approved by those agencies but is also considered an
upgrade.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
MR. MATTAUSCH: Addressing the first meeting in September,
if you would place an administrative stay on the approval of any plans
that would be submitted between now and then, in fact, from June 8th
through that date that we can come back to you, we would be willing
to do that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's not a part of my motion.
Here we are in an economic crisis, and you want to make it worse?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: How can -- explain how this could
make it worse, Paul, or somebody, or maybe you could tell us how it
would make it worse.
MR. HURST: In general terms -- I think each project needs to be
evaluated on its own merits. But in general terms the reduced pressure
device has an additional pressure loss across the device that's not
typically in place with the double detector check, which is currently a
requirement.
That additional pressure loss requires you to upsize the water
main to get adequate pressure to the building. And potentially,
depending on the length of the water main or the losses between point
A and point B, you might require a fire pump where you normally
wouldn't need one.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Wait a minute. I'm under the -- I'm
under -- the staff has briefed me on this that -- saying that we
presently provide 40 PSI in the line. And my understanding, by
Page 225
July 27 -28, 2010
researching this device, that the most that we would probably lose
would be 5 PSI.
MR. HURST: That's incorrect.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: It's incorrect? Okay.
MR. HURST: It's 12 to 14 typically for an RPC.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And that the state requirement is
only 20 PSI. So what we've already done is double it. Now, I've --
maybe the information I got about the backflow valve was that it was
only going to acquire (sic) an additional 5 PSI, which would take you
down to 35. You're saying it takes us down to what, 14?
MR. HURST: Yes. Well, let me back up. I think what you --
what your understanding is, it's 5 additional PSI to a double detector
check, which is pretty much the case.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: If we provide 40 PSI and the state
requirement is 20 --
MR. HURST: At the building.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: -- at the building. So what's
MR. HURST: Right. You've -- you're now at 28, right out of the
bat --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: You're still above the state
requirement.
MR. HURST: And you still -- you have 8 PSI to get from your
backflow preventer to the building.
And if you don't achieve that, then you have to put in a fire
pump. I did a quick calculation based on, if we have 20 PSI at the
building, assuming --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: No, you've got 40 PSI to start with
without a backflow.
MR. HURST: That's at the tie -in point.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
MR. HURST: You need 20 PSI at the building. If you have 20
PSI at the building and you need 7 PSI delivery for the sprinklers,
Page 226
July 27 -28, 2010
what you end up with is -- I did the math. I think it was two stories.
You get two stories without a fire pump. And then after that you need
a fire pump with the current scenario, current system. One of the fire
sprinklers that I spoke of, I think it was about four stories is what's
required --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: What am I missing here? I thought
we have the 40 PSI to start with. Can someone straighten me out on
this?
MR. MATTAUSCH: That's correct. There's 40 PSI --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Did they lose 14 --
MR. MATTAUSCH: -- minimum pressure by ordinance. The
total head loss can be 14 to 15 PSI; however, the difference is, the
difference is, we require right now a double -check detector assembly
that has a head loss. We add, with the reduced pressure assembly, an
additional three to 5 PSI depending on the size of the line and the flow
required, yes, sir. So we still -- we still have more than the minimum
20 PSI.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So he's telling me we're dropping
14 PSI. You're telling me we're dropping how much?
MR. MATTAUSCH: Fourteen to 15 total PSI. The difference,
as I explained, the difference between what we currently require and
the reduced pressure device that we are recommending that we put in,
is 3 to 5 PSI additional beyond the detector check assembly.
But we're still above -- because we provide 40 PSI, we're still
well above the 20 PSI minimum pressure at the main that we have to
maintain.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, if there's no urgency, then
why can't we give them time to discuss this, and --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We can.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Call the motion.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You know --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta?
Page 227
July 27 -28, 2010
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You know, I've been sitting here
for a little while just -- just trying to put this all together.
As far as it goes, you're saying it will require an additional pump
to be able to hold the pressure where it is over and above the cost of
the --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It's for fire.
MR. HURST: It's based on some rough calculations, and that's
assuming the additional 5 PSI drop. You convert that to feet; we're
talking roughly 13 feet. That's one story of a building. So normally if
you had the sprinkler requirement with a pump at three stories, you
would now be down to two.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So you -- eventually you might
have to add another pump to the whole thing, which is quite an
expense, correct?
MR. HURST: Well, effectively a building that wouldn't require
a pump in the current scenario might require a pump in the future
scenario.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, how many things -- how
many items are standing out there right now that you -- that want
approval to be able to go forward between now and when it would
come back to us? Do you have any idea?
MR. MATTAUSCH: We have been told that there is one that
has currently been approved under these conditions, and I believe that
there are two additional that have been submitted. That's the number
that we got.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. So the cost of the
backflow preventative item is like about $5,000; is that what I
understood?
MR. MATTAUSCH: The cost -- the cost of the current device
that is that -- that is required is around $11,400. That's the current
requirement under the old ordinance. The new ordinance adds -- adds
somewhere around $700 to that.
Page 228
July 27 -28, 2010
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So in other words, they're
already paying 5,000 for what?
MR. MATTAUSCH: No. They're paying -- for the device
currently, it's about 11,400. And for the reduced pressure device that
we're asking them to insert -- and again, this is eight inch. This is --
you know, the prices are different. You have to make the comparison.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay.
MR. MATTAUSCH: Currently, 11,400 for the current
ordinance, and our recommendation, the cost is 12,400, so the cost is
an additional $700.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And Paul, the reason we're
doing this for health, safety, and welfare, I understand, so you don't
get a back flush going into the water lines that people drink.
MR. MATTAUSCH: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: The water that might have been
sitting stagnant for a long time. Is that a fairly common occurrence?
Just trying to put this together in my mind.
MR. MATTAUSCH: Every time we have a water main break --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah.
MR. MATTAUSCH: -- we have a potential for backflow.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: But every time you have a water
main break, you always put out a notice to boil water.
MR. MATTAUSCH: That's correct, that's correct. We put out a
notice to boil water. But the potential is there to impact public health.
We had, in the last 54 months, we've had 194 main breaks. We've
had to issue 227 boil -water notices.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So if every building had these
devices on it, you wouldn't have to issue the boil -water notice if a
main breaks?
MR. MATTAUSCH: No, that's not correct. We would not
create a backflow into the system.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You know something, it must be
Page 229
July 27 -28, 2010
getting late because I'm having a hard time following this.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's why we said let's get them
together and work it out, right?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Call the motion.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: State the motion again.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, state the motion again.
MR. MITCHELL: Sir, there were two other -- there were
speakers representing the CBIA and also the fire sprinkler industry.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: They're going to tell us to get together to
work it out, right? You going to tell us anything more than that?
Okay. Then you waive, right?
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Absolutely.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. So would you restate the motion.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to continue until we get
DSAC's recommendation.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: But we want it back here for a decision
by the board no later than the first meeting in September.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, that's what you want.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And I'll put that in my motion.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But can they do it by the first of --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Who cares?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I do, I do.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, no, no. They do it. If they don't do
it, we'll do it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. As long as -- that's why I
asked if there was any urgency because --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, he said they were going to
Page 230
July 27 -28, 2010
work on this.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: He promised they were going to try
to do what they could to get this thing moving.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay.
MR. HURST: Our first meeting is scheduled for August 13th.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. That's just a couple of weeks
away. All right. So you can do a lot of work in that time. You can
have a report for that meeting, and hopefully that meeting you could
resolve it. Okay?
MR. HURST: Absolutely.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, good.
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. It passes unanimously.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I -- one thing, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I need to catch a ride so I can
fly. So thanks for your indulgence. I'll try to participate tomorrow.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. All right.
We're -- how much more to -- well, we've got nine minutes.
What do you want to do from that point in time?
MR. OCHS: You want to do some of your appointments, get
those out of the way, or are those controversial?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, we can probably do a lot of those
Page 231
August 13, 2010
MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE
PUBLIC UTILITIES/RPZ SUBCOMMITTEE
Naples, Florida, August 13, 2010
LET IT BE REMEMBERED that the Collier County Development Services
Advisory Committee — Public Utilities/RPZ Subcommittee, having conducted
business herein, met on this date at 9:00 AM 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, DSAC
Melissa Ahern, CBIA
Dave Aldrich, CBIA
Nick Biondo, East Naples Fire District
David Dunnavant, DSAC
Joey Hatfield, Imperial Fire Protection
Chris Mitchell, Waldrop Engineering
(Non - Voting) STAFF: Nathan Beals, Project Manager — Public Utilities
Joe Bellone, Manager — Utility Billing & Customer
Service, Public Utilities
Tom Wides, Director — Operations Support,
Public Utilities
Ed Riley, Fire Code Official — Fire Code Office
ALSO PRESENT: Judy Puig, Operations Analyst — Staff Liaison
James French, Director — Operations & Regulatory Mgmt.
Joe Thomas, Manager — Water Distribution, Water Department
1*'
August 13, 2010
I. Call to Order:
William Varian, serving as Moderator, called the meeting to order at 9:08 AM and read
the procedures to be followed during the meeting.
II. Selection of Chairman:
There was only one nomination.
David Dunnavant nominated William Varian to serve as the Subcommittee's Chairman.
Second by Dave Aldrich. Motion carried, S — "Yes " /1— "Abstention." Mr. Varian
abstained
Chairman Varian officially opened the Subcommittee meeting.
III. Approval of Agenda:
Melissa Ahern moved to approve the Agenda as submitted A "Second" was made in
support of the Motion. Carried unanimously, 6 -0.
IV. Public Speakers:
(None)
(Nick Biondo arrived at 9:10 AM)
VI. New Business:
A. RPZ Requirements on Fire Services
Nathan Beals stated one of the main concerns driving Utilities' push for installation
of RPZs is the loss of pressure through the assembly versus the Double- Detector
Check Assembly ( "DDCA ").
In an effort to compromise, Utilities has suggested removing the language from the
Standards currently restricting design to 40 psi. The AWWA ( "American Water
Works Association ") M31 Guidelines will be substituted and the Engineer of Record
will be responsible for determining fire flow pressure.
(Copies of a document entitled, "Proposed Revision to Section 1— Design Criteria, "
were distributed to the Subcommittee.)
Ed Riley stated:
• NFPA -1 ( "National Fire Protection Association ") determines fire flow
requirements in the State of Florida.
• There is an existing fire flow requirement for single family residential at
750 gpm. (See: Appendix "H" which was adopted by Collier County.)
• The 2009 Edition requires a 1,000 gpm if a structure is less than 5,000
square feet. If a structure is larger than 5,000 square feet, the
commercial guideline requirements are to be followed.
Mr. Riley stated the reference to AWWA -M31 is incorrect and NFPA -1 is to be
followed because the minimum requirements are higher. NFPA -1's calculations are
specific to the type of construction and the size of the structure.
August 13, 2010
Mr. Beals conceded the reference could be changed after further review. The primary
concession made by Public Utilities was to change the 40 psi requirement and allow
the Engineer to make the determination regarding pressure.
Ed Riley continued:
• He is not opposed to changing 40 psi to a Standard.
• Hydraulic modeling is to be based on a flow test or available water supply as a
starting point and not on the "Kentucky" pipe that determines if a pipe is
capable of flowing the type of water.
o The Modeling Standard should state the starting point for modeling is to
be based on an actual flow test to the main that is being tied to.
David Dunnavant requested an explanation of the difference. The hydrant test is
limited by the current Fire Code Ordinance to less than 50 psi.
Mr. Riley stated there are different requirements for designing sprinkler systems. The
fire flow required in mains and hydrants outside is calculated differently.
He continued: The design for the hydrant system has no extrapolation. For example,
if 1,000 gpm is needed for a building, the 1,000 gpm will be un- extrapolated out of the
hydrant or to the closest hydrant to the building if hydrants have to be brought on site.
The sprinkler system is extrapolated to 50 psi due to the requirements for water
conservation at different times of the year. Pressure is dropped within the system
during different times of the day — usually at night. The primary impact is to irrigation
water. Another consideration is future use of the system.
It is not standard practice to call Public Utilities in the evening asking to increase
pressure to a fire sprinkler system at a certain location. It was tried in the past and
didn't work. It was noted older systems in place (before 1998) may not be monitored.
Because a building is undergoing renovations does not mean that the fire sprinkler
system will also be updated for monitoring — the existing standards for renovations is
the determining factor.
Mr. Beals clarified water pressure does not fluctuate at the plant — it is maintained at a
constant 90 psi.
Tom Wides stated when the Water Department was running at near capacity a few
years ago, the standard practice was to reduce pressure in the evening to maintain
storage. Over the past 2 to 3 years, the pressure has been maintained at a constant
level.
(Chris Mitchell arrived at 9:16 AM)
Ed Riley stated test gauges were placed throughout the system several years ago to
monitor pressure consistency and the results fluctuated wildly. All sprinkler systems
are not located just at the plant. Theoretically, systems can be designed to have a one -
pound safety margin (extrapolated) or a five -pound safety margin (not extrapolated).
Nathan Beals stated he has access to NFPA -1 and will review it.
August 13, 2010
Re: Boil Water Notices
Mr. Beals stated in 2008 and 2009, one "Boil Water Notice" was issued each year due
to a known or suspected actual cross - connection. With each main break, there is a
potential for a back -flow. The purpose for installing RPZs is to stop back -flow from
the customer's side of service and the requirement is being enforced on all new
connections (fire and non -fire).
Question : How long has the Double Detector Check Assembly been installed in
Collier County's current system?
Answer. Since approximately 1997
Question : Did any of the cross - connections occur on fire lines?
Answer. The records are not available. He will research the issue.
Joe Thomas stated Collier County instituted its back -flow prevention program in 1997
for all residential. The DDCA were begun in 2000. There are approximately 50 main
breaks per year which require shut - downs, as well as scheduled shut -downs for
maintenance. Even though a "Boil Water Notice" may not be issued, bacterial analysis
of the water must be obtained for each shut -down.
David Dunnavant outlined:
• The Board of County Commissioners directed DSAC to determine by
September 14`h whether the use of Double Detector Check valves currently in
place in the County, as opposed to RPZs, poses an imminent Health/
Safety and Welfare threat to the residents of the County.
• Public Utilities has based bulk of its operations primarily on AWWA
guidelines.
o AWWA states RPZs are only necessary if there are known
contaminates in the system.
Mr. Dunnavant questioned why, suddenly, there is an imminent Health/Safety/Welfare
threat to Collier County that necessitates the installation of RPZs. He pointed out the
costs for the installation will not be paid by Public Utilities but will be passed down to
the Development Community.
He further stated in today's current economic conditions, we are trying to find
opportunities for people to do work in Collier County. Industry's concern is that this
new requirement is a further impediment to the process.
Question : Please explain what is so unique about Collier County's system that it
needs RPZs when the bulk of the Country, as well as the AWWA, does not indicate
that this is a standard or "best practice."
Nathan Beals stated the intent is to protect public health by installing RPZs. Every
time there is a main break, or work is done on the system, there is a potential for a
August 13, 2010
back -flow situation. When that occurs, Public Utilities issues "Boil Water Notices"
but it is not known each and every time there may be a cross- connection, and it is not
known if everyone who may be affected received a `BWN." The intent of the RPZs is
to protect everyone currently and in the future. No one else is doing this, but Utilities
is trying to do what is right.
Question : Why now?
Answer: For the same reason we require them on residential services — because we have
very little control over what happens behind the meter. We have had several cases where
instances have happened behind the meter and unauthorized connections were made to
fire services -- if the RPZ was in place, it would stop that.
Chris Mitchell noted the same protection would be in place with the Double- Detector
Check valve. The possibility with an RPZ is zero or close to zero. With the Double -
Detector Check valve, it is possible that the valve is not seeding but the back pressure on
the system would have to be lower than pressure in the downstream side of the DDCA
valve. Two valves would have to fail and the system pressure would have to be less.
There may be more of a risk, but what is the risk?
uestion: The Double - Detector Check Valves have been monitored and tested over
time. How many times have those valves failed?
Joe Thomas responded Utilities is not asking for an air -gap which is the best
protection. The RPZ is the next step down from an air -gap.
Nathan Beals stated all Double- Checks and RPZs are tested annually. The failure rate
on private fire lines is not available because if a line is tested and repaired, Utilities is
notified only of "passing" back -flow tests.
Ed Riley stated all fire sprinkler systems that have an FDC connection (i.e., all
commercial fire protection systems) are required to have an RPZ. Utilities is proposing
that every sprinkler system will have an RPZ and include the 13 -D systems which
would not originally have had an FDC. The number of additional systems that are being
added is small. RPZs have been required on sprinkler systems all along with the
exception of if it did not have a downstream cross - connection already on it already
identified.
He pointed out it is only in effect if the system is tied directly to their back -flow at the
County's operated site — their main at the street. If a system has a combination meter
at the street (combination fire and potable), there is no requirement for an RPZ for the
sprinkler system within that community.
He continued if the Subcommittee is examining Health/Safety and water quality issues,
there are no water quality issue problems inside the community because it is not
maintained by the County's water system. That point of demarcation has been
established by the County. Very few places around the Country have a master meter
assembly at a development entrance. In Collier County, a master meter assembly is
August 13, 2010
located at the property line -- everything that comes in is the responsibility of the
development. This Ordinance does nothing for public safety within those communities
because it does not affect them. It will not be utilized within that development. More
and more of the developments in Collier County have been built that way with a
developer developing a plot of land. In those cases, nothing will change.
Chris Mitchell: In the case with a master combo meter up front, do those not
typically have a Double Detector system?
Ed Riley: On the sprinkler systems, a DDCA valve assembly is required and that
won't change. The Ordinance does not require an RPZ on those.
Chris Mitchell: There is the protection from back -flow from the system downstream?
Ed Riley: Absolutely. In those situations, a DDCA valve assembly is acceptable.
But when that sprinkler system is connected to the County's main, it is no longer
acceptable and an RPZ is required at that location. In new developments, you will not
see that by virtue of the way developments are structured in Collier County.
Nathan Beals: The County's Ownership of the line stops at the master meter. If a
developer chooses not to install a master meter but runs lines through the development
and puts Utility easements over the lines, they can be conveyed to Utilities if all
requirements are met. South Florida's gated communities are unique. If there is a
master meter, the County will not take ownership of the lines. Developers have an
option.
Chris Mitchell: It is more difficult because the County requires a 60 -foot right -of-
way for subdivisions to meet the standard of the technical specifications in the Utilities
Manual.
In response to a question, Ed Riley confirmed all commercial fire sprinkler systems
today that are connected directly to the County's back -flow are required to have an
RPZ installed.
If a master meter (combination or fire meter) is on site and feeds all the hydrants in the
buildings, a Double -Check valve assembly is acceptable and you can install an FDC
off that.
If you connect directly off a main which the County owns, then an RPZ must be
installed.
Discussion ensued concerning FDC, definitions, separation of fire lines, and cross -
connections. The Florida Administrative Code approved five devices and one is the
Double- Detector Check Assembly valve.
It was noted that a Double -Check is accepted and used in the majority of properties
nationwide that have fire lines on them.
Ed Riley stated the City of Ft. Myers has stayed with the DDCA but Collier County
elected to adopt a higher standard. The proposed change for back -flow affects very
minimally what is already being done. It will have minimal impact.
He stated he does not agree with the implication that it is a Health/Safety/Welfare
issue. If it were such an issue, the County should eliminate the master meter
assemblies at property lines and take ownership of the lines throughout a development.
August 13, 2010
uestion: What is the percentage, or actual number, of applications have come
through that have a situation where there is a single fire line lead -in that would have
the ability to use a Double Check? Are there any?
Ed Riley stated it could be done if the single family aspect was re- addressed and didn't
require an FDC connection on it. The Fire Code Office requires an FDC connection on
13 -D systems for consistency of fire sprinkler protection.
Joey Hatfield noted sprinkler systems for single - family homes are designed to be
affordable. One of the major arguments, nationwide, is that sprinkler systems cost too
much and adding reduced pressure back - flows /fire department connections keeps
driving the cost up. The issue is being scrutinized in relation to the cost of single -
family home fire sprinkler systems. If you add a reduced pressure back -flow, the pipe
size is increased. If a fire department connection is added, the cost is increased.
He stated: We, as an Industry, are trying very hard to make these affordable. If you
put a very simple sprinkler system into a home, a network of piping connected to a
sprinkler system will save people's lives. It is important that the Subcommittee
members understand what the implications are and why it is important.
Chairman Varian asked what the questions the BCC directed DSAC to answer were.
David Dunnavant stated one question was to determine the Health/Safety /Welfare
aspect of the RPZs. Is the issue truly a Health/Safety/Welfare issue? Is installing
RPZs necessary for the County?
Mr. Dunnavant expressed his concern regarding how the Subcommittee is going to
achieve agreement on the issue. Public Utilities brought up the water supply and
contamination issue. The Fire Code Office stated it does not seem to be that dangerous.
Chairman Varian asked, from a Health/Safety/Welfare point of view, how many fire
lines are not protected.
Nathan Beals stated there are approximately 1,000 fire services in the system and a
little more than half currently have RPZs installed. While the remaining half have
DDCAs or nothing.
Chairman Varian clarified the 500 lines without RPZs will not be affected by any
decisions made concerning the Ordinance -- changes will be implemented from this
point forward.
He added from a business viewpoint, any additional costs could kill a project. Do we
want Collier County to become one of those places where no one wants to work?
He confirmed the Subcommittee will not oppose a true Health/Safety/ Welfare issue.
Mr. Beals stated Utilities would like to require retrofits on the DDCAs but cannot
because they are designed close to the system and adding 5 psi additional pressure of
an RPZ would be a detriment to the system. When a system is completely replaced and
redesigned, installing RPZs will be required based on 40 psi.
Chairman Varian directed a question to Mr. Riley asking if there were triggers in the
Florida Fire Prevention Code?
Ed Riley replied there might be some situations, i.e., change of occupancy, that could
require altering the design of a sprinkler system. Chapter 43 is very restrictive
August 13, 2010
concerning the use of new requirements for existing buildings. Certain benchmarks
must be reached before it triggers. Due to economics, the Building Code has been
changed to reflect the current climate.
Tom Wides commented Nathan Beals presented research to minimize the impact of a
pressure drop, which is a major component of cost increases — larger pipes due to the
pressure loss. He referred to an email from George Hermanson that may be a fair
assessment of the device, but not the downstream design.
Nathan Beals stated the intent was to allow the pressure to be tested at the system and
the majority of the time, it will be higher than 40 psi.
Ed Riley stated the M31 Guidelines do not change design standards for the sprinkler
system past the back flow. You must still extrapolate the flow test to 50 psi which is
ten pounds more than what was the minimum. The site hydrants may benefit from the
other process, but the actual sprinkler design will not.
Joey Hatfield: What has not yet been discussed is that our world is 50 psi and that's
all we have to work with. The pressure loss is very important — when it is lost, pipe
sizes start going up. That is a cost that cannot be quantified unless you actually
calculate a building to determine what the difference is in the pressure loss — it causes
branch line and main piping to go up in size inside the building.
Tom Wides stated if you are required to meet 50 psi, you will size your pipes
internally to meet that.
Ed Riley stated you are not required to meet 50 psi, you must meet the design pressure
from the system. You may have to have 18 gpm and 10 psi at the farthest end and you
will calculate up to 1,500 square feet or even up to 3,000 square feet depending on the
hazard classification of all those heads flowing — you are calculating the water flow
requirements and the more it is, the bigger the pipe size is needed. As you increase
pressure, there is an increase in friction loss.
Joey Hatfield: In simplified terms, if you begin at the most remote sprinkler in the
system and at that point, the calculations begin at 7 psi — so we are already at 43 when
we start. Friction loss calculations are done back through the system and elevation
losses are taken into consideration — all of that is calculated back out to the street
where we take the pressure loss to the back -flow device and to the City connection. In
the majority of cases, we lose 10 or 11 psi from the beginning. The first sprinkler head
is calculated with a 10 — 11 pound starting head pressure, so we're under 40 at the
start.
Ed Riley stated you must have a residual of 20 at the end. You only have 30 pounds to
work with and that's going through a back -flow assembly which can have 12 to 15 psi
friction loss. It's not easy to design systems to give you a lot of pressure loss.
He continued he would like to get away from the 50 psi but no one is comfortable
enough with the design system. A complete Modeling of the system was discussed to
show what it was capable of.
August 13, 2010
He confirmed the 50 psi starts at the connection main — at the supply side of the back
flow.
Dave Aldrich requested the figures for the cost of adding in the RPZs to the system.
These costs will impact any new businesses coming into Collier County.
He stated the goal for Utilities is to install meters. The bottom line is to begin metering
every commercial building in Collier County. He is not convinced there is a
Health/Safety/Welfare issue from everything that has been presented — even from
Utilities — and he asked what does Utilities want?
Joe Thomas stated it started out as a view of accommodating and being able to
understand the cost of our production in the utilization of our water. If, in fact, we
have cross - connection situations — which we've experienced — somebody is not paying,
and we're running the risk of putting irrigation quality (reclaimed) water into a potable
system. We've seen that in Pelican Bay.
Comments: "You're digging a hole .... that was created ...."
David Dunnavant stated Pelican Bay was a terrible example. Utilities changed the
use of that line and didn't find all of the irrigation connections. Now Utilities claims it
is a County -wide problem. That's how this whole thing started.
Mr. Thomas countered whoever uses the water should pay for it.
David Dunnavant reiterated that was exactly the point. Utilities came in initially with
a revenue issue. When they went before the BCC, it became a Health/Safety/Welfare
issue. That's the problem. There has been a lot of misgiving in that change.
Nathan Beals: Everything that was brought to us was questioned — the meter, why the
meter, who approved the meter. Before the meter was required, we changed the
requirement to RPZs. It was at the March DSAC meeting that Ed brought up that the
issue isn't the meters, it's the RPZs. We didn't really discuss the RPZs, we went back
to the meters. Meters are not a Health/Safety/Welfare issue — the back flow is. The
back flow was thrown in during the discussions about meters. The meter report only
talks about the meters. Utilities hasn't tried to change the reasoning on back flows
versus meters. Meters have been accounting for "he who benefits, pays." Back flow is
Health/Safety/Welfare. They are different subjects.
Ed Riley: What I said at that [DSAC] meeting was -- from a Fire standpoint and
calculation issue, the meter is less of a problem because it's one to three pounds of
friction loss. The RPZ is five to seven pounds of additional friction loss. In our [Fire
Office] mind, from Plan Review and the installation of systems, a line size meter is
less of an impact on the system than an RPZ. Not that it wasn't a concern, but the
bigger concern — when you combine them — is 8 psi or better and that it would have a
higher impact on the system itself. Of the two, the meter has less impact on the
system.
Nathan Beals concurred that Ed said the larger issue was the RPZ.
Chairman Varian noted when Paul [Mattausch] was at the DSAC meeting, one of his
concerns was 5% loss system -wide.
David Dunnavant stated Utilities had 10 -12 %. They could account for half of it
because of testing and breaks but they had additional loss they couldn't determine.
August 13, 2010
Could it be leakage? Could it be low flow - through meters? It could be lots of things
that aren't going to be captured by putting a meter on a fire line and charging every
business in this County for it.
[ Excerpt from the March 3'd DSAC Minutes:
"He [Paul Mattausch] further stated approximately 10% of the water produced is not
billed.
• Approximately 5% can be identified (water main breaks, hydrant flushing
programs, fighting fires, etc.)
• In 2005, the amount of water lost in the system was examined and was
determined to be 13 %.
• Solution: to ensure all services are metered to track unbilled usage.
• In January, 2009 the Utility Standards Committee revised the Standards
(placing meters on dedicated fire services), posted them on the website, and
were approved by the BCC in September, 2009.
• If a building is substantially changed, the meters will be retrofit to comply
with the Ordinance." ]
Chairman Varian noted he remembered the 5% from the March DSAC meeting and
the Industry standard was approximately 10 to 12% - -- Collier County is pretty good
for lost water as compared to the Industry. Water loss is a revenue issue. Forward to
the BCC's July meeting — now it's a Health/Safety/Welfare issue.
Nathan Beals reiterated they are separate items — the meter and the RP. At the BCC's
July meeting, we were only asking to have the RP rescinded because those two items
were put together as an Administrative Stay. We knew we would come back to
continue to discuss the fire metering requirements.
David Dunnavant: The point is -- at neither of Mr. Mattausch's appearances at
DSAC, did he ever mention Health/Safety/Welfare as being an issue in RPZ or
metering or in any combination. He mentioned it was the 5% revenue loss.
Chairman Varian: The Industry's concern is the revenue.
Nathan Beals: The RP has nothing to do with revenue — it's been Health/Safety/
Welfare.
Melissa Ahern concurred revenue will be affected because there will be less building.
It was noted increases in Impact Fees have further discouraged people from building.
David Dunnavant: What lines are we actually discussing for RPZs? Commercial
buildings already have RPZs in place. Multi- families do or do not?
Ed Riley: Some multi - families do and some do not. It depends on where they are
connected to the system.
David Dunnavant: If there is a master meter out front, there is an RPZ at some
location. Everything into a community right now — for multi - family or commercial —
has RPZs. So are we discussing single family which really doesn't have fire service
anyway?
Joey Hatfield: It's coming — it's already been adopted in the NFPA Standards. It was
repealed -- Florida decided legislatively to not include it in their Standard this
year. Single family homes will be required to have sprinklers in this country. The cost
will continue to push affordable fire sprinkler systems out of what they were intended
to be.
10
August 13, 2010
Comment: Up until 2008, a Double Detector Check Assembly valve could be put on
a separate fire system into a commercial. You could also run a separate fire system for
multi - family using the DDCA.
David Dunnavant: That's the point. That's the 2008. That's the change we missed.
That's what we're asking about - -- why are we requiring RPZs on commercial?
Comment: Some of them did not make their way to the Review because they are
shown in a different part of the Fire Review Plan — not on the SDP — that's how some
of them got by with only having DDCAs as opposed to RPZs which they were
supposed to have by note of the Ordinance which states any connections downstream
of the device.
Joe Thomas: We quickly said, "It's a revenue issue." What Nathan has tried to do is
recognize that we did look at this from a water loss perspective. No argument. But we
separated that discussion. We are going to come back to discuss metering the water
loss. What we simply are trying to do is get back to where we were on the RPZs prior
to the last Board meeting in July.
Dave Aldrich: When we had inquired regarding the meters — back in the history of the
RPZs — the issue was always about water loss. The first I heard about Health/Safety
Welfare was here. Everyone is in agreement -- if someone is "stealing" water, make it
a $25,000 fine. It is a felony — continue to bump it up and make an example. If you
continue to increase the cost of buildings right now with Impact fees and every single
cost, you might as well shut down. When we start the history of what our water bills
have been since 2003, they have gone up for the same amount of usage. The issue has
to be defined. What are you trying to fight or promote? At every meeting, there is a
new issue. Utilities is trying to do everything it can to get an RPZ in place and get a
meter.
Mr. Aldrich continued: He would like to see the rates that have been discussed
published in the newspaper and have members of the Chamber of Commerce and the
owners of buildings and businesses who are going to increase rents to pay Utilities'
costs — would like to have some feedback from them. We were told this had been
vetted in the past, but then we found out the Subcommittee was disbanded before the
vetting could occur. It was a water loss issue — now it's Health/Safety/Welfare. It's
going to be another issue next time. You need to have an RPZ to put a meter on there.
Once again, Utilities pushed it through as a Consent Agenda Item - -- we did not
receive any calls or notification. We are always dealing with a dark horse here.
If Utilities doesn't start to lay everything out on the table and cleaning up these
arguments to figure out how to go forward in Collier County — and not trying to
increase costs on these buildings so people can make a living here — the change must
stop. We have to figure out how to move this thing forward. If we have an RPZ
issue, then we also have a Double -Check Valve issue. I want to hear — does the
Double -Check Valve work?
