Agenda 02/22/2011 Item # 8A
2/22/2011 Item 8.A.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Recommendation to adopt a Resolution amending the Collier County Water-Sewer
District Impact Fee Rates, established by Ordinance No. 2007-57, as amended, by
reducing the water impact fee by $370 (-10.3%) to $3,205 per Equivalent Residential
Connection, and the wastewater impact fee by $275 (-7.9%) to $3,220 per
Equivalent Residential Connection, for a total reduction of $645 (-9.1%), with an
effective date of March 1, 2011.
OBJECTIVE: Adopt a Resolution amending the impact fee rates established by
Ordinance No. 2007-57, as amended, providing for incorporation by reference the results
of the Fiscal Year 2011 Water and Wastewater Impact Fee Study.
CONSIDERATIONS: Water and wastewater impact fees are used by the Collier
County Water-Sewer District (District) to fund necessary long-term capital improvements
required to meet the increased demand for potable water and wastewater services relative
to population growth and growth-related development. One of the standards for inclusion
of capital project costs in the impact fee calculation is that the project is growth driven or
provides a system-wide benefit, the cost of which should be shared by new growth
connecting to the system.
Ordinance No. 2001-13, adopted by the Board of County Commissioners (Board) on
March 13, 2001, as amended, included amendments to impact fee schedules by
Resolution No. 2002-88, adopted on February 12,2002.
The impact fee methodology for the District's non-residential customers was amended by
Resolution No. 2003-300, adopted on September 9, 2003. On April 13, 2004, Resolution
No, 2004-102 authorized a change in format to the subject Fee Schedule to provide
additional clarity and consistency regarding water and wastewater impact fees.
Ordinance No. 2007-57, adopted on June 26, 2007, established the District's then current
water and wastewater impact fees.
On June 24, 2008, the Board adopted Resolution No 2008-202 decreasing the water
impact fees by $41.49 and wastewater impact fee by $227.39, for a total reduction of
$268.88. The effective date of the decrease was October 1,2008.
Public Resources Management Group (PRMG) was retained in June 2010 to perform a
water and wastewater impact fee study. Their analysis shows, and staff recommends, a
decrease in the water impact fee by $370, and a decrease in the wastewater impact fee by
$275, for a total reduction of $645, effective March 1, 2011. If approved by the Board,
the total reduction in combined water and wastewater impact fees since 2008 will be
$914 (-12.5%).
Packet Page -80-
2/22/2011 Item B.A.
For water and wastewater combined, the capital costs allocable to future users through
Fiscal Year 2020 are estimated at approximately $266.7 million.
The methodology used to calculate these proposed impact fees is consistent with the
approach used in previous impact fee studies, and conforms to the equity tests established
by case law (i.e., rational nexus).
Staff reviewed the Capital Improvement Plan included in the impact fee study with the
Chamber of Commerce Public Policy Committee on November 19,2010. The committee
did not take any action; however, positively acknowledged the work of the Public
Utilities Staff. Staff reviewed the Capital Improvement Plan and the study with the
Development Services Advisory Committee (DSAC) on November 3 and December 1,
2010, and January 5, 2011. At the January 5, 2011, meeting, the DSAC recommended
approval of the study with ten members voting in favor, three opposed and one recused.
Staff also met with the Productivity Committee on November 17 and December 15,2010,
and on January 19, 2011. The Productivity Committee appointed a sub-committee to
review the study. Upon the recommendations of the sub-committee, the Productivity
Committee unanimously recommended approval of the impact fee study as presented.
Please see Attachment 1 for a copy of the timetable of all interactions with stakeholders.
A copy of the study is available in the County Manager's Office.
FISCAL IMP ACT: Assuming annual growth of 1,000 water Equivalent Residential
Connection (ERCs) @ $3,205 per ERC and 1,000 wastewater ERCs @ $3,220 per ERC,
the revenues to be generated by these recommended impact fees for the fiscal year 2012
are estimated as:
Water
Wastewater
$3,205,000 (Water Impact Fee Fund No. 411)
$3.220.000 (Wastewater Impact Fee Fund No. 413)
TOTAL =
$6.425.000
Historically, utility relocation costs have been included as part of the road impact fee. On
the advice of outside legal counsel, the utility relocation costs in the amount of $7.2
million will be removed from the road impact fee and moved to the utility user rates.
The effect of the proposed impact fees on residential and non-residential structures is
shown in the attached Exhibit A.
LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS: The proposed Resolution has been approved for format
and legal sufficiency by the Office of the County Attorney. This action requires a
majority vote by the Board. JBW
The impact fee study was reviewed by the legal firm Nabors, Giblin, and Nickerson, P.A.
See attached Exhibit B for a copy of the letter. Also, reference page three (3) of the
Packet Page -81-
2/22/2011 Item B.A.
impact fee consultant's (PRMG) letter dated February 15, 2011, Subject: Water and
Wastewater Impact Fee Study
GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMP ACT: The purpose of these recommended water
and wastewater impact fees is to provide necessary revenues from future customers of the
District's water and wastewater systems to fund long-term capital improvements required
to meet the increased demand for potable water and wastewater services relative to
population growth and growth-related development, as analyzed by the impact fee study.
RECOMMENDATION: That the Board of County Commissioners, as Ex-officio
Governing Board of the Collier County Water-Sewer District adopt a Resolution
amending the Collier County Water-Sewer District Impact Fee Rates, established by
Ordinance No. 2007-57, as amended, by reducing the water impact fee by $370 (-10.3%)
to $3,205 per Equivalent Residential Connection, and the wastewater impact fee by $275
(-7.9%) to $3,220 per Equivalent Residential Connection, for a total reduction of $645
(-9,1 %) , with an effective date of March 1,2011.
Prepared by: Tom Wides, Operations Support Director, Public Utilities Division
Packet Page -82-
2/22/2011 Item 8.A.
COLLIER COUNTY
Board of County Commissioners
Item Number: 8.A.
Item Summary: This item was continued from the February 8, 2011 BCC
meeting.Recommendation to adopt a Resolution amending the Collier County Water-Sewer
District Impact Fee Rates, established by Ordinance No. 2007-57, as amended, by reducing the
water impact fee by $370 (-10.3%) to $3,205 per Equivalent Residential Connection, and the
wastewater impact fee by $275 (-7.9%) to $3,220 per Equivalent Residential Connection, for a
total reduction of $645 (-9.1%), with an effective date of March 1,2011. (Companion item to 8B
and 8e)
Meeting Date: 2/22/2011
Prepared By
Name: SridharBala
Title: Management/Budget Analyst, Senior,Utilities Finane
2/15/2011 3:00:50 PM
Submitted by
Title: Director - Operations Support - PUD,Utilities Fina
Name: WidesTom
2/15/2011 3:00:51 PM
Approved By
Name: HapkeMargie
Title: VALUE MISSING
Date: 2/15/2011 3:16:04 PM
Name: WidesTom
Title: Director - Operations Support - PUD,Utilities Fina
Date: 2/16/2011 8:56:53 AM
Name: Amysue Benker
Title: Executive Secretary,
Date: 2/16/2011 9:20:22 AM
Packet Page -83-
2/22/2011 Item B.A.
