Backup Documents 12/10/2019 Item # 9C - Impact Fee Presentation 12-10-19Collier County Impact Fee Updates
Amy Patterson, Director
Capital Project Planning, Impact Fees and Program Management
Growth Management Department, Collier County Government
Order of Presentation
•Overview
•Housing Affordability
•Water and Wastewater Impact Fee Update
•Road Impact Fee Update
•Recommendations
•Questions
-2-
Impact Fee Studies
•Required at least every three years
•Must utilize most recent and localized data available
•Collier also requires indexing between full studies
-3-
Current Fee Environment
•High volume of land use petitions and permit activity
•Affordable Housing back on the radar
•Need for infrastructure improvements increasing
•Cost escalations outpace funding; Driving calculated increases to
impact fee rates
•Demand to maintain level of service
•Level of Service = quality of place/life
-4-
Benefit Programs*
County-wide Impact Fee Deferral Program
Multi-Family Impact Fee Deferral Program
Charitable Organization Impact Fee Deferral Program
Impact Fee Program for Existing Commercial Redevelopment (Change of Use)
Immokalee Impact Fee Installment Payment Pilot Program
Economic Development Programs
* These programs have capacity for new applications
-5-
Impact Fee Studies
What are the options?
1. Stay with “Growth Pays for Growth” policy and implement
fees in full, to the maximum legal limit
2. Phase-in fee increases over a specified time period
3. Implement partial fee increases
4. Adopt study and implement only decreases
“Do nothing” is not an option for any studies with decreases
Any option, other than #1, shifts a portion of the growth demand to taxpayers
or other funding sources or requires reductions in level of service.
-6-
Impact Fee Studies –What are the numbers?
Single-Family Home –less than 4,000 sq. ft.
Water Impact Fee 32% increase = additional $ 820.00
Sewer Impact Fee 22.7% increase = additional $ 613.00
Subtotal $1,433.00
Road Impact Fee 8.68% increase = additional $ 646.01
Total Increase $2,079.01
-7-
Impact Fee Studies –What are the numbers?
Office –10,000 sq. ft.
Water Impact Fee 32% increase = additional $ 1,369.00
Sewer Impact Fee 22.7% increase = additional $ 1,024.00
Subtotal $ 2,393.00
Road Impact Fee (16%) decrease = reduction $(16,438.80)
Total Change $(14,045.80)
-8-
Impact Fee Studies –What are the numbers?
General Industrial –10,000 sq. ft.
Water Impact Fee 32% increase = additional $ 1,369.00
Sewer Impact Fee 22.7% increase = additional $ 1,024.00
Subtotal $ 2,393.00
Road Impact Fee (20%) decrease = reduction $(11,159.50)
Total Change $(8,766.50)
-9-
Impact Fee Studies –What are the numbers?
Retail–10,000 sq. ft.
Water Impact Fee 32% increase = additional $ 1,369.00
Sewer Impact Fee 22.7% increase = additional $ 1,024.00
Subtotal $ 2,393.00
Road Impact Fee (1%) decrease = reduction $ (1,084.00)
Total Increase $1,309.00
-10-
Impact Fee Studies –What are the numbers?
Multi-Family 3-10 stories –per unit
Water Impact Fee 32% increase = additional $ 820.00
Sewer Impact Fee 22.7% increase = additional $ 613.00
Subtotal $ 1,433.00
Road Impact Fee (7%) decrease = reduction $ (367.89)
Total Increase $1,065.11
-11-
Impact Fee Studies –What are the numbers?