David Dunnavant stated it seems to be working throughout the country. And we have
no instance of it failing here.
Joey Hatfield: Have there been any documented cases of failures of Double- Detector
Check Assembly valves or systems that don't have Check valves in place at all
endangering public health?
Nathan Beals: On a private system, the owners pay to have it tested annually. If it
fails, they fix it and Utilities doesn't know if it failed. On our system, we have
August 13, 2010
Double- Checks still in some locations on single - family homes that we own and
maintain. We've gone back and found that they've failed.
Joey Hatfield: That's not the question that I asked.
Nathan Beals: You're asking if Double - Checks have failed and if we have a record
of them — only of our system. We don't have private fire system records of what has
failed because they only send us what has passed.
Joey Hatfield: The question was has the absence of — or the failure of — a Check valve
ever endangered public health.
Nathan Beals: We don't know.
Joey Hatfield: There you go.
Joe Thomas: Every time you have back -flow from a residence — from a point of
delivery go back into the system, you have the potential for endangering public health.
There are a thousand different mains by which water can be brought into the system.
Joey Hatfield: What are those things? What is the great fear there?
Joe Thomas: You stated, in the future, that they are going to require fire sprinkler
systems on single- family residence. Why is that?
Joey Hatfield: Because people die in single family home fires.
Joe Thomas: That is going to cause an impact -- a cost impact to the building
industry.
You also stated a fire department connection is required — and it's always been that
way?
Ed Riley responded as far as he knew, it has. The only systems that didn't were 13 -D
and they haven't been around that long. (1984 - ?)
Joe Thomas: Most major outbreaks of diseases that are reported have been traced
back to back -flow. Once again, we can't control what happens on the customer's side
— that's why we're requiring the device. We are not requiring the most expensive one
but the most beneficial one. That's the point.
David Dunnavant: Can the Subcommittee agree that AWWA, which most Utilities
use as the backbone of most of their Standards, indicates that in recommended back -
flow prevention, that the only time RPZs are necessarily required or requested is with
the presence of known contaminants? I am trying to understand if we have any
indication of known contaminants. But is that not what AWWA states?
Joe Thomas: Yes. Collier County's standards and its Ordinance supersede even
FDEP requirements. In certain instances, it is necessary. We [Utilities] are a business,
too. For our Business Practices, and to make repairs, and to maintain the system, and
provide water that is safe for the public, there are certain things that we have to require
that supersede others.
Joey Hatfield: Those certain instances where chemicals or something hazardous is
present — an example would be a fire sprinkler system where you have antifreeze in the
system for freeze protection. That would, without question, require an RPZ. Those
systems that have something different, outside of the norm, which is a water -based fire
protection system, should have RPZs. Yet the Industry Standard (M -14) tells us that a
Double- Detector Check Assembly valve is an acceptable back -flow prevention device.
The root issue here is that Collier County wants something better — a Cadillac versus a
Chevy.
Tom Wides: We are not requiring the air -gap.
He continued: In 1993 or `94, after Hurricane Andrew, the Building Codes were
changed to make sure that everyone's home was hurricane proof. Things change. In
12
August 13, 2010
order to keep up — to try to continually make your system better and safe for your
public and your customers, you have to be able to change as technology grows.
Joey Hatfield: What was changed?
Joe Thomas: We have seen situations where we have cross - connections on the other
side of the meter.
Joey Hatfield: Can we get some real documentation of that? We just keep hearing
about those, but we've never received one — other than Pelican Bay — real example.
Joe Thomas: We've found places where there have been — Autumn Woods.
Joey Hatfield: They may have been found, but we've never received any real
documentation. We keep talking about these mythical places and cross- connections,
but we have not received anything that tells us what has really happened. But we don't
know. We're just chasing our tails — chasing this mythical creature.
Tom Wides: I hear Joey asking for specific examples. Can we provide those specific
examples for the next meeting? That's a fair request.
James French: There is risk assessment analysis out there by Flash Technologies as
well as a number of private engineering groups that talk about the benefits of
hardening homes to make them hurricane proof. There is a risk assessment analysis
that exists — just like there probably is one for National Fire Prevention data that talks
about single - family homes and the reason why you would want to irrigate them for fire
protection. I think what the Subcommittee is looking for is some risk assessment
numbers. Is the Community at risk? What is the measurement? And what can Utilities
bring to the Subcommittee?
Nathan Beals: A starting point would be the "Boil Water Notices" information — the
Notices were issued to ensure that water quality is maintained. But if we have back -
flow protection, we may be able to minimize more of those `BWN."
David Dunnavant: The `BWN" occur from main breaks ...
Nathan Beals:.. and a main break causes a back -flow ...
David Dunnavant:.. from domestic issues — not from fire lines.
Nathan Beals: But if a fire line has a failed Double- Detector Check — we don't know
if it failed or for how long it failed. We don't know if it caused a back flow from a fire
line or from a single - family home or a commercial industry. But when a main break
happens, we lose pressure and it causes a back -flow situation. The back -flow sucks
water out of someone's house. We get the main break fixed and it pumps it down
stream to the next house, and the next, etc. That's what Utilities is trying to stop. A
main break can cause those situations.
Ed Riley: Single -check valves, Double- Detector Check Assembly valves and RPZs
can all fail. The known failure on an RPZ is the springs. An air -gap can probably fail
under some conditions, too. There is nothing that is foolproof. There has to be an
acceptable level of risk. There are different Models out there to determine what that
might be. I think what we're trying to do here is going above what the Community
may determine to be an acceptable level of risk based on the costs associated with it —
if they really knew what those costs were. If owners wanted to sprinkler their homes,
there are benefits that go beyond just sprinklering the home. If you sprinkler anything,
you reduce the required fire flow to that area. You reduce the impact on your system,
you reduce the requirements for main sizes. It's a green technology that uses less
water when you have a fire. We have all these reduced impacts on water systems by
putting sprinkler systems in, yet we are looking to penalize people for putting them in.
13
August 13, 2010
You're saying users are going to pay for what they use. But they're not using — it is
sitting static. The people who have buildings without fire sprinkler systems are not
paying extra for the static water out there in the mains that's at a higher rate because
they need more water because it's a non - sprinkler building. That's not being
calculated. That's not a fair assessment across the board. You talk about fees being
collected from the users. Do you collect for the use of water for a flow tests? Do you
perform annual testing on your hydrants? Who pays for that water? There is a lot of
usage of water that is not collecting any revenue which is in direct conflict of what
Utilities put out as not being able to give anyone "free" water. We're hitting a part of
it but we're not hitting all of it. Unless you hit all of it — that's one issue. Then the
issue of Public Safety — what Utilities wants implemented does not affect all residents.
It only affects those residents who connect directly to your water supply. People
within a community are not being protected. It's not an even across the board type of
implementation for everybody within the County.
David Dunnavant: I think we did agree with what the AWWA states. But Collier
County Utilities wants to go with a more safe system than AWWA and the balance of
the nation. There is a cost associated with that. It is incumbent upon the
Subcommittee to figure out what that cost is, and try to determine whether the current
system in place has created health issues for the County's residents. We really have
not had known injuries associated with it. Give the BCC that information, and ask the
Board if they want to add the costs at this time on a system that, to date, hasn't caused
injuries to their citizens.
He continued: One other thing I want to ask about the RPZ — it has come to my
attention that, perhaps, when you hook onto the fire department connection, it is not
just the cost of the RPZ but an additional Detector Check also that — if you hook onto
the fire department connection and go through the RPZ, it will dump water as opposed
to getting it all to the top of the building without an additional Detector Check.
Ed Riley stated it is a valid point because an RPZ functions differently than a DDCA
valve.
David Dunnavant: We have two more meetings to refine how we feel about safety. I
have a feeling that on September 10 (the next BCC meeting), Utilities will state one
issue on why they feel they need RPZs — we have found out we have them basically
now in commercial. Now we have to get to the meters. We should get some things on
the table about meters, figure out if there's some homework to be done and come back
there.
Nathan Beals: (directed to Mr. Aldrich) Public Utilities has a monthly Discussion
Group. Whenever changes to the Standards are discussed in the Discussion Group, I
will bring that information — a Public Utilities Update — to DSAC so it can be
discussed again at the next meeting. I don't want to have a situation where it was
interpreted as being "snuck under the radar." We are trying to move forward, we don't
necessarily want to create a Subcommittee to tie up someone from DSAC but the intent
is to continue to bring updates to DSAC on an on -going basis from now on.
David Dunnavant stated at the next DSAC meeting, he will request that Chairman
Varian. on behalf of DSAC, send a letter to the Commissioners. This Fire Meter
14
August 13, 2010
Report tossed DSAC under the bus for being apathetic and for not participating in the
Utilities' Subcommittee for Standards. We will present a letter on why DSAC
discontinued its participation in the Subcommittee. It looked as if DSAC just didn't
give a damn and that's just not the case. The Subcommittee will receive a copy.
Nathan Beals confirmed it was not brought to DSAC. He did not realize he should
have brought it to DSAC — he was not directed to do so — but it will not happen in the
future.
Dave Aldrich: There was an issue that came up regarding double flushing — one by
Utilities and one by Fire -- in the course of a year.
Comment: The issue is about hydrants and the Fire Department doing annual testing
of the fire hydrants and that Utilities was also flushing the hydrants annually.
David Aldrich: Is there any way for that to be combined into one flush per year?
Joe Thomas: There is a difference between the flushing of hydrants and the annual
maintenance of the hydrants that the individual Fire Districts have. We currently
maintain the hydrants in the North Naples and the Golden Gate Fire Districts. Certain
maintenance is required to be done annually on those hydrants. There are also four
flushes that we are required to do throughout the course of the year by FDEP. We
have a flushing program that addresses all of those. It only includes hydrants that are
in the right -of -way. We have nothing to do with private hydrants. We provide
information to all of the Fire Districts.
Comment: There is an issue of who owns the North Naples hydrants. There was
some double flushing with the actual maintenance work. The Water /Sewer District
now owns the hydrants in North Naples and we are working with North Naples to
avoid duplicating the same work. There still are some ownership issues to be resolved.
Additional comments were made concerning 78 locations built -out communities within
Collier County where flushing devices were installed and are being monitored on a
daily basis.
B. Line -Size Water Meter Requirement
David Dunnavant stated meters are not a big friction loss. He asked if meters could
be installed on a system with a Double - Detector Check Assembly — an in -line meter.
Does it have to be an RPZ? He noted the website lists domestic water rates. What are
the charges for Fire?
Nathan Beals stated (in the read -ahead packet provided to the Subcommittee)
Schedule 1 from the Building Ordinance clarifies usage. After consumption reaches
5,000 gallons in one month or in any one billing period, it is "deemed" to be providing
domestic and charged as a standard connection.
Question: Are they considered as a user of domestic water for only that period
or for every month going forward?
Answer. Only in the month where there is consumption.
Question: Is there a base fee for a fire line?
Answer: There is an availability charge but only if there is consumption.
15
August 13, 2010
Question: What is "consumption ?"
Answer: 5,000 gallons
Question: If I am a user who has a fire pump on my system and I am required to test it
annually and the test is going to take 15,000 gallons — I would have to pay an availability
charge for that month, as well as the fee for the water?
Answer: Yes, that's the way the Ordinance reads today.
If it is recorded on the meter. If it has a detector meter, Utilities will not record
anything higher than 3 gallons per minute. When the flow test is conducted, Utilities may
only see the first 10 gallons. After that, the check valves are opened up and Utilities does
not read it.
Question: So this really is a revenue issue?
Answer: We're accounting for water used.
Question: So this really is a revenue issue?
Answer: Yes, it is a revenue issue. Those who are using it are paying for it. To the
extent that there is no meter, other than a Detector Check, you are still not paying for the
entire use.
Question: Say that again.
Answer. To the extent that you have nothing more than a Detector Check – if you're
flushing 15,000 gallons – Utilities is not measuring 15,000 gallons as it stands today.
Question: We're talking about putting in a several - thousand - dollar device on 99% of the
fire sprinkler systems to measure the use of $8.00 to $12.00 a year in water use. The
payback for a device like that is – how many years? It doesn't make sense.
Chairman Varian stated there is probably going to be a connection charge. Will an
Impact Fee be charged for that? As we start adding all of those up, what does that meter
cost? The meters will be large – six, eight, ten inches? What are the connection charges?
What are the Impact Fee charges? What is the total cost?
Question: If this is a new meter, is there a tapping charge?
Answer: There is no tapping charge because it is installed by a contractor.
It also depends on the meter size and the application.
Question: Are there Impact Fees for dedicated fire services?
Answer: No, there are no Impact Fees related to dedicated fire services
There is the monthly consumption which will be billed through regular billing
cycles – if there is consumption.
Chairman Varian asked if there is minimal or low consumption, is there a yearly charge
for the meter?
Answer: As it stands today, no.
Utilities is saying, "as it stands today," because we do not have meters. We
have no plans for Impact Fees. And in terms of any other charges, you will be paying for
the actual use. In terms of other things that might be tacked on, none of that would be
approved without the same kind of vetting that we're doing today and through the Board
of County Commissioners.
Question: What is the justification for putting meters on fire lines that use three to four to
five hundred or a thousand gallons a year?
Answer: Five hundred thousand gallons a year times - --
16
August 13, 2010
Question: No, five hundred or a thousand gallons a year.
Answer: Different property managers have given different numbers as far as how often
their systems are tested and how often they run the systems — anywhere from weekly, to
quarterly, to semi - annually, to annually. They all have different figures and different plans
for the different systems. We don't know. It can add up to be quite a lot. Most of those
systems don't have re- circulating water — a lot of them just flush it out. We don't know
the actual usage of how much water is going through and being used annually.
Comment: The majority of systems (95 — 98 %) are single, wet fire sprinkler systems that
don't have fire pumps attached to them. In that situation, they are required to be tested
quarterly. That's a main -drain test, opening it and taking a visual reading of the gauge and
the residual pressure on the gauge, and closing the valve. The test will last two minutes.
If the gauge is not reading properly, it can be replaced.
Another scenario is a business with a fire pump. In that situation, the pump is
required to be run weekly and it is also required to be flow - tested annually. It is required
to produce 1,000 gallons per minute plus an additional 50 %, so it is tested at 150% of
capacity. It could be a substantial number of gallons on a system like that — but it's once a
year. Some of them are designed to re- circulate and some of them just go out onto the
ground through a relief valve.
Nathan Beals: When there is more than 15,000 gallons of usage, there is also the
availability charge which is $1,200 for an eight inch.
David Dunnavant: It is $1,100 for an eight inch.
Nathan Beals: The amount is $1,112.00
Comment: We have a guy who has installed a $50,000 fire pump on his building and
Utilities is going to penalize him for having a good operating system. If you take the flip
side of that same property, without a fire pump, we're talking about an enormous amount
more of water should an event happen at that property. If you don't have the luxury of a
fire pump in place, the Fire Department will use considerably more water there. With a
fire pump, is there even going to be enough usage to measure?
When you talk about a building that has a single fire sprinkler system, the same
situation applies. The Fire Department responding to a building without a sprinkler system
is going to use considerably more water than one that does.
This is the grey area - -- this makes no sense. We're trying to provide a fire safe
community by installing fire sprinklers which will require less water from the system than
a community without fire sprinklers. The Subcommittee does not understand why this is
happening when we're trying to make it better and less demanding overall on Utilities'
system.
Chairman Varian: Would it be beneficial to everyone if it were a yearly fee to somebody
who owned a fire sprinkler system — and not have to put the meters and everything else in?
From a business point of view, think of "return on investment." Would that be a way
around installing a meter? Maybe it could be rated based on the system. I am trying to
find medium ground here.
Ed Riley: Personally, I don't see why there should be an availability charge — even if a
fire pump used five or six thousand gallons. That is discriminatory. You still have to have
August 13, 2010
the availability of fire protection water for every building in the County. Everyone that
your system protects. Nobody else is paying that — even though their required fire flow
could be much higher than the required fire flow for that building. Because they tested
their pump as required, Utilities is going to penalize them with an availability fee. If there
was a charge for just the amount of water used — you can calculate the amount of water for
any type of average test — the amount of water that goes in — that's known based on the
Code requirement — you could estimate the number of gallons plus 10% and have an
annual fee for the water usage of that test. That would be substantially less than putting a
$10 to $15,000 meter on it. If you put meters on every system, and the only ones that will
go over 5,000 gallons are the buildings with fire pumps — less than 5% of the total. 95%
will put meters on at this exaggerated price and Utilities will not get a dime out of them
because they will not trigger the 5,000 gallons per month. There is no value to it.
Comment: Or it would be scenario in a strip mall — you're talking about bringing business
to Collier County — the guy that owns that strip mall has 15 build -outs going on — in the
course of a month, you're draining the system and filling it daily to do interior renovations.
He now hits the threshold of 5,000 gallons — he's brining business to Collier County and
Utilities is going to penalize that land owner for that? It doesn't make sense.
Joe Bellone: We're talking about the current rate structure — the way the structure works
— there are two charges normally on a water bill. There is a consumption charge that is
meant to cover the cost of the water production while the availability charge is meant to
cover the other costs associated with distributing water throughout Collier County. The
availability charge covers the fixed costs while the consumption charge covers the variable
costs depending on how much water has to be produced. There are two elements built into
the rate structure.
Ed Riley: The problem is we are only addressing the fire requirements for a specific
group of people — those who have fire sprinkler systems. They are the only ones who will
be penalized or pay an availability charge when they meet a threshold. The County has a
responsibility to provide fire protection water for every building whether there is a fire
protection system or not. If you are going to do a fire availability charge, you need to
assess the charge against every ratepayer in the County — single family included. It needs
to be spread to all users or you don't charge an availability fee for the fire portion, but do a
charge for the actual or estimated usage. Make it an annual fee.
Joe Bellone: One of the alternative discussed, if we were to go to meters on all fire
systems, we were discussing a different rate structure where it might be one charge per
year for availability to maintain the lines and a consumption charge for use — rather than
that size availability fee every month.
Ed Riley: You are still taking one class of user — a sprinkler system — for fire protection
availability fees. Every building has a fire protection availability requirement. If building
without a sprinkler system still has to provide a certain level of fire protection water. That
equation is for every building. If a sprinkler system is installed, there is a 75% reduction
in the fire flow requirement. Yet they are being charged for requiring only 25% and
they're being charged an additional fee for fire protection water. That's discriminatory and
that's where you're going to get nailed.
18
August 13, 2010
David Dunnavant: This started as a revenue issue — we heard that 5% amount — and
there are lots of reasons why the system is not accounting for all of the water that moves
through it. It's safe to say the fire lines are not the big culprit. It seems as if we're looking
to the fire lines as a way to recover a lot of those costs without telling people, "We need to
raise your bill." You're right — we are going toward a limited group. We have a system
where every building gets fire protection — but to assess the people who actually have fire
equipment in place to make the fire protection more efficient. It's just not ringing true.
Joe Thomas: The utility has to recover its costs — the rate structure is built so that all of
the costs are recovered from all of the customers. If someone lives in a building with a
sprinkler system, they have the benefit of that. But someone living in a non - sprinkler
building, without the benefit, is also paying for those costs.
Ed Riley: No — they're not. There are two houses, side by side, one with a sprinkler and
one without. The house without the sprinkler is receiving four times the value as the house
with the sprinkler system. With a sprinkler system, the requirement will be less than 100
gallons per minute to fight a fire. You will use a lot more water in a building without a
sprinkler system. Yet you are penalizing the individual with the sprinkler because he spent
more money to put a fire protection system into his home, which lessens the impact of
your Utility. The homeowner next door who would use more water in the same fire
situation will pay nothing extra. If you're going to do a standby — a fire standby fee — and
assess a fee for fire protection, it needs to be across the board.
Joe Thomas: We're talking about all the other testing that goes along with that — weekly
or monthly ...
Ed Riley: And I said if you want to take a fee structure associated with the use of that
water and estimate it by the type of system — you can assess the amount of water needed to
do an annual test on that system. Assess them an annual fee based on your water structure.
That would not be a big deal because it's actual water usage,
Joe Thomas: Consumption of water to fight an actual fire was never contemplated to be
charged.
Ed Riley: You are talking about a water availability fee. The water is available out in the
main for everybody.
David Dunnavant: The month we have a fire, we won't get a bill? Every time we flow
over 5,000 gallons we are charged the monthly service fee and the usage. How is that
siphoned out? You can't do it!
Chairman Varian: Okay — on Monday, the 15`h, Joey flushes a fire pump system and
uses 5,000 gallons. On Wednesday, Nick responds to a fire — fire sprinklers are going —
10,000 gallons more used. For that month, Joey's owner doesn't get a bill?
(Multi conversations — voices talking over each other)
19
August 13, 2010
Joe Thomas: You're splitting hairs pretty thin – how many fires are there annually in the
District?
Nick Biondo: We just had two on Monday night and the Gate had one on Sunday night,
and they were non - sprinkler. We dumped a ton of water.
Joe Thomas: I'm sure you put it on your Water Loss Report to me.
Additionally, there's also the incentive of repairing things in a timely
manner and being cautious with the use of the water as well. Recently, there was an entity
that had a leak for two months, but there was no incentive because the leak didn't show on
the meter as much as it actually should have. We found this out after the fact.
David Dunnavant: Go after them – call Code Enforcement ...
Joe Thomas: We have no means to accurate judge how much water ...
David Dunnavant: Are you going to charge everybody else in the County due to a
situation like that? You are looking for ways to go after other people to compensate for
that loss.
Joe Thomas: No, we're looking - -- if that line had been properly metered, we would have
been able to do that.
Nathan Beals: One of the thoughts when we were looking at the requirement for meters
on fire lines was that the fire line connections to our system are the only connections that
are un- metered. Every other connection that's on our system is metered that we know of
We need to look closely at this requirement and come back with some different ideas for
next Thursday.
David Dunnavant: What we're saying is that loss in your system is not coming from the
fire lines. At the next meeting, we can start talking about the other ways that water comes
out of your system that is unaccounted for — let's just try to figure out what we're going
to prepare and discuss for the next meeting.
Joey Hatfield: I have two questions. What is the dollar value for this unaccounted for
loss in your system – the total unaccounted for loss? The second – is Collier County
Utilities operating at a budget deficit?
David Dunnavant: That's been stated before. I've seen $150,000 per percent to - --
$900,000 to $1.2M of lost water production costs. It was represented that each percent
was worth about $160,000 - -- so about $800,000.
Comment: We have a water loss book we can bring to the next meeting.
Chairman Varian: As a Subcommittee, is there anything that we need to bring – what is
our next Agenda going to be – what are the topics for our next meeting? We are going to
expand on these two items a bit more. You can email potential agenda items to Judy.
20
August 13, 2010
Judy Puig: Email them to me. The meeting is next Thursday at 9:00 AM.
Chairman Varian: If Judy can get everything together — at least we will have
Wednesday to read for next Thursday's meeting.
David Dunnavant: I apologize — I will not be able to attend.
Nathan Beals: Paul Mattausch will attend.
VIII. Committee Member Comments:
(None)
Next Meeting Dates:
August 19, 2010 — 9:00 AM
August 27, 2010 — 3:00 PM
There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned
by order of the Chairman at 11:05 AM.
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
ADVISORY COMMITTEE
UTILITIES/RPZ SUBCOMMITTEE
William Varian, Subcommittee Chairman
The Minutes were approved by the Board/Corrittee on
as presented , or as amended
21
August 19, 2010
MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE
PUBLIC UTILITIES/RPZ SUBCOMMITTEE
Naples, Florida, August 19, 2010
LET IT BE REMEMBERED that the Collier County Development Services
Advisory Committee — Public Utilities/RPZ Subcommittee, having conducted
business herein, met on this date at 9:00 AM 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, DSAC
Melissa Ahern, CBIA
David Aldrich, CBIA
Nick Biondo, East Naples Fire District
David Dunnavant, DSAC
Joey Hatfield, Imperial Fire Protection
George Hermanson, DSAC
Chris Mitchell, Waldrop Engineering
Ed Riley, Fire Code Official — Fire Code Office
(Non- Voting) STAFF: Paul Mattausch, Director, Water Department.
Nathan Beals, Associate Project Manager —
Public Utilities
Joe Bellone, Manager — Utility Billing & Customer
Service, Public Utilities (Absent)
Tom Wides, Director — Operations Support, Public
Utilities (Absent)
ALSO PRESENT: Judy Puig, Operations Analyst — Staff Liaison
August 19, 2010
I. Call to Order:
Chairman Varian called the meeting to order at 9:02 AM and read the procedures to be
followed during the meeting.
II. Approval of Agenda:
Melissa Ahern moved to approve the Agenda as submitted. Second by Joey Hatfield.
Carried unanimously, 8 -0.
III. Approval of Minutes — August 13, 2010:
Corrections:
• Ed Riley is a voting member of the Subcommittee — the Cover Page was revised
• On Page 11, the statement attributed to Joe Thomas was made by Tom Wides:
We quickly said, "It's a revenue issue. " What Nathan has tried to
do is recognize that we did look at this from a water loss perspective.
No argument. But we separated that discussion. We are going to
come back to discuss metering the water loss. What we simply are
trying to do is get back to where we were on the RPZs prior to the last
Board meeting in July.
• On Pages 12 - 13, the statement attributed to Tom Wides was made by Joe
Thomas:
We are not requiring the air -gap.
He continued: In 1993 or `94, after Hurricane Andrew, the Building
Codes were changed to make sure that everyone's home was
hurricane proof Things change. In order to keep up — to try
to continually make your system better and safe for your public
and your customers, you have to be able to change as technology
grows.
• On Page 20, the statement by David Dunnavant (toward the bottom of the page)
refers to the percentage of unaccounted for loss.
• On Page 20, Joey Hatfield asked the following questions (toward bottom of the
page):
I have two questions. What is the dollar value for this unaccounted
for loss in your system — the total unaccounted for loss? The
second — is Collier County Utilities operating at a budget deficit?
Joey Hatfield moved to approve the Minutes as amended. Second by Melissa Ahern.
Carried unanimously, 8 -0.
IV. Public Speakers:
(None)
August 19, 2010
V. New Business:
A. BCC Minutes from July 27th Meeting
David Dunnavant requested Judy Puig, Staff Liaison, obtain a copy of the portion of
the Minutes from the Board of County Commissioners' July 27th meeting pertinent to
the BCC's direction to DSAC.
[ Copies of the excerpt, entitled Item #10 -E, "Recommendation to Rescind the
Administrative Stay of the requirement for Reduced Pressure Backflow Preventers
on Fire Service Lines, and require Retroactive Implementation of the Requirement to
June 8, 2010 — Motion to Continue until after DSAC Recommendations have been
heard by the first BCC Meeting in September, 2010 (Pages 219 through 231), were
distributed to the Subcommittee members.
Copies of the excerpt will be provided to DSAC members at the September 1, 2010
meeting. ]
[ Note: The Board of County Commissioners will meet on Tuesday, September 14,
2010 at 9:00 AM in Chambers.]
Melissa Ahern stated Commissioner Henning had asked about water loss numbers.
Chairman Varian referred to the Minutes of the BCC's June 8, 2010 meeting, and
stated Commissioner Henning asked about the loss of water:
"Where has it occurred, and how much has been saved since
the Ordinance went into effect [Fall of 2009] ? "
VI. Old Business:
A. RPZ Requirement on Fire Services
Chairman Varian asked Nathan Beals if he reviewed the NFPA -1 ( "National Fire
Protection Association ") fire flow requirements.
Nathan Beals:
• Reviewed NFPA -1
Did not see any issues concerning substituting the National Fire Protection
Association's requirements for the American Water Works Association's M31
Guidelines as the County's Standard
The County's system design (40 psi) will adhere to whatever the Fire Code
allows
o If sprinklers are held to 50 psi, the system will probably be held
to 50 psi as well
Ed Riley:
• 50 psi is used to design fire sprinkler systems
• The 40 psi of the County was the requirement for full fire flow to be available
at the building
• Our fire flow has to be at 20 psi at the building — that what we (Fire Code)
looks for
August 19, 2010
He noted Florida Statutes only requires that potable water at 20 psi is provided at the
location (house or building) — the water flow requirement is significantly less than the
fire flow requirement.
• NFPA -1's minimum fire flow for residential is 1,000 gallons for a single -
family residence (less than 5,000 sq. ft.)
• If a residence is larger than 5,000 sq. ft., the commercial chart (based on
construction type) is used
Chairman Varian asked if the "Proposed Revisions to Section 1 — Design Criteria "
(distributed at the August 13th Subcommittee meeting) will be changed to reflect the
substitution?
Mr. Beals concurred.
George Hermanson stated two different issues were being discussed and noted the
required flow is known.
• Also under discussion is changing the tie -in pressure requirements to do the
analysis from 40 psi to something else
Nathan Beals clarified the Engineer of Record will make the determination regarding
pressure.
Mr. Hermanson replied the change would be based on how the County's system is
operated or modeled. At some areas, there may be 60 pounds at the tie -in.
Paul Mattausch:
• NFPA is based on the fire flow, not on the Model.
Ed Riley:
• There are two different requirements
• Re: 40 psi issue — he referenced "Appendix H" of NFPA -1 to determine the
fire flow requirements for a building
• Verification is done by a flow test (unless Modeling results are available) that
the hydrants on -site are capable of meeting that flow pressure requirement at 20
psi
• The County's Manual states the required fire flow is 40 psi
o The "change" is the County will no longer guarantee 40 psi
• NFPA -1 lowers the County's requirement to provide 40 psi to 20 psi
George Hermanson:
• If we change these requirements, what are we going to use as our tie -in
pressure when we do our Model for hydrant fire low? Our tie -in was always 40
psi, regarding of where we were in the system, so what are we going to use if
it's not 40?
Ed Riley suggested using a flow test for the pipe you are connecting to — and establish
the starting pressures and volumes. He cautioned the "Kentucky Pipe Model" may not
be reliable (unlimited available volume at starting pressure is not realistic when the
system may not have that available).
He gave an example of a situation at the North Naples Sewer Treatment Plant.
August 19, 2010
He continued Fire Code requires an actual flow test at the connection to the main as the
starting point. The only time a flow is extrapolated is for the design of a sprinkler
system.
George Hermanson:
• We are required to do an analysis for hydrant flow outside the building. We do
a Model based on 40.
• Are there situations where you find you are using more than 40?
• The 40 psi is very conservative.
• Is the County going to rely on our judgment that if a system can deliver 50 or
60, and it can be proved, that's the number we use?
Ed Riley:
• It's not just pressure –it's also volume.
George Hermanson:
• We always have to model the volume -- but you have to have a driving pressure
to delivery the flow.
Ed Riley:
• The available pressure would be acceptable — what's available at that main. If
it's 40, you use 40 – if it's 60, use 60. Whatever the available pressure is at
that location – but using the starting volume that's available in the pipe ... not
an unlimited or another assumption.
Chris Mitchell:
• One of the items discussed four or five years ago was the System's pressures
were probably lowest in the 2:00 to 6:00 AM range. In recent discussions, the
pressure is pretty much constant at the plant. They haven't lowered the pressure
as in the past. But if that's traditionally still with irrigation use – I can't get
East Naples to go out at 5:00 AM and get a flow test.
• The 40 psi has always been explained as the worst -case pressure at 3:00 AM
when the System demand is lowered and you have the irrigation use that will
lower the system pressure. I am hesitant to use that.
• All we have is the connection pressure. Then we're pipe limited. If we have a
50 -psi connection point, then the size of the pipe internal to the project is an fl-
inch, which is the max delivery that we can do. We don't account for what the
delivery upstream of our connection is. We don't do modeling extended
beyond that. It's only from the connection point down.
• In a sense, we don't account for the volume but we're only pushing the
maximum of what that pipe can push. Generally, it's line -size to line -size, or
line -size to a smaller line.