Name: WhiteJennifer
Title: Assistant County Attorney,County Attorney
Date: 2/16/2011 9:58:57 AM
Name: UsherSusan
Title: Management/Budget Analyst, Senior, Office of Manage
Date: 2/16/2011 10:54:58 AM
Name: KlatzkowJeff
Title: County Attorney,
Date: 2/16/2011 11:55:58 AM
Name: IsacksonMark
Title: Director-Corp Financial and Mgmt Svs,CMO
Date: 2/16/2011 12:00:42 PM
Name: OchsLeo
Title: County Manager
Date: 2/16/2011 1:43:08 PM
Packet Page -84-
2/22/2011 Item 8.A.
HI
Public Resources Management Group, Inc.
Utility, Rate, Financial and Management Consultants
February 15,2011
Honorable Chairman and Members of the
Board of County Commissioners
Collier County
3301 Tamiami Trail East
Naples, FL 34112
Subject:
Water and Wastewater Impact Fee Study
Ladies and Gentlemen:
Public Resources Management Group, Inc. (pRMG) has completed our review of the water and
wastewater impact fees for the Collier County (the "County") Water-Sewer District (the
"District") water and wastewater system (the "System"), and has summarized the results of our
analyses, assumptions, and conclusions in this report, which is submitted for your consideration.
The purpose of our analysis was to review the existing impact fees and make recommendations
as to the level of charges that should reasonably be in effect consistent with: i) the fixed assets
installed by the District; and ii) the capital expenditure requirements identified in the District's
multi-year capital improvement program (CIP). As reported by County staff, the capital cost
estimates as contained in the CIP were based on recent prices for local Collier County projects,
and such cost estimates were recognized in the impact fee calculations reflected in this report.
Since the last fonnal impact fee and user rate studies performed in 2008, the District has
continued to recognize lower customer growth as a result of current economic conditions.
Moreover, water sales have declined also due to the current economic conditions coupled with
the lingering effects of the recently imposed general water use restrictions by the South Florida
Water Management District (which have been relaxed as of the date of this report). Based on the
latest County planning estimates, no new water and wastewater treatment facilities are
anticipated to be required until Fiscal Year 2027.
Based on our review, PRMG is recommending that the water system impact fee be decreased
from $3,575 to $3,205 per Equivalent Residential Connection (ERe). For the wastewater
system, we are recommending a decrease in the impact fee from $3,495 to $3,220 per ERC. The
combined water and wastewater fees with the proposed rate adjustments would be $6,425, a
decrease of $645 or 9.1 % when compared with the existing combined fees of $7,070. In 2008,
the combined fees were lowered by $269. Since 2008, the total reduction in the combined water
and wastewater impact fees has been $914 ($645 + $269) or 12.5%.
The rate schedule for the proposed impact fees calculated during the current impact fee study is
shown on Table ES-l following this letter. In addition to having recalculated the impact fees for
the System, PRMG has also updated the System Allowance for Funds Prudently Invested (AFPI)
fees which link to the impact fees and are essentially a "carrying charge" to recover certain costs
associated with providing capacity to new development. The AFPI fees reflect the cost of
Packet Page -85-
2/22/2011 Item B.A.
Honorable Chairman and Members of the
Board of County Commissioners
Collier County
February 15,2011
Page 2
financing the expansion-related infrastructure until impact fees are received by the District.
AFPI fees are not impact fees; rather, they are considered a component of the System rates and
charges. Any AFPI fees received are treated as other operating revenues of the System and
should be utilized to pay for System debt service. A summary of the proposed AFPI fees is
shown on Table ES-2 following this letter.
At the outset of the study, it was determined that the proposed impact fees should meet a number
of goals and objectives. These goals and objectives deal primarily with criteria related to fee
sufficiency and level. Specifically, the major objectives considered in this study included:
· Existing customers, to the extent practical, should not finance or be impacted by the cost of
financing and constructing water and wastewater infrastructure to serve new growth;
· The water impact fees should be sufficient to fund the allocable cost of the identified capital
requirements associated with providing water production; treatment and transmission service
to new development;
· The wastewater impact fees should be sufficient to fund the allocable cost of the identified
capital requirements associated with providing wastewater transmission, treatment and
disposal service to new development;
· The impact fees should not be used to fund deficiencies in the capital needs of the water and
wastewater utility systems (i.e., no expenditures for renewal and replacement or upgrade of
facilities allocable to existing customers);
· The impact fees should be based upon reasonable level of service standards that meet the
needs of the District, should be indicative of the criteria used for long-term infrastructure
planning, and should be consistent with industry standards;
· The proposed impact fees should be based on cost of service (full cost recovery) principles;
and
· New development, to the extent practical, should fund the cost of financing the construction
of System infrastructure specifically allocated to expansion; the AFPI fee (carrying charge)
provides a basis of recovering such costs and further shifts the burden of expansion-related
capital to new growth.
The proposed water and wastewater impact fees presented in this report have been structured to
meet these objectives. The fees we calculated during the course of our analyses were based on
the recovery of capital-related costs that have been incurred and which have available capacity to
serve new development as well as costs anticipated to be incurred by the District during the
projection period. As previously mentioned, the capital-related costs identified in the CIP were
Packet Page -86-
2/22/2011 Item 8.A.
Honorable Chairman and Members of the
Board of County Commissioners
Collier County
February 15,2011
Page 3
prepared by the District staff and documented the capital improvement plan for the fiscal year
period of2010 to 2020, which is the capital needs period considered in the impact fee report.
The methodology for the determination of the proposed impact fees was also reviewed by the
County's outside legal counsel and the fees as documented in this report reflect all of the
recommendations from said counsel. Specifically, capital projects classified as "replacement" or
"relocation" (would include all water and wastewater line relocations) have been excluded from
the fee calculations. Although these projects would increase the "per unit" cost of the installed
capacity available to serve growth, such projects may not directly upgrade or enhance the
existing capacity so they were removed from the calculations. Furthermore, those projects that
have been classified by and are considered by County staff to be an "upgrade" or "reliability
improvement" to the existing capacity have been included in the fee calculations. As discussed
with legal counsel, upgrades to the existing system provide a benefit to both existing service
capacity and capacity which is available to serve future growth and reliability expenditures either
create additional capacity or directly enhance the capacity with is available to serve future
growth. We believe this is consistent with the recommendations of the County's outside legal
counsel, since the projects do enhance existing capacity. Predicated on the recognition of these
adjustments to the impact fee evaluation process, which resulted in reducing the amount of
capital costs included in the overall fee evaluation, we believe that the fees are legally defensible.