• We would assume, based on the System's pressure, that if you're a same sized
pipe or smaller, you're getting that delivery.
Ed Riley:
• You are sizing pipe based on the maximum amount of water that could flow
August 19, 2010
• through that 8 -inch pipe at a 40 psi starting pressure. When, in fact, you may
have 40 psi available but you do not have the maximum volume that the pipe
could handle.
• When you get to your end node point, you do not have the volume of water in
an actual flow test that you may calculate through your "Kentucky Pipe
Model." And that's where we have a problem.
• This doesn't really change anything other than the County stating it is no longer
going to guarantee fire flow at 40 psi — you are to do a flow test in the field —
whatever it is — and design your system to it.
• Fire has maintained even if a Kentucky Pipe Model is modeled on site, Fire
will do an actual flow test when the pipe is installed to verify that there is
adequate fire flow. There have been failures.
• If you take a flow test on the main line and knew what water volumes and
pressure were available, you will have a more accurate —
• This reduces the County's liability to provide fire flow at 40 psi. If you remove
that and make it a calculation that the engineers will show you - -- I don't have a
problem with it one way or the other.
George Hermanson:
• The question is directed to the Water Department: Do you have a Model of the
distribution system — transmission system performance — that indicates what we
can depend on at various nodes?
Paul Mattausch:
• A Model was done for the 2008 Water Master Plan. The Model maps out the
portions of the system according to pressure and available flows.
• Models give you ballpark figures and flow tests taken in the actual area is the
more indicative way to do this.
George Hermanson:
• I agree. The more data that you have, the better it helps you
• My theory is always to stay on the conservative side of the line.
Paul Mattausch:
• The model is available. Anyone can look at it. The Water System Model is
scheduled to be updated in November 2010.
Chairman Varian stated the finding on the Health/Safety /Welfare issue will be
presented to the BCC on September 14, 2010. There will be one more Subcommittee
meeting in August and then it goes to the full DSAC on September 1St for DSAC's
recommendations.
George Hermanson:
• It would be helpful to have the Model to look at.
• If this is a variable concept, it might work to our favor in most cases, to know
the deficiencies so we don't have to over design.
August 19, 2010
Nathan Beals:
• The 2008 Water Master Plan is available on the Collier website
(www.colliergov.net) under the Planning and Project Management
Department.
Chris Mitchell asked Staff to email the link to the site to the Subcommittee.
(David Dunnavant arrived at 9:25 AM.)
Chairman Varian:
• The purpose of the RPZs is back flow prevention.
• For quite some time, the DDCA ( "Double Detector Check Assembly ") valve,
or something like it, has been installed on the fire lines ....
Ed Riley:
• On certain fire lines.
Chairman Varian:
• Certain, but not all ...
Ed Riley:
• Anything that was connected to the County's backbone has an RPZ and has had
for sometime — if it had a downstream connection which is considered anything
like an FDC or any other kind of connection to that system would require an
RPZ. If it has no cross connection at all — no FDC connection on it where we
would tie to the system to augment the pressure if there was a fire, then there
would be a DDCA if those were not present.
David Dunnavant:
You kept saying FDCs and downstream connection — but for years, the FDC
has not been considered "downstream" and a DDCA has been acceptable —
only hydrants coming off that line.
I am trying to understand that difference. I thought it was because perhaps
there was an additional check valve on an FDC and not on a hydrant.
Ed Riley:
• There is an additional check valve that is put on anytime you have an FDC
connection but it's to keep the flow back from coming back through the FDC
connection. It's not an additional in the line itself.
• It could be — depending on how the FDC was connected.
• That is the County's interpretation — that an FDC is a cross - connection.
• Years ago, FDCs were not considered cross - connections for whatever reason
by the County. Now, that is considered a cross - connection.
David Dunnavant:
• Since 2008. That's one of the reasons why we're here. Since 2008 — that's the
August 19, 2010
whole issue. In 2008, we had to have RPZs on everything. And I'm not sure if
people understood it.
In 2009, we've got meters coming in.
Ed Riley:
• In 2000 or 2001, we were required to put RPZs on fire sprinkler systems that
had a direct connection to the County's water supply.
• The only time we did not was if it was on the private side of an existing back
flow assembly, an RPZ, into a community that had multi - family.
• On those buildings, you were allowed to put a DDCA valve and you will still
be able to do that.
• The only place RPZs, or what the County is adding, is that you would have to
have an RPZ where you connect to the County's backbone. Any connection to
the County's backbone system will have an RPZ on it.
• If you're going inside a community that has an RPZ at the property line — it
may be a combination line coming in which serves both potable and fire water.
However where you tee off that and go into a building with a fire sprinkler
system, a Double Check Assembly valve will still be acceptable — will still be
allowed within that because it is not protecting the water — you have an RPZ
between that sprinkler system and the County's backbone. That's what the
County is protecting.
David Dunnavant:
We have two things:
o The possibility in the future of single - family residential fire service and
having to put an RPZ on it, even though it is a direct connection.
o Commercially, if it is a dedicated fire service to the building with no
downstream connections, of which the FDC was not considered a
downstream connection — as long as there were no hydrants on it — the
Double Detector Check was still available. The 2005 Utilities Manual
clearly showed that. There were Febco Uprights.
George Hermanson:
If it was a dedicated fire main right into a building, it was a Double Detector
Check.
David Dunnavant:
But this change in 2008 eliminates that ability. Even that service has to have an
RPZ. And that's working toward putting a meter in.
Ed Riley:
• The sprinkler system for single - family homes, if there is not an FDC
connection on it which Fire would rescind its requirement for 13 -Ds because
the Standard gives you the option to place one on it — it's up to the AHJ — Fire
would not require an FDC on that single family if it were going to require an
RPZ.
August 19, 2010
• As far as this Ordinance affecting that, it would not have an RPZ because it
would not have a downstream connection.
David Dunnavant:
• 2008 says it does not matter whether it has a downstream connection or not, the
only thing available in this County is the RPZ. There is no option for a Double
Detector anymore.
Nathan Beals:
For clarification — the intent of the Standards change is to have RPZs on every
connection to the system whether it is a fire service or domestic use — whether
or not it has a connection downstream — going forward.
Everything that was in the past — there were connections that when, due to Plan
Review not seeing — the FDC after it went into the building — that's why there
was no requirement for an RPZ, it was always, as a connection downstream —
that an FDC was considered that.
Joey Hatfield:
• As Contractors, we were installing Double Detector Checks on fire lines up
through until the time that this came in.
• The details that were posted had conflicting information on them — some had a
picture of a Double Detector Check and a note that said "RPZ" — we were
submitting them, having them approved, and installing them during those
times.
• This change is pretty dramatic for us in that it does impact our design.
• Going forward, we don't see that there is a benefit to the sprinkler system.
• It's a detriment to us.
George Hermanson:
• I sent a memo (email) -- my opinion is public safety is paramount.
• If an RPZ is demonstrated to be really needed, I think we should consider it and
not nix it just because of cost.
• 1 also talked to Contractors about relative costs and I don't believe there's that
much difference between the Double Detector check and an RPZ. We're not
talking about a huge cost difference — it was hundreds of dollars over the tens
of thousands of what it's going to cost in the first place.
• I'm not in favor of the metering — I think it's a separate issue. I don't think we
need to meter fire lines.
• If we can keep those two separate — I think we should treat them separately —
one is a Health/Safety/ Welfare issue and one is an economic issue.
Joey Hatfield:
• To address the cost issue: there are other costs that are not attributed just to the
installation of that RPZ.
• As we lose pressure, our pipe sizes inside the building have to go up to
compensate for that. And that's really the issue.
August 19, 2010
George Hermanson:
• How much difference in pressure do you lose in those two devices?
Joey Hatfield:
• About five pounds.
George Hermanson:
• Do you think that this difference in the policy of source pressure is going to
help that?
Joey Hatfield:
• It won't have any affect on fire sprinkler design, no.
George Hermanson:
• You have to start with the same, no matter what?
Ed Riley:
• You still extrapolate to 50 psi.
• The issues that Chris had mentioned of his concern with the reducing of some
pressure at night when we have other things going on — although it's been
stated that during the last couple of years, the County hasn't reduced pressure at
all — that's why that's in there.
• It's also to cover, as NFPA 13 requires, for future reduction in the water supply
as new users come onto the system — they are going to degrade that system
somewhat over time. That ensures that as designed, the sprinkler system will
still work.
(George Hermanson left at 9:35 AM.)
Paul Mattausch:
• We have approximately three years' worth of records — we don't vary the
pressure any longer in the system.
• We had some capacity issues that were resolved in December 2007 when we
placed a new reverse osmosis facility online. That facility addressed all of our
capacity issues.
• Since then, we have been running consistently at 90 psi — that's an increase of
approximately 20 psi that we have had in the system. That's consistent.
• I don't know why the doubt keeps coming up because all of those records on
pressure are available.
• Using actual pressures and actual fire flows, according to the Models and
according to what these guys get when they go out and run the tests, I do think
it's going to benefit the design of the system.
• Question: Is the 50 -psi an NFPA requirement or is that the Fire Code?
Ed Riley:
• It's ours.
10
August 19, 2010
It's based on what's happening in other places in the State where they are doing
the same thing. Bonita Springs does exactly -- we use the same thing that
Bonita Springs uses.
Chris Mitchell:
• It's the downstream items that the costs are unknown — one.
• Two, we've gone from not really sprinkling four -unit buildings to anything
more than three units are now required with a fire sprinkler -- I did a project
two years ago that was three stories. If you go to three stories, you are looking
at the possibility of a fire pump — and these were three unit/three story
buildings. They were not massive buildings but the height requirement is going
to cause you to put in a fire pump.
• When we say it's only an additional 5 psi, again, when you start at 50 and drop
12 to 14 through everything, you're limiting yourself because you have to end
at 20 for the site — whatever you need to pop the heads in the sprinkler system.
The vertical component of overcoming pushing that sprinkler head is pretty
significant.
• I can appreciate the Health/Safety /Welfare, but as an Engineer and a resident of
Collier County, I don't see the "imminent" Health/Safety issue compared to the
Double Detector.
• I think you have to have a lot of things fail in a Double Detector check valve
and the system in order for the back flow to occur.
• Is the RPZ safer? It is. The question is what is the benefit of dropping from the
Detector to the RPZ, globally, on what we do? Not just the system and
protection of the system, I think the DDCA valve — as evidenced by the
AWWA, other municipalities, and all the experts — has that level of protection
that is adequate for the delivery of potable water in a non - high - hazard
condition.
Again, it's not that it's not safer — I would agree that an RPZ as it discharges to
the atmosphere on the back siphon is more safe but at what level are you
increasing safety from the DDCA and what impacts do you have downstream?
I think that has not been looked at.
David Dunnavant:
• We've all established that the RPZ is safer but the overall cost and this whole
fire pump issue, the additional friction loss is going to create issues on any
building of height.
• This is a cost. It's getting more and more expensive to attract businesses and
residents to Collier County. We're happy with our system as it is, but we're
just making it more expensive. To neglect the impact of this is very
shortsighted.
• There has been no instance brought to us of health issues generated by the use
of DDCA over the last twenty years. We damn sure haven't had a death. I
don't quite understand why the push. But we have to get to "Step 2" --
• But we know what the "push" is — it's the metering of the systems. And it's not
even metering the usage — it's just a revenue source and that's the way this
started — as a revenue issue, not a safety issue.
m
August 19, 2010
Chairman Varian:
• In layman's terms: the Double Detectors are a type of back flow preventer, and
the RPZ, basically, is an upgrade to that.
• Collier County does live "above the grade" in a lot of areas, so installing the
RPZ would be an upgrade to a DDCA.
• It sounds as if it's almost the same protection — pretty close — from an AWWA
point of view.
Paul Mattausch:
The difference is when a DDCA fails, it fails back into the water supply
system.
When an RPZ fails, it fails to the atmosphere. It doesn't go back into the public
water supply system.
Chris Mitchell:
• That is true, but it's also important to state that you have two check valves that
have to fail and back pressure that has to fail. You have three points of failure
on a DDCA valve that must happen before you get the back siphoning.
• There were times when a single check valve — and there are still applications
where a single check valve is sufficient.
• A Double, obviously, should lessen the risk. You have to have two valves that
don't seed and you have to have the pressure of a main break where a system
issue close enough to that area where the pressure would be less on the delivery
side than on the purchaser's side.
• That is true, but the probability is what you look at. That's a true statement but
in the context of probability, it's still pretty low.
David Dunnavant:
• There are those three items plus a fourth — which is there has to be a
contaminant on the back side of that. So all four of these have to occur for a
contamination of the system to happen.
Joey Hatfield:
• That was the point I was going to make.
In the absence of a contaminant, the water that might back siphon into the
system should a DDCA fail — it's the same water that was on the backside.
Unless someone is maliciously trying to inject something into the system, the
likelihood of a contaminant getting back in there is minute.
Chairman Varian:
• From a fire sprinkler point of view, if a detector failed and the water was
sucked or siphoned out of a sprinkler system, does the alarm go off if it was a
detected system?
Ed Riley:
• Not back — the flow only works in one direction.
12
August 19, 2010
Joey Hatfield:
• If you were to lose pressure in the system through a main break, and the check
valve failed, when the system re- pressurized, it could potentially set the flow
switch off.
Chairman Varian:
• Has that ever happened in Collier County that we know of — if it was a detected
system? I know there are still some systems that aren't detected — that aren't
monitored.
David Dunnavant:
• Whether it's an RPZ or a Double Detector Check — they're both mechanical
devices that get checked and certified every year. A Double Detector Check is
maintained. An RPZ relied on a spring - loaded valve. Sometimes the springs
are changed.
• It's not like we put these things out there and walk away from them and ignore
them.
• On an annual basis, we know these things are functioning whether it's an RPZ
or a Double Detector Check Assembly.
• You will know every 12 months if one is likely to fail or not.
Chairman Varian:
• There are communities that have master meters — a double meter?
David Dunnavant:
• If there's a high enough flow, they have to have a second meter because a
meter is only going to accommodate a certain amount of flow based on the
number of downstream connections.
Chairman Varian:
• There are communities out there that have a master meter.
• Beyond that, there could be buildings, residences, etc., that the RPZ would only
be for the main County system but nowhere else in the community.
• So we're not protecting the Health/Safety of those residents in the community?
Nathan Beals:
We don't have the jurisdiction to require that. It falls under the Plumbing
Code.
Chairman Varian:
• In Collier County, is the average 20 to 30% of customers who are in these types
of communities with master meters?
David Dunnavant:
• From that point forward, those are private lines.
13
August 19, 2010
Chairman Varian:
• The main system — your concern is the RPZ goes on it from a tie -in point of
view, to protect the water in that.
• The communities that have master meters — a contaminate could get in beyond
that and affect the residences or whatever in the communities.
• From a Countywide point of view, this is helping Health/Safety /Welfare, yet
we're not helping those people. What's that percentage? How many
communities are there?
David Dunnavant:
Everything that exists doesn't get addressed. So the percentage is from this
point forward.
I think we know that the bulk of our build -out has been the past ten years.
The percentage keeps getting smaller.
David Aldrich:
• Have we had any reports of contamination within the communities as a result
of the failure of a Double Check valve?
Joey Hatfield:
• We are involved with a lot of multi- family communities in the maintenance,
NFPA -25 inspections, and — to my knowledge — we have never heard of any
situations where the water quality was in question in these communities that are
within — inside a master meter.
Chairman Varian:
• In the packet, there was also a letter from Public Utilities dated August 17th
with some examples of leaks and some taps.
• Again, Nathan, I guess you guys dug this up? There were some specifics —
Sam's Club on Immokalee Road, the Mercato?
Nathan Beals:
• At the last meeting, Joey had asked for specific examples of where we've had
misuse on fire lines — is the way I interpreted.
• These are three examples, outside of Pelican Bay, that we had found illegal
connections to the fire line.
• All three examples have meters — which is the only reason we were able to find
these and the Mercato is a relatively new development — that happened during
construction. When we saw the usage and they got the bill, they called us and
we did an investigation and found that construction usage was tapped into their
fire main. They disconnected and fixed the issue
• That's the potential — that we don't know what could have happened but these
were properly protected as it was.
Joey Hatfield:
• Did that have separate domestic and fire lines throughout the property?
(The response from Nathan Beals was affirmative.)
14
August 19, 2010
So, today, that's not going to happen — correct? Systems are not installed that
way anymore. We're not installing separate domestic and fire lines anymore?
Chris Mitchell:
• You have the option of doing that.
Joey Hatfield:
• But, given the option, you wouldn't do it. More than likely, correct?
Chris Mitchell:
• It really depends on the application and what's being constructed. You get the
benefit of not doing double infrastructure and reducing the costs. But you have
to look at what that does to the line -size that you then have to put in.
• It depends on what the application and use is, really, of the facility. And how
much infrastructure you would have to put in for fire or to upgrade your potable
distribution to cover fire.
Joey Hatfield:
• My opinion of this is cross - connections can happen on fire lines but they could
just as easily on an unmetered domestic main. That's the point that I struggle
with in all of this. If somebody's going to try to tap a fire line, they could just
as easily tap the City main that's unmetered and no one would ever know that
either.
David Dunnavant:
• I have a copy of the Mercato's water bill on their fire meters -- they have two
eight -inch meters — one for the residents and one for the commercial. The
meters show usage. One of them was 2,000 gallons and the other was 10,000
gallons.
• The 10,000 gallons hits that threshold where they are billed the $1,100 for the
service charge. They used $20.00 worth of water but they had to pay $1,100
for the meter.
• We were told that anything 5,000 gallons and over would be assessed, and
anything under would not.
• The other bill was 2,000 gallons of water used that month and a $1,100 charge.
It's $2.00 worth of water and a $1,100 service charge.
• Now — I don't understand what I heard during the last [Subcommittee] meeting.
• The other issue is the usage on both of those meters didn't occur on the eight -
inch meter — it occurred on the two -inch bypass. So why do we need the full
line -size meter? Why? Because it retains that $1,100 per month as opposed to
the value of the two.
• So what we hear and what happens — doesn't match up.
• The Mercato is a wonderful example. First, it was "gee, a single eight -inch
meter on a project that size isn't a big inhibitor."
• I have a little 12,000 square foot building — empty —just sitting out there and if
this goes, I'll pay $700 a month for it. I can't find anybody to fill it. But
because I have a fire service into it ....
15
August 19, 2010
• And before we get off RPZs, this just further brings out the point — I don't
understand, if there's not a downstream connection, who are we protecting with
the RPZ?
• Why — if there's not a downstream connection — can we not maintain the
Double Detector Check Assembly?
Paul Mattausch:
• I think we've answered that question in that we don't have any control on what
happens on the downstream side of the systems. And I don't know, after the
initial inspections, what happens to those pipes. I think we talked about that
before.
• We have found connections that have been made.
• Let's talk about residential for just a minute. We've found many connections
that have been made on the downstream side of the system and we've found,
mostly, reclaimed water /irrigation systems that have been tied in with the
potable water supply — many of them intentionally, so that they have the dual
water in case they don't have reclaimed water available, they have potable
water available for irrigation.
• That's why I say we have no control beyond the meter and the reduced pressure
back -flow preventer. And that's why we're trying to protect the system from
cross connections.
Joey Hatfield:
• Are you saying that the cross connection is they're tying together an irrigation
line to a fire line to have two supplies? Is that what I heard?
Paul Mattausch:
• No, they're tying to the potable water supply system. It's metered.
Joey Hatfield:
• Okay, so if they're tying to the potable water supply — where does the fire line
come into play? I'm missing the point.
David Dunnavant:
That's metered and you charge them both water and sewer usage. That's an
expensive irrigation use.
I don't understand the Health/Safety /Welfare hazard here.
Paul Mattausch:
It's a cross connection that's not protected appropriately by back flow
prevention.
And, again, the same thing can happen on a fire line. We've found that on fire
lines where we've had downstream connections that have been made after the
initial inspection.
16
August 19, 2010
David Dunnavant:
• How many of them were found outside of Pelican Bay?
Paul Mattausch:
• Well ...
David Dunnavant:
I mean — you throw out the word "many" and we go back years and we don't
get many examples ...
Paul Mattausch:
• No, I said there have been connections ...
David Dunnavant:
• No, you've said "many" ... if we've got to go through that — it was "many."
Paul Mattausch:
• One is too many.
• I'm trying to protect the public water supply system.
David Dunnavant:
From all the deaths that have occurred with Double Detector Check Assembly
systems?
Chairman Varian:
• We are trying to come to — again, we're on the business side. We understand
you are on the Health/Safety /Welfare side.
• Again, I don't think anyone of us in here will ever state where there's an issue
— or that we would stand in the way of Health/Safety /Welfare — absolutely not.
• But, again, my analysis is the Double Check is a Cadillac and the RPZ is a
Lexus. Why does Collier need the Lexus — why can't we go with the Cadillac?
• The Cadillac is affordable — we can still build buildings with the Cadillac and
we can't with the Lexus.
• We're trying to grasp that — why the RPZ versus a Double Detector Check
which we're using?
• We know what the economy is like out there — we're not going to get people to
come to Collier County if expenses keep going up the way they are,
• Fully understanding where you're coming from — you've got to protect the
public — absolutely.
• What's the difference between the two? And what has changed? We have
been doing this for how long now with the Double Detectors and everything
else? What has changed to require the RPZ?
• If we could get those answers, if we could understand that, we'll all have a
better bite of this.
Paul Mattausch:
• It is reducing the potential risk.
August 19, 2010
Chairman Varian:
• By how much? Ten percent — twenty percent? What's that number? Is that
number out there?
• And, again, we're also trying to grasp — your system as it stands today on
August 191h — nothing will change in that system. It's only from this point
forward that it would change. Nothing else would be adjusted.
• So, we're not going to change what's already in there — anything that's in the
ground right now is not going to be adjusted.
• What are we trying to do here? What's the percentages?
Paul Mattausch:
• That's not entirely true. Things are changing on residential services. As we
find Double Checks that are failing, we are replacing those with the reduced
pressure devices.
• And we do find devices that fail.
• The recommendation is not to go back and retrofit all fire services. But we are
trying to reduce the potential risk from this point forward by not having any
more construction with the Double Detector Check Assemblies — and going to
RPZs because it is an increased, improved level of protecting the public water
supply system.
• The cost of the device is not substantial — I think the changes that we are
making in the system — instead of designing to 40 psi, which is the
interpretation of the current Ordinance, to 50 psi makes a considerable
difference when we're talking about an additional 5 psi maybe.
• So, we're looking at a 5 psi change on the system rather than designing to 40 —
we're allowing design to 50 ...
Ed Riley:
• The 40 to 50 issue — you're talking two different things.
• The 40 psi has to do with the total fire flow required for a building that could
be thousands of gallons.
• The 50 -psi design for sprinkler systems is generally based on hundreds of
gallons of water that will be required for that system to function.
• They're not the same — they are two distinctly different formulas and
requirements.
• Changing the 40 -psi — reducing it to whatever — or changing it to say, "... as
long as it's hydraulically calculated ..." will not help the sprinkler issue. It will
not help the reduction that the RPZ will put in.
• There was one other thing mentioned — you briefly mentioned it today and it
was mentioned at the earlier meeting — about finding cross connections and
then replacing the DDCA valves with RPZs.
• What is your policy on replacement and what types of systems are impacted?
• I am particularly looking at sprinkler systems because if you found a cross -
connection — the comment was made that you found a problem, disconnected it,
and reconnected it with RPZs.
• I don't know which of those projects — where they were — or what your process
was — what you went through to make those changes, but that's of interest.
18
August 19, 2010
Nathan Beals:
Those were on domestic, single - family residential, non -fire connections — those
replacements.
Paul Mattausch:
• That is correct — those have all been on residential.
• If we find them on fire services, we'll have to work together on that issue to
make sure that the downstream volume is sufficient.
Ed Riley:
• And specifically, just to reiterate, Pelican Bay brought this to a head or a point
back when Roy Anderson was still with you.
• RPZs on fire sprinkler systems and the change -out of that back flow assembly
can only be done by a fire sprinkler system contractor and only after his
analysis of the system to make sure that the change will not negatively impact
the system. And that's by Statute.
Paul Mattausch:
• That's what I just said — we would have to work together.
Joey Hatfield:
• I'm concerned about that to some degree in that the —just replacing a valve
because it failed just seems odd to me.
• These are mechanical devices — they do fail and we repair them — that's the
whole purpose of doing an NFPA -25 Inspection on the fire sprinkler systems is
identify when these things happen.
• We repair RPZ devices as much as we do Double Detector Check valves.
• There is no perfect system and that's the purpose for ongoing maintenance of
these systems. Just because it's an RPZ doesn't mean it's not going to fail —
they are going to fail and they will dump on the ground. That's the only
difference and it's something that has to be — the system has to be maintained.
• The real question here is "What's the risk ?"
• What in that system could potentially injure or harm someone if water back
siphoned into that system?
• A little history on back flow prevention — and you guys know this — most of
you in this room do — prior to the `80s, there were no DDCA valves anywhere
on any water supply. And as time — the lobbyist for the back flow industry are
what created this great fear that we have now of the potential for a
contaminated water supply.
• I believe a lot of that is nothing more than just a fear that's been created by that
industry.
• The reality going forward — we have fire sprinkler systems all over this country
that have nothing more than a single check valve in the ground and they
haven't endangered the public water supply in any city in America that I am
aware of.
19
August 19, 2010
• This is a different world that we live in, granted. But these systems do not
impact the water supply.
• If there is a fire sprinkler system that has a known contaminate that's going to
be a part of that system — and we do have those. We have antifreeze type
systems and we have corrosion monitoring systems that introduce chemicals
into those systems. And on those systems, we advocate for RPZ —type back
flow prevention.
• But the reality is that 99% of the systems — 99.5% of the systems that we install
do not have contaminants in those systems.
• That's correct — a standard — a single detector check would be acceptable if we
didn't have these back flow industry requirements in place.
Chris Mitchell:
• The change would have to be for the system design on the sprinkler side —
would have to be acceptable up to 55 psi in order to overcome the 5 and then it
would have to go up to 58 to overcome an in -size line meter based on all the
numbers that have been thrown out.
• You're going to a 58 — so that would have to be acceptable to Ed Riley and his
group.
• It wouldn't be from a 40 to a 50 — it would be from a 50 to a 58 to overcome
the loss in pressure.
• I feel like we're talking in circles — we need to take a vote or hash it out —
we've got one more meeting to do this. I think one of the most interesting
things that has come out of this meeting was that I got a statement that it's a
"reduce in risk" and not an "imminent Health/Safety /Welfare" issue. It's a
"reduce in risk."
• I think it's all in how it's presented. When you present information to people
who aren't as well versed in what we're speaking about as we are — it comes
across that it's a health -risk issue and it's really not.
• We have back flow prevention in place. We have in place a program that
prevents cross connections. Are they violations? There are. There always
will be. There are penalties for that. So if there are penalties in the system set
up to discourage, then that's how it's handled. It's a Code Enforcement issue.
• For me, personally, I don't know how you're going to get this side of the room
to see that it's an "imminent" health risk issue such that we would support it as
it is today. Because we haven't heard what the "imminent" risk is — because
the program is in place, the devices are there, the devices work — it's an
additional risk reduction is what it comes down to.
• What benefit does that have for the system when you take into account
everything downstream of the RPZ versus a Double Detector Check valve?
Paul Mattausch:
• I have never said "imminent threat to public health" — I have always talked
consistently about reducing the risk. And there are many, many examples that
you can go to that we reduced the risk in our daily lives. And some of them
have become requirements — others have not. We can go to many, many
examples of reducing the risk. And that, simply put, is what we're trying to do
20
August 19, 2010
to protect public health and the public water supply system — is to reduce the
risk.
• If you go back a number of years, we weren't using disinfectants in public
water supplies — we've done that to reduce the risk.
• We've done a lot of things to reduce risk and that's simply put, what we're
doing.
Chairman Varian:
• I just went over the Minutes from the July 27th BCC meeting and on Page 224:
"Commissioner Halas: Okay. My final question is, this is a
health, safety problem; is that correct?"
Mr. Mattausch: That is correct. "
• It is a health, safety problem — is that correct?
Paul Mattausch:
• Yes. The potential is there to be a health risk to the public.
Chairman Varian:
• "Potential" — okay — this [the Minutes] didn't say "potential." I want to make
sure of that.
Paul Mattausch:
• Well, the way he stated the question — the answer was "yes."
Chairman Varian:
• Does the County have any single -check valves in its system currently? Do you
know? Have you done an analysis?
Ed Riley:
• You probably do have some very old fire sprinkler systems that would have a
single check.
Chairman Varian:
• "Old" meaning - - -? Fifteen — twenty -- ?
Ed Riley:
• 20 — 25 — 30 years old. Very old.
• I would say anything from the `80s on would probably be a Double Check but
there are probably some of the real old ones out there.
• Some of those may have been upgraded over time, too ...
Joey Hatfield:
• That's possible ...
RA
August 19, 2010
Ed Riley:
• ... but I would say it would be a very limited number that are still out there.
Chairman Varian:
• The RPZ may only be a $500 or $700 upgrade between the Double Check.
• The other side of that is he loses the 5 -psi and has to adjust his system which,
for that owner, could possibly mean a fire pump — a whole different avenue.
• It's definitely going to mean larger pipe sizes — you take the furthest head,
wherever it is, and you have to read a certain psi at that head.
• To get to that, you are going to work backwards and your pipe is going to
increase accordingly based on the volume you need at that farthest head. Is that
correct?
Joey Hatfield:
• That's correct.
Chairman Varian:
• So, from a building owner point of view, it's $700 in the hole upfront — that's
fine.
• But there's a whole other avenue that could be tens of thousands depending on
the size of the building?
Joey Hatfield:
• It could start at the connection and go from a four -inch lead -in to a six -inch
lead -in.
• Pipe sizes in the building would go up.
• As height goes up on the building, that's when fire pumps come in.
• The answer is "yes" to all of the questions — all of the components, including
the underground supply would go up.
Chairman Varian:
• We're not just looking at the connection point —we realize that seems minimal
on a million dollar building.
• From the business side of it — we're trying to look at it that way, too.
Ed Riley:
• There is an acceptable level of risk.
• What is that acceptable level of risk?
• Generally, that acceptable level of risk on any item that you try to regulate has
to do with cost and impact in its relationship to the increase in your level of
safety that you are achieving.
• What you've heard here so far is that it hasn't been demonstrated that there's
any significant impact on the level of the increase of life /safety for this, but
there is a significant impact on the cost.
• Therefore, when you do a risk analysis, it doesn't equate. It doesn't add up. It
doesn't make sense.
22
August 19, 2010
• The County Commissioners have gone on record against the high -rise retrofit
requirements for fire sprinklers and the thing was — it was risk/reward. The
cost associated with what you might likely gain in life /safety — and there are
documented deaths in high -rise fires — there are documented death in single -
family residential fires.
• But this State has taken it — that the acceptable level of risk within the State is
to not require that those places be protected because of the costs associated
especially at this time — when the economy is the way it is.
• I'm not here to say that there isn't a possibility that something could happen. ]
think what you're hearing is that it doesn't appear to be a significant hazard
that's out there — but the cost is significant to try to offset a minimal gain in
life /safety.
• I don't think the risk analysis or cost/benefit analysis for that would support
going this extra step.
• I think if the argument was given to the County Commissioners based on the
same other items that they talked against, which had proven — shown — life/
safety hazards and death attributed to it, and the costs associated with that, I
don't think they would support, or would be able to support, this kind of a
significant cost associated with sprinkler -ing these buildings for a very limited
— if any — life /safety benefit.
• I don't think that's something that could be proven to them.
David Dunnavant:
• I think a mis- impression has been created somehow that increasing the pressure
coming from the plant helps overcome the use of an RPZ. It doesn't.
• We have a Fire Code — that's between Fire and Utilities.
• It will impact. It will impact buildings throughout and the real concern is —
we're looking at fire pumps. If you get anything of height, we're now looking
at more and more fire pumps.
• I keep hearing — at this time — this current proposal does not address existing
systems. I don't know that it's not a next step. This has been a systematic
approach as is.
• I'm completely confused why Mr. Mattausch would use examples of cross
connections made to a domestic water system in a discussion of fire lines and
RPZs. That's apples and oranges and it's only confusing the issue.
Paul Mattausch:
• We've had a fire service connected to an irrigation system. I just used a
particular example.
Joey Hatfield:
• And that also happens on domestic lines as well — correct?
Paul Mattausch:
• Yes, that's correct.
23
August 19, 2010
Joey Hatfield:
• To unfairly single out the Fire Line Industry, I don't think is where this should
go.
Paul Mattausch:
• We're not singling out the Fire Industry — we are requiring RPZs on all
domestic connections and we're systematically going through the system.
• Right now, we have about 33,000 currently installed on 55,000 service
connections.
• We have a program — a capital program — over the next five years to complete
that process.
• No, we're not singling out any particular industry or type of customer or
anything else.
Chairman Varian:
• But you also can't touch changing out anything to do with the fire systems.
• A good percentage of your customers are residential and that's fine.
• But you can't touch the fire systems — you can't change a Double Check to an
RPZ without going through massive changes — correct?
• So, in your program — that's not in it.
• We're still looking at most of your residential customers.
David Dunnavant:
• Until this Health/Safety /Welfare issue showed up in July, it had been a revenue
issue.
• And this started, I think, in anticipation of sprinkler system requirements for
residences which didn't pass the State Legislature this year. So now, we're no
longer dealing with commercial — we are also dealing with the residential
aspect.
• This is a revenue source. I just pointed out one project I knew of that used
about $22.00 of water last month that got charged $2,200.
• Multiply this through the system and we're looking at the same thing on
residential. If and when residential gets fire lines and we're looking at meters
on that — and they have a standby meter — we're looking at a monthly charge to
a residence for a system that isn't used.
• I received a copy of Nathan Beals' letter yesterday pointing out the three
examples, but the inline meter is not the only way you found it. As I stated, the
usage at the Mercato last month showed up at the by -pass meter, not the in -line
meter.
• If you are looking for usage, you can do that off the current by -pass meters that
are there. At some level, it gets overwhelmed and doesn't give an accurate
reading. It's not a use for billing purposes, but it is an indication of use.
Nathan Beals:
You're correct. When there's a detector meter, it does detect usage. And if
they weren't using more than 3 gallons per minute, it will go through the
detector and find that usage.
24
August 19, 2010
• You brought up the bill from the Mercato. I will talk to our Utility Billing — if
that's accurate, then that was incorrect. You pointed that out and we should
correct that. I don't know why it was done that way.
David Dunnavant:
• Even the one that was 10,000 — they used $12.00 worth of water and they got a
$1,100 bill on that meter.
• And this is a month after month application. This is revenue.
• I think it was in anticipation of the residential usage.
• We're just increasing the cost to live in Collier County.
• As Ed pointed out, we haven't even got into the fact that you're actually
charging the people who have the most efficient water use systems and fire use,
as opposed to the people without sprinklers. Those people take no impact on
this.
• This all started — at least at DSAC — when Mr. Mattausch explained there was a
system loss use — they could identify half of it — about 5% was unidentified.
They identified half through flushing programs and breaks that they knew of
• We haven't even gone through the other issues that contribute to water loss in a
system that aren't going to be recovered by anything in this.
• We have other reasons why water is being lost in the system and this is just a
way to pay for it. That includes leaks in the system, oversized meters for
different reasons that aren't adequately registering flow, it could be replacement
system on meters — certification and replacement on old, obsolete meters —
there's lots of things.
• This is a way to create revenue for Utilities without having to address the fact
that there are imperfections in the system and taking it to the general public.
And, in that regard, it does seem targeted.
• Ed was on point at the last meeting when he discussed the fact that the sprinkler
systems are more efficient, yet they are the ones who are going to take this bill
month after month.
David Aldrich:
• We agreed that Utilities has to review the policy on stolen water or inefficient
use of water and what ramifications Utilities has for the enforcement of that.
• The route that we're going here to try to increase the cost on new projects
which will be existing projects at some point, I don't want to see it happen
here.
• From Nathan's letter, there is one issue that bothers me the most — that is the
Pelican Bay issue. "Without the water meter, there is no incentive to fix leaks in
a timely manner. "
• Basically, that's almost equivalent to stealing water if they have an inefficient
system, and it's spilling water.
• I think they would fall under some guideline that you would be able to drop a
hatchet on that. Am I incorrect?
25
August 19, 2010
Paul Mattausch:
• There are certain things that we can do and certain things that we can't do. We
put pressure on them as far as we can go.
• We kept insisting the leak be repaired. And that's not a singular incident.
• I can't require somebody to fix a leaking faucet beyond the meter and if I don't
have a meter, I can't account for all that water. There's no way to measure that
amount of water.
David Aldrich:
• It's a usage issue and you have an ongoing - -- how did you account for the leak
in that situation? You knew the leak existed and you told them to repair it and
there was no incentive for them to do it.
• I would think you would have some sort of means to empower that.
Joey Hatfield:
• What we're talking about here — this was an irrigation system that was
connected to a fire line and the irrigation system had the leak. Correct?
Nathan Beals:
My understanding of the example, the Valencia (at Pelican Bay), that was just a
leak on the fire system that we noticed somehow when we were out doing our
checks.
Paul Mattausch:
• I wasn't on site so I can't answer that.
Joey Hatfield:
• If that were the case, there are enforcement rules in place — the Fire Marshalls
have the authority to enforce those rules. If there's a leak on a fire sprinkler
system — whether it's a fire line or inside the building — they are required to fix
that immediately.
• The Fire Marshalls would not allow a fire sprinkler system to be in jeopardy if
that were the case.
• But what I read tells me that this is a cross - connection issue and you do have
enforcement powers to correct that. Is that correct?
Paul Mattausch:
• Yes, we do.
Joey Hatfield:
• So that's really not an issue. This [letter] really doesn't mean anything then
from what I gather.
Melissa Ahern:
• I just wanted to cover the Fire Meter Report that was originally distributed.
There was some information on there that was somewhat misleading.
26
August 19, 2010
• I believe Industry had stated no other communities were doing this and Utilities
listed 10 to 12 areas that are.
• All of the areas that were listed — I don't think at this point we found any that
actually had flow through meters required — which isn't stated on here.
• And in terms of the charges — I went online and pulled actual fees to see what
people were charged and its $72 a month, $105 a month (quarterly), some were
annually -- $200 a month.
• The amounts that are being charged, which would be comparable to the
Availability Fee, are minimal compared to what David Dunnavant is talking
about at $1,100 a month for $2.00 of water usage.
• I wanted to go on record that this is very misleading. In the large scope of
things, you have 12 to 13 places in the whole country listed here. But these
aren't requiring the flow through meters.
• There was one that was interesting in South Carolina that did have that in place
and it made the cost so high to build the building that they didn't sprinkle the
building. There was a fire and seven fire fighters died.
• Then the Ordinance was repealed.
Ed Riley:
• ... Charleston, South Carolina ...
Melissa Ahern:
• I wanted this on the record because it seems to be somewhat misleading.
Chairman Varian:
• From a Committee point of view, we have to make a recommendation to
DSAC, and DSAC will make the recommendation to the Board of County
Commissioners. We have one more meeting. And we have another half -hour
here.
• We have been going back and forth on the RPZs for the last hour and a half.
• I don't know if we've gotten anywhere other than where we are with two
[opposing] sides.
• We need to move forward and agree on something.
Melissa Ahern:
• We agree to disagree.
Chairman Varian:
• We still have the meter issue also, which we've dabbled with but we haven't
dove into that much — we've been nipping at it.
David Dunnavant:
• What's the difference between an in -line meter and an electromagnetic? Is
there ....
Ed Riley:
• Whether or not it's listed for fire usage.
27
August 19, 2010
David Dunnavant:
• Are there no electromagnetic necessarily listed for fire usage?
Ed Riley:
• There may be but ...
David Dunnavant:
• If it's not impeding or having a significantly reduced friction loss ...
Ed Riley:
• Anything that is used in a fire system, including the back flow assemblies, is
required to hold a U/L listing for fire use.
David Dunnavant:
• How about if I put it just on the system side of the back flow? Is everything —
everything in the Utilities System?
Ed Riley:
• The point of connection where that water is firewater only — everything has to
be listed.
David Dunnavant:
• So what if we put the magnetic meter just on the outside —before its firewater
only?
Ed Riley:
• You don't get to pick — to say its fire water at this point — it's where that water
is used for nothing else but fire.
• If I come off my main and I put a "T" in — at that location of the "T" where that
water is diverted for the fire protection water, everything from that point
forward is fire protection service ... that's laid out by Florida Statutes. You
can't change that.
David Dunnavant:
• Is this a matter that — the manufacturer of that type of meter has not gotten a
U/L listing?
Ed Riley:
• Probably it hasn't been tested.
David Dunnavant:
• I'm trying to understand how it's going to impede at all your flow. In fact, it's
less intrusive than an in -line meter.
Ed Riley:
• It's not necessarily just that. It's the testing.
28
August 19, 2010
• We have to be 200 -pound psi- tested for everything in the system. Standard
water is 150 psi- tested.
• The Standards are different for the materials that are being used because we
operate at higher pressures under fire conditions. It's not just that simple.
Nathan Beals:
• There is one electro- magnetic meter (EVO Q -4) that's FM approved for fire
usage and the pipe diameter within the meter reduces, so there is a one to three
gallons per minute pressure loss — or psi loss, not gallons.
David Dunnavant:
• Would FM alone suffice?
Ed Riley:
• Yes, U/L or FM approval would be sufficient and we would allow it to be used.
Joey Hatfield:
• Does that require a strainer line also?
Nathan Beals:
• No, it does not.
David Dunnavant:
• The flow through meters are what increase ---
• We haven't even talked about the fact that the meter assemblies in an RPZ are
going to take at least one parking space out — they're like 19 feet long and you
have to have clearance on each side of them. As opposed to the "N" type.
• Wilkins Zurn makes an upright RPZ — it just won't accommodate the in -line
meter.
Chris Mitchell:
• We're allowed to use the "N" style with an RPZ and an in -line data electro -mag
meter — we can use that — it's a change that's been — this year ...
David Dunnavant:
• You can't on a fire line.
Ed Riley:
• He said it was U/L or FM approved.
• If it is FM approved, we will permit it to be used as long as it is installed per its
listing.
Chris Mitchell:
• That was, maybe, three or four months ago ...
Nathan Beals:
• It was about six months ago.
29
August 19, 2010
• There were questions brought up about trying to find electro- magnetic meters.
• I talked to Fire Review and had the same question — if there's nothing impeding
the flow, why does it need to be FM or U/L approved. Because everything that
touches the fire service is required to by NFPA.
• Because of that, we went out and found this one and we're talking to other
manufacturers to see if there is the ability — there's another company, Badger,
that makes an electro- magnetic one and they have no interest in going out and
getting FM or U/L [approval] because it costs them money to get that.
David Dunnavant:
In discussions with installation contractors, I can tell you the guys who have
that meter only — they know it — it raises the cost. Without the competition and
knowing that's the only acceptable system, it's a cost.
That's the only one we can do in a reasonable space. Otherwise, we're talking
about a 19 -foot long assembly, above ground, which you have to accommodate
for — make a County Utilities easement, and then you deal with landscaping —
you're conceding property.
Chris Mitchell:
• Stabilized access next to it for service — that truly is an unaccounted for cost
because you impact the infrastructure that you would have serving the building.
Chairman Varian:
• And the Double Checks — they don't take up that much space?
Chris Mitchell:
• No, it would be the same. It's really — truly — the "N" style and having the "N"
style assembly available which they have in either the Double Check and the
RPZ.
Ed Riley:
• It's the meter requirement.
David Dunnavant:
• It's the in -line meter requirement —
• Now that we have one that may be magnetic — it's the meter requirement which
creates the long above ground — as opposed to something that's about four -foot
wide and five -foot tall.
Chris Mitchell:
• It's the whole process — it's the spool pieces, it's the strainer, it's everything
and the electro is the only one that I know of that can read vertically.
David Dunnavant:
• What Chris is describing are the additional costs above the difference between
the back flows. It's not just the back flow.
30
August 19, 2010
• When you start putting in an in -line meter, you're talking about spools and
strainers —
• I know a contractor who told me he was forced to change one out on a project —
the materials cost was $15,000.
• So we don't stop at $700 — it goes from there.
Joey Hatfield:
• Additionally, there are requirements to inspect and test these devices annually
as well.
• Per NFPA -25 — the top has to be taken off and the strainer has to be taken out
and cleaned annually.
• That's an additional cost over what a normal Double Detector Check Assembly
valve would have.
David Aldrich:
• There is a possible annual flush charge — you would have a usage or a potential
volume — cubic foot volume that would be calculated by the engineer — if you
were required to do four a year or two a year — if you knew about how many
gallons would be coming off that — that would be something to be charged one
time a year ---
• Utilities mentioned a concept like that had not been reviewed
• Is that a possible alternative here to what we're talking about to go through -- to
put all this hardware on a building?
Paul Mattausch:
This would be done in a Rate Study to substantiate the costs of fire service on
the system.
David Aldrich:
• Can you — I have a problem with the availability charge.
• For using $20 to $50 worth of water, you have a $1,100 fee.
• Can you expound on that a little bit?
• How do you have such a high charge — it's the 5,000 gallons that triggers it, so
the difference between using 1,000 gallons and 4,000 gallons or 6,000 gallons —
it is not a lot of water.
David Dunnavant:
• If the bill were 2,000 — they would still get the fee.
David Aldrich:
• How — where did that fee come from?
• That was put into place — when?
• How is it justified?
Paul Mattausch:
• There isn't a current fee that's been put in place.
31
August 19, 2010
• The Ordinance — there is no — unless there's usage and, again, I can't talk about
how a particular bill is calculated, but ...
David Dunnavant:
• Then how are you billing it if there's not a fee?
Paul Mattausch:
• No, no, that's not what I'm saying — I'm trying to answer your question.
• There is a cost to a water system to provide availability for fire service.
• We will do a Rate Study to see what that cost is to the system. That will be
vetted before DSAC and presented to the Board of County Commissioners.
• When that is put in place on fire services ...
Chairman Varian:
• I think the question is — right now in your current Fee Schedule — this came up
in DSAC a while back — 2 -inch, 3 -inch, 4 -inch meter on a building uses "x"
amount — they get charged for water usage plus a fee — on the commercial side.
• Water meter size has something to do with a fee currently?
Paul Mattausch:
• Yes — that was also done in the last Rate Study.
• In fact, it's been in place for a number of years.
• But, yes, it's based on usage and on the size of the fire service.
Chairman Varian:
• I'm going back to domestic water — domestic water for drinking —
• Right now, if it's a two or three inch meter, and you use "x" amount of gallons
as a commercial building — you get charged that plus a fee.
Paul Mattausch:
• A service availability fee.
Chairman Varian:
• For current, domestic water on a building?
• That's probably ....
David Dunnavant:
• You don't even have to use any ...
Paul Mattasuch:
• That's correct ...
Chairman Varian:
• ... how the Mercato is getting hit right now — is that it's under that study.
• That's probably where Mercato's rates are coming from?
32
August 19, 2010
Paul Mattausch:
• There's an availability charge for service — a base charge that — regardless of
the usage or not —just like my electric bill — if I'm gone for a month, I still have
a potential demand that I've placed on the Utility system.
• And that's what a service availability charge is for — it covers the cost of the
infrastructure that it takes to be able to provide service when the faucet is
turned on.
• It's like if you turn the light switch on.
Chairman Varian:
• Meter size has a lot to do with that — right?
Paul Mattasuch:
• It's based on meter size, yes.
Ed Riley:
• That's where I have a real big problem with — I brought this up at the last
meeting
• There is a water standby charge or availability charge for a fire sprinkler
system that has much less of an impact on the Utilities system, in the case of a
fire, than does any building without a sprinkler system of the same size.
• If you're going to have a standby fee to provide fire protection water, it needs
to be analyzed and spread across the entire scope of all rate users throughout
the system.
• Every structure has to be forwarded water for fire protection — that's what the
hydrant system is there for — and if they're not being charged anything for that
standby water availability to protect their homes, when we go out and hook to
that hydrant to put a fire out, which (on average) takes about 80 to 80% more
water than a building does with a sprinkler system, then the impacts are
reversed.
• They should be charged more than those who put a sprinkler system in and
affording a smaller impact on the Utility system. In fact, the fire flow
requirements — the hydrant requirement — can be reduced up to 75% for a
building with a sprinkler system.
• If 4,000 gallons are required for a building, I can reduce that actually to as low
as 600 gallons under certain conditions for a building with a sprinkler system.
• The impact of the building with a sprinkler system on the Utility system is far
less than that of a non - sprinkler building.
• What Utilities is doing is penalizing by putting fees on the people who decided
to install a sprinkler system for added protection.
• The other thing that is uncalculated and isn't looked at on the non - sprinkler
buildings — approximately 70 to 75% of buildings that closed because of fire
fail when they re -open because they've lost their client base. You lose your tax
revenue because you have a vacant building where they couldn't survive.
• Buildings with sprinkler systems generally re -open — sometimes the same day —
after a fire. You have your continued revenue stream and your tax structure
still in place.
33
August 19, 2010
• Utilities is really mis- guided in putting additional fees on these systems that
don't impact negatively the Utility system or the tax system. They enhance it.
• Adding additional fees to them just isn't right. It's not fair.
Chris Mitchell:
• Ed said it all.
• I am a big proponent of increasing the efficiency in which we provide
protection but if we're not going to charge for it because the guy uses the
hydrant on the street versus charging the guy who has a fire suppression system
— that wouldn't be fair and equitable.
David Dunnavant:
• Mr. Mattausch, you just stated for the record that there's no fee established for
fire service at this point, but you are charging people for it.
• Something is not congruent there.
Paul Mattausch:
• No, there is a fee in the Ordinance. There is a current fee in the Ordinance
• What I was talking about was the "go forward" point.
• We will take a look at the rate impacts and I agree entirely with you — there is
less of an impact with a sprinkler system than there is with a non - sprinkler
system — that's why — one of the current things that we're looking at — and
again, this will all be substantiated in a Rate Study — is charging, as a number
of other Utilities do, one - twelfth of the service availability fee rather than the
full availability fee that is currently charged. So that availability fee would go
down.
• And then it would be based on if we approve meters. It would be based on
actual usage.
• If we don't approve the meters, it would be based on an availability charge.
• Again, we would have to determine all of this in a Rate Study.
• But I think, Ed, in order to be able to answer part of your question, fire
hydrants and the service availability charge is, I believe, already included in the
rates — that's part of what is built into the rates.
• I will make certain from our rate consultant ....
Ed Riley:
• That should cover a building with a sprinkler system also.
• That availability is there and it is in the rate structure — they should not have to
pay an additional availability fee — that's basically dual taxation — dual cost —
paying twice for the same service.
Paul Mattausch:
But on a fire service that currently is — there's an ability to currently bill for
actual usage. But there's no service availability charge on all of the fire
sprinkler systems and they certainly do place a potential demand on the system
just like a residential services places on the system — whether you use water or
not.
34
August 19, 2010
• What we are looking at — currently there's no — for a private fire service, there's
no connection fee, there's no availability charge, there's no mechanism outside
this Ordinance when there is use on a system — there's no way to provide for
the system that has to be constructed in order to provide for fire flow.
• My system would be much smaller — all of the water distribution system — the
number of pumps that I have to have standing by, ready and available, the
amount of storage that I have to construct on the system — everything is
constructed based on providing fire flow.
• We don't just take into account the domestic and commercial usage when we
design a system. It is over - designed and there's a cost to that.
• There's a cost to having me provide the additional number of pumps that it
takes to provide fire flow.
• There's a cost to me to provide the amount of storage that is required on the
system to maintain a sustained flow for three hours or whatever NFPA requires
in order to fight a fire.
• There are costs to the water system for all of them that are currently not being
addressed in the rate structure. That's what we are looking at.
• Right now there's a private fire service — there's no cost.
Ed Riley:
• For clarification, Paul. You just stated that you thought that the standby water
fee for supplying the fire protection water was already in the rate structure.
• And now you're saying that it isn't — or it hasn't been addressed.
Paul Mattausch:
• It is for our metered customers.
• It's not for fire services.
• But a lot of my system demand and capital requirements are for providing fire
service.
Ed Riley:
• The fire service requirement that you're talking about can be 75% higher or
more for a non - sprinkler building that's not paying an additional fee because
you're saying they are already in the rate calculation. They are there.
• A sprinkler system going on uses 25% of the water or the required standby
water, if you will, for that system to protect that building. Yet, they are not
included in that rate structure — which I don't understand.
• If the building is there and you have a rate structure and you're calculating it
throughout — the base rate that they pay is the same as everybody else's base
rate — and that fee should include that sprinkler building.
• As I said, to charge them an additional fee because they have a sprinkler system
in it — they are reducing the impact on your system.
• If every building in this County had a sprinkler, you could have much smaller
lines, much less water supply requirements because they have dramatically
lessened the impact on your system.
35
August 19, 2010
Chairman Varian:
• The other question — God forbid, there's a fire out there — a residential home
requires fire service to it. That's when you tap a hydrant. And you use a lot
more water on that type of a fire versus a building with a fire sprinkler.
• So your rate payers that might get that fire service benefit from the larger pipes
and everything else — are also the residents of Collier County who live in
single- family homes without fire sprinklers.
• Listening to all that ...
Paul Mattausch:
• I certainly didn't deny that. I acknowledge that. That's why the current
thought is to charge one - twelfth of that availability charge rather than the full
availability charge because we do realize that there is a difference.
Joey Hatfield:
• Just discussing single - family — we use about 18 gallons per minute for a single
sprinkler operating to control a fire. The majority of fires — 80% or so — are
controlled by one sprinkler in a single - family residence. And those fires will be
under control — or should be under control — by the time the Fire Department
arrives.
• The demand that would be required to put a fire out in a single - family home is
very much reduced from what would be used if there were not a sprinkle in the
home.
• That's one point that I wanted to make.
• The second one was — in what you said, Mr. Mattausch, was that the system
you maintain is much increased in size because of the demand of the fire flow
requirements.
• I want to clarify that to make sure we understand that's not because of fire
sprinkler systems that are connected to your system, but the overall fire flow
requirements is for the community in the system.
Paul Mattausch:
• I agree. I'm not arguing that point at all.
Joey Hatfield:
• To further that — we agree that the fire sprinkler systems that are put into place
benefit the water system and yet we, therefore, still want to charge those people
who have a fire sprinkler system in place.
• The fire sprinkler system puts a lesser demand on the overall water system and
yet we, therefore, want to charge those people who installed that system.
Paul Mattausch:
• I'm not arguing that at all — what I'm saying is that there currently is no charge
for that potential demand that they are placing on the system.
Joey Hatfield:
• And that's the point.
W.
August 19, 2010
• We believe that since that fire sprinkler system is in place and is going to place
a lesser demand on the system for that building, that there should be no charge
for it.
Chris Mitchell:
• I think, one, it's important to say that, Paul, that's true for — fire services that
don't have meters.
• In the case of the Mercato, it is metered.
• David, I think the answer that you're looking for is the rate structure for
domestic delivery is the rate structure that's used right now for the current in-
line meters.
• There is no separate fire — there is potable water for delivery and that's the
meter — if it's an 8 -inch meter, then it's the 8 -inch potable water meter rate
structure that's used currently.
• There's no separate analysis.
David Dunnavant:
• Paul, you just said twice — I guess I need to understand it — that you're
considering charging one - twelfth of the system development charge as opposed
to — what are we doing now — we're charging the full amount on a monthly
basis.
Nathan Beals:
• As the current Billing Ordinance rate structure states, if you use more than
5,000 gallons on a fire service, it's considered having domestic usage and that
has a full availability charge and all usage billed. If it's over 5,000 gallons.
• If it's under 5,000 gallons, there shouldn't be a bill. I have to check on the
Mercato that you brought up. I don't know why that was that way.
• But what Paul is saying is that we're looking towards — in the future and with a
Rate Study and bringing it back to the Board for — a different rate structure for
fire which would be as the State Statutes states — it's one - twelfth of the
availability charge of a standard domestic connection. So, over the year, you
would pay one full availability for that service line.
• That's what we're looking at — it still has to come to the Board — it still has to
come forward.
David Dunnavant:
• Would that not be one - twelfth of the amount currently in the system — I mean
the base charge for a domestic meter?
Nathan Beals:
• Yes.
David Dunnavant:
• So why would the current Ordinance not address it as such — since that seems
eminently more fair.
37
August 19, 2010
Why do we need a Rate Study if there's a State Statute indicating that one -
twelfth of the charge is appropriate?
Why do we need a Rate Study to identify — you've already identified — in this
instance, an 8 -inch meter — what the full charge is.
Why aren't we charging one - twelfth of that at this point? Why do we have to
wait?
Nathan Beals:
• Because our Billing Ordinance is the way it is — but the State Statutes says we
can.
• Just like AWWA says we can require meters. But it doesn't say you should — it
doesn't recommend against it or for it — it says that the Utility has the option to
require it.
David Dunnavant:
• And this was the Billing Ordinance created in 2009 on the Consent Agenda that
you presented?
Nathan Beals:
• I did not present it — Utilities presented it on the Consent Agenda — the change
— but there were no updates to this because of this situation.
Melissa Ahern:
I think we need to clarify — if you have a building and it is not sprinkled and,
therefore, dependant on a fire hydrant — and you have one with a sprinkler — are
they paying different rates?
I think what Ed is saying — if they're already paying the same rate, they're
already paying for the service provided. If they add a sprinkler to the system
which is now reducing what they require from your system, and we want to
charge them more. And you're saying right now, we're not charging them
anything.
But the argument is — if they are paying the same rate as a non - sprinkler
building, then we are already charging them — they're already paying more.
Therefore, there shouldn't be an additional charge.
Paul Mattausch:
• You are exactly right, Melissa.
• Currently they are not paying anything.
Melissa Ahern:
• But they're paying the same rate as a non - sprinkler building — correct?
Paul Mattausch:
• No, they're not paying any rate.
[Comment: "for fire "]
38
August 19, 2010
Paul Mattausch:
• For fire services, they are currently not paying any rate unless there is usage —
regular usage on the system over 5,000 gallons.
Melissa Ahern:
• In their domestic rate — in their normal water rate — are they paying the same
thing as a non - sprinkler building?
• Are you saying that charge is being charged to everybody?
Ed Riley:
• If they're paying the same base rate — then they are paying for — as I understood
it — that the base rates include the fire protection water that is necessary for a
non - sprinkler building. They are paying that in the base water rate.
• They are not paying it through a fire connection, but their potable water rate —
they're paying for those structures — they all have potable water — are paying
the fire protection amount.
• That's the size of the system to provide fire protection.
• That's to every rate user that's on domestic water.
• In these buildings — we're not talking some, but very few are not — already have
a domestic water — there are a few out there that have sprinklers with no
domestic water — but there would only be maybe a half a dozen in the County —
but — and that is my point — that the same building owner through his domestic
supply — in that bill — is paying for fire protection availability.
• He added another system to reduce the impact and now it's being proposed that
he pay one - twelfth of that availability fee for that water when that fire sprinkler
system has less impact on the water utility than does the non - sprinkler building
which is already being paid for.
• He's reducing his impact on the water utility by putting the sprinkler system in
and the argument could be made that he should pay less.
• As a rate payer and a sprinkler building — because they are taking that demand
away from the system — they shouldn't be charged for having to provide that to
the system.
• So the argument could be made in the other direction — that they are overpaying
once a sprinkler system is installed if they are paying the same rate as everyone
else — if it includes that requirement.
Melissa Ahern:
• So that was my question — are sprinkler and non - sprinkler buildings paying the
same base rate for domestic?
Nathan Beals:
I am disappointed that our Utility Billing people were unable to attend today.
I will try to get some answers from them for our next meeting to make sure
those are or are not included in our current rates. And for some answers to that.
To continue, there were a couple of questions that came from Joey at the end of
the meeting last week — is Public Utilities in a budget deficit — no we are not.
39
August 19, 2010
We are meeting all of our rating requirements that are needed, so we're not in a
budget deficit.
• Unaccounted for water loss was also asked. I double- checked with our finance
people and the $160,000 is actually $200,000 — so we're looking — instead of
$750,000 — about one million dollars in unaccounted for water loss to answer
your question specifically.
Chairman Varian:
• Per fiscal year? About one million dollars in unaccounted for ...
Nathan Beals:
• Yes. As I understand it. I hope to get the UBCS and Tom Wides back here for
the next meeting to be able to provide some more to that.
Melissa Ahern:
• And that's total including leaks, breakage ... ?
Nathan Beals:
• Unaccounted for water. Yes.
David Dunnavant:
• I think the follow -up question has established there is not a budget deficit, but
is there a budget surplus?
Nathan Beals:
• I don't know the answer to that. I can ask that question and bring it back or,
hopefully, have them with us.
Chairman Varian:
• You are winding down your fiscal year — there's only about a month and a half
left in your fiscal year.
• It is 11:00 AM.
• For our next meeting, is there information that we request of Staff?
Melissa Ahern:
• I have a Planning Commission meeting so I won't be here..
Chairman Varian:
• The next Subcommittee meeting is on August 27th at 3:00 PM.
• Paul and Nathan — I'm moderating this — I'm not supposed to have an opinion —
but I'm also on the Industry side as well.
• I think all of us — we understand where you're coming from — but we have to
balance what we do for a living and try to make sure that this works.
• We're not trying to be — fist fights or anything here. We're just trying to make
sure that it's justifiable and we understand it. I believe that's where we are
coming from.
40
August 19, 2010
• Whatever we do, we have to make sure that -- yes, you are customers and yes,
it's the community which we work for — all balance out.
Paul Mattausch:
• I certainly understand that. I don't hold any discussion that we have in this
room against anybody personally. My job as director of the Water Department
is to do the best that I can to, number one, ensure public health.
• Number two is to make sure that "he who benefits, pays."
• That's my job.
Nathan Beals:
• One last item on the one - twelfth that we discussed — I can give you the FAC
code number — it's 25- 30.465 and it is titled "Private Fire Protection Rates."
David Dunnavant:
• Since you mentioned the one - twelfth again, why would that simple fairness not
have been addressed in the initial Billing Ordinance?
• Is it only because we are questioning it that it is now being reconsidered?
• And at what point will it be presented to the Commissioners to modify that
rate?
Nathan Beals:
• I'll have to talk to Tom Wides and bring that back.
B. Line -Size Water Meter Requirement on Fire Services
(Not discussed)
VII. Committee Member Comments:
(None)
Next Meeting Dates:
August 27, 2010 — 3:00 PM
There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned
by order of the Chairman at 11:05 AM.
41
August 19, 2010
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
ADVISORY COMMITTEE
UTILITIES/RPZ SUBCOMMITTEE
William Varian, Subcommittee Chairman
The Minutes were approved by the Board/Committee on
as presented , or as amended
42
7 -9 -10 FMPC Approval Draft
ORDINANCE NO. 2010 -
AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, REPEALING ORDINANCE NO. 86 -28,
AS AMENDED, RELATING TO FLOOD DAMAGE PREVENTION, IN
ORDER TO ADOPT, TO THE EXTENT APPLICABLE, THE
REGULATIONS AND POLICIES SET FORTH IN THE STATE OF
FLORIDA MODEL FLOOD DAMAGE PREVENTION ORDINANCE;
PROVIDING FOR STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION, FINDINGS OF
FACT, PURPOSE, AND OBJECTIVES; PROVIDING FOR
DEFINITIONS; PROVIDING FOR GENERAL PROVISIONS;
PROVIDING FOR ADMINISTRATION; PROVIDING FOR PROVISIONS
FOR FLOOD HAZARD REDUCTION; PROVIDING FOR VARIANCE
PROCEDURES; PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF ORDINANCE NO. 86 -28,
AS AMENDED, IN ITS ENTIRETY; PROVIDING FOR CONFLICT AND
SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION IN THE CODE OF
LAWS AND ORDINANCES; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE
DATE. ;PROVIDING FOR EMERGENCY TEMPORARY HOUSING
FOLLOWING A DISASTER.