Based on the information provided by the District and the assumptions and considerations
outlined in this report, which should be read in its entirety, PRMG considers the proposed impact
fees to be cost-based, reasonable, and representative of the allocable capital expenditure needs of
the District to serve growth. Additionally, the proposed AFPI fees are considered by PRMG to
be reasonable and comparable with similar charges imposed by other Florida utilities. Moreover,
such fees provide a basis for the recovery of the cost of capital associated with constructing and
financing expansion-related infrastructure.
We appreciate the opportunity to be of service to the County and would like to thank the County
staff for their assistance and cooperation during the course of this study.
Respectfully submitted,
Public Resources Management Group, Inc.
:?~~ ~ cO~,
Robert J. Ori
President
~a.n~
Bryan A. Mantz
Supervising Consultantr
Packet Page -87-
., .!
...
'C D
:~ ~
ClIO.
t 'C
< f ll.
'" E
... ~t
:a .. -
:E ~ .
.,t
)( - 11
u.I D ..
g ~
"'...
~ a
.~ ..
= ~
~ ~
~
2/22/2011 Item B.A.
~ ~~
... fil Iii fil :t::i
U
i ~ ~ ~ ~ i ... ~ ~ ~ ~i
..
:;i :;i ~ ;; Ii :;i :;i ~
~ ~ l- f I- ~ ~l
U u ffi1
'" i i
f-- f
~ I ~
I- " " "
u ! ! ! ! ! !
i ! ~ .. !
~ a s a
..
I--- I--- r-- t---
~ ~~ ",G> ~~
IHl
l- I tt: I :i~ fil I"itri
U ....
i ~ ~~ ~ ... ~ ~~ ~ ~i
..
",' ;;I.' ~ Ii :;i ;;I.' ~ 3,
.. .. ~ g
~ ~ ~l I- ~I t; If o.~
~ U fils ffi!.
- III i III i ~
~ ~ ~
I-
U C!l i ~ " ! ! I ~ C!l
l ! ~ !
C !! a s ~
w m
0: c ...I
W ~ w :$
...II- ...I 0: !z
cw - c w '-- - -:y
i=2 .~ oS i=lii "'.9 w
ffi~ 11 ffi2 II ~i c -{ ~ ~ I
;-i iii
C..J !'IF Co: p- ia ~.E!
iii~ ~j iiiw ,~ W -Eii
E E i ~ ~g.s ~ HI
~ Ifsi WI- ::l "
&!e I r <<Ill ci '" "'sli z d
~ ~il c ~~ ~ 0
UJ 2 uJ Z <>0_
C ~ ~ ,...-
..:~ ~i LL.:tO
~ !i!o.-'
- !i! ' - < - .....:!.L
0 . 0 0 '0 .
~ ii ~ ii I j j ~ ii
< "' '~
l!'"!! l!'"!! !!'"!! ~"!! '~ ill
It: ~ ~~ m H 'S~ 'S~ d ; 'Si
i :>'" 2'" ::E'" ::E'" 2'" 2'"
0. ~ .. \!; \!; 13 \!;
'" '"
. . . t . t
0. 0. .. 0. 0. 0.
- I--- i--- ~
lll~ ~~ IU",
I- U l- t:: 0 ~O 0
""I: Z '" Z z '" ..I: '"
~~ ::> w ~~ ::> ::> w O~ w
'" '" '" '" '" '"
~O w w ~O w w w !i!O w
..... 0. .. '"::I 0. 0. 0. "::I 0.
~~ ill 00: ill 00:
- - - -
~ ~ J t .. t
0 ~ 0 ) d :i!
~ ",;li "'~ ~ ~ "'~ ~ 1!
~;li " ~;li
IU 8:" ~ IQ r' ~ :fI
u ~~ "," 0 g "," ti
l O~ l I- O~ l ~
'" I-w 8~ '" " ~ ~~ '"
o.
C!l 0 " " Z
~ ~ 'Iii 1 ui~ ~
~
0 ~ ~
~
Packet Page -88-
~
~E-
~~~
E~~ -a
2'0.0 0
'i ~ ~ ~
6 ::; J! E
~~~ ~
1]"5" CJ
o ~ ~ 0
~~~ ~
i ~: ~
., : ~ . i
lEwi'1]~~
a. __ Q
~~~~1!
i~~~;
]i,5i;'CJ~
~~12~!
Bcfcf.:E
tr' .. .. ~ l!!
oj~E~
~~~~S
~5,5~~
~~~!:
~oo~i
0<<:::9
f!~li
, .. 0
< O:Z
"
()
0:
W
~
~
~
c
<
N
...
rJ;
ral
..
:;;
.
...
~
..,
:5~
~l
..
.. ...
~ a.
'2.5
~ t
~;
~:!
.. ..
g;
--..,
.. "
~!! .
= ..
.. ..
-- ..
~
..
'"
S
!l
..
~
CI.l ;
.. ..
!l>-
~~~
U 5 N
llI:e
ral
..
..
'"
..
;;
il
...
...
CI.l
!
il":
""'
-<
5-:5
6 "
:;-~
c.,
'"
o
N
OOQOOOOOOCOOOOOOOOGOClCIOO
""l:t""l:t~"'IIt'll:f'''l:t''''lt'~''''l:t~...,.'II:f'
-tti.~~.-.,i..~~..j.....
f'f"lMMf""'If'I"lMMr""lt""lrf"'lMM
OCI00ClOOOClQ ooooQO 0000 00 00
...
'"
o
N
QOOOQOOCOOOOOOClClOOOOQOOO
".."l:I"..'II:f'''l:t'.''IIII:t'''lf'''''''
...,,;.....j.~..~~~.~
MC""\Mt""lf'f"lt""lf'l"lf"'lMf'l"If'f"lf""'l
0000 ClOoo 00 00 00 00000000 00
...
:::
o
N
000000 QO OOOCl 00 000000 ClO 00
"IIII:t"l:t"'d'''O'...,.''Il:t...,....,.''l:t'''O'~''l:t'
~....;~~....~...~~
""""'"'rf"lMf'f"l~f'I"lMt""lMMC"I"')
00000000000000 00 ClO 0000 00
...
0000 00 0000 QOoooo 0000 QO oc
"'l:t'''lt'''I:t''''lI''-.:t''l:f'''''l:t''''l:t'''I:t'''lf'''l:t'''l:t
....,;~..;............;..~~
Mf'I"lt""lMt1')f'l"IMMMf'I")t'O"lM
0000 ao 00 ClOOCOO ClOOOQOOOOC
...
N
o
N
~~~~~,,~~~~~~
;:ri~~~~.._~~~~~
r---r---r---l:'r---r-- 0000000000
...
~
~
..,.. \CVl"'lf'MM 00"1001'
"l:t'.OO"'l:t'O\.QNCIO"'IItO'\II"I
;!~~~~g~:j~~~~
~\O\O'O\O\()\CI\O\Or--t"--f'
OI:'--"'IIt OOtrlNO\loOMOr-
:r-:;~6~:~;J~;1~
-t""'l"O'lI"'lr:-OOo..ONM..;-'-O
II"IV"IVlV'lY'lV"'iIl"l\O\O\O\O\O
...