WHEREAS, the Collier County Board of County Commissioners (Board) seeks to
protect the health, safety and welfare of the citizens of Collier County; and
WHEREAS, Chapter 125, Florida Statutes, establishes the right and power of counties to
provide for the health, welfare and safety of existing and future residents by enacting and
enforcing regulations necessary for the protection of the public including flood damage
prevention ordinances; and
WHEREAS, the Board had previously adopted a Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance
through Ordinance No. 86 -28, which was subsequently amended by Ordinance Nos. 87 -80, 90-
31, and 2005 -51; and
WHEREAS, the Board desires to replace, to the extent applicable, Collier County's
current Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance with the regulations and policies set forth in the
State of Florida Model Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that:
SECTION ONE: STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION, FINDINGS OF FACT,
PURPOSE, AND OBJECTIVES.
A. STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION.
comment IRCws): Added by Eme,S y
M$i11t. SfBYF.
7 -9 -10 FMPC Approval Draft
The Legislature of the State of Florida has authorized and delegated in Chapter 125, Florida
Statutes, the responsibility of local government units to adopt regulations designed to
promote the public health, safety, and general welfare of its citizenry. Therefore, the Board
of County Commissioners of Collier County does hereby adopt the following floodplain
management regulations.
B. FINDINGS OF FACT.
(1) The flood hazard areas of Collier County are subject to periodic inundation from
intense rain storms and /or topical cyclone storm'surpe, which oould results in loss of , . comment [RCw2I: Text added at request of 1
life and property, health and safety hazards, disruption of commerce and governmental FMPCmember. J
services, extraordinary public expenditures for flood protection and relief, and { Comment [RCW3]: Text changes at request of
impairment of the tax base, all of which adversely affect the public health, safety and engineering community.
general welfare.
(2) These flood losses are caused by the cumulative effect of obstructions in floodplains
causing increases in flood heights and velocities, and by the occupancy in flood hazard
areas by uses vulnerable to floods or hazardous to other lands which are inadequately
elevated, flood- proofed or otherwise unprotected from flood damages.
C. STATEMENT OF PURPOSE.
It is the purpose of this Ordinance to save lives, promote the public life health, safety and
general welfare and minimize public and private losses due to flood conditions in specific
areas by provisions designed to:
(1) Restrict or prohibit uses which are dangerous to health, safety and property due to water
or erosion hazards, which result in damaging increases in erosion or in flood heights
and velocities;
(2) Require that uses vulnerable to floods including facilities which serve such uses be
protected against flood damage throughout their intended life span;
(3) Control the alteration of natural floodplains, stream channels, and natural protective
barriers which are involved in the accommodation of flood waters;
(4) Control filling, grading, dredging and other development which may increase erosion or
flood damage; and
(5) Prevent or regulate the construction of flood barriers which will unnaturally divert
floodwaters or which may increase flood hazards to other lands.
D. OBJECTIVES.
The objectives of this Ordinance are to:
7 -9 -10 FMPC Approval Draft
(1) Protect human life, health and to eliminate or minimize property damage;
(2) Minimize expenditure of public money for costly flood control projects;
(3) Minimize the need for rescue and relief efforts associated with flooding and generally
undertaken at the expense of the general public;
(4) Minimize prolonged business interruptions;
(5) Minimize damage to public facilities and all tilities such as water and gas mains,
electric, telephone and sewer lines, roadways, and bridges and culverts located in
floodplains;
(6) Maintain a stable tax base by providing for the sound use and development of flood
prone areas in such a manner as to minimize flood blight areas; and
(7) Ensure that potential homebuyers are notified that property is in a special flood hazard
area.
SECTION TWO: DEFINITIONS.
Unless specifically defined below, words or phrases used in this Ordinance shall be interpreted
so as to give them the meaning they have in common usage and to give this Ordinance its most
reasonable application.
Accessory structure means a structure that is located on the same parcel of property as the
principal structure and the use of which is incidental to the use of the principal structure.
Accessory structures should constitute a minimal investment, may not be used for human
habitation, and be designed to have minimal flood damage potential. Examples of accessory
structures are detached garages, carports, storage sheds, pole barns, and hay sheds.
Agricultural buildings means structures designed for farming and agricultural practices.
includine but not limited to: rig swing and harvesting of crops and raising livestock and small
animals and include: barns; greenhouses: storage buildings for farm equipment. animal supplies
or iced storage huildr_n s fcn et aipmcnt used tq_imflle_ment_fal6.1%an gr agri L ural practices,
storage buildings for crops grown and raised on site (cold storage). and horticultural nursery,
Appeal means a request for a review of the Floodplain Administrator's interpretation of any
provision of this Ordinance or a request for a variance.
f Comment [RCW4]: Text added at direction of
FMPG.
Comment {RCWS]: This definition from FEMA
is for use with this ordinance and is different than the
definition of accessory structure in the LDC.
Formatted: Font: Bold
Area of shallow flooding means a designated AO or AH Zone on the community's Flood
Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) with base flood depths jfren one to less than hree feet where a cemment {RCw6]. Added by crm staff to
clearly defined channel does not exist, where the path of flooding is unpredictable and Region ion 4 o direction from acne Loarwith FEMA
4 on the AH flood zone delineation in the
indeterminate, and where velocity flow may be evident. Such flooding is characterized by upcoming DFIRMs. �__
7 -9 -10 FMPC Approval Draft
ponding or sheet flow. TO q MilifV as an area of shallow lloodinir, the source of the flood water is
rainfall and not coastal sure.
Area of special flood hazard is the land in the floodplain within a community subject to a one -
percent or greater chance of flooding in any given year. This term is synonymous with the
phrase "special flood hazard area'I The area is designated on the flood insurance rate mat) Il or all
flood zones beginning with the letter `V" or "A".1 i Comment [RCw7]: Explanatory text added at l
( direction of GMD staff. J
Base flood means the flood having a one percent chance of being equaled or exceeded in any
given year (also called the "100 -year flood" and the "regulatory flood "). Base flood is the term
used throughout this Ordinance.
Base Flood Elevation Fi( FF.) means the water- surface elevation associated with the base flood.
Basement means any portion of a building having its floor sub -grade (below ground level) on all
sides.
Breakaway wall means a wall that is not part of the structural support of the building and is
intended through its design and construction to collapse under specific lateral loading forces
without causing damage to the elevated portion of the building or the supporting foundation
system.
Building — see "Structure ".
Coastal high hazard area means an area of special flood hazard extending from offshore to the
inland limit of a primary frontal dune along an open coast and any other area subject to high
velocity wave action from storms or seismic sources. The area is designated on the FIRM, as
Zone VI - V30, VE, or V� _
Cosmetic repair means the cleaning sanitizing and resurfacing (e g sander. repair of joints,
repainting) of a flood damage- resistant material]
Datum A reference surface used to ensure that all elevation records are properly related. The
current national datum is the
exafessed :„ ,.at.,,s,....;....,ean sea i Nyl oi-- �North American Vertical Datum (NAVD) of 1988.
....... ._ ..... ._ . _..._ ..... ........ ._._...
Comment [RCW8]. Added to define term used
in Coastal High hazard Area
Comment [RCW9] as amended or superseded
Lad!
at direction of FMPC
Comment [RCW10): Under the existing County
ordinance, the coastal high hazard area also includes
all lands seaward of the CCCL which is more
restrictive than this definition obtained from FEMA.
Formatted: Font: Bold
Comment [RCW111. Definition added by GMD
staff. Definition comes from FEMA Technical
Bulletin 2 dated Aug. 2008.
_ . ........ ....... . ........
{Co ,m/ t [RCW12) Changed at request of
GMD staff and supported by information from
NGS.
7 -9 -10 FMPC Approval Draft
Development means any man -made change to improved or unimproved real estate, including,
but not limited to buildings or other structures, mining, dredging, filling, grading, paving,
excavating, drilling operations, or storage of materials or equipment.
Development permit, for the purposes of this ordinance the local slti development or
building permit as- applicable (i.e. any County permit which must be approved by the Fount
prior to proceeding with any "development ")
Elevated building means a non- basement building built to have the lowest floor elevated above
the ground level by foundation walls, posts, piers, columns, pilings, or shear walls.
Encroachment means the advance or infringement of uses, plant growth, fill, excavation,
buildings, permanent structures or development into a floodplain, which may impede or alter the
flow capacity of a floodplain.
Existing Construction means, for the purposes of floodplain management, structures for which
"the start of construction" commenced before September 4, 1979. Existing construction, means
for the purposes of determining flood insurance premium rates, structures for which the "start of
construction" commenced before September 14, 1979. This term may also be referred to as
"existing structures ".
Existing manufactured home park or subdivision means a manufactured home park or
subdivision for which the construction of facilities for servicing the lots on which the
manufactured homes are to be affixed (including at a minimum the installation of utilities, the
construction of streets, and either final site grading or the pouring of concrete pads) was
completed before September 4, 1979.
Expansion to an existing manufactured home park or subdivision means the preparation of
additional sites by the construction of facilities for servicing the lots on which the manufactured
homes are to be affixed (including the installation of utilities, the construction of streets, and
either final site grading or the pouring of concrete pads).
Formatted: Not Strikethrough
Formatted: Font: Not Bold, Not Strikethrough
Comment [RCW131: Definition added at request'
of the local engineering community. The portion
widunsthe parentheses is the current definition.
Formatted: Font: Not Bold, Not Strikethrough
ch the Formatted: Font: Bold
• ---- -- ------ --------- ------------- -- ' - -- --- ------------------------------------------------------ -- ---- --- ------------ ------ - -..
Flood or flooding means:
(a) A general and temporary condition of partial or complete inundation of normally dry land
areas from:
(1) The overflow of inland or tidal waters.
(2) The unusual and rapid accumulation or runoff of surface waters from any source.
(3) Mudslides (i.e., mudflows) which are proximately caused by flooding as defined in
paragraph (a) (2) of this definition and are akin to a river of liquid and flowing mud on
the surface of normally dry land areas, as when earth is carried by a current of water
and deposited along the path of the current.
Comment ERCW141: Definition added at request
ofFWC member.
Formatted: Font: Not Italic j
7 -9 -10 FMPC Approval Draft
(b) The collapse or subsidence of land along a shore of a lake or other body of water as the
result of erosion or undermining caused by waves or currents of water exceeding anticipated
cyclical levels or suddenly caused by an unusually high water level in a natural body of
water, accompanied by a severe storm or by an unanticipated force of nature such as a flash
flood or an abnormal tidal surge or by some similarly unusual and unforeseeable event
which results in flooding as defined in paragraph (a) (1) of this definition.
Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) means an official map of the community, issued by
FEMA, which delineated both the areas of special flood hazard and the risk premium zones
applicable to the community.
Comment [RCW15]• Deleted at direction of
GMD staff since this is N/A for Collier County.
FEMA recommends leaving it in
Formatted: Font: Bold
Comment [RCW16]:- Definition added by staff.
Definition comes from FEMA: Technical Bulletin 2
dated Aug. 2008.
Formatted: Font: (Default) Times New
Roman, 12 pt
" Comment [RCW17]: Deleted at direction of
GMD`staff since this is N/A for Collier County.
FEMA recommends leaving it in.
Flood Insurance Study (FIS) means the official hydrology and hydraulics report provided by
FEMA. The study contains an examination, evaluation, and determination of flood hazards, and,
if appropriate, corresponding water surface elevations, or an examination, evaluation, and
determination of mudslide (i.e., mudflow) and other flood - related erosion hazards The study
may also contain flood profiles, as well as the FIRM, ; ,end other cO"
mment[-RCW181 Removadatdirectionof
related data and information. GMD staff' FEMA recommends leaving it in.
Floodplain means any land area susceptible to being inundated by water from any source (see
definition of ` tood or ooding" ). - { Comment [RCW191: Clarifying text added by
tFWC
Floodplain management means the operation of an overall program of corrective and
preventive measures for reducing flood damage and preserving and enhancing, where possible,
natural resources in the floodplain, including but not limited to emergency preparedness plans,
flood controls works, floodplain management regulations, and open space plans.
Floodplain Administrator is the individual appointed to administer and enforce the floodplain
management regulations of the community That individual is the County Manager, or his
deli g_nee { Comment C z0 Clarifying text added by
GMD [ R�� C
Floodplain management regulations means this Ordinance and other zoning ordinances, l J
subdivision regulations, building codes, health regulations, special purpose ordinances (such as a
floodplain ordinance, grading ordinance, and erosion control ordinance) and other applications of
7 -9 -10 F MPC Approval Draft
police powers which control development in flood -prone areas. This term describes Federal,
State of Florida, or local regulations in any combination thereof, which provide standards for
preventing and reducing flood loss and damage.
Floodproofing means any combination of structural and non - structural additions, changes, or
adjustments to structures, which reduce or eliminate flood damage to real estate or improved real
property, water and sanitary facilities, structures and their contents.
Floodway means the channel of a river or other watercourse and the adjacent land areas that
must be reserved in order to discharge the base flood without cumulatively increasing the water
surface elevation more than a designated height. There are no FEMA designated floodways in
Collier County, Florida.
Formatted: Font: Not Bold
- - -- ---- --------- ..- .....
�
{ Formatted: Font: Not Bold
Formatted: Font: Not Bold
Formatted: Font: Not Bold
Formatted: Font: Not Bold
Formatted: Font: Not Bold
Formatted: Font: Not Bold
Formatted: Font: Not Bold
i Formatted: Font Not Bold T
Formatted Font Not Bold
y Formatted Font Not Bold
Formatted: Font: Not Bold 1
....
t Formatted Font Not Bold J
- - ( Formatted: Font: Not Bold
{ Formatted: Font: Not Bold
Formatted: Font: Not Bold
Formatted: Font: Not Bold
Formatted: Font: Not Bold
{ Formatted: Font: Not Bold
J
Formatted: Font: Not Bold 1
Formatted: Font: Not Bold
Formatted: Font: Not Bold
Comment [RCW21): Clarifying text for design
purposes added at direction of GMD staff.
.... ... . ... ......_.............. .. .... -.-
Formatted: Font: Not Bold
Formatted: Font: Not Bold
Floodway fringe means that area of the one - percent (base or 100 -year) floodplain on either side Comment [RCW22]: Word removed at direction l
of the ff oodwa of GMD staff to avoid confusion of "floodway" and
y• _ "regulatory floodway". There is only the one term.
7
7 -9 -10 FMPC Approval Draft
Freeboard means the additional height, usually expressed as a factor of safety in feet, above a
flood level for purposes of floodplain management. Freeboard tends to compensate for many
unknown factors, such as wave action, blockage of bridge or culvert openings and hydrological
effect of urbanization of the watershed, which could contribute to flood heights greater than the
heights calculated for a selected frequency flood and floodway conditions.
Free of Obstruction means khat any member type of lower area enclosure or other construction element comment [RCW23] Added Per
will not obstruct the flow of velocity water and wave action beneath the lowest horizontal recommendation of FMPC
structural member of the lowest floor of an elevated building during a base flood event. This
requirement applies to the structures in velocity zones (V- Zones).
Functionally dependent use means a use which cannot be used for its intended purpose unless it
is located or carried out in close proximity to water, such as a docking or port facility necessary
for the loading and unloading of cargo or passengers, shipbuilding or ship repair. The term does
not include long -term storage, manufacture, sales, or service facilities.
Hardship as related to variances from this Ordinance means the exceptional hardship associated
with the land that would result from a failure to grant the requested variance. The community
requires that the variance is exceptional, unusual, and peculiar to the property involved. Mere
economic or financial hardship alone is not exceptional. Inconvenience, aesthetic considerations,
physical handicaps, personal preferences, or the disapproval of one's neighbors likewise cannot,
as a rule, qualify as an exceptional hardship. All of these problems can be resolved through
other means without granting a variance, even if the alternative is more expensive, or requires
the property owner to build elsewhere or put the parcel to a different use than originally
intended.
Highest adjacent grade means the highest natural elevation of the ground surface, prior to the
start of construction, next to the proposed walls of a structure.
Historic Structure means any structure that is:
a) Listed individually in the National Register of Historic Places (a listing maintained by the
Department of Interior) or preliminarily determined by the Secretary of the Interior as
meeting the requirements for individual listing on the National Register:
b) Certified or preliminarily determined by the Secretary of the Interior as contributing to the
historical significance of a registered historic or a district preliminarily determined by the
Secretary to qualify as a registered historic district:
c) Individually listed on the Florida inventory of historic places which has been approved by
the Secretary of the Interior; or
d) Individually listed on a local inventory of historic places in communities with historic
preservation programs that have been certified either:
1. By the approved Florida program as determined by the Secretary of the Interior, or
2. Directly by the Secretary of the Interior.
elevation; Lowest adjaeent grade means the lowest Aer the completion of of t
GCmmBnt [RCWZ4]: Deleted at direction of
GMD staff since term is not used within the
ordinance. FEMA recommends leaving it m
7 -9 -10 FMPC Approval Draft
Lowest floor means the lowest floor of the lowest enclosed area (including basement).
An unfinished or flood resistant enclosure, used solely for parking of vehicles, building access,
or storage, in an area other than a basement, is not considered a building's lowest floor, provided
that such enclosure is not built so as to render the structure in violation of the applicable
nonelevation design standards of this Ordinance.
Mangrove Stand means an assemblage of mangrove trees which are mostly low trees noted for
a copious development of interlacing adventitious roots above ground and which contain one or
more of the following species: Black mangrove �Avicennia aerminansN"); red mangrove
(Rhizophora mangle); white mangrove (Lahguncularia Rracemosa); and buttonwood
(Conocarpus &-recta).
Manufactured home means a building, transportable in one or more sections, which is built on
a permanent chassis and designed to be used with or without a permanent foundation when
connected to the required utilities. The term also includes park trailers, travel trailers, and
similar transportable structures placed on a site for 180 consecutive days or longer and intended
to be improved property.
Manufactured home park or subdivision means a parcel (or contiguous parcels) of land
divided into two or more manufactured home lots for rent or sale.
Market value means the building value, which is the property value excluding the land value
and that of the detached accessory structures and other improvements on site (as agreed to
between a willing buyer and seller) as established by what the local real estate market will bear.
Market value can be established by an independent certified appraisal (other than a limited or
curbside appraisal, or one based on income approach), Actual Cash Value (replacement cost
depreciated for age and quality of construction of building), or adjusted tax - assessed values.
Mean Sea Level means the average height of the sea for all stages of the tide. It is used as a
reference for establishing various elevations within the floodplain. For purposes of this
Ordinance, the term is synonymous with the North American Vertical Datum (NAVD) of 1988.
Comment (RCW251: Corrected spelling per
GMD:staff.
National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD) of 1929 means a vertical control used as a
reference for establishing varying elevations within the floodplain. Existing elevation
information based upon NGVD and used for floodplain purposes prior to the effective date of
this Ordinance may continue to be used provided there is also converted elevation information CommentIRCW261 Deleted unnecessary text
based upon NAVD. After the effective date of this Ordinance, all elevation information
submitted with a development permit shall utilize NAVD.
New Construction means, for floodplain management purposes, any structures for which the
"start of construction" commenced on or after September 4, 1979. The term also includes any
subsequent improvements to such structures. For flood insurance rates, structures for which the
start of construction commenced on or after September 14, 1979, and includes any subsequent
improvements to such structures.
7 -9 -10 FMPC Approval Draft
New manufactured home park or subdivision means a manufactured home park or
subdivision for which the construction of facilities for servicing the lots on which the
manufactured homes are to be affixed (including at a minimum, the installation of utilities, the
construction of streets, and either final site grading or the pouring of concrete pads) is completed
on or after September 4, 1979.
North American Vertical Datum (NAVD) of 1988 means a vertical control used as a reference
for establishing varying elevations within the floodplain.
Primary frontal dune means a continuous or nearly continuous mound or ridge of sand with
relatively steep seaward and landward slopes immediately landward and adjacent to the beach
and subject to erosion and overtopping from high tides and waves during major coastal storms.
The inland limit of the primary frontal dune occurs at the point where there is a distinct change
from a relatively steep slope to a relatively mild slope.
Program deficiency means a defect in the community's floodplain management regulations or
administrative procedures that impairs effective implementation of those floodplain management
regulations or of the standards required by the National Flood Insurance Program.
Public safety and nuisance means anything which is injurious to safety or health of the entire
community or a neighborhood, or any considerable number of persons, or unlawfully obstructs
the free passage or use, in the customary manner, of any navigable lake, or river, bay, stream,
canal, or basin.
Reasonably safe from flooding means base flood waters will not inundate the land or damage
structures to be removed from the SFHA and that any subsurface waters related to the base flood
will not damage existing or proposed buildings.
Recreational vehicle means a vehicle that is:
a) Built on a single chassis;
b) 400 square feet or less when measured at the largest horizontal projection;
c) Designed to be self - propelled or permanently towable by a light duty truck; and
d) Designed primarily not for use as a permanent dwelling but as temporary living quarters for
recreational, camping, travel, or seasonal use.
Regulatory floodway
- - -_... _.._ . ...... ...... ...... .. .... ......._.........._
Formatted: Font: Bold
Comment (RGW27): Revised by GMD staff to remove confusion by having two terms with the
same definition.
Remedy a deficiency or violation means to bring the regulation, procedure, structure or other
development into compliance with State of Florida, Federal or local floodplain management
regulations; or if this is not possible, to reduce the impacts of its noncompliance. Ways the
impacts may be reduced include protecting the structure or other affected development from
flood damages, implementing the enforcement provisions of this Ordinance or otherwise
deterring future similar violations, or reducing Federal financial exposure with regard to the
structure or other development.
10
7 -9 -10 FMPC Approval Draft
Riverine means relating to, formed by, or resembling a river (including tributaries), stream,
brook, eta where the source of water originates from rainfall and not coastal surge.
Sand dunes mean naturally occurring accumulations of sand in ridges or mounds landward of
the beach.
Shallow flooding – see area of shallow flooding.
Special flood hazard area – see area of special flood hazard.
Start of construction for other than new construction and substantial improvements under the
Coastal Barrier Resources Act P. L. 97 -348, includes substantial improvement, and means the
date the building permit was issued, provided the actual start of construction, repair,
reconstruction, or improvement was within 180 days of the permit date. The actual start means
the first placement of permanent construction of a building (including a manufactured home) on
a site, such as the pouring of slabs or footings, installation of piles, construction of columns, or
any work beyond the stage of excavation or placement of a manufactured home on a foundation.
Permanent construction does not include land preparation, such as clearing, grading and filling;
nor does it include the installation of streets and/or walkways; nor does it include excavation for
a basement, footings, piers or foundations or the erection of temporary forms; nor does it include
the installation on the property of accessory buildings, such as garages or sheds not occupied as
dwelling units or not part of the main building. For substantial improvement, the actual start of
construction means the first alteration of any wall, ceiling, floor, or other structural part of a
building, whether or not that alteration affects the external dimensions of the building.
Comment [RCW28]: This definition for �
repetitive loss is the definition used by the CRS
program to determine the community's requirement
for a Floodphain Management Plan. FDEM
recommends using this definition. However they
also understand FEMA's desire to use the average
254/o value definition which allows for the
application of ICC coverage for more structures that
have never had SO% of value damage.
Comment [RCW29]: This definition for
repetitive - loss reflects the definition in the amended
National Flood Insurance Act. It is used to allow
repetitive loss structures to qualify for ICC coverage.
This is the definition in the State's model ordinance,
and FEMA recommends using it The real issue is
then using this definition as a substantially damaged
structure. GMD staff direction is to propose deleting
this definition text since this is a higher regulatory
standard, but bringing the issue up for discussion. If
this text is kept in the ordinance, an explanation of
the calculation methodology: would be added to
clarify that the 25% average cost value is determined
by calculating the flood damage cost/structure value
percentage for the first flooding incident, then
calculating the flood damage cost/structure value
percentage for the second flooding incident, and then
averaging the two percentage numbers. This would
require the County ; to modify its permitting
applications to ask if the permit was to repair flood
damage and if so provide the cost for the repair for
just the flood damage portion. The County would
need to establish -a procedure to track the flood
damage issue in order to not simply approve the
second flood damage repair because the 50%
threshold had not been reached. _
rComment [RCW30]. Text added by GMD staff``
II for clarification in later usage of the term.
��� # - -• _ Comment [RCW31]: Definition deleted at the
` direction of GMD staH'since the tern is not used in
this ordinance.
Structure means, for floodplain management purposes, a walled and roofed building, including Comment [RCW32]: Deleted "principally" at
gas or liquid storage tank that Is pi ineqially above ground, as well as a manufactured home.; direction of FMFC. —�
Substantial damage means damage of any origin sustained by a structure whereby the cost of
restoring the structure to its before damaged condition would equal or exceed 50 percent of the
market value of the structure before the damage occurred. "i,epefitive
Substantial improvement means any reconstruction, rehabilitation, addition, or other
improvement of a structure, the cumulative cost of which equals or exceeds 50 percent of the
market value of the structure before the "start of construction" of the improvement. This term
Commelt'[RCW33]: This definition is less
restrictive than the current definition which includes
infrastructure construction.
Comment [RCW34]: This statement from the
State's model ordinance is proposed for deletion by
GMD staff since it is a higher regulatory standard.
This statement, coupled with the 25% average loss
statement in "repetitive loss" definition, would allow
for ICC coverage to be available for more structures
with flooding damage. However, it would also have
the potential to force more structures to be brought
into compliance with the current BFE's when they
may have never reached the 50% value threshold.
This becomes a policy decision for discussion.
7 -9 -10 FMPC Approval Draft
includes structures that have incurred "substantial damage" regardless of the actual repair work
performed. This term does not, however, include any repair or improvement of a structure to
correct existing violations of State of Florida or local health, sanitary, or safety code
specifications, which have been identified by the local code enforcement official prior to the
application for permit for improvement, and which are the minimum necessary to assure safe
living conditions. This term does not include any alteration of a historic structure provided that
the alteration will not preclude the structure's continued designation as a historic structure.
Substantially improved existing manufactured home parks or subdivisions is where the
repair, reconstruction, rehabilitation or improvement of the streets, utilities and pads equals or
exceeds 50 percent of the value of the streets, utilities and pads before the repair, reconstruction
or improvement commenced.
other type of temporM living quarters intended to house displaced residents impacted by a
natural or mart -made disaster event for periods not exceeding (f€l) eighteen months. Such
temporary housing efforts may be excluded from the floodplaln regulation(s) ation(s) in light of the
Variance is a grant of relief from the requirements of this Ordinance.
Violation means the failure of a structure or other development to be fully compliant with the
requirements of this Ordinance. A structure or other development without the elevation
certificate, other certifications, or other evidence of compliance required in this Ordinance is
presumed to be in violation until such time as that documentation is provided.
fCommeM [RCW351: Added by Fanergency
Mgmt: staff
Watercourse means the channel and banks of a lake, river, creek, stream, wash, channel or other j Comment [RCW361: Text added by staff to
topographic feature on or over which waters flow at least periodically. Watercourse includes I �on FEMA's web paggee�to hthedeiaoeinrhexrlP Policy Index
.
specifically designated areas in which substantial flood damage may occud. The watercourse
does not include the adjoining floodplain areas. Comment [RCW3 ]: Text added by staffto l
better match the definition in the NFIP Policy Index
on FEMA's web page. �����JJJJIIII
Waterway means, an area within the riverine (not coastal surge) portion of the special flood — --
hazard area with depth of flooding equal to or greater than,. three (3) feet, Comment [RCw381: Definition added at
direction of GMD staff to address the term used in
section 5(B)(6).
Formatted: Font: Not Bold
12
7-9-10 FMPC Approval Draft
Water surface elevation means the height, in relation to the �alie�ftal Geadeiie Veftieal Datuffi
(NGV94 of 1929 Of-+he4North American Vertical Datum (NAVD) of 1988, of floods of various Commerd [RCW39): Deleux1tostwdardiaeon
magnitudes and frequencies in the floodplains of coastal or riverine areas. 1-use-ofNAVD in Collier County. . ......... .__
which the soil or underlying rock material is wholly saturated with water can normally be
expected to be at its hip-best level. Water table elevation is measured from the soil surface
downward to the Upper level of saturated soil or uRward to the free water level 11: Added to define term used
1E. The definition is derived
from 64E -¢.OU2 Zone A means the flood inSUrance rate zone used for I -t)ercent-annual-cliance base _n (Id Florida Administrative Code.
floodplains that are determined for the Flood Insurance 1, u
v (FIST bv approximate methods of
analvsis. Because detailed hydraulic analyses are not performed for such areas. no Base Flood
Flevations MFT',$) or depths are shown in this zone. Mandatory flood insurance purchase
- ....... . ................. .. ... . ... .... .. 1.1-1.11 .... . ..... . . . . . . . . .. . . .. ............................................ ...... . .
requirements apply. This term should not be confused with the term "A-Zones which means all
flood zones starting with the letter "A".
Zone AE means the flood insurance rate zone used for the I -nercent-annual -chance floodplains
that are determined for the FIS by detailed methods of analysis. In most instances. BlTs derived
from the detailed hydraulic analyses are shown at selected intervals in this zone. Mandatory
flood insurance purchase requirements apply. AE' zones are also coastal areas of inundation by
the I -percent-annual-chance flood. includina areas with the 2-vercent wave run-up elevation less
1.11.11 ..... . . . - - __ .11.111 annual 1.." ............................... I .. . chance I'�.--."",....,-"1.11.1 ................. . ......... . . ... . .......................................... - ... ' -1.1-1--1 I ........ .............. . 1111, . . .. ... .. ..... . .......................................... ..... ..... ..........
than 3.0 feet above the ground, and areas with wave heights less than 3.0 Feet. These areas are
subdivided into elevation zones with BFEs assigned. The AE zone will generallv extend inland
to the limit of the I-percent.-annual-chance Stillwater Flood Level (SWL-J.J.
Zone AH means the flood insurance rate zone used for areas of 1- percent - annual - chance shallow
flooding from rainfall with a constant water - surface elevation (usually areas ofoondinO where
qycLage-A p are less than 3 feet. BF1's derived from detailed
.-III* I .. . ...... .... ... .. _by..'drqpji ' c - analy " ses are shown at
selected intervals within this zone. Mandatory flood insurance Purchase requirements apply.
Zone 1) means the flood insurance rate zone for areas where there are possible but undeten-nined
....... .. . __-
flood hazards. In areas designated as Zone D, no analysis of flood hazards has been conducted.
Flood insurance is optional and available. and the flood insurance rates for properties in Zone D
are COMITIC11SUrate with the uncertainty of the flood risk.
Zone X incans the flood insurance rate zone for areas outside the I -percent-annual-cliance
floodplain, No BFEs or depths are shown in this zone, and mandatory tool insurance purchase
requirements do not apply...-Flood insurance is optional and available. Zone X is tv ca I
lime .......
divided into two sub-regions known as
• Zone X (Shaded) which represents the area outside of the I -percent annual chance Formatted: Bulleted + Level: 1 + Aligned at:
j1 0.25" + Indent at: 0.5"
• oodp.j.ai_n_.4.n..d
Zone 2LC!.Lrjshaded) which repre ents the area outside of the 0.2-. ercent annual chance
t L(�CL4 plain..
7 -9 -10 FMPC Approval Draft
Zone VE means the flood insurance rate zone for coastal high hazard areas ��here ware action
and/or high - velocity water can cause structural damn e duriny the base flood Thev are
subdivided into elevation zones with 131'F.s assigned Mandatory flood insurance purchase
roc uircmt;n.ts..appl�':
SECTION THREE. GENERAL PROVISIONS.
A. LANDS TO WHICH THIS ORDINANCE APPLIES.
This Ordinance shall apply to all areas` including areas ;of special flood hazard, within the meet [RCW4i]: Text added by GMD staff
jurisdiction of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida toprov;deforinclua ;on of Section 5(A)(IS ) text on
final floor elevation cntena throughout the County.
B. BASIS FOR ESTABLISHING THE AREAS OF SPECIAL FLOOD HAZARD.
The areas of special flood hazard identified by the Federal Emergency Management Agency
in the Flood Insurance Study (FIS) for Collier County, Florida, and Incorporated Areas,
dated November 17, 2005, with the accompanying maps and other supporting data, and any
subsequent revisions thereto, are adopted by reference and declared to be a part of this
Ordinance. The Flood Insurance Study and Florida Insurance Rate Map are on file at the
office of the Clerk to the Board of County Commissioners located at the County
Government Center, 3301 Tamiami Trail East, Bldg. F, 4d' Floor, Naples, FL 34112.
C. DESIGNATION OF FLOODPLAIN ADMINISTRATOR.
The Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, hereby appoints the
ounty Manager -r _
designee to administer and implement the provisions of this Ordinance and is herein referred
— — — -- -- - -- - — --- ---------- --- ------ -- ------- ------- ---- -- --
to as the Floodplain Administrator.
D. ESTABLISHMENT OF DEVELOPMENT PERMIT.
A development permit shall be required in conformance with the provisions of this
Ordinance prior to the commencement of any development activities.
E. COMPLIANCE.
No structure or land shall hereafter be located, extended, converted or structurally altered
without full compliance with the terms of this Ordinance and other applicable regulations.
F. ABROGATION AND GREATER RESTRICTIONS.
This Ordinance is not intended to repeal, abrogate, or impair any existing easements,
covenants, or deed restrictions. However, where this Ordinance and another conflict or
overlap, whichever imposes the more stringent restrictions shall prevail.
G. INTERPRETATION.
14
Comment [RCW42]: Text identifying County
Manager as F. A. added at direction of GMD staff.
COMFrWnt [RCW43]: Added text with approval
of CAO to remove concern that only the
administrator personally was able to perform the
work assignments.
7 -9 -10 FMPC Approval Draft
In the interpretation and application of this Ordinance all provisions shall be:
(1) Considered as minimum requirements;
(2) Liberally construed in favor of the governing body; and
(3) Deemed neither to limit nor repeal any other powers granted under State of Florida
statutes.
H. WARNING AND DISCLAIMER OF LIABILITY.
The degree of flood protection required by this Ordinance is considered reasonable for
regulatory purposes and is based on scientific and engineering considerations. Larger floods
can and will occur on rare occasions. Flood heights may be increased by man -made or
natural causes. This Ordinance does not imply that land outside the areas of special flood
hazards or uses permitted within such areas will be free from flooding or flood damages.
This Ordinance shall not create liability on the part of the Board of County Commissioners
of Collier County, Florida, or by any officer or employee thereof for any flood damages that
result from reliance on this Ordinance or any administrative decision lawfully made
thereunder.
I. PENALITIES FOR VIOLATION.
Violation of the provisions of this Ordinance, including violation of conditions and
safeguards established in connection with grants of variance or special exceptions, shall be
punishable as a non- criminal violation punishable as set forth in the Consolidated Code
Enforcement Ordinance. Any person who violates this ordinance or fails to comply with
any of its requirements io remedy a deficiency or violation Khali, upon adjudication be fined
not more than $1,000 per day per violation for each day the first violation continues past the
date set for compliance by the Enforcement Board of Special Magistrate; or in the case of a
repeat violation, $5,000 per day per violation for each day that the repeat violation continues
past the date set for compliance by the Enforcement Board of Special Magistrate, and in
addition, shall pay all costs and expenses involved in the case. Nothing contained in this
section shall prohibit Collier County from enforcing; this Ordinance by any other lawfu
means.
SECTION FOUR: ADMINISTRATION.
A. PERMIT PROCEDURES.
Application for a Development Permit shall be made to the Floodplain Administrator on
forms furnished by him or her prior to any development activities, and may include, but not
be limited to, the following plans in duplicate drawn to scale showing the nature, location,
dimensions, and elevations of the area in question; existing or proposed structures, earthen
fill, storage of materials or equipment, drainage facilities, and the location of the foregoing.
Specifically, the following information is required:
15
Comment [RCW44]: Explanatory text added at J
l direction of GMD staff.
Continent [RCW4$]: Text added at request of
DS AC member.
Comment [RCW46]. This section was prepared
II` by the County Attorney Office and is different than
the text of the State Model Ordinance.
7 -9 -10 FMPC Approval Draft
(1) Application Stage:
(a) Elevation in relation to mean sea level (NAVD) of the proposed lowest floor
(including basement) of all buildings;
(b) Elevation in relation to mean sea level (NAVD) to which any non - residential
building will be flood - proofed;
(c) Certificate from a registered professional engineer or architect that the non-
residential flood - proofed building will meet the flood - proofing criteria in
SECTION FOUR, A (2) and SECTION FIVE, B (2);
(d) Description of the extent to which any watercourse will be altered or relocated as a
result of proposed development; and
(e) Elevation in relation to mean sea level (NAVD) of the bottom of the lowest
horizontal structural member of the lowest floor and provide a certification from a
registered engineer or architect indicating that they have developed and/or
reviewed the structural designs, specifications and plans of the construction and
-- - ----- --
certified that hey are in accordance with accepted standards of practice in Coastal Comment 1"47]: Added per 1
High Hazard Areas. recommendation of FMPC member.
(2) Construction Stage:
Upon placement of the lowest floor, or flood- proofin by whatever construction means,
or bottom of the lowest horizontal structural membe> it shall be the duty of the permit
holder to submit to the Floodplain Administrator a certification of the NAVD elevation
of the lowest floor or flood - proofed elevation, or bottom of the lowest horizontal
structural member of the lowest floor as built, in relation to mean sea level. Said
certification shall be prepared by or under the direct supervision of a registered land
surveyor or professional engineer and certified by same. When flood proofing is
utilized for a particular building said certification shall be prepared by or under the
direct supervision of a professional engineer or architect and certified by same. Any
work undertaken prior to submission of the certification shall be at the permit holder's
risk. The Floodplain Administrator shall review the lowest floor and flood - proofing
elevation survey data submitted. The permit holder immediately and prior to further
progressive work being permitted to proceed shall correct violations detected by such
review. Failure to submit the survey or failure to make said corrections required hereby
shall be cause to issue a stop -work order for the project.
B. DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE FLOODPLAIN ADMINISTRATOR.
Duties of the ELood plain Administrator or designee shall include, but not be limited to:
(1) Review permits to assure sites are reasonably safe from flooding;
16
Comment [RCW48]: Added per
recommendation of FMPC member. J
Coll nM nt [RCW49]: Text added for clarification
Comment [RCW50]: > Added text with approval
of CAO to remove concern that only the
administrator personally was able to perform the
work assignments.
7 -9 -10 FMPC Approval Draft
(2) Review all development permits including the review of ' certified plans and
specifications for compliance, I to assure that the permit requirements of this Ordinance [RCwssJ: Text relocated from the
have been satisfied;
former 4(B )(6) at direction of GMD fMD staff.
[RCW52]: Tent deletod at direction of
GMD staff J
t- 1 _____Notify adjacent communities, the Florida Department of Community Affairs —
Division of Emergency Management — NFIP Coordinating Office, the South Florida
Water Management District, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, and other
Federal and /or State of Florida agencies with statutory or regulatory authority prior to
any alteration or relocation of a watercourse;
(5)(4) Assure that the flood - carrying capacity within the altered or relocated portion of
any watercourse is maintained;
t -6)t51 Verify and record the actual elevation (in relation to NAVD) of the lowest floor
(A- Zones) or bottom of the lowest horizontal structural member of the lowest floor (V-
Zones) of all new and substantially improved buildings, in accordance with SECTION
FIVE, B (1) and (2) and E (2), respectively;
t -7 -} E� �Verify and record the actual elevation (in relation to NAVD) to which the new
and substantially improved buildings have been flood - proofed, in accordance with
SECTION FIVE, B(2);
9)(7)__.- ............ Interpret the exact location of the boundaries of the areas of special flood hazard.
When there appears to be a conflict between a mapped boundary and actual field
conditions, the Floodplain Administrator shall make the necessary interpretation. The
17
Comment [RCW53]: First sentence relocated to
4(B)2) above. Remainder of text moved to 5(x)(15)
per direction of GMD staff.
7 -9 -10 FMPC Approval Draft
person contesting the location of the boundary shall be given a reasonable opportunity
to appeal the interpretation as provided in this See ti )rdinancg;
Comment [RCW54]. Appeal process is
described in another section. Verify approval of
t 0)(81), When base flood elevation data and floodway data have not been provided in
change with CRG:
accordance with SECTION THREE, B, the Floodplain Administrator shall obtain,
review and reasonably utilize any base flood elevation and floodway data available
from a Federal, State of Florida, or any other source, in order to administer the
provisions of SECTION FIVE;
{4- 1 -)(9) Coordinate all change requests to the PIS; and FIRM am —�ith the
Comment [RCwss]: Collier County has been
requestor, State of Florida, and FEMA, and
I issued a FU M and not a FsFM Text changed at
duec2ion ofGMD staff.
t4-?-} 1{ U) Where Base Flood Elevation is utilized, obtain and maintain records of lowest
floor and floodproofing elevations for new construction and substantial improvements
in accordance with SECTION FIVE, B (1) and (2), respectively.
0= 4 I II—Grant waivers with respect to location and base flood elevation requirements
when emergency post disaster temporary housing resources are needed in temporary
housing missions supported by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, Florida
Division of Emergency Management, Collier County Emergency Management and its
designees for a period not to exceed 18 months.
{ 14 x 1 `') .Facilitate permitting or assist in waivers imposed by other agencies; to allow for
the emergency deployment of temporary housing supported by the Federal Emergency
Management Agency, Florida Division of Emergency Management and Collier County _
Emergency Management and its designees Cennment [RCw56]: Text added by Emergency
Management staff.
SECTION FIVE: PROVISIONS FOR FLOOD HAZARD REDUCTION.
A. GENERAL STANDARDS.
In all areas of special flood hazards, all development sites including new construction and
substantial improvements shall be reasonably safe from flooding bx meeting the Comment IRCw571: Text revision at direction
following provisions: ofoMDstaff.
(1) New construction and substantial improvements shall be designed or modified and
adequately anchored to prevent flotation, collapse or lateral movement of the structure
resulting from hydrodynamic and hydrostatic loads, including the effects of buoyancy;
wmmertt [RCW58]: Moved to sub -point 4
position at request of FMPC member.
18
7 -9 -10 FMPC Approval Draft
(32) New construction and substantial improvements shall be constructed with materials and
utility equipment resistant to flood damage as supported by the current Florida Building
Code and FEMA Technical Bulletins; l
(43) New construction or substantial improvements shall be constructed by methods and
practices that minimize flood damag as supported by the current Florida Buildi
Comment [RCW59]: Clarifying text added at _._J
direction of GMD staff.
{ Comment [RCW60]: Clarifying text added at
l direction of GMD staff. J
1 Comment [RCW61]: same text as when located
lin sub -point 2 position.
(5) Electrical, heating, ventilation, plumbing, air conditioning equipment and other service
facilities, including duct work, shall be OeMped anEVef- located above the base flood
elevation or designed 1 as to prevent water from entering or accumulating within the Comment {RCtiV621 Changed byFMPC
components during conditions of flooding;
(6) New and replacement water supply systems shall be designed to minimize or eliminate
infiltration of flood waters into the system;
(7) New and replacement sanitary sewage systems shall be designed to minimize or
eliminate infiltration of flood waters into the systems and discharges from the systems
into flood waters;
(8) On -site waste disposal systems shall be located and constructed to avoid impairment to
them or contamination from them during flooding;
(9) Any alteration, repair, reconstruction or improvements to a building that is in
compliance with the provisions of this Ordinance shall meet the requirements of "new
constructior>p' for that alteration, repair, reconstruction or improvement as contained in Comment [RCW63] Clarifying text added at
this Ordinance; direction ofGMD state
(10)Any alteration, repair, reconstruction or improvements to a building that is not in
compliance with the provisions of this Ordinance, shall be undertaken only if said non-
conformity is not furthered, extended, or replaced;
(11) All applicable additional Federal, State of Florida, and local permits shall be obtained
and submitted to the Floodplain Administrator along with the application for
development permit. Copies of such permits shall be maintained on file with the
development permit. State of Florida permits may include, but not be limited to the
following (as may be amended or superseded): { Comment [RCW64]: Text added at direction of 1
..... _ .- l FMPC. J
(a) South Florida Water Management District: in accordance with Chapter 373.036
Florida Statutes, Section (2)(a) — Flood Protection and Floodplain Management.
19
7 -9 -10 FMPC Approval Draft
(b) Department of Community Affairs: in accordance with Chapter 380.05, F.S., Areas
of Critical State Concern, and Chapter 553, Part IV, Florida Statutes, Florida
Building Code.
(c) Department of Health: in accordance with Chapter 381.0065, Florida Statutes,
Onsite Sewage Treatment and Disposal Systems; and
(d) Department of Environmental Protection, Coastal Construction Control Line: in
accordance with Chapter 161.053, Florida Statutes, Coastal Construction and
Excavation;
(12) Standards for Subdivision Proposals and other new Proposed Development (including
manufactured homes):
(a) �- 11 oposals shall be consistent with the need to minimize flood damage;_
(b) Proposals shall have tall utilities and facilities such as sewer,, gas,
electrical, and water systems located and constructed to minimize or eliminate
flood damage; and
(c) [S� roposals shall have adequate drainage provided to reduce exposure to
flood hazards,[ _
(13) When proposed new construction and substantial improvements are holly or artially
................
located in an area of special flood hazard, the entire structure shall meet the standards `.
for new construction within an area of special flood hazar€(;
(14) When proposed new construction and substantial improvements are located in multiple
flood hazard risk zones or in a flood hazard risk zone with multiple base flood
elevations, the entire structure shall meet the standards for the most hazardous flood
hazard risk zone and the highest base flood elevation.
tight with walls substantially impermeable to the passage of water and use structural
components havinp, the capability of resisting hydrostatic and hydrodynamic loads and
plastic lattice and insect screening or with non-supporting breakaway walls that meet
the standards of SECTION FIVE. E (6) of this Ordinance.a
20
....... ........ .. ...
,
Comment [RCW65] Text changed at
recommendation of FMPCmember. l
-
recommendation [RCW66]: Text changed at
recommendation of FMPC member.
Comment [RCW67]: Text changed at direction
of FMPC J
Comment [RCW68]: Text changed at
recommendation of FMPC member.
Comment [RCW69]: The current ordinance
.requires that base flood elevation data be shown on
the master subdivision plan and that all final plats
presented for approval shall clearly indicate the
finished elevation of the roads, the average finished
elevation of the lots or home sites, and the minimum
base flood elevation. Although it is currently
required in Collier County, it is technically a higher
regulatory requirement, and therefore was not added
to the text of the State's model ordinance.
Comment [RCW70]: Text added at direction of
GMDlstaff.
Comment [RCW711: Text added at direction of
GMD ME
Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.31 ", Hanging:
0.31"
Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.31 ", Hanging:
0.31 ", Numbered + Level: 1 + Numbering
Style: 1, 2, 3, ... + Start at: 15 + Alignment:
Left + Aligned at: 0.5" + Indent at: 1"
Comment [RCW72]: Text moved to this
location from the former 4(Bx8) at direction of
GMD staff.
Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.31 ", First line: 0"
7-9-10 FMPC Approval Draft
earthuading.
(b) Plans shall show that Construction of the lowest finished floor meets the elevation
criteria listed below. When contlicts exist betiveen FIRM Elevation and offiers,
the higher elevation shall be required:
whichever is higher.
Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.31", Hanging:
0.31"
Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.63", Hanging:
0.31", Numbered + Level: 1 + Numbering
Style: a, b, c, ... + Start at: I + Alignment: Left
+ Aligned at: 0.5" + Indent at: 1" 1
Formatted :.,..Indent -:- Lef-lt:
Formatted: Indent: Left: 1.06", Hanging:
0.191, 1
. .... . ... . ................................. ....... . .... ..... . . . . .. ........ ................... . ... ............... ...........
Comment IRCW73]-. Mi-nimun, --
floor alavaMon
text added to addren; current practice previously
included in the Building Construction Administrative
Code; that was inadvertently deleted by Ordinance
2009-59.
Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.31", First line: 0"
—1-1-11-- ----- ------- I-- I ..., ............. . ......... . ... I . . ........................... I -
7 -9 -10 FMPC Approval Draft
B. SPECIFIC STANDARDS.
In all A -Zones where base flood elevation data have been provided ( jZones AE, Al -30, A
(with base flood elevation), and AHJ), as set forth in SECTION THREE, B, the following
provisions, in addition to those set forth in SECTION FIVE, A, shall apply:
(1) Residential Construction. All new construction or substantial improvement of any
residential building (including manufactured home) shall have the lowest floor,
including basement, elevated to no lower than the base flood elevation. Should solid
foundation perimeter walls be used to elevate a structure, there must be a minimum of
two openings on different sides of each enclosed area sufficient to facilitate automatic
equalization of flood hydrostatic forces in accordance with standards of SECTION
FIVE, B (3).
(2) Non - Residential Construction. All new construction and substantial improvement of
any commercial, industrial, or non - residential building (including manufactured home)
shall have the lowest floor, including basement, elevated to no lower than the base
flood elevation. All buildings located in A -Zones may be flood - proofed, in lieu of
being elevated, provided that all areas of the building components, together with
attendant utilities and sanitary facilities, below the base flood elevation are water tight ...
- -- tight
-- comment [RCw741': Floodprooflngto just the
- - - - - - - - - -
with walls substantially impermeable to the passage of water, and use structural
BFE will result in a higher flood insurance premium
rate for the structure because the flood insurance
components having the capability of resisting hydrostatic and hydrodynamic loads and
policy requires rating a structure at one foot below
the effects of buoyancy. A registered professional engineer or architect shall certify
the floodproofmgelevation.
that the standards of this subsection are satisfied using the FEMA Floodproofing
Certificate. Such certification along with the corresponding engineering data, and the
operational and maintenance plans shall be provided to the Floodplain Administrator.
(3) Enclosures below the lowest floor. New construction and substantial improvements
that include fully enclosed areas formed by foundation and other exterior walls below
the lowest floor elevation shall be designed to preclude finished living space and
designed to allow for the entry and exit of floodwaters to automatically equalize
hydrostatic flood forces on exterior walls.
(a) Designs for complying with this requirement must either be certified by a
professional engineer or architect or meet or exceed the following minimum
criteria:
(i) Provide a minimum of two openings ton_ different sids of each enclosd ara} ...
Formatted Font Not Bold
---------------------------------------------
having a total net area of not less than one square inch for every square foot of
enclosed area subject to flooding;
(ii) The bottom of all openings shall be no higher than one foot above adjacent
interior. grade (which must be equal to or higher in elevation than the adjacent
exterior grade); and
Comment [RCW75]: Note this is the current
FEMA requirement and is different from the current
old ordinance language where elevation was
measured from exterior grade.
22
7 -9 -10 FMPC Approval Draft
(iii) Openings may be equipped with screens, louvers, valves, or other coverings or
devices provided they provide the required net area of the openings and permit
the automatic flow of floodwaters in both directions.
(b) Fully enclosed areas below the lowest floor shall solely be used for parking of
vehicles, storage, and building access. Access to the enclosed area shall be
minimum necessary to allow for parking of vehicles (garage door), limited storage
of maintenance equipment used in connection with the premises (standard exterior
door), or entry to the living area (stairway or elevator); and
(c) The interior portion of such enclosed area shall not be finished , -� partitioned into
separate rooms, or temperature-controlled (air conditioned) Comment [RCW76]: Text changes to reflect
FEMA interpretation dated 6 -4-99. This is current
(4) Standards for Manufactured Homes and Recreational Vehicles practice with the Building Department.
(a) All manufactured homes to be placed, or substantially improved within Zones Al-
30, AH, and AE, on sites:
�i)---�- outside of an existing manufactured home park or subdivision;
(ii)_ in a new manufactured home park or subdivision;
(iii) -in an expansion to an existing manufactured home park or subdivision; or
(iv)--in an existing manufactured home park or subdivision on which a
manufactured home has incurred "substantial damage" as the result of a
flood, Comment [RCW77]: Formatting changed at
the lowest floor hall e elevated on a permanent foundation to no lower than thee, request °rrMMremember.
base flood elevation and be securely anchored to an adequately anchored `.,
Comment [RCW7$]: Text adder by GMD staff.
foundation system to resist flotation, collapse, and lateral movement. Formatted: Indent: First line: o°
(b) All manufactured homes to be placed or substantially improved in an existing
manufactured home park or subdivision that are not subject to the provisions of
paragraph 4 (a) of this subsection, must be elevated so that either:
(i) The lowest floor of the manufactured home is elevated to no lower than
t abeN,effie base flood elevation, or { Comment [RCW79]: Higher regulatory criteria 1
removed by sta! J
(ii) The manufactured home chassis is supported by reinforced piers, or other
foundation elements of at least an equivalent strength, that are no less than 36
inches in height above the grade and securely anchored to an adequate
foundation system to resist flotation, collapse, and lateral movement.
ON
Formatted: Font color: Auto
7 -9 -10 FMPC Approval Draft
(c) All recreational vehicles must either:
(i) Be on the site for fewer than 180 consecutive days,
(ii) Be fully licensed and ready for highway use (a recreational vehicle is ready
for highway use if it is on its wheels or jacking system, is attached to the site
only by quick disconnect type utilities and security devices and has no
permanently attached additions), or
(iii) Meet all the requirements for new construction, including anchoring and
elevation requirements in accordance with SECTION FIVE, B (4) (a) and (b).
(5) Adequate drainage paths around structures shall be provided on slopes to guide water
away from structures with irl�/-�areas of shallow tloodin.
(6) Standards for waterways with established Base Flood Elevations, but without
Regulatory Floodways.
Located within the areas of special flood hazard established in SECTION THREE, B,
where strearswatercourscs exist for which base flood elevation data has been provided
24
Formatted: Indent: Left: 1.44 ", Hanging:
0.31 ", Numbered + Level: 3 + Numbering
Style: 1, 2, 3, ... + Start at: 1 + Alignment: Left
+ Aligned at: 1.94" + Indent at: 2.06"
` - -- - -- — -- -..... ..._......._.._ .. ......... .................. . . .. .- .......
i Formatted: Font color: Auto
{ Comment [RCW80]: Text added by Emergency 1
`Management staff. 1
_
Comment [RCW81]: Formatting and minor text
changes recommended by FMPC member.
Formatted: Font color: Auto
1 Formatted: Indent: Left: 1.38"
Formatted: Font color: Auto
CoMnm t [RCW82]: Text added by Emergency
Management staff.
Comment [RCW83]: Formatting and minor text
changes recommended by FMPC member.
Comment [RCW84]: Deleted, formatting
........ - .... - -- --- ._....
Comment [RCW851: Text edited at direction of
GMD.staff to utilize the existing definition.
7 -9 -10 FIVMPC Approval Draft
by the Federal Emergency Management Agency without the delineation of the
regulatory floodway (Zones AE and AI -30), the following provisions, in addition to
those set forth in SECTION FIVE, B (1) through (5) shall apply.
(a) Until a regulatory floodway is designated, no new construction, substantial
improvements, or other development, including fill, shall be permitted within the
areas of special flood hazard, unless it is demonstrated that the cumulative effect of
the proposed development, when combined with all other existing and anticipated
development, will not increase the water surface elevation of the base flood more
than one foot at any point within the community.
(b) Development activities which increase the water surface elevation of the base
flood by more than one foot may be allowed, provided that the developer or
applicant first applies — with the community's endorsement — for a conditional
FIRM revision, and receives the approval of the Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA).
(c) Collier County considers the following activities as de'minimus impact for
development activity within a waterway,
!.......Construction of a_watercoursewcrassang bride, culvert, weir. _etc) with the• -
desimn engineer's silsrled and sealed plans and calculations demonstrating less
than 0.05 feet of vertical hydraulic head loss for the I- percent annual chance
storm event design flow of the watercourse. or
• Placement of fill within a waterway; but outside of a watercourse for
construction of a single: lane access driveway or
• Placement of fill within a waterway but outside of a watercourse for
(7) For all structures located seaward of the Coastal Construction Control Line (CCCL),
the lowest floor of all new construction and substantial improvements shall be elevated
to no lower than the 100 -year flood elevation established by the Florida Department of
Environmental Protection or by FEMA in accordance with SECTION THREE, B,
whichever is higher. All non - elevation design requirements of SECTION FIVE, B,
shall apply.
(a) Accessory structures shall not be used for human habitation (including working,
sleeping. living, cooking, or rt.stroom areas). areas )..
25
{ Formatted: Indent: Left: 1 ", Bulleted + Level:
1 + Aligned at: 0.88" + Indent at: 1.13"
........ .......
Comment litCW86]. Clarifying text added at
direction of GNlD'staff J
Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.31 ", Hanging:
031"
Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.63"
i Formatted: Indent Left: 0.31 ", Hanging:
0.31"
Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.63 ", Hanging:
0.31 ", Numbered + Level: 1 + Numbering
Style: a, b, c, ... + Start at: 1 + Alignment: Left
+ Aligned at: 0.5" + Indent at: 0.75"
7 -9 -10 FMPC Approval Draft
(b) Accessory structures shall be designed to have low flood damage potential (wet
floodproofinir).
(c) Accrssory structures shall be constructed and placed on the building site so as to
offer the minimum resistance to the flaw of floodwaters.
C. SPECIFIC STANDARDS FOR A -ZONES WITHOUT BASE FLOOD ELEVATIONS
AND REGULATORY FLOODWAYS�
Located within the areas of special flood hazard established in SECTION THREE, B, where
there exist A -Zones for which no base flood elevation data and regulatory floodway have
been provided or designated by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the following
provisions shall apply:
(1) Require standards of SECTION FIVE, A.
(2) Require that all new subdivision proposals and other proposed developments (including
proposals for manufactured home parks and subdivisions) greater than 50 lots or 5
acres, whichever is the lesser, include within such proposals base flood elevation data.
Standards set forth in SECTION FIVE, B, shall apply.
(3) The Floodplain Administrator shall obtain, review, and reasonably utilize any base
flood elevation and floodway data available from a Federal, State of Florida, or any
other source, in order to administer the provisions of this Ordinance. When such data is
utilized, provisions of SECTION FIVE, B, shall apply. The Floodplain Administrator
shall:
(a) Obtain the elevation (in relation to the mean sea level NAVD) of the lowest floor
(including the basement) of all new and substantially improved structures,
(b) Obtain, if the structure has been floodproofed in accordance with the requirements
of SECTION FIVE, B (2), the elevation in relation to the mean sea level (NAVD)
to which the structure has been floodproofed, and
(c) Maintain a record of all such information.
26
Formatted: Underline
Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.63 ", Hanging:
0.31"
Comment RCW87 Accessory structures text
added at direction of FMPC
[ I asory
Comment [RCW88]: This sub- section is
contained within the State's model ordinance, but is
new for Collier County. It needed now that the
County's FIRM contains areas designated as Zone
A.
7 -9 -10 FMPC Approval Draft
(4) Notify, in riverine situations, adjacent communities, the State of Florida, Department of
Community Affairs - NFIP Coordinating Office, and the South Florida Water
Management District prior to any alteration or relocation of a watercourse, and submit
copies of such notifications to FEMA.
(5) Assure that the flood carrying capacity within the altered or relocated portion of any
watercourse is maintained.
(6) Manufactured homes shall be installed using methods and practices that minimize flood
damage. They must be elevated and anchored to prevent flotation, collapse, and lateral
movement. Methods of anchoring may include, but are not limited to, use of over -the-
top or frame ties to ground anchors. This requirement is in addition to applicable State
of Florida and local anchoring requirements for resisting wind forces.
(7) When the data is not available from any source, in
4c)f4hinchlding data developed pursuant to-i-R SECTION FIVE, C (2), of this Ordinance,
the lowest floor of the structure shall be elevated to no lower than {#Irreefour feet}
above the highest adjacent grade or wet season water table elevation whichever is
hahec. Standards set forth in SECTION FIVE, B, shall apply.
D. SPECIFIC STANDARDS FOR COASTAL HIGH HAZARD AREAS (V- ZONES)._
Located within areas of special flood hazard established in SECTION THREE, B, are
Coastal High Hazard Areas, designated as Zones VI-30, VE, or V (with BFE). The
following provisions shall apply:
(1) Meet the standards of SECTION FOUR, A, and SECTION FIVE, A, B (except B (7)),
C, and D.
(2) All new construction and substantial improvements in Zones VI—V30, VE, and V (with
BFE) shall be elevated on pilings or columns so that:
(a) The bottom of the lowest horizontal structural member of the lowest floor
(excluding the pilings or columns) is elevated to no lower than the base flood
elevation whether or not the structure contains a basement; and
(b) The pile or column foundation and structure attached thereto is anchored to resist
floatation, collapse and lateral movement due to the effects of wind and water
loads acting simultaneously on all building components. Water loading will be
those values associated with the base flood. Wind loading values will be those
required by applicable State of Florida or local, if more stringent than those of the
State of Florida, building standards.
(c) For all structures located seaward of the Coastal Construction Control Line
(CCCL), the bottom of the lowest horizontal structural member of the lowest floor
27
Comment IRMO]: Elevation increased to 4
feet at recommendation of GMD staff to consider
design requirements of septic drain system under
gravity flow conditions. A comparison of the
DRAFr BFE information for the proposed DFIRMs
indicates areas where depths of flooding adjacent to
some Zone Aareas calculates to be between 2.5 and
3.5 feet.
Formatted: Font: Not Bold
Comment [RCW"]: added to address
construction in wetland or depressional areas.
Comment [RCW91]: Text added at
recommendation of FMPC member.
7 -9 -10 FMPC Approval Draft
of all new construction and substantial improvements shall be elevated to the 100 -
year flood elevation established by the Florida Department of Environmental
Protection or the base flood elevation, whichever is the higher.
(3) A registered professional engineer or architect shall develop or review the structural
design, specifications and plans for the construction, and shall certify that the design
and methods of construction to be used are in accordance with accepted standards of
practice for meeting the provisions of this Section.
(4) Obtain the elevation (in relation to mean sea level NAVD) of the bottom of the lowest
horizontal structural member of the lowest floor (excluding pilings and columns) of all
new and substantially improved structures. The Floodplain Administrator shall
maintain a record of all such information.
(5) All new construction and substantial improvements shall be located landward of the
reach of mean high tide.
(6) Provide that all new construction and substantial improvements have the space below
the lowest floor either free of obstruction or constructed with non-supporting
breakaway walls, open wood lattice -work, or insect screening intended to collapse
under wind and water loads without causing collapse, displacement, or other structural
damage to the elevated portion of the building or supporting foundation system. For
the purposes of this Section, a breakaway wall shall have a design safe loading
resistance of not less than 10 or no more than 20 pounds per square foot. Use of
breakaway walls which exceed a design safe loading resistance of 20 pounds per square
foot (either by design or when so required by State of Florida or local local codes) may
be permitted only if a registered professional engineer or architect certifies that the
designs proposed meet the following conditions:
(a) Breakaway wall collapse shall result from water load less than that which could
occur during the base flood; and
(b) The elevated portion of the building and supporting foundation system shall not be
subject to collapse, displacement, or other structural damage due to the effects of
wind and water loads acting simultaneously on all building components (structural
and non - structural). The water loading shall be those values associated with the
base flood. The wind loading values shall be those required by applicable Florida
or local, if more stringent than those of the State of Florida, building standards.