~ ~...
" 2 ~ 'E ;., ..
!~::E~:L~
2....8]
1;;5.856
;., 6l,,;. S > 8
:E!~Jlo~o
e
!l
~
CI.l
B ~
;>-
.! ;: M
:: -g ~
~~
__u
llI:
ral
..
..
'"
..
;;
il
...
...
CI.l
!
~
-<
5=
E "
:;-~
c.,
~
o
N
"III:2""l:t'...,.... 'II:t'''l:t'...,...,..''l:t' "l:t'''''l:t.
."l:t"'d'''l:t'''''l:t''l:t'''llt~'''I:t'''l:t'..''Ct'
O;~o\o\o\o\a\O-:~o\o.:o\
"l:t'..,....."II1'''Il:t.....''l:t''''I1'''l:t'
\0 \0 0,,0 \0 \0 I,Q \0 \0\0 \0\0\0
...
~
o
N
~:::;~;:;::::~::~;
0\0\0\ oio\ 0.:0\ 0\0\ 0.: 0\0.:
~~~~~~~~~~~~
...
.....
o
N
"'IIt."l:t''''IIt..,.-.::t''l:t'~''''=t''Ct.''l:t'
"l:t'~~"'=f""'lf""lt'''''lt'~-.:I"~.~
0.:0.:0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\
~~~::2;:Z~~:h:Z~~~
...
"'l:t'~-.:I""If'-.::t"lf''''''If.~'''l:t'''l:t'~
~~~"II::l"''''''If''ll::l'''..,.''t:!:-.:3''''II:t''''l3"-.:t
0'\0'10\0\0\0.:0\0'10\0\0\0\
~~~~~~~~~~~~
...
N
o
N
~~~~~~~~~~:;;
r---:...o"'.....-iN 00\0\0\0\
&;~~~~~~:!~~~~
...
~
~
OONClClON""'If\OClClQN-.::t\O
0\00 ~NNN
~~~~;g:!~~..,.~~~
V"l1t"'l"C:t"'tt"""VlV"lV')I.n~""'Vl
...
~:!~~~~:~~~g~
NNf"'lf'l"'i~...j..nv-iI.Or--:"
Nf'l"'l..,.VlI.Or---OOo\O Nf'l"l
..,."I:t""'lf"""'l:t'..,.~"'l:!'It"'lV')VlV'l
...
~ ~...
:g] ~
~~~
.8..2..8
~~.8ij5
>,ODa's>Q
:Ei~Jlo~o
:-a ~ ~
~::E~
Packet Page -89-
2/22/2011 Item 8.A.
"
.c
...
00
o
o
N
,5:
"
~
c.,
$'
."
~
.g
It
~
a
.,
"
e
.,
"
o
"S:
e
Co
"
:....:
.5~
~ -~
1l-5
~~
:;; "
.gj 0
.. ~
~ '~
~~
"
- "
?:l 6
~g
]2
~l
~8.
e ~
,:; .,
~ ";;
~~
~~
" ~
!JI
..
~g.
.,:<
JI."
a: .~
:( ~
2/22/2011 Item B.A.
ATTACHMENT 1
PUBLIC UTILITIES WATER-SEWER FEE STUDY MEMORANDUM
INTRODUCTION
The intent of this memorandum is to provide documentation of the steps that staff has
completed, and remain to be completed to vet the five (5) water and wastewater related fee
studies through interested stakeholders, prior to presentation to the Board for approval on the
original scheduled date of February 8,2011. Subsequently, the Impact Fee study and the AFPI
results are scheduled for staff to request board approval on February 22, 2011.
Specifically, the five (5) studies include:
a) Collier County Water-Sewer District (CCW5D) Impact Fee study;
b) CCWSD Water and Wastewater User Fee study;
c) Goodland Water District Rate study;
d) CCWSD Irrigation Quality (IQ) Rate study;
e) CCWSD Wholesale Water Rate Study.
CCWSD STAFF ACTIVITIES (STAKEHOLDER ORDER)
COUNTY MANAGER
October 7, 2010, staff met with the County Manager and presented the results of the
five (5) fee studies.
GOODLAND
April 20, 2010, staff met with the Goodland Homeowner's Association to discuss the
need for a 5% rate increase that would be recommended to the Board for adoption on
October 1, 2010. Staff also acknowledged that a rate study was being developed to
review the 5 year financial horizon for the Goodland District.
August 16, 2010, staff appeared before Marco Island City Council, requesting that
Council not pass the contemplated 10.5% water rate increase on to Goodland. Staff
requested Council to consider a lower percentage increase, due to the unique bulk
service provision of water to Goodland.
September 20, 2010, staff again appeared before Marco Island City Council, requesting
that Council not pass the contemplated 10.5% water rate increase on to Goodland. City
Council voted to pass the 10.5% increase to all customers, including Goodland. Staff
Packet Page -90-
2/22/2011 Item B.A.
requested, and City Council agreed to separately evaluate the Goodland bulk service, as
part of a commissioned cost of service study for the Marco Island utility.
December 7, 2010, staff met with Commissioner Fiala to discuss the results of the
Goodland Water District Rate study, prior to a scheduled meeting with the Goodland
Homeowner's Association.
December 14, 2010, staff met with the Goodland Homeowner's Association to present
the results of the Goodland Rate study.
December 30, 2010, staff participated in a phone conversation initiated by Ms. Connie
Fullmer, President, Goodland Preservation Coalition. Ms. Fullmer had a number of
questions concerning the Goodland Water District, its financial condition, and the rate
study.
DSAC
November 3, 2010, staff delivered copies of the 2011 CCWSD Impact Fee to the DSAC
Committee. Staff was scheduled, and delivered an executive summary discussion to the
DSAC Committee. The DSAC provided questions to staff; some questions were
answered at the meeting, others required follow-up analysis. The DSAC took no action,
and staff was scheduled to return for the December 1, 2010 meeting.
November 22, 2010, staff responded to DSAC, reference a series of questions provided
by individual members. Staff had previously requested all questions be provided to staff
by November 19.
December 1, 2010, staff again met with the DSAC Committee to discuss the responses to
questions provided by staff on November 22. The DSAC Committee took no action;
however, provided additional questions for staff.
December 8, 2010, staff responded to DSAC, reference questions provided by individual
DSAC members at the December 1 meeting.
January 5, 2011, staff met with the DSAC Committee to answer outstanding questions,
and gain the committee's final position on the impact fee study. The DSAC voted 10 - 3
to recommend approval of the Impact Fee study results.
PRODUCTIVITY COMMITTEE
November 17, 2010, staff met with the Productivity Committee, and delivered an
executive summary discussion of the five (5) fee studies to the Committee for
presentation. The committee discussed the results with staff. The committee decided
not to create a sub-committee; however, agreed to provide any individual questions
back to the staff before the next meeting. One member of the committee to an
expanded version of the executive summary for individual review. No further action
was taken at the meeting.