(c) Such enclosed space shall be usable solely for parking of vehicles, building access,
or storage. }Such space shall not be finished, partitioned into multiple rooms, or
temperature - controlled (air conditioned ?.}
(7) Prohibit the use of fill for structural support. No development permit shall be issued for
development involving fill in coastal high hazard areas unless it has been demonstrated
28
{ Comment [RCW921: Text added to be consistent
l with FEMA interpretation dated 64-99.
7 -9 -10 FMPC Approval Draft
through appropriate engineering analyses that the subject fill does not cause any
adverse impacts to the structure on site or other properties.
(8) Prohibit man -made alteration of sand dunes and mangrove stands that would increase
potential flood damage.
(9) Standards for Manufactured Homes:
(a) All manufactured homes to be placed or substantially improved on sites: (i)
Outside a manufactured home park or subdivision, (ii) In a new manufactured
home park or subdivision, (iii) In an expansion to an existing manufactured home
park or subdivision, or, (iv) In an existing manufactured home park or subdivision
in which a manufactured home has incurred "substantial damage" as the result of a
flood, must meet the standards of SECTION FIVE, D (2) though (8); or CommentERCM31: Sub - section renumbered
after eliminating AO standards from State model J
(b) All manufactured homes placed or substantially improved on other sites in an ordinance
existing manufactured home park or subdivision shall meet the requirements of
SECTION FIVE, B (4) (b).
(10) Recreational vehicles placed on sites within Zones VE, V1 —V30, V (with base flood
elevation) on the FIRM either
(a) Be on the site for fewer than 180 consecutive days,
(b) Be fully licensed and ready for highway use (on its wheels or jacking system, is
attached to the site only by quick disconnect type utilities and security devices, and
has no permanently attached additions); or
(c) Meet the requirements of SECTION FIVE, I) Q) through (8)................ ..
- -- — —
Comment ERCW941: Sub - section renumbered
- -
- - - - - - - - _
after eliminating AO standards from State model
(11) For all structures located seaward of the Coastal Construction Control Line (CCCL),
J
the bottom of the lowest horizontal structural member of the lowest floor of all new
construction and substantial improvements shall be elevated to the flood elevation
established by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection or the base flood
elevation, whichever is the higher. All non - elevation design requirements SECTION ._-
CommetrtERC1N951: Text added at
FIVE, - .(; )_through (10) shall - apply
recommenda6onof'FMPCmember.
Comment ERCW961: Sub - section renumbered
(12) When fill is proposed, in accordance with the permit issued by the Florida Department
after eliminating AO standards from State model
ordinance
of Health, in a Coastal High Hazard Area, the development permit shall be issued only
upon demonstration by appropriate engineering analyses that the proposed fill will not
increase the water surface elevation of the base flood nor cause any adverse impacts to
the structure on site or other properties by wave ramping and deflection.
13) Accessory Structures
Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.31 ", Hanging:
The follOwint; standards are required to properly regulate accessory, structures in
0.31"
addition to A -Zone requireingntsa
J Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.63"
29
7-9-10 FMPC Approval Draft
Storage.
on adjacent buildings.
(c) Detached garages are not allowed in V-Zones.
SECTION SIX: VARIANCE LANll) APPEALS
A. DESIGNATION OF VARIANCE AND APPEALS BOARD.
The Board of Zoning Appeals as established by the Board of County Commissioners of
Collier County, Florida, (pursuant to LDC Section 8.04.00, as may be amended, shall hear
and decide appeals and requests for variances from the requirements of this Ordinance.
B. DUTIES OF VARIANCE AND APPEALS BOARD.
Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.63", Hanging:
0.31", Numbered + Level: I + Numbering
Style: a, b, c, ... + Start at: 1 + Alignment: Left
+ Aligned at: 0.25" + Indent at: 0.5"
. ......... ...... . .............
Comment [RCW97]; Accessory structures text
added by FM?C.
Comment [RCW98]: Text added to address both
Issues.
comment IRCW993: Text added for clarification
and reference.
The Board I of Zoning Appeals shall hear and decide appeals when it is alleged an error in =ment [RCW1093: Text added for
any requirement, decision, or determination is made by the Floodplain Managenien c icanon
Administrator in the enforcement or administration of this Ordinance. The Board of Zong Comment [RCW1011: Deleted text to con
Appeals shall hear and decide requests for all variances from the requirements of this in to previously designated title. 7!7j
structures, and certain agricultural structures. Any person aggrieved by the decision of the comment [RCW102]: Text added for
Board �Of Zoning Appeals clarification
.Vea!j�may appeal such decision to the Circuit Court.
Comment [RCW103]: Tw added for
C. APPEALS PROCEDURE
clarification
...... Formatted: Font: Bold
(1) An appeal maybe filed with the County Manager within no more than ten 0a) business Formatted: Indent: Left: 0", Hanging: 0.3.1"-
days ofthe alleged error by the Flo2&lain Administrator.
30
7-9-10 FMPC Approval Draft
(3) Each appeal shall be written stating the basis for the appeal and shall include pgrtinen
information, exhibits and other backup information in Support of The qppeal,
(4) The Board of Zoning Appeals shall
tb) adopt
� the Floodplain Administrator's decision or determination, whichever is
applicable, with or without modifications or conditions, or reject his decision or
determination; and
cancelled.
--------- ------
CDO: VARIANCE PROCEDURES.
I ) A reauest for a variance t(
-------- ------ ----------- Commm
nt [RCW
104] Sub-section ad
ded
to
--identify current County procedures and clanfy
o tcom e,
C omment [R CW105]: Sub-section renumbered
irement of this article shall follow th
Development Code Section 10.04.04
Type 11.1 Review,
(3) In acting upon such .Narian4 applications, the Board of Zoning Appeals shall consider
all technical evaluations, all relevant factors, standards specified in other Sections of
this Ordinance, and:
(a) The danger that materials may be swept onto other lands to the injury of others;
(b) The danger of life and property due to flooding or erosion damage;
(c) The susceptibility of the proposed facility and its contents to flood damage and the
effect of such damage on the individual owner;
(d) The importance of the services provided by the proposed facility to the
community;
31
Comment [RCW106]: Text added to identify
current County procedures.
CoMnMft [RCW107]: Edited for clarification
7-9-10 FMPC Approval Draft
(e) The necessity to the facility of a waterfront location far its functionally dependent
iL"Q where applicable;
(f) The availability of alternative locations for the proposed use which are not subject
to flooding or erosion damage;
(g) The compatibility of the proposed use with existing and anticipated development;
(h) The relationship of the proposed use to the comprehensive plan and floodplain
management program for that area;
(i) The safety of access to the property in times of flood for ordinary and emergency
vehicles;
The expected heights, velocity, duration, rate of rise, and sediment of-transport of
the flood waters and the effects of wave action, if applicable, expected at the site;
and
Comment [RCW108]: Clarifying text added at
direction of GMD staff. I
(k) The costs of providing governmental services during and after flood conditions,
including maintenance and repair of Ublioalli utilities and facilities such as sewer,
Comment [RCW109] : Text changed at direction
gas, electrical, and water systems, and streets and bridges. of FMPC. I
(1) Ki:rant and facilitate situations in code or regulations in
Such efforts, pending the magnitude of the disaster and the need for emergency
I M- CONDITIONS FOR VARIANCES.
(I) A variance may be issued for new construction and substantial improvern tits when
g)The lot size is one-half acre or less, and
b) The lot is contiguous to and surrounded by lots with existing structures constructed
below the base flood elevation, an
Comment 01.' Text added by
Emergency Mgmt, staff.
--- --------
- t Comment [i6iill]: Sub-section renumbered I
c) All other requirements of this sub-section E and sub-section F are met.
Comment [RCW112]. Text added to conform
E� }i2) Variances with current federal regulations in 44CFR60,6(aX2)
shall only be issued when there is:
32
7 -9 -10 FMPC Approval Draft
a) A showing of good and sufficient cause;
b) A determination that failure to grant the variance would result in exceptional
hardship; and
c) A determination that the granting of a variance will not result in increased flood
heights, additional threats to public �afetv,'_extraordinary public expense, create
nuisances cause fraud on or victimization of the public, or conflict with existing { Comment [RCW113]: Edited to match with J
local laws or ordinances. I currmt federal regulations in 44CFR60.6(aX3) J
(3) Variances shall only be issued upon a determination that the variance is the minimum
necessary deviation from the requirements of this Ordinance, considering the flood
hazard, to afford, relief", Comment [RCW1141: Edited to match with
..... ..... - _ �... currant federal regulations in 44CFR60.6(aX4)
No variance shall: be issued for unvermitted work. { Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.31 ", No bullets or
l numbering
(35)The Floodplain Administrator shall maintain the records of all variance actions, comn>ent[RCw11si T°a added byFhrFc.
including justification for their issuance or denial, and report such variances and the
notifications required in Section Six FJ in the community's NFIP Biennial Report or Comment [RCw116) : Edited tomatchwith
upon request to FEMA and the State of Florida, Department of Community Affairs, current federal regulations in 44CFR60.6(aX5) 1.
NFIP Coordinating Office.
f F VARIANCE NOTIFICATION. Commet[RCW117]rSub-section renumbered
Any applicant to whom a variance is granted shall be given written notice over the signature
of the Floodplain Administrator, or designee. that: Comment [RCW113]: Edited byGMD staff to
reflect current County practice and give specificity to
(1) The issuance of a variance to construct a structure below the base flood elevation will who is authorized to sign the written notice. � -- - �- ---�--
result in increased premium rates for flood insurance up to amounts as high as $25 for
$100 of insurance coverage, and
(2) Such construction below the base flood level increases risks to life and property.
A copy of the notice shall be recorded by the Floodplain Administrator in the Office of the
Clerk of Court and shall be recorded in a manner so that it appears in the chain of title of the
affected parcel of land.
IF G HISTORIC STRUCTURES.
CComment [RCW119] Subsection renumbered
Variances may be issued by the Floodplain Administrator for the repair or rehabilitation of ..
Comment [RCW120]: Text added for
"historic" structures — meeting the definition in this Ordinance — upon a determination that
clarification ofan administrative procedure. An
affected party can appeal this decision to the BZA.
the proposed repair or rehabilitation will not preclude the structure's continued designation
as a "historic" structure.
STRUCTURES IN REGULATORY FLOODWAY.
.... -- — - -- — -
Comment[RCw121]. Sub-section renumbered
33
7 -9 -10 FMPC Approval Draft
Variances shall not be issued within any designated floodway if any impact in flood
conditions or increase in flood levels during the base flood discharge would result.
f Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.31 ", Hanging:
0.31 ", Bulleted + Level: 1 + Aligned at: 0.56"
SECTION SEVEN: INCLUSION IN THE CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES. + Indent at: 0.61"
The provisions of this Ordinance shall be made a part of the Code of Laws and Ordinances of
Collier County, Florida. The Sections of the Ordinance may be renumbered or re- lettered to
accomplish such, and the word "ordinance" may be changed to "section," "article," or any other
appropriate word.
SECTION EIGHT: CONFLICT AND SEVERABILITY.
In the event this Ordinance conflicts with any other Ordinance of Collier County or other
applicable law, the more restrictive shall apply. If any phrase or portion of the Ordinance is held
invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a
separate, distinct and independent provision and such holding shall not affect the validity of the
remaining portion.
SECTION NINE: REPEAL OF ORDINANCE NO. 86-28, AS AMENDED.
This Ordinance hereby repeals all portions of Ordinance No. 86 -28 and all amendments thereto.
SECTION TEN: EFFECTIVE DATE.
This Ordinance shall become effective upon filing with the Florida Department of State.
PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED by the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County,
Florida, this _day of 2010.
ATTEST:
DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK
By:
Deputy Clerk
Approved as to form
and legal sufficiency:
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
By:
FRED W. COYLE, CHAIRMAN
34
Jennifer B. White
Assistant County Attorney
7 -9 -10 FMPC Approval Draft
35
Tindale- Oliver & Associates, Inc,.
Planning; mid Eiigrincerixig
June 9, 2010
Ms. Amy Patterson
Impact Fee Manager
Collier County Financial Administration and Housing Department
2800 North Horseshoe Drive
Naples, Florida 34104
RE: 2010 Indices
Dear Ms. Patterson:
Per your request, TOA calculated indices for three impact fee program areas by using the 2 -year average
methodology adopted by the Collier County Board of County Commissioners. The three program areas for
which indices were calculated include the following:
Community Parks;
Regional Parks; and
Correctional Facilities.
As part of the calculation, the Consultant obtained 2009 and 2010 figures as available for the following
variables /indices:
• Collier County Property Values;
• Consumer Price Index;
• Producer Price Index;
• Engineering News Record Building Cost Index;
• Turner Building Cost Index; and
• RS Means Building Cost Index.
Table 1 provides a summary of updated indices for each inventory component and provides a comparison to
2009 figures.
1000 North Ashley Drive, Suite 100, Tampa, Florida 33602 • Phone: (813) 224 -8862 • Fax: (813) 226 -2106
1595 South Semoran Boulevard, Building 7, Suite 1540, Winter Park, Florida 32792 • Phone: (407) 657 -9210 • Fax: (407) 657 -9106
195 South Central Avenue, Bartow, Florida 33830 • Phone: (863) 533 -8454 • Fax: (863) 533 -8481
Tin&dc- Oliver & Associates, Inc.
Platnung and Enginccri g
Ms. Amy Patterson
June 9, 2010
Page 2 of 4
Table 1
2010 Component Indices
(1) Calculated using 2008 and 2009 data, except for the land value
component, for which the average of 2009 and 2010 is used.
(2) Calculated using 2007 and 2008 data
(3) 2009 Index (Item 2) subtracted from 2010 Index (Item 1)
Updated indices are used to calculate combined indices for each of the three program areas, which are
shown in Table 2.
1000 North Ashley Drive, Suite 100, Tampa, Florida 33602 0 Phone: (813) 224 -8862 • Fax: (813) 226 -2106
1595 South Semoran Boulevard, Building 7, Suite 1540, Winter Park, Florida 32792 • Phone: (407) 657 -9210 • Fax: (407) 657 -9106
195 South Central Avenue, Bartow, Florida 33830 9 Phone: (863) 533 -8454 • Fax: (863) 533 -8481
Tindale- Oliver & Associates, Iris.
Plalniilig and Eilg ncering
Ms. Amy Patterson
June 9, 2010
Page 3 of 4
Table 2
2010 Combined Indices
k t source: impact tee technical studies
(2) Each inventory component divided by the total value of the inventory for each program area
(3) Source: Table 1
(4) Percent of the inventory (Item 2) multiplied by the 2010 Index (Item 3)
(5) Sum of indices for each component
1000 North Ashley Drive, Suite 100, Tampa, Florida 33602 • Phone: (813) 224 -8862 • Fax: (813) 226 -2106
1595 South Semoran Boulevard, Building 7, Suite 1540, Winter Park, Florida 32792 • Phone: (407) 657 -9210 • Fax: (407) 657 -9106
195 South Central Avenue, Bartow, Florida 33830 • Phone: (863) 533 -8454 • Fax: (863) 533 -8481
Tindale- Oliver & Associates, Inc..
tuuillg Mud Engineering
Ms. Amy Patterson
June 9, 2010
Page 4 of 4
If you should have any questions concerning these calculations, please do not hesitate to contact me or
Nilgun Kamp.
Sincerely,
Tindale- Oliver & Associates, Inc.
Steven A. Tindale, P.E., AICP
President
1000 North Ashley Drive, Suite 100, Tampa, Florida 33602 • Phone: (813) 224 -8862 • Fax: (813) 226 -2106
1595 South Semoran Boulevard, Building 7, Suite 1540, Winter Park, Florida 32792 • Phone: (407) 657 -9210 9 Fax: (407) 657 -9106
195 South Central Avenue, Bartow, Florida 33830 • Phone: (863) 533 -8454 • Fax: (863) 533 -8481
u.
BUILDING BLOCKS
REQUIREMENTS FOR SPOT SURVEYS AND AFFIDAVIT
Effective October 1, 2010
A spot survey shall be required when any new construction occurs, or any
addition or alteration modifies the existing building footprint, or at any time during
the construction process, in the opinion of the building official, that it is deemed
necessary. A spot survey may be required even when it makes the original
footprint smaller. When the permit application indicates the scope of work is to
rebuild, repair, or replace a structure (or portion of a structure) on the same
footprint, no spot survey is required, provided any type; of documentation
indicates the structure was legally permitted originally. In such applications where
the spot survey is waived, the below affidavit shall be executed by the permit
applicant. If no documentation can be provided that the structure was legally
permitted, a spot survey shall be required; no spot survey is required for sheds
that do not sit on a permanent foundation and can be moved.
Regarding submission of "as built ", any documents (drawings) submitted to the
County for expansion of permanent structures must be signed and sealed.
• The boundary survey cannot be more than 60 -90 days old and
must be submitted with the building permit application.
• A drawing showing the proposed improvements based on and
referencing the boundary survey, prepared by a licensed Florida
professional who has the required knowledge, ability and is familiar
with county zoning and setback requirements to certify the
accuracy of the information.
• This professional will either be a Florida licensed Architect,
Engineer or Surveyor and Mapper.
• A raised seal will be required.
• An "Abstract of Title" is not required to be submitted.
• Sheds are not considered to be permanent structures.
8/16/2010 A -128
Spot Survey Affidavit to be filed with the Permit
I (print name legibly) do hereby affirm
that the work performed under permit number
does not constitute any modification in any way to the building footprint that
legally existed prior to issuance of this permit. Further, I affirm the work shall
conform to all applicable setback and easement requirements established by
Collier County and any other applicable agency. I hereby agree that should any
work performed under this permit result in a nonconformity in any way with any
setback or easement requirement established by Collier County or any other
applicable agency, I shall have no sustainable rebuttal against Collier County and
I shall immediately remediate that nonconformity at no expense to Collier County.
Signed Date:
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this
(date) by (name of person
acknowledging)
Who is personally known to me or has produced
(Type of Identification) as identification and who
did /did not take an oath
Notary ; Public
Gary L. Harrison
Building Official
Chief Building Inspector
8/16/2010 A -128
Swimming Pool Spot Survey
It shall be the duty of the permit holder to submit to the Building Official, within 10
days of the completion of the pool shell (704 inspection), a location survey
depicting precise dimensions in relation to each and every lot or setback line as
established by conditions attached to the development permit, applicable to the
permitted pool, and the property upon which said pool is being constructed. Said
location survey shall be prepared by or under the direct supervision of a Florida
registered land surveyor and certified by same.
Deficiencies or encroachments detected by the building department at the time of
the submittal of the 10 day spot survey shall be corrected by the permit holder
forthwith, and a stop work order will be placed on construction, until the
necessary corrections are made. At the time the stop work order is placed, the
extent of the construction shall be noted, and any construction completed after
that time is subject to removal, if the deficiencies /encroachments revealed by the
spot survey are not corrected. If a variance is necessary to correct the
deficiency /encroachment, the stop work order will remain in place until the
variance is approved.
Inspections will be halted and all construction MUST stop on any project for
which a 10 -day spot survey is due and not submittal.
Gary L. Harrison
Building Official
Chief Building Inspector
8/16/2010 A -128
Memo
To: Amy Patterson, Impact Fee Manager
From: NilgQn Kamp, Associate Principal
Date: 6/30/2010
Re: Collier County Correctional Facilities Impact Fee Index
As part of the update of the indexing calculations, TOA prepared updated indices for correctional
facilities and parks impact fees. While the indices for the two parks impact fees indicate a need to
decrease these fees, the index for correctional facilities suggests a slight increase of 3.4 percent. The
following paragraphs explain the reasons for this relatively flat index, which is consistent with
information obtained from architects that suggests that the construction cost for correctional facilities
remained stable over the past year.
The indexing methodology adopted by the Collier County Board of County Commissioners makes use
of several data sources to calculate the final fee index. While some of the data is local (such as the
change in land values), others are national or regional, such as changes in building construction and
equipment cost, with a slight adjustment for local costs.
In the case of correctional facilities, approximately 93 percent of the inventory value consists of
buildings, 6 percent comes from equipment value, and the remaining 1 percent is from land value. As
such, only 1 percent of the inventory value is fully based on local data. Conversely, the inventory of
parks impact fees are dominated by the land value, and as such, calculated indices are based more
heavily on local data.
For buildings, the adopted methodology relies on three indices:
• Engineering News Records (ENR);
• Turner Construction Cost Index; and
• RS Means Index.
Of these, ENR and RS Means continue to show an increase in construction costs over the past two
years at a reduced rate, while RS Means is showing a decrease between 2008 and 2009. As such, the
combination of these three indices results in a positive change or an increase in cost. This is primarily
due to a lag in capturing changes in cost as well as using national or regional figures as the basis.
Similarly, for equipment values, the methodology relies on the following indices:
• Producer Price Index for public building furniture (PPI); and
• Consumer Price Index for the Miami — Ft. Lauderdale area (CPI).
Of these, while PPI continues to show an increase at a reduced rate, CPI indicates no change in cost
between 2008 and 2009. As such, overall index for the equipment component is positive.
Land values suggest a decrease of 14 percent; however, this decrease is applied to only 1 percent of
the inventory.
Combination of these three indices results in a positive index of 3.4 percent. Given that a greater
percentage of the inventory is indexed based on national or regional data as opposed to local data, it
may be preferable not to index correctional facilities impact fee at this time. It should be noted that
discussions with architects involved in jail construction suggested that the construction cost for
correctional facilities remained stable since last year. This is because correctional facilities are built
based on certain legal and safety standards and tend to have minimum amount of finishes or other
optional design criteria. As such, it is difficult to reduce scope of the project to lower the cost.
We hope this information is helpful. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions or need
additional information.
C010, C014Hty
Gmwth Management Division
Planning & Regulation
August 25, 2010
Subject: Impact Fee Indexing and Road Cost and Credit Update
Dear Development Services Advisory Committee Members:
On September 1, 2010 the Committee is scheduled to discuss the 2010 Impact Fee Indexing
calculations. This report was originally scheduled to include Correctional Facilities,
Community Parks, Regional Parks and Road Impact Fees, however, because of the changes
in costs being experienced throughout the State, the Road Impact Fee Indexing expanded to a
Cost and Credit update. The remaining impact fee indices have been generated using the
adopted two -year average methodology, which is more sensitive to cost fluctuations than
those models used in past indexing calculations.
Attached for your review, please find 1) a memo regarding the Road Impact Fee Cost and
Credit update which provides the major components of the Cost and Credit Update and the
estimated percentage of decrease generated by the update; 2) the calculated 2010 Indices for
Correctional Facilities, Community Parks and Regional Parks; 3) a memo outlining the
reasons for the stability in the Correctional Facilities Index; and 4) the current adopted
Impact Fee Schedule. We will provide impact fee schedules reflecting the proposed rate
changes at the meeting.
Due to the expanded scope of work related to the Road Impact Fee adjustment, a copy of the
Cost and Credit Update will be available on September 1, 2010. We apologize for the
compressed schedule for reviewing this item.
Staff will be prepared to discuss the details of each of the changes, however, if you have any
questions in advance, please feel free to contact me at 239.252.5721 or via email at
amypatterson@a,colliergov.net.
Thank you for you attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
a;ezel_�
Amy N. Patterson
Impact Fee Manager
Growth Managgnent DKislon • Planning & Regulation • 2800 North Horseshoe Drive • Naples, Florida 34104 - 239 - 252 -2400 - www+.colliergov.net
Co~ er xn y
IMPACT FEE SCHEDULE
EFFECTIVE FEBRUARY 14, 2010
(Jail Change)
RESIDENTIAL fees are calculated per living area, which includes all areas except screened porches and garages.
NON - RESIDENTIAL per 1,000 square foot fees are calculated on gross floor area including me- nines.
FIRE impact fees are calculated on total square feet under roof.
1. EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES (EMS)
RESIDENTIAL
RATE
Less than 1,500 sq. ft.
$116.06
Per Dwelling Unit
1,500 to 2,499 sq. ft.
$129.27
Per Dwelling Unit
2,500 sq. ft. or larger
$141.54
Per Dwelling Unit
NON - RESIDENTIAL
Auto Repair
$300.99
Per 1,000 sq, ft.
Auto Sales (New/Used)
$163.23
Per 1,000 sq. ft.
Bank/Savings: Drive -In
$195.32
Per 1,000 sq. ft.
Bank/Savings: Walk -In
$242.49
Per 1,000 sq. ft.
Business Park
$94.36
Per 1,000 sq. ft.
Car Wash - Self - Service
$178.33
Per Service Bay
Church
$53.78
Per 1,000 sq. ft.
College - Junior /Community
$5.67
Per Student
College - University
$12.26
Per Student
Convenience Store (24 hours)
$400.08
Per 1,000 sq. ft.
Convenience Store w /Gas Pumps
$410.45
Per Fuel Position
Day Care
$5.67
Per Student
Gasoline/Service Station
$186.82
Per Fuel Position
General Light Industrial
$65.11
Per 1,000 sq. ft.
Golf Course
$5,458.48
Per 18 Holes
Home Improvement Store
$167.96
Per 1,000 sq. ft.
Hospital
$155.69
Per 1,000 sq. ft.
Hotel/Motel
$53.78
Per Room
Marina
$18.88
Per Berth
Mini - Warehouse
$6.59
Per 1,000 sq. ft.
Movie Theater
$811.46
Per Screen
Nursing Home
$90.58
Per Bed
Office 50,000 sq. ft. or less
$157.58
Per 1,000 sq. ft.
Office 50,001 - 100,000 sq. ft.
$121.72
Per 1,000 sq. ft.
Office 100,001- 200,000 sq. ft.
$103.80
Per 1,000 sq. ft.
Office 200,001 - 400,000 sq. ft.
$88.69
Per 1,000 sq. ft.
Office Greater than 400,000 sq. ft.
$75.48
Per 1,000 sq. ft.
Office - Medical
$163.23
Per 1,000 sq. ft.
Pharmacy/Drug Store
$177.39
Per 1,000 sq. ft.
Quick Lube
$109.44
Per Service Bay
Restaurant - Fast Food w/Drive -In
$825.62
Per 1,000 sq. ft.
Restaurant - High Turnover
$668.98
Per 1,000 sq. ft.
Restaurant - Quality
$638.79
Per 1,000 sq. ft.
Retail 50,000 Sq. Ft. or Less
$270.81
Per 1,000 sq. ft.
Retail 50,001- 100,000 Sq. Ft.
$248.15
Per 1,000 sq. ft.
Retail 100,001- 150,000 Sq. Ft.
$220.80
Per 1,000 sq. ft.
Retail 150,001 - 200,000 Sq. Ft.
$268.91
Per 1,000 sq. ft.
Co er Co�el
IMPACT FEE SCHEDULE
EFFECTIVE FEBRUARY 14, 2010
(Jail Change)
1. EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES (EMS) (Continued
Retail 200,001- 400,000 Sq. Ft.
$235.89
Per 1,000 sq. ft.
Retail 400,001- 600,000 Sq. Ft.
$240.61
Per 1,000 sq. ft.
Retail 600,001- 1,000,000 Sq. Ft.
$240.61
Per 1,000 sq. ft.
Retail >1,000,000 Sq. Ft.
$197.20
Per 1,000 sq. ft.
Retail - Specialty
$141.54
Per 1,000 sq. ft.
School - Elementary (Private)
$5.67
Per Student
School - Middle (Private)
$6.59
Per Student
School - High School (Private)
$7.54
Per Student
Supermarket
$191.54
Per 1,000 sq. ft.
Tire Store
$147.19
Per Service Bay
2. FIRE
RATE
Big Corkscrew
Residential (4,000 sq. ft. max. per unit) $0.82 Per sq. ft. under roof
Non - residential $0.87 Per sq, ft. under roof
East Naples
Residential
$0.22
Per sq. ft. under roof
Non - residential
$0.26
Per sq. ft. under roof
Golden Gate
Residential (4,000 sq. ft. max. per unit)
$0.25
Per sq, ft. under roof
Non - Residential
$0.39
Per sq. ft. under roof
Immokalee
Residential (4,000 sq. ft. max. per unit)
$1.11
Per sq. ft. under roof
Non - residential
$0.32
Per sq. ft. under roof
Isles of Capri
Residential (4,000 sq. ft. max. per unit)
$0.44
Per sq, ft. under roof
Non - residential
$1.15
Per sq. ft. under roof
North Naples
Residential
$0.28
Per sq. ft. under roof
Non - residential
$0.99
Per sq. ft. under roof
Ochopee
Residential (4,000 sq. ft. max, per unit)
$0.75
Per sq. ft. under roof
Non - residential
$0.21
Per sq. ft. under roof
2
3.
C CACvtanty
IMPACT FEE SCHEDULE
EFFECTIVE FEBRUARY 14, 2010
(Jail Change)
GOVERNMENT BUILDINGS
RESIDENTIAL
RATE
Per 1,000 sq. ft.
Mobile Home
$686.22
Per Dwelling Unit/Site
Multi - Family
$482.59
Per Dwelling Unit
Single Family
$508.49
Per 1,000 sq. ft.
Less than 1,500 sq. ft.
$853.37
Per Dwelling Unit
1,500 to 2,499 sq. ft.
$949.89
Per Dwelling Unit
2,500 sq. ft. or larger
$1,036.99
Per Dwelling Unit
NON - RESIDENTIAL
Auto Sales (New/Used)
$879.27
Per 1,000 sq. ft.
Bank/Savings: Drive -In
$1,052.29
Per 1,000 sq. ft.
Bank/Savings: Walk -In
$1,305.35
Per 1,000 sq. ft.
Business Park
$508.49
Per 1,000 sq. ft.
Car Wash - Self- Service
$960.48
Per Service Bay
Church
$289.56
Per 1,000 sq. ft.
College - Junior /Community
$30.61
Per Student
College - University
$65.92
Per Student
Convenience Store (24 hours)
$2,154.01
Per 1,000 sq. ft.
Convenience Store w /Gas Pumps
$2,210.51
Per Fuel Position
Day Care
$30.61
Per Student
Gasoline /Service Station
$1,007.45
Per Fuel Position
Golf Course
$9,876.68
Per 18 Holes
Home Improvement Store
$903.97
Per 1,000 sq. ft.
Hospital
$838.07
Per 1,000 sq. ft.
Hotel/Motel
$366.07
Per Room
Industrial - General Light
$350.76
Per 1,000 sq. ft.
Marina
$101.23
Per Berth
Mini - Warehouse
$35.31
Per 1,000 sq. ft.
Movie Theater
$4,369.24
Per Screen
Nursing Home
$487.30
Per Bed
Office 50,000 sq. ft. or less
$848.66
Per 1,000 sq. ft.
Office 50,001- 100,000 sq. ft.
$655.62
Per 1,000 sq. ft.
Office 100,001 - 200,000 sq. ft.
$559.10
Per 1,000 sq, ft.
Office 200,001 - 400,000 sq. ft.
$477.89
Per 1,000 sq. ft.
Office Greater than 400,000 sq. ft.
$406.08
Per 1,000 sq. ft.
Office - Medical
$879.27
Per 1,000 sq. ft.
Pharmacy/Drug Store
$955.77
Per 1,000 sq. ft.
Quick Lube
$589.71
Per Service Bay
Restaurant - Fast Food w/Drive -In
$4,445.74
Per 1,000 sq. ft.
Restaurant - High Turnover
$3,601.79
Per 1,000 sq. ft.
Restaurant - Quality
$3,439.36
Per 1,000 sq. ft.
Retail 50,000 Sq. Ft. or Less
$1,458.36
Per 1,000 sq. ft.
Retail 50,001- 100,000 Sq. Ft.
$1,335,96
Per 1,000 sq. ft.
Retail 100,001- 150,000 Sq. Ft.
$1,188.83
Per 1,000 sq. ft.
Retail 150,001- 200,000 Sq. Ft.
$1,447.78
Per 1,000 sq. ft.
Retail 200,001- 400,000 Sq. Ft.
$1,270.04
Per 1,000 sq. ft.
3
3.
4.
Co er Co�.xt{y
IMPACT FEE SCHEDULE
EFFECTIVE FEBRUARY 14, 2010
(Jail Change)
GOVERNMENT BUILDINGS (Continued)
Retail 400,001- 600,000 Sq. Ft.
$1,295.94
Per 1,000 sq. ft.
Retail 600,001 - 1,000,000 Sq. Ft.
$1,295.94
Per 1,000 sq. ft.
Retail >1,000,000 Sq. Ft.
$1,061.71
Per 1,000 sq. ft.
Retail - Specialty
$761.56
Per 1,000 sq. ft.
School - Elementary (Private)
$30.61
Per Student
School - Middle (Private)
$35.31
Per Student
School - High School (Private)
$41.20
Per Student
Supermarket
$1,031.10
Per 1,000 sq. ft.
Tire Store
$792.15
Per Service Bay
JAIL (CORRECTIONAL) FACILITIES
RESIDENTIAL
Assisted Living Facility
$210.51
Per Dwelling Unit
Mobile Home/RV tie -down
$374.81
Per Dwelling Unit/Site
Multi - Family
$254.15
Per Dwelling Unit
Single Family
Less than 1,500 sq. ft.
$446.36
Per Dwelling Unit
1,500 to 2,499 sq. ft.
$491.75
Per Dwelling Unit
2,500 sq. ft. or larger
$539.67
Per Dwelling Unit
NON - RESIDENTIAL
Auto Sales (New/Used)
$438.99
Per 1,000 sq. ft.
Bank/Savings: Drive -In
$608.43
Per 1,000 sq. ft.
Bank/Savings: Walk -In
$659.77
Per 1,000 sq. ft.
Business Park
$254.15
Per 1,000 sq. ft.
Car Wash - Self - Service
$156.60
Per Service Bay
Car Wash - Automated
$413.32
Per 1,000 sq. ft.
Church
$146.33
Per 1,000 sq. ft.
College/University (Private)
<7,501
$25.67
Per Student
>7,500
$17.97
Per Student
Convenience Store (24 hours)
$1,404.26
Per 1,000 sq. ft.
Convenience Store w /Gas Pumps
$1,496.68
Per Fuel Position
Day Care
$12.84
Per Student
Furniture Store
$61.61
Per 1,000 sq. ft.
Gasoline/Service Station
$508.31
Per Fuel Position
Golf Course
$4,990.64
Per 18 Holes
Home Improvement Store
$456.96
Per 1,000 sq. ft.
Hospital
$423.59
Per 1,000 sq. ft.
Hotel
$202.81
Per Room
Industrial - General Light
$177.14
Per 1,000 sq. ft.
Luxury Auto Sales
$284.96
Per 1,000 sq. ft.
Marina
$48.78
Per Berth
Mini - Warehouse
$17.97
Per 1,000 sq. ft.
4
4.
+,
Go er CID14 ty
IMPACT FEE SCHEDULE
EFFECTIVE FEBRUARY 14, 2010
(Jail Change)
JAIL (CORRECTIONAL) FACILITIES (Continued
Motel
$192.54
Per Room
Movie Theater
$1,535.19
Per Screen
Nursing Home
$184.84
Per Bed
Office 50,000 sq. ft. or less
$364.54
Per 1,000 sq. ft.
Office 50,001 - 100,000 sq. ft.
$331.17
Per 1,000 sq. ft.
Office 100,001- 200,000 sq. ft.
$282.39
Per 1,000 sq. ft.
Office 200,001 - 400,000 sq. ft.
$241.32
Per 1,000 sq. ft.
Office Greater than 400,000 sq. ft.
$205.38
Per 1,000 sq, ft.
Office - Medical
$441.56
Per 1,000 sq. ft.
Pharmacy/Drug Store
$495.47
Per 1,000 sq. ft.
Quick Lube
$297.80
Per Service Bay
RV Park
$138.63
Per Site
Restaurant - Fast Food w/Drive -In
$2,313.05
Per 1,000 sq. ft.
Restaurant - High Turnover
$69.31
Per seat
Restaurant - Quality
$56.48
Per seat
Retail 50,000 Sq. Ft. or Less
$628.96
Per 1,000 sq. ft.
Retail 50,001- 100,000 Sq. Ft.
$675.17
Per 1,000 sq. ft.
Retail 100,001- 150,000 Sq. Ft.
$600.72
Per 1,000 sq. ft.
Retail 150,001- 200,000 Sq. Ft.
$731.65
Per 1,000 sq. ft.
Retail 200,001- 400,000 Sq. Ft.
$641.80
Per 1,000 sq. ft.
Retail 400,001- 600,000 Sq. Ft.
$654.64
Per 1,000 sq. ft.
Retail 600,001 - 1,000,000 Sq. Ft.
$654.64
Per 1,000 sq. ft.
Retail >1,000,000 Sq. Ft.
$536.54
Per 1,000 sq. ft.
Retail - Specialty
$433.86
Per 1,000 sq. ft.
School - Elementary (Private)
$15.40
Per Student
School - Middle (Private)
$17.97
Per Student
School - High School (Private)
$20.54
Per Student
Supermarket
$526.28
Per 1,000 sq. ft.
Tire Store
$344.00
Per Service Bay
LAW ENFORCEMENT
Residential
Mobile Home
$268.10
Per Dwelling Unit/Site
Multi - Family
$193.83
Per Dwelling Unit
Single Family
$398.53
Per 1,000 sq. ft.
Less than 1,500 sq. ft.
$322.45
Per Dwelling Unit
1,500 to 2,499 sq. ft.
$358.67
Per Dwelling Unit
2,500 sq. ft. or larger
$391.28
Per Dwelling Unit
Non - Residential
Auto Sales (New/Used)
$344.18
Per 1,000 sq. ft.
Bank/Savings: Drive -In
$324.25
Per 1,000 sq. ft.
Bank/Savings: Walk -In
$398.53
Per 1,000 sq. ft.
Business Park
$163.03
Per 1,000 sq. ft.
Car Wash - Self- Service
$353.23
Per Service Bay
5
5.
Co ev C. knn2
IMPACT FEE SCHEDULE
EFFECTIVE FEBRUARY 14, 2010
(Jail Change)
LAW ENFORCEMENT (Continued)
Church
$92.38
Per 1,000 sq. ft.
College - Junior /Community
$25.36
Per Student
College - University
$57.96
Per Student
Convenience Store (24 hours)
$874.94
Per 1,000 sq. ft.
Convenience Store w /Gas Pumps
$1,268.03
Per Fuel Position
Day Care
$9.06
Per Student
Gasoline/Service Station
$443.81
Per Fuel Position
Golf Course
53,811.33
Per 18 Holes
Home Improvement Store
$474.61
Per 1,000 sq. ft.
Hospital
$360.49
Per 1,000 sq. ft.
Hotel/Motel
$103.26
Per Room
Industrial - General Light
$112.31
Per 1,000 sq. ft.
Marina
$30.79
Per Berth
Mini - Warehouse
$12.68
Per 1,000 sq. ft.
Movie Theater
$980.01
Per Screen
Nursing Home
$173.90
Per Bed
Office 50,000 sq. ft. or less
$228.25
Per 1,000 sq. ft.
Office 50,001- 100,000 sq. ft.
$195.64
Per 1,000 sq. ft.
Office 100,001 - 200,000 sq. ft.
$166.65
Per 1,000 sq. ft.
Office 200,001 - 400,000 sq. ft.
$141.29
Per 1,000 sq. ft.
Office Greater than 400,000 sq. ft.
$128.62
Per 1,000 sq. ft.
Office - Medical
$286.21
Per 1,000 sq. ft.
Pharmacy/Drug Store
$418.45
Per 1,000 sq. ft.
Quick Lube
$199.27
Per Service Bay
Restaurant - Fast Food w/Drive -In
$2,007.11
Per 1,000 sq. ft.
Restaurant - High Turnover
$1,552.43
Per 1,000 sq. ft.
Restaurant - Quality
$1,449.18
Per 1,000 sq. ft.
Retail 50,000 Sq. Ft. or Less
$574.23
Per 1,000 sq. ft.
Retail 50,001- 100,000 Sq. Ft.
$539.81
Per 1,000 sq. ft.
Retail 100,001- 150,000 Sq. Ft.
$585.10
Per 1,000 sq. ft.
Retail 150,001- 200,000 Sq. Ft.
$548.88
Per 1,000 sq. ft.
Retail 200,001- 400,000 Sq. Ft.
$476.41
Per 1,000 sq. ft.
Retail 400,001- 600,000 Sq, Ft.
$494.54
Per 1,000 sq. ft.
Retail 600,001- 1,000,000 Sq. Ft.
$490.90
Per 1,000 sq. ft.
Retail >1,000,000 Sq. Ft.
$431.12
Per 1,000 sq. ft.
Retail - Specialty
$355.04
Per 1,000 sq. ft.
School - Elementary (Private)
$16.30
Per Student
School - Middle (Private)
$19.92
Per Student
School - High School (Private)
$21.75
Per Student
Supermarket
$411.21
Per 1,000 sq. ft.
Tire Store
$295.27
Per Service Bay
C.
6.
7.
8.
9.
R2M er County
IMPACT FEE SCHEDULE
EFFECTIVE FEBRUARY 14, 2010
(Jail Change)
LIBRARIES
PARKS - COMMUNITY
RATE
Mobile Home/RV Park
$523.80
Per Unit/Site
Multi- Family
$424.14
Per Dwelling Unit
Single Family Detached House
$711.45
Per Dwelling Unit
Less than 1,500 sq, ft.
$530.17
Per Dwelling Unit
1,500 to 2,499 sq. ft.
$583.19
Per Dwelling Unit
2,500 sq. ft. or larger
$631.97
Per Dwelling Unit
PARKS - COMMUNITY
PARKS - REGIONAL
RATE
Hotel/Motel
$503.22
Per Room
Mobile Home/RV Park
$945.71
Per Unit/Site
Multi- Family
$711.45
Per Dwelling Unit
Single Family Detached House
$4,314.00
Per Dwelling Unit
Less than 1,500 sq, ft.
$1,199.02
Per Dwelling Unit
1,500 to 2,499 sq. ft.
$1,315.89
Per Dwelling Unit
2,500 sq. ft. or larger
$1,445.75
Per Dwelling Unit
PARKS - REGIONAL
ROAD
RESIDENTIAL
RATE
Hotel/Motel
$1,038.61
Per Room
Mobile Home/RV Park
$1,916.05
Per Unit/Site
Multi - Family
$1,298.26
Per Dwelling Unit
Single Family Detached House
$4,314.00
Per Dwelling Unit
Less than 1,500 sq. ft.
$2,199.69
Per Dwelling Unit
1,500 to 2,499 sq. ft.
$2,420.51
Per Dwelling Unit
2,500 sq. ft. or larger
$2,666.80
Per Dwelling Unit
ROAD
RESIDENTIAL
RATE
Assisted Living Facility (ALF)
$1,347.00
Per Dwelling Unit
Condo/Townhouse (1 -2 Stories)
$7,725.00
Per Dwelling Unit
High -Rise Condominium (3+ Stories)
$5,526.00
Per Dwelling Unit
Mobile Home
$4,314.00
Per Dwelling Unit
Multi - Family (Apartments) 1 -10 Stories
$7,464.00
Per Dwelling Unit
Multi - Family (Apartments) >10 Stories
$4,784.00
Per Dwelling Unit
Retirement Community
$3,754.00
Per Dwelling Unit
Single Family Detached House
Less than 1,500 sq. ft,
$7,652.00
Per Dwelling Unit
1,500 to 2,499 sq. ft.
$10,372.00
Per Dwelling Unit
2,500 sq. ft. or larger
$11,559.00
Per Dwelling Unit
7
9.
IMPACT FEE SCHEDULE
EFFECTIVE FEBRUARY 14, 2010
(Jail Change)
ROAD (Continued)
NON - RESIDENTIAL
RATE
Auto Sales - Luxury
$14,996.00
Per 1,000 sq. ft.
Auto Sales - New/Used
$27,131.00
Per 1,000 sq. ft.
Bank/Savings: Drive -In
$40,158.00
Per 1,000 sq. ft.
Bank/Savings; Walk -In
$39,429.00
Per 1,000 sq. ft,
Business Park
$14,021.00
Per 1,000 sq. ft.
Car Wash - Automatic
$39,066.00
Per 1,000 sq. ft.
Car Wash - Self - Service
$36,367.00
Per Service Bay
Church
$8,619.00
Per 1,000 sq. ft.
College/University (Private)
<7,501 Students
$2,374.00
Per Student
>7,500 Students
$1,766.00
Per Student
Convenience Store (24 hours)
$97,636.00
Per 1,000 sq. ft.
Convenience Store w /Gas Pumps
$37,652.00
Per Fuel Position
Dance Studios/Gymnastics
$11,339.00
Per 1,000 sq. ft.
Day Care
$1,445.00
Per Student
Furniture Store
$3,545.00
Per 1,000 sq. ft.
Gasoline /Service Station
$8,221.00
Per Fuel Position
General Light Industrial
$7,732.00
Per 1,000 sq. ft.
Golf Course
$749,894.00
Per 18 Holes
Home Improvement Store
$9,901.00
Per 1,000 sq. ft.
Hospital
$18,034.00
Per 1,000 sq. ft.
Hotel
$6,578.00
Per Room
Hotel - All Suites
$3,891.00
Per Room
Marina
$3,517.00
Per Berth (Dry/Wet)
Mini - Warehouse
$1,436.00
Per 1,000 sq. ft.
Motel
$4,222.00
Per Room
Movie Theater
$46,217.00
Per Screen
Nursing Home
$1,261.00
Per Bed
Office 50,000 sq. ft. or less
$16,763.00
Per 1,000 sq. ft.
Office 50,001 - 100,000 sq. ft.
$14,257.00
Per 1,000 sq. ft.
Office 100,001- 200,000 sq. ft.
$12,115.00
Per 1,000 sq. ft.
Office 200,001 - 400,000 sq. ft.
$10,296.00
Per 1,000 sq. ft.
Office Greater than 400,000 sq. ft.
$9,348.00
Per 1,000 sq. ft.
Office - Medical
$40,517.00
Per 1,000 sq. ft.
Pharmacy/Drug Store
$13,958.00
Per 1,000 sq. ft.
Quick Lube
$14,522.00
Per Servuce Bay
Restaurant - Drive -In
$137,444.00
Per 1,000 sq. ft.
Restaurant - High Turnover
$2,440.00
Per Seat
Restaurant - Quality
$1,553.00
Per Seat
Retail 50,000 Sq. Ft. or Less
$19,823.00
Per 1,000 sq. ft.
Retail 50,001 - 100,000 Sq. Ft.
$20,041.00
Per 1,000 sq, ft.
Retail 100,001 - 150,000 Sq. Ft.
$18,661.00
Per 1,000 sq. ft.
Retail 150,001- 200,000 Sq. Ft.
$17,883.00
Per 1,000 sq. ft.
Retail 200,001 - 400,000 Sq. Ft.
$16,893.00
Per 1,000 sq. ft.
Retail 400,001 - 600,000 Sq. Ft.
$16,847.00
Per 1,000 sq. ft.
Retail 600,001- 1,000,000 Sq. Ft.
$18,255.00
Per 1,000 sq. ft.
E]
9.
10.
Co er County
IMPACT FEE SCHEDULE
EFFECTIVE FEBRUARY 14, 2010
(Jail Change)
ROAD (Continued
9
RATE
Retail >1,000,000 Sq. Ft.
$19,187.00
Per 1,000 sq. ft.
Retail - Specialty
$26,877.00
Per 1,000 sq. ft.
RV Park
$2,299.00
Per Site
School - Elementary (Private)
$1,005.00
Per Student
School - Middle (Private)
$1,439.00
Per Student
School - High School (Private)
$1,526.00
Per Student
Supermarket
$26,570.00
Per 1,000 sq. ft.
Tire Store
$10,930.00
Per Service Bay
SCHOOLS (Educational Facilities)
RATE
Mobile Home/RV Park
$6,687.38
Per Unit/Site
Multi - Family
$3,343.68
Per Dwelling Unit
Single Family Detached House
Less than 1,500 sq. ft.
$9,612.82
Per Dwelling Unit
1,500 - 2,499 sq. ft.
$10,755.41
Per Dwelling Unit
2,500 sq. ft. or larger
$11,702.91
Per Dwelling Unit
9
APPENDIX A
SCHEDULE TWO - EFFECTIVE October 1. 2008
WATER & SEWER SYSTEM IMPACT FEE RATE SCHEDULE
RESIDENTIAL.
MASTER METERED
RESIDENTIAL
ALLOCATION 1�vu+rrem rrsrw�rorr FEE FEE
cor—w1
0 TO 750
INDIVIDUALLY METERED
PER ERC
LIVING SPACE (SQ.FT)
BASIS OF FEE
IGIETER SIZE ERC
WA TER MWAiCT SEWBR IMPACT
PER UNIT
ALLOCATION
x w"$Wl ►r"wen .r
FEE
$2,342.00
1,501 OR MORE
C"wd"
PER ERC
0 TO 4,999
(AND NO MORE THAN 4 BATHROOMS)
PER UNIT
314°
1
$3,575.00
$3,495.00
5,000 OR MORE
ERC Value x $3,575
Per Engineer of
"ADF (min value of
ERC Value x $3,575
(OR MORE THAN 4 BATHROOMS)
PER ERC
Record
1.0) (rounded to
(minimum value
$3,495.00
nearest tenth)
$3,575)
nearest tenth)
$3,575)
RESIDENTIAL.
MASTER METERED
LIVING SPACE (SQ.FT.) BASIS OF FEE MFIER 512E ERC WATIER IMPACT SEWER IMPACT'
ALLOCATION 1�vu+rrem rrsrw�rorr FEE FEE
cor—w1
0 TO 750
PER UNIT
PER ERC
0.33
$1,180.00
$1,153.00
751 TO 1,500
PER UNIT
PER ERC
0.67
$2,395.00
$2,342.00
1,501 OR MORE
PER UNIT
PER ERC
1.0
$3,575.00
$3,495.00
5,000 OR MORE
$3,495)
'ADF (min value of
ERC Value x $3,575
(OR MORE THAN 4 BATHROOMS)
PER ERC
1.0) (rounded to
(minimum value
$3,495.00
nearest tenth)
$3,575)
NOhI- RESIDEWIAL
. a.
. BASIS OF
SPACE (SQFT) METER SIZE
W411WNG WAA0 SEWER M PACT
ALLOCATION
conEnRscC rao rly
FEE
Non - Residential
PER ERC
Per Engineer of
"ADF (min value of
ERC Value x $3,575
ERC Value x $3,495
$1,213.00
$410.00
Record
1.0) (rounded to
(minimum value
(minimum value
nearest tenth)
$3,575)
$3,495)
AnnAndiX A - Anhradi da Fns it
_, eter TOp Feet
Meter Sire RevWer Ndue#d
0.75 inch
$779.00
$257.00
1 inch
$827.00
$270.00
1.5 inch
$940.00
$347.00
2 inch
$1,213.00
$410.00
ADF = Average Daily Flow (ADF) is defined by the following formulas:
Gallons Per Minute (GPM) formula = [(GPM - 24)/20] +1 OR
Gallons Per Day (GPD) formula = Total GPD/350
Residential Customers must use GPM formula
Non - Residential customers must use GPM or GPD formula whichever has the greatest value
'Findale- Oliver & Associates, Inc.
Plaiiiiijag and Eiigiiieeririg
August 25, 2010
Ms. Amy Patterson
Impact Fee Manager
Collier County Financial Administration and Housing Department
2800 North Horseshoe Drive
Naples, Florida 34104
RE: Transportation Impact Fee Update Study
Dear Ms. Patterson:
Per your request, this letter summarizes the key changes to the transportation impact fee. The most recent
transportation impact fee technical study was completed in 2009, and relied mostly on 2007 and 2008 data.
In April of 2010, TOA calculated the annual index for the transportation impact fee using the 2 -year average
methodology adopted by the Collier County Board of County Commissioners. The updated index relied on
following variables /indices:
• Collier County Property Values;
• Producer Price Index (PPI, for highway construction); and
• Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) Average Roadway Construction Cost.
The indexing methodology resulted in an index of -5.6 percent. Of the variables used, PPI indicated an
increase in highway construction cost while the figures obtained from FDOT indicated a decrease. Because
PPI is a national index while the FDOT figures reflect costs experienced in Florida, the index was revised to
exclude PPI, which suggested an overall decrease of 12.8 percent in the transportation impact fee.
Given the higher level of decrease experienced in roadway costs, the County decided to conduct a cost and
credit update of the transportation impact fee to ensure that the cost decrease is fully reflected on the fee.
The following paragraphs provide a summary of key findings.
1000 North Ashley Drive, Suite 100, Tampa, Florida 33602 • Phone: (813) 224 -8862 • Fax: (813) 226 -2106
1595 South Semoran Boulevard, Building 7, Suite 1540, Winter Park, Florida 32792 • Phone: (407) 657 -9210 • Fax: (407) 657 -9106
195 South Central Avenue, Bartow, Florida 33830 • Phone: (863) 533 -8454 • Fax: (863) 533 -8481
Tindale- Oliver & Associates, Inc.
Planning and Enginccring
Ms. Amy Patterson
August 25, 2010
Page 2 of 9
Cost Component
As part of the study, roadway cost trends were evaluated and the following was noted:
• Historically, Collier County has experienced steady appreciation in land values, which has resulted
in high right -of -way (ROW) costs. Between 2003 and 2007, the total just value of the properties in
the county increased by an annual average of 17 percent, placing upward pressure on land
acquisition costs. In early 2008, costs started to stabilize, and more recently, land values decreased
significantly by an annual average of approximately 14 percent during the 2009/2010 period.
Interviews with other communities indicated that other jurisdictions are experiencing decreases in
ROW costs, primarily due to lower land values resulting from slowdown of the real estate market.
In addition, new acquisition methods and other innovative strategies are being used to cut project
costs. For example, FDOT District 1 has implemented an "incentive program," which is an
acquisition method that pays the property owner a higher up -front amount for their property in place
of the costly negotiations, mitigations and litigations. Figure I presents the ROW cost per lane mile
experienced in Collier County during the period from 2003 to 2010.
1000 North Ashley Drive, Suite 100, Tampa, Florida 33602 • Phone: (813) 224 -8862 * Fax: (813) 226 -2106
1595 South Semoran Boulevard, Building 7, Suite 1540, Winter Park, Florida 32792 • Phone: (407) 657 -9210 • Fax: (407) 657 -9106
195 South Central Avenue, Bartow, Florida 33830 • Phone: (863) 533 -8454 • Fax: (863) 533 -8481
M
O
((D O
_ 3
O
Z
v o
0 W �
S O
3
a K
@ � [7
C <
(D
< Q
O ('0 C
m m
v cn o
O —�
M v, 3
T1 j •�
Q O N
-n
O O
W
W (D Q
O N W
• � 41
"Ti O
? O •
� O
W N
Ln • 0D
CD W 'Q
A 3
0 N
Ln
A (D Oo
• 00
A 0)
O N
cn
-n
C" -,A X
W, N_
u
W O
W •
00
-n
� X O
J
cn
J
Ci7
O
0)
0
c
0
0
N
a
H
ITI
UQ
C
"1
F•+
n
r-.
0
e .J'
e-
1
r
J
VJ
ry.
l 'J
1�
I�
ROW Cost (per lane mile)
N N N N
� N
0 0 0 0 0
0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
00
o o
� O a
v �
�
0
0 No
O p
�
i,
i
NI
0
\V
o
4 M
0
3
N $
rh
�
o m
Q
cu
O
°m `d
r+
6
iv
i
(D
N
O N
o
i
(D
i
a y'%
�i�ahl�.�,
�i�i�i t V��i��
IAN r
y
MI �
�I� � Haig
�
e+ ri
a -�. �� is o w
1",
i t
0
�°n o
0 0
E
ITI
UQ
C
"1
F•+
n
r-.
0
e .J'
e-
1
r
J
VJ
ry.
l 'J
1�
I�
Ifindale -( )liver & Associates, I11C.
Phtniiing atd Engineering
Similarly, construction costs in Collier County and throughout Florida have been volatile in recent
years. Costs increased significantly between 2005 and 2007 due to additional construction demand
caused by hurricanes, housing market growth, and other factors. In early 2008, costs started to
stabilize, and more recently, costs decreased significantly due to the economic conditions and
increased competition for projects. From 2006/07 to 2009/10, the average number of bidders per
FDOT contract has increased from 3.4 to 6.0 while the number of contracts below estimate has
increased steadily. Despite material price pressure, subcontractors continue to reduce quotes.
Figure 2 presents the trend in the construction cost per lane mile for county roads, and shows the
construction cost adopted as part of the transportation impact fee as well as bids received by Collier
County and other Florida counties. As presented, the adopted construction cost follows closely the
trend determined by construction bids.
1000 North Ashley Drive, Suite 100, Tampa, Florida 33602 • Phone: (813) 224 -8862 • Fax: (813) 226 -2106
1595 South Semoran Boulevard, Building 7, Suite 1540, Winter Park, Florida 32792 • Phone: (407) 657 -9210 • Fax: (407) 657 -9106
195 South Central Avenue, Bartow, Florida 33830 • Phone: (863) 533 -8454 • Fax: (863) 533 -8481
cn
cs>
0
O O
3 0
°, z
O
p to 3
c
3 fD
0 < n)
W
c �
D —
(D c
C � m
CO Cf)o
C. o
0
- �3
O
o
w
W � OQ
ov W
T Q
0- •
CL
n) C
CD
W N
W • o0
O
A � Qp
• OD
P 61
� p N
x •
a1 T
X
.W. j
CO
W • .w.
cop N N
C:> G)
W
0)
Ln
(p
C>
61
0
0
iv
5'
d
n
0
n
0
n.
G
a
0
H
ITI
i�
V
C
N
Y�
G
�-e
v 1
J
ry
i
WE
V/
n
r
V
H
r•
n
Construction Cost (per lane mile)
8 S S g 8 0 8 0
0
8 0 8 0 0 8 8 8 0
N
O
ih
Id Y
0 O
N
r�I���i ry ty d
o
N 0
11
o
n
r
0 7
f %
P cam.
C
li
r+
i4
o CL
_
8
�
Ln
r4
O
Id
R'
O
,h
m
N
r^,
IN
1 V
tly
I
N
{
S N
�
y4i 'Dien
N
ho
NQ�
�ry
t
Cr
f
v
R, 9
N N
i
ITI
i�
V
C
N
Y�
G
�-e
v 1
J
ry
i
WE
V/
n
r
V
H
r•
n
- I'Iii(lale- Oliver & Associates, Inc.
Plaiirurig and I iigineeririg
• Similarly, Figure 3 shows the construction cost trend for state roads. The figure presents bids and
estimates obtained from FDOT District 1, statewide bids (excluding those in District 1), and
statewide estimates. Finally, the estimate for construction along State Road 84 is also included since
this is the only future state project in Collier County. As presented, trends shown in Figure 3
indicate reductions in state road construction costs in 2008 and 2009. It should be noted that, so far,
FDOT has not bid any lane additions projects in 2010.
1000 North Ashley Drive, Suite 100, Tampa, Florida 33602 • Phone: (813) 224 -8862 • Fax: (813) 226 -2106
1595 South Semoran Boulevard, Building 7, Suite 1540, Winter Park, Florida 32792 • Phone: (407) 657 -9210 • Fax: (407) 657 -9106
195 South Central Avenue, Bartow, Florida 33830 • Phone: (863) 533 -8454 • Fax: (863) 533 -8481
0
F
N
d
(J1
CT
U)
O
C
s
U
m O
3 °
O °
v z
O
0 0 ?
3 C >
CP N S
j D `G
N C
D <
< CL
� � C
C _
(D
0
0
T A
O � N
a 5 T
O O
00 w
W �
W
O N W
• F m
O
T T N
S O
O
Z; a
_ W O
O
0) v N O
N
Ln • C?
Cl) V
S
O
A (D W
• O
A O
T O N
X
U T
V7 �
0) X
U1
W O
W •
o T N
N
O �
y
W
^J
(D
O
W
ITI
QQ
C
^S
r.�
N
n
('v
i
1— •
...1
f..J
�1 1
r
i✓
1
u
rdw
:.n
v
n
o-N .
P-i
rhindale- Oliver & Associates, I1IC.
_ Planning; quid 1]ng7inecririg
The cost component was updated based on construction bids, estimates, and other cost information obtained
both for projects in Collier County and other Florida counties. The components updated included
construction, ROW, design, CEI, mitigation, interchange and carrying costs. Currently, utility relocation
costs are included as part of the transportation impact fee. However, the general practice statewide is to
include these costs as part of the utility rates. As such, the County decided to remove the relocation cost out
of the transportation impact fee and include as part of the utility rates. Because the utility rates are currently
being updated, until the revised study is completed and adopted, the utility relocation cost will remain as
part of the transportation impact fee. After that, it will be taken out, which will reduce the fee further.
The total combined cost decreased approximately by 30 to 35 percent when utility costs are included, and 35
to 40 percent when utility costs were excluded.
Credit Component
With the economic downturn, the resources available for roadway construction have been decreasing. The
updated credit component reflects the decrease in the availability of non - impact fee funding sources for
roads. The credit for funding received from the County was based on the 2011 -2015 Annual Update and
Inventory Report (AUIR), and the credit for state funding was based on a review of historical projects
funded by the State in Collier County over the past 14 years as well as future programmed projects in the 5-
year Work Program. Overall, the credit decreased by approximately 15 to 20 percent.
Other Components
As part of the update study, the other components reviewed and /or updated to reflect most recent data
include the following:
• Demand;
• Capacity added;
• Fuel efficiency factor; and
• Other factors such as the discount rate, effective days, facility life, etc.
Updated Fee Schedule
Results of the study indicate a decrease of 20 to 25 percent when utility relocation costs were included in the
fee calculations, and 30 to 35 percent decrease when utility relocations costs were excluded.
1000 North Ashley Drive, Suite 100, Tampa, Florida 33602 • Phone: (813) 224 -8862 • Fax: (813) 226 -2106
1595 South Semoran Boulevard, Building 7, Suite 1540, Winter Park, Florida 32792 9 Phone: (407) 657 -9210 • Fax: (407) 657 -9106
195 South Central Avenue, Bartow, Florida 33830 • Phone: (863) 533 -8454 • Fax: (863) 533 -8481
Tind ale -Oliver & Associates, Inc.
Planning and En inceriug
Ms. Amy Patterson
August 25, 2010
Page 9 of 9
We hope this summary is helpful. If you should have any questions concerning these calculations, please do
not hesitate to contact me or Nilgun Kamp.
Sincerely,
Tindale- Oliver & Associates, Inc.
Steven A. Tindale, P.E., AICP
President
1000 North Ashley Drive, Suite 100, Tampa, Florida 33602 • Phone: (813) 224 -8862 • Fax: (813) 226 -2106
1595 South Semoran Boulevard, Building 7, Suite 1540, Winter Park, Florida 32792 • Phone: (407) 657 -9210 • Fax: (407) 657 -9106
195 South Central Avenue, Bartow, Florida 33830 • Phone: (863) 533 -8454 • Fax: (863) 533 -8481