Packet Page -91-
2/22/2011 Item B.A.
December 15, 2010, staff met with the Productivity Committee, and was prepared to
respond to questions from the committee (no questions had been provided to staff in
advance of the meeting). One committee member had reviewed the expanded version
of the executive summary. The committee member found the information difficult to
review, and suggested the need for expanded narrative to better explain the results of
the studies. It was also suggested that staff obtain outside legal review of the impact
fee study. The committee decided to create a 5 member sub-committee to review the
studies.
January 7, 2011, staff received verbal feedback from outside counsel (Nabors & Giblin)
on the methodology, and legal sufficiency of the impact fee study. This action was
taken at the suggestion of one of the members of the Productivity Committee.
January 19, 2011, staff met with the Productivity Sub-Committee. The sub-committee
provided questions to staff in advance of the meeting. Staff responded to the questions
prior to the meeting. During the meeting, sub-committee members and staff discussed
the responses. The sub-committee noted they would recommend that the committee
voted to recommend adoption of the studies.
January 19, 2011, immediately after the Productivity Sub-Committee meeting, staff met
with the full Productivity Committee to answer any outstanding questions, and gain the
committee's final position on the fee studies. The Productivity Committee unanimously
recommended adoption of the studies.
February 8, 2011, a follow-up telephone call was conducted with Nabors & Giblin. This
was concerning further clarification of the impact fee eligibility of certain project costs.
February 14, 2011, staff was in receipt of a letter from Nabors & Giblin, outlining the
final legal determination of impact fee eligibility.
February 14, 2011, phone calls were exchanged between staff and Nabors and Giblin,
reference the impact fee eligibility topic.
CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
November 16, 2010, staff provided a read ahead on impact fees to the Chamber of
Commerce Public Policy Committee.
November 19, 2010, staff met with the Chamber of Commerce Public Policy Committee
to discuss the Collier County Water-Sewer District (CCWSD) Impact Fees. The
committee took no action; however, positively acknowledged the work ofthe Public
Utilities staff.
January 4, 2011, staff met with Chamber of Commerce Infrastructure Committee to
discuss the state of the utility. Topics included the operational, available capacity and
financial strength of the utility.
Packet Page -92-
2/22/2011 Item B.A.
CBIA
January 4, 2011 (week of), staff responded to letter of request to the County Manager
forwarded from the CBIA. Essentially, the letter requested an outline of the criteria
used to select projects for impact fee funding. This was a combined effort with the
Growth Management Division.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
February 22, 2011, staff is scheduled to meet with the Board of County Commissioners
to request approval of the impact fee and AFPI studies.
Packet Page -93-
Exhibit B
2/22/2011 Item B.A.
TALLAHASSEE:
Suite 200
1500 Mahan Drive
Tallahassee, FIorlda 32308
(850) 224-4070 Tel
(850) 224-4073 Fax
--Nabors--
Giblin &,
Nickersonp.A.
FORT LAUDERDAlE
208 S.E. Sixth Street
,.Fort lauderdale, Florida 33301
(954) 525-8000 TI'I
(954) 525.8331 Fax
," :: I ':' ~. ~,~ ,
.~:.; ',;":; t
TAMPA
~It" 1060
2502 Rocky Point Drive
Tampa, Aorlde 33607
(813) 2812222 Tel
(813) 281-0129 Fax
Reply to Tallahassee
February 14, 2011
Via Electronic and U.S. Mail
Thomas G. Wides
Operations Director
Collier County Public Utilities
3301 E. Tamiami Tail
Naples, Florida 34112
Re:
Water and Waste~ater Impact Fee Study
Update for Fiscal Year 2011
~. ....-
Dear Mr. Wides:
Our firm has been retained by the Collier County Public Utilities to review
the draft report prepared by Public Resources Management Group, Inc. ("PRMG")
relating to the proposed water and wastewater impact fees for the Collier County
Water-Sewer District. The most recent version of the report which I reviewed is
entitled "Collier County Fiscal Year 2011, Water and Wastewater Impact Fee
Study for Collier County Water-Sewer District" dated December 15, 2010 (the
"December Report"). To assist me, I was also provided with an October 27, 2010
draft of the Collier County Water-Sewer District Water and Wastewater Impact
Fee Study; a Summary of Existing Utility System Fixed Assets, and draft
responses to various questions raised by the Collier Building Industry Association,
Inc. After my initial review, a conference call with staff and PRMG was held on
January 7, 2011, to discuss my preliminary determinations. Subsequently, on
February 4, 2011, I was provided with two spreadsheets which purportedly
implemented the various suggestions that I had made during my conference call
with staff and PRMG. A follow up conference call with staff and PRMG was held
on February 8, 2011 to discuss these spreadsheets, On February 11, 2011, I
Packet Page -94-
2/22/2011 Item B.A.
Thomas G. Wides
February 14,2011
Page 2
received additional revisions to the impact fee calculations which incorporated
some of the changes that I had discussed with staff and PRMG on the Febluary 8th
conference call.
IMPACT FEES GENERALLY
Impact fees are charges imposed against new development to provide the
cost of capital facilities made necessary by that growth. The purpose of the charge
is to impose upon the newcomers, rather than the general public, the cost of new
facilities necessitated by their arrival. See City of Dunedin v. Contractors &
Builders Ass'n of Pinellas County, 312 So. 2d 763, 766 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975)
("Where a city's water and sewer facilities would be adequate to serve its present
inhabitants were it not for drastic growth, it seems unfair to make the existing
inhabitants pay for new systems when they have already been paying for the old
ones."); see also Hollywood. Inc. v. Broward County, 431 So. 2d 606 (Fla. 4th
DCA 1983).
Impact fees are generally a product of a local governments' Home Rule
Powers and are imposed in conjunction with their power to regulate land use and
their statutory responsibility to adopt and enforce comprehensive planning. Impact
fees, in some instances, can also be justified under the police and proprietary
powers of local governments. See Art. VIII, S 2, Fla. Canst.; City of Miami Beach
v. Fleetwood Hotel. Inc., 261 So. 2d 801, 805 (Fla. 1972); Wald Corp. v. Metro.
Dade County, 338 So. 2d 863, 868 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976). As the requirements for a
valid impact fee have been developed through the exercise of local governments'
home rule powers, their characteristics and limitations are derived generally from
Florida case law and not by statute. However, in 2006, the Legislature did adopt
section 163.31801, Florida Statutes, which attempted to codify some of the
procedural requirements relating to the implementation of an impaCt fee.
As developed under Florida case law, a valid impact fee must meet the "dual
rational nexus" two-prong test. The first prong of the test requires that there must
be a reasonable connection or rational nexus between the anticipated need for the
additional capital facilities and the growth in population. The second prong of the
test requires that there must be a reasonable connection or rational nexus between
Packet Page -95-
2/22/2011 Item B.A.
Thomas G. Wides
February 14,2011
Page 3
the expenditure of the impact fee proceeds and the benefits accruing to the growth
that paid those fees. See Hollvwood. Inc. v. Broward County, 431 So. 2d 606,
611-12 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983). See also St. Johns County v. N.E. Fla. Builders
Ass'n, 583 So. 2d 635, 637 (Fla. 1991).
Based upon these requirements and the various case law which has
interpreted these requirements, there are several fundamental principles that must
be met for any impact fee to be valid. These are as follows:
(1) The impact fee may only be used to fund capital improvements;
(2) The capital improvements must provide additional capacity or
enhance the existing capacity that is available to serve those properties that will
pay the fee;
(3) The impact fees may not be used to fund repairs, replacement or
operational expenditures;
(5) The impact fees, once collected, must be expended within a
reasonable time period; and
(6) Impact fees must be segregated from other revenues.
SUMMARY OF REVIEW
The December Report of PRMG seeks to update the current water and
wastewater impact fees. The methodology utilized by PRMG is a generally
accepted methodology which is frequently used in the calculation of water and
wastewater impact fees. It attempts to consider the value of the existing system,
the improvements to be made and the extent that the existing system is available
for growth. In valuing the original system under that impact fee methodology,
PRMG used the original cost of the system which is an appropriate measure and
generally results in a more conservative valuation than other methodologies. The
December Report also utilizes a level of service of 350 gallons per day per water
ERe and 250 gallons per day for wastewater ERC, which have been used as the
Packet Page -96-
2/22/2011 Item B.A.
Thomas G. Wides
February 14,2011
Page 4
basis of other impact fees of the County and are generally accepted standards
which are used throughout the State.
However, in looking at the December Report, one of the issues which has
significant impact upon the calculation of water and wastewater impact fees is the
extent of future capacity that needs to be constructed to serve growth. In Collier
County, there are no plans to build any additional water or wastewater capacity
until Fiscal Year 2027. This means that there is a large amount of additional
capacity built into the existing water and wastewater system which is available to
serve future growth. Based upon the PRMG analysis, 40.50% of the existing water
system is available to serve future growth and 43.68% of the existing wastewater
system is available to serve future growth.
As all of the costs which are included in the December Report are related to
the existing system, it is extremely important to make certain that the included
improvements do not represent repair, replacement or maintenance, but actually
provide or enhance the available capacity which would serve future growth.
PRMG went through the proposed expenditures contemplated through the planning
period and classified them as "Future", "Upgrades", "Replacement", IlReliability"
and "Relocation". In looking at these categories of expenditures, upgrades to the
existing systems and reliability expenditures may be included within the
calculation of an impact fee provided that (1) they benefit both existing service
capacity and that capacity which is available to . serve future growth and (2) the
expenditures either create additional capacity or directly enhance the capacity
which is available to serve future growth. Staff and PRMG both indicated that all
proposed "Upgrade" and F1Reliability" expenditures met both of the above criteria.
I was not provided with any documentation demonstrating their compliance with
these criteria and rely solely on the determination of staff and PRMG in this
regard. However, the proposed expenditures which are classified as "Relocation"
or "Replacement" are not growth related expenditures and it is my opinion that
they should be excluded from the calculations of the water and wastewater impact
fees.
The original conclusion of the December Report of PRMG was that the
water system impact fee should be decreased from $3,575 to $3,290 per equivalent
Packet Page -97-
2/22/2011 Item B.A.
Thomas G. Wides
February 14,2011
Page 5
residential connection ("ERC") and the wastewater system impact fee should be
decreased from $3,495 to $3,245 per ERCl.
During my initial conference call with staff and PRMG on January 7, 20 II, I
raised my concerns as to the inclusion of the replacement and relocation
expenditures and was informed that the removal of these expenditures would
reduce the impact fees approximately $250 per ERC. On February 4, 20 II, I
received the two spreadsheets which modified the original December Report. One
of the spreadsheets was for the water improvements and the other spreadsheet was
for the wastewater improvements, A conference call was held and PRMG and
staff on February 8, 2011 during which the two spreadsheets were reviewed.
During that call, it was explained that the spreadsheets represented the change in
the water and wastewater impact fee as a result of the removal of the Replacement
Expenditures. Based upon the two spreadsheets, it appears that the amount of the
water impact fee would be reduced an additional $34.52 per ERC and the
wastewater impact fee would be reduced an additional $7.51 per ERC2. The
revised summary letter to the December Report which was provided to me on
February 11, 2011 reflects this adjustment to the proposed water impact fee by
reducing the fee an additional $35 to $3,255 per ERC and by reducing the
wastewater impact fee an additional $10 to $3,235 per ERe.
However, as I was fmalizing my analysis, I reviewed the classification of
expenditures contained in the initial project list of the original December Report
and compared them with the projects that were removed from the calculation of the
impact fees in the two spreadsheets. In comparing these two lists, it appears that
even with the adjustments previously noted, there continues to be "Replacement"
1 Though the conclusion of the December Report is that the amount of the
fee should be reduced, this does represent the general trend for all impact fees
around the State primarily due to decreased costs.
2 When I initially asked why this was substantially less than the $250 per
ERC estimate that had been given, I was initially informed that there had been a
reclassification of projects. However, subsequently, I was informed by PRMG that
they had been mistaken in their previous estimation.
Packet Page -98-
2/22/2011 Item B.A.
Thomas G. Wides
February 14,2011
Page 6
and "Relocationll expenditures which are being included in the calculation of the
respective impact fees. I have requested a verification and explanation of the
modification of the classifications from the original December Report from PRMG
but as of this date, I have not received a response. The Water System
Improvements which were classified as "Replacement" or "Relocation" Projects in
the original December Report which continue to be included within the calculation
of the water impact fee are:
1. NCRWTP Sand Filters (Replacement),
2. FDOT Joint Project Agreement - Water (Replacement),
3. CCDOT Utility Relocates (Replacement),
4. CR 951 Widening GO (Replacement)
(Total cost of these projects is listed as $1,364,54Si.
As to the Wastewater Improvements which were classified as
"Replacementll or "Relocation" Projects in the original December Report which
continue to be included within the calculation of the wastewater impact fee are:
1. FDOT Joint Project Agreements - Sewer (Relocation)
2. CCDOT Utility Relocates (Relocation)
3. IQ Water Source Integration (Replacement)
(The total cost of these three projects is $917,224).
3 There was one item which had been classified as an upgrade in the original
December Report but now was removed from the impact fee calculation. That was
for the Isles of Capri Repump Station Rehab (cost of $55,000). Based upon the
project's designation as "rehab, II the removal of the project appears appropriate.
Packet Page -99-
2/22/2011 Item B.A.
Thomas G. Wides
February 14,2011
Page 7
CONCLUSION
Based upon my review, I would recommend that the projects which were
classified as "Replacement" or "Relocation" in the original December Report and
which continue to be included in the calculation of the fees, be reviewed to
determine whether they either provide additional capacity or enhance existing
capacity and whether they have been properly included in the calculation of the
impact fees. If they were inappropriately included or there is an insufficient basis
for their inclusion, then they should be removed from the calculation and the
respective impact fees reduced accordingly.
Subject to (1) the determination as to whether the "Relocation" and
"Replacement" projects identified in the original December Report and which
continue to be included in the calculation of the impact fees were properly
included, and (2) whether the projects which have been classified as "Upgrade"
and "Reliability" by staff and PRMG meet the criteria that I have set forth in this
letter, then it is my opinion that the proposed water and wastewater impact fees are
legally defensible.
Should you have any questions, please contact me.
Sincerely,
\~I
Gregory T. Stewart
GTS:pad
cc: Jeffrey A. Klatzkow, Esquire
Packet Page -100-
2/22/2011 Item B.A.
RESOLUTION NO. 2011 -
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AS THE GOVERNING BODY OF
COLLIER COUNTY AND AS. EX OFFICIO THE GOVERNING BOARD OF
THE COLLIER COUNTY WATER SEWER DISTRICT, AMENDING THE
IMPACT FEE RATES ESTABLISHED BY ORDINANCE NO. 2007-57.
WHEREAS, on March 13, 2001, the Board of County Commissioners (Board) adopted
Ordinance No. 2001-13, the Collier County Consolidated Impact Fee Ordinance, repealing and
superseding all of the County's then existing impact fee regulations, and consolidating all of the
County's impact fee regulations into that one Ordinance, codified in Chapter 74 of the Collier
County Code of Law and Ordinances (Code), and incorporating the water and sewer impact fee
rates established by the adoption of Ordinance No. 98-69; and
WHEREAS, on December 11, 2001, the Board adopted Resolution No. 2001-488 thereby
amending Schedule Two of Appendix A of Chapter 74 of the Code, as amended, the same being
the Collier County Consolidated Impact Fee Ordinance; increasing the Water and Sewer Impact
Fee rates and directing staffto update the Impact Fee after one year; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with that direction, the County has retained Public Resources
Management Group, Inc. (Consultant) to review the existing water and sewer impact fees and to
recommend changes to those fees if appropriate; and
WHEREAS, on February 12, 2002, the Board adopted Resolution No. 2002-88 to correct
Scrivener's errors, and to correct the water impact fee downward by $50 per Equivalent
Residential Unit (ERC), and to amend Schedule Two of Appendix A of Chapter 74 of the Code,
as amended, the same being the Collier County Consolidated Impact Fee Ordinance; thereby
increasing the Water and Sewer Impact Fee rates; and
WHEREAS, on June 6, 2006, the Board adopted Ordinance No. 2006-26 amending
Ordinance No. 2001-13 changing the impact fee rate; and
WHEREAS, on June 26, 2007, the Board adopted Ordinance No. 2007-57 amending
Ordinance No. 2006-26 changing the impact fee rate and to include Annual Mid-Cycle water and
sewer impact fee rate indexing; and
WHEREAS, on June 24, 2008, the Board adopted Resolution No. 2008-202 amending
Ordinance No. 2007-57 decreasing the water impact fees by $41.49 and wastewater impact fee
by $227.39, for a total reduction of$268.88; and
WHEREAS, the County uses impact fees to supplement the funding of necessary capital
improvements required to provide public facilities to serve new population and related
development that is necessitated by growth in Collier County; and
WHEREAS, the Consultant has recommended a water impact fee rate decrease from
$3,575 per ERC to $3,205 per ERC, a decrease of $370 and a sewer impact fee rate decrease
from $3,495 per ERC to $3,220 per ERC, a decrease of $275 for all customer classes based on
their ERC's equivalents; and
1
Packet Page -101-
2/22/2011 Item B.A.
WHEREAS, the above recommended rate decrease for water and rate decrease for sewer
establish these rates at the maximum levels allowed in accordance with equity tests established
and existing pursuant to Florida law; and
WHEREAS, staff has thoroughly reviewed the Consultant's findings and
recommendations and staff concurs with the recommended decrease to water and the
recommended decrease to sewer impact fee rate changes, and staff recommends that the Board
adopt this Resolution to implement these recommended changes; and
WHEREAS, the Board finds that it is in the health, safety and welfare of the customers to
accept the recommendations of the Consultant and from staff.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AS THE GOVERNING BODY
OF COLLIER COUNTY AND AS EX OFFICIO THE GOVERNING BOARD OF THE
COLLIER COUNTY WATER SEWER DISTRICT, that:
The Board of County Commissioners hereby declares, after advertised public hearing, that
the water and sewer impact fee rates set forth in the revised Schedule Two of Appendix A of
Ordinance No. 2007-57, as amended, the Collier County Consolidated Impact Fee Ordinance, the
same being Schedule Two of Appendix A of Chapter 74 of the Collier County Code of Law and
Ordinances, attached hereto, and incorporated by reference herein as Exhibit "A" are fair and
reasonable and are to be assessed to those who receive or will receive benefits from increased
water facilities capacity, increased sewer public facilities capacity, or from both, which increased
capacity is necessitated by increased population and related growth driven development.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that these revised water and sewer impact fees will take
effect as of 12:01 A.M. on Tuesday, March 1,2011.
THIS RESOLUTION ADOPTED after motion, second and majority vote on this the_
day of ,2011.
ATTEST:
DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK
Approval as to form
and legal sufficiency:
~-?:r'D~-
Jenni B. White
Assistant County Attorney
, Deputy Clerk
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AS
THE GOVERNING BODY OF COLLIER
COUNTY AND AS EX OFFICIO THE
GOVERNING BOARD OF THE COLLIER
COUNTY WATER SEWER DISTRICT
By:
By:
FRED W. COYLE, CHAIRMAN
2
Packet Page -102-
'"
;;
...
'"
..c
...
'"
'"
'"
100
l:
..
!
E
~
'"
..
::l
..
< ~
:s ..
:= ~
~
'" ...
=
..
~
-;;
~
...
III
0
E
""
...
=
..
~
""
'"
2/22/2011 Item B.A.
oS
10- NN
NN
U fil fil fil t'it"i
~ ....
ell 0 0 ell '" .... 0 0 ell K"
~lU 0 N N 0 8. ~ N N 0 w2
it~ N N N N ~..
~ ri ri lU ~ ;;; :;i ri ri lU ~ -' >
~ .. .. ~ .. .. ~ ~~
a: 10- a: 10- a: II ,5
III u u e:: .5
~ ~ wE
- !!l ~ ---=-
10- ~ ~ III
u
~ l.!l I I l.!l I I I I l.!l
~lU ~ III ~ III ~
I:l:~ ell ell ell
~ B ~ ~
lU
ell
I- - ~ -
",", "'"' "'"'
10- 00 00 00
U NN NN NN
fil t'"ir"; fil (t)M fil t<irt'i
~ .... .... ....
ell '" K " ell '" .... '" K " ell K"
:l!lU 0 0 w2 0 on ~ 0 w2 ~ w2
it~ ~ N ~" ~ 0, oJ N ~.. ~..
ri -' > lU ;;; ri -' > lU -' >
~ .. < E ~ .. .. <E ~ <E
a: > ~ a: > ~ a: > ~
~ II ,5 10- II ,5 10- II ,5
I::! .5 U a:: .5 U D:: .5
wg ~ wg ~ wE
I- ~ ~ r-----=:--
10- Iii ffi Iti ffi Iii
u
~ l.!l ! ~ l.!l I I ! ~ l.!l
~lll ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
C ffiLL: ell ell ell
W B ~ ~
0:: ~ C ...J
W ~ W <
...J I- ...J 0:: i=
< w < w z - "l5B
i= :E - i= I- - W
Z >- Z W c
II ~ s~ :E ~l 1! _ ii) ~.. ~.~ i
w ...J W h ~ 0" 1i) Ii .
C ...J ~::m:~ C 0:: E"; 0; l~ ~ :;~
1i) < i~ 1i) ~~ & -0 ~ 1 w ~ .
0 ,,-OC W '" .... 0:: ~~ 0-0
W ::) I!;/l ~~.s w I- 0 :o"S! ~:;J~
~ '" '" Z: ~~~
0:: C ~ - o....1ij'O 0:: III ;ll .,; .,; - c..-j-cj ~
:> ~>~ < C)>~ 0 ~LL-
U~ ~.~ ~ :E U~ ' C C Z U~ c;-::! '0
C llii llii ~gg llii ,,-CL"
:!: Cl-~ 00.2
< < 1<- g!
- f---- -
'0 '0 '0 '0 '0 0
Iii Iii Iii Iii Iii Iii
lU " lU " " " " ~ ~
!::! C !::! C C C C
'~'E '0, 'C '~'E 'g'E "g'E 'o,'t:l
ell ell ~8 ~8
Bi ~ ~g I:l: ~8 ~8 ~g Bi
M ~ 0" 0" 0" 0"
~ ~'" :0'" :0'" ::;'" ~'" ~ ::;'"
~ CL ~ CL CL CL CL ~ CL
Cl Cl Cl Cl Cl Cl
Iii Iii Iii Iii Iii Iii
- CL CL CL CL CL - ~
-
lll~ lU~ lll~
~g f- II ~O f- f- f- II ...g II
Z '" ...0:: Z Z Z '" '"
O~ ~ w O~ ~ ~ ~ w 15~ w
'" '" '" '" '" '" '"
ell 0 w w !!!o w w w w !!!o w
U;-J CL CL eIl-J CL CL CL CL eIl-J CL
oq:-J oq:-J oq:-J
caoq: caoq: caoq:
- - - -
00
i:' " '" i:' 00 i:'
0
ii1 '" '"
... 0 ... 0 ...
0 r 0 0 0 0
O>~ W<>o 0> W<>o ~
!!!. ",r !!!. 0 0> ",r !!!.
~~ 0 0 0> 0"
lU 0>. lU on. . "
0>. Z :e ::;"' lU
U ",. U - ",. U ."
v't 0 0 -in
~ 0>- O~ ~ 8 f- f- o~ ~ "
f-w g~ ;; or '"
ell 0" ell 0 ~ 0>- ell C
l.!l 0 OW l.!l "'. o.~ l.!l 0
~ '" tn.~ ~ - "'0 ~ Z
S 0 '" '"
z " "
:J 0 Q. :J Q. :J
z
"
Packet Page -103-
in ;-
-go
.r. ~:5
m"ltM
E')'Li:
'" u. 0
,~ ~ <(
~:::;]j
= II 0
.Eml-
Q) :; II
~ ~ ~ (;
O_E :i:
~~.e CL
o :5 CU (!)
1;'a5~ '6
en':; c: "C:i Q;
~~~~~
~fuoli'"
"E-Q.E~
~~~~"
-m.5~C)~
:;~o~~
.!:! Q) ~ =
~ Q. iii ~
G:" ~ ~ ::IE ~
o.Qg E
~~~~~
~,~,~~G
u:: .!!! .!! U) m
~~~8~
0<(<(0;."
& a5 5j ~.~
~~~~~
> " 0
<( lrZ
,;
o
~
Ii
E
o
Q.
C)
11
tJ
lr
W
2/22/2011 Item B.A.
20D · Friday, January 28,2011- Naples DaDy News
NOTICE
NOTICE
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER RESOLUTION
Notice is hereby given'that the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County
will hold a public hearing on Tuesday, ,February 8, 2011 in the Boardroom, 3rd
Floor, Administration Building, -Collier County Government Center, 3299 East Ta.
miami Trail, 'Naples, Florida, The meeting will begin at 9:00 A.M. The title of the
proposed Resolution is as follows:
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTvCOMNHSSIONERS OF COLLIER COUN~;
FLORIDA, AS THE ,GOVERNING BODY OF COLUERCOUNTY,AND AS EX OFFICIO niE'
GOVERNING BOARP OF'THE COLLIER COUNTY "WATER :SEWER DISTRICT, AMEND-
ING THE IMPACT FEE RATES EsTABLISHED BY ORDINANCE 2007-57. .
Copies' ofthe proposed Resolution are on rile with, the Cle:rkto the,BoardarJd ,are
availa~le for inspection. All interested parties are inv,ited to attend and be heard, '
NOTE: All Persons wishing to speak on any 'agencia item must register with the
County Administrator, prior to presentation. of the agenda item to be, addressed,"
Individual speakers will be limited to 3 minutes on any item. The selection of an in. '
dividual to speak on behalf of an organization or group is encouraged. If'recog-
nized by the Chair, a spokesperson for a group or organization .may be allotted 10,
minutes to speak on an item. .
Persons wishing to have written or graphic materials included in the Board agenda
packets must submit said material a minimum of 3 weeks prior to the respective
public hearing. In any case, written materials intended to be considered by the
Board shall .be submitted to the appropriate County staff a minimum of seven days
prior to the public hearing. All material used in presentations before the Board,
will become a permanent part of the record. .
, ' .
Any person who decides to appeal a decision of the Board willl'leed a record of the
proceedings pertaining thereto and therefore, may need to ensure that a verbatim
record of the proceetlings is made, which' record includes the testimony and evi.
dence upon which the appeal is based., ',' , '
If you are a person with a disability who needs anyac€ommodation in order to par-
ticlpatein this proceeding; you are entitled, at no cost to you, to the provision of
certain assistance. Please contact the Collier County Facilities Management Depart.
ment,located at 3335 'Tamlami Trail East, Suite #101, Building W, Naples, Florida
34112, (239) 252-83BO. Assisted listening devices for the hearing impaired are avail-
able in the County Commissioners' Office.
, BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA '
FRED W. COYL€, CHAIRMAN
DWIGHT E. BROCK. CLERK
By: Teresa Polaski" Oe'puty Clerk
, (SEAL) ,
Januarv 28- 201 "
No188Ei19Q
Packet Page -104-