Multi-Family 1-2 stories –per unit
Water Impact Fee 32% increase = additional $ 820.00
Sewer Impact Fee 22.7% increase = additional $ 613.00
Subtotal $ 1,433.00
Road Impact Fee 25% increase = reduction $ 1,408.11
Total Increase $2,841.11
-12-
Collier County
Community and Human Services Division
COMMUNITY HOUSING PLAN
AND
HOUSING AFFORDABILITY
Public Services Department
Housing Affordability
Community Housing Plan Key Objectives:
(1)Increase Density
(2) Add Certainty in the Development Process
(3) Increase Funding for Housing that is Affordable
-14-
Housing Plan Successes
BCC Acceptance October 25, 2017
Approved 2/27/18
•New Definition of Affordable Housing
•Approved Housing Demand Methodology
•Increased Advocacy for State & Federal dollars
•Address housing that is affordable in future land acquisitions
•Improved Affordable Housing Density Bonus (AHDB) program
•Improved Fast-Track Program
Approved 4/24/18
•Improve Rental Impact Fee Deferral Program
•Establish a new Local Housing Trust Fund
•Establish a Community Land Trust
•Marketing, public relations, and communications plan
-15-
Housing Plan Successes (Continued)
Approved 11/6/18
•Collier Voters approved One Cent Sales Sur-Tax earmarked $20 Million for
land acquisition for Housing that is Affordable
Approved 9/24/19
•Approved GMPA and PUD for Allura 304 Unit Luxury Rental Development
with a Commitment to include 54 ESP Units (31 of which income/rent
restricted to 80%AMI
Approved 10/8/19
•“Housing That is Affordable” Outreach, Marketing & Education Marketing
Plan, including YIMBY (YES in my back yard)
•Awarded $200,000 SHIP Funding to H.E.L.P. to be used for down payment
assistance for 1st time buyers
-16-
Housing Plan Successes (Continued)
Approved 10/22/19
•Bembridge PUD –Awarded Developer Agreement to McDowell Housing
for 78 units on County Land
•Awarded contract to H.E.L.P. for the creation of a non-profit Community
Land Trust
•Approved Guidelines and Work Plan for application/award of Local Housing
Trust Fund dollars
•Approved Rattlesnake Hammock Activity Center GMPA Transmittal
including 10% income & rent restricted
•Staff directed to release RFP for mix of uses on Golden Gate Golf Course,
including affordable housing
-17-
Housing Affordability
In Process:
BCC Provided Direction on 10/9/18 to move forward with Implementation plans for
remaining Community Housing Plan Initiatives:
•Providing administrative approvals of certain affordable housing applications
(including senior housing)
•Streamlined process for commercial to residential conversions
•Guidelines to incentivize mixed income residential housing in future and
redeveloped activity centers (reduced transportation impact fees, increased
densities…)
•Process to allow for increased density in Strategic Opportunity Sites
•Provide an increase in density in the Community Redevelopment Agency
(CRA) areas and along transit corridors
-18-
Issues on the Horizon
Rural Lands
•Rivergrass Village 2500 homes
o Housing Affordability not Addressed
•Longwater Village 2900 homes
o Housing Affordability not Addressed
•Belmar Village 2750 homes
o Housing Affordability not Addressed
•Hyde Park Village 1800 homes
o Housing Affordability not Addressed
•Immokalee Road Village 4200 homes
o RFMUD has inclusionary Zoning Requirements
14,000+++ Total
???? Affordable
-19-
Missed Opportunities
•Seek a partnership between Park Uses and Affordable Housing on
Manatee Park Site
•Initiate a nexus study to determine appropriate linkage fees to fund
the Housing Trust Fund
•Direct staff to advertise Mixed Income Housing Ordinance
(Inclusionary Zoning)
•Approval of GMPA and PUD for Courthouse Shadows 300 Unit Rental
Development
o 60 ESP Units, no inclusion of income or rent restrictions
-20-
Collier County Water-Sewer District
2019 WATER AND WASTEWATER
IMPACT FEE STUDY
Public Utilities Department
Purpose of Impact Fees
●Application of Impact Fee Common in Utility Industry
o Used by Collier County Water-Sewer District (the
“District”) Since 1998
o Impact Fees Last Updated in 2017
o Ordinance requires update at least every 3 years
●Support Policy of “Growth Paying for Growth”
o Existing Customers Not Responsible for New Expansion
Related Capital
o Additional Financial Resources Provide Long-Term
Favorable User Rate Benefit
PUBLIC UTILITIES DEPARTMENT 2
2
Use of Impact Fees
●Pay for Financing Growth / Expansion-Related
Infrastructure
o Capital Projects (Treatment Plants and Transmission Mains)
o Expansion-Related Portion of Debt Service
●Per Bond Resolution: Impact Fees Are Pledged Revenue
for Payment of District’s Outstanding Debt
o District is AAA-Rated Utility –Indication of Low Credit Risk
o Strong Rating Reduces District’s Borrowing Costs and Keeps
Impact Fees and User Rates Lower
PUBLIC UTILITIES DEPARTMENT 2
3
Impact Fees –Pledged to Fund Growth Debt Service
4.0 MGD WW 5.0 MGD Water Estimated debt Service
Current Schedule New Series 2022 New Series 2024 Combined Schedule Current Rate Proposed Rate Current Rate Proposed Rate
FY19 $13,930,920 $13,930,920 $14,000,000 Increase 27.2%
FY20 $14,407,060 $14,407,060 $14,000,000 $17,808,000 ($407,060)$3,400,940
FY21 $14,409,665 $14,409,665 $14,000,000 $17,808,000 ($409,665)$3,398,335
FY22 $14,242,037 $906,628 $15,148,665 $14,000,000 $17,808,000 ($1,148,665)$2,659,335
FY23 $10,883,257 $4,410,619 $15,293,876 $14,000,000 $17,808,000 ($1,293,876)$2,514,124
FY24 $10,882,283 $4,410,619 $338,551 $15,631,453 $14,000,000 $17,808,000 ($1,631,453)$2,176,547
FY25 $10,295,995 $4,410,619 $1,647,003 $16,353,617 $14,000,000 $17,808,000 ($2,353,617)$1,454,383
FY26 $8,727,129 $4,410,619 $1,647,003 $14,784,751 $14,000,000 $17,808,000 ($784,751)$3,023,249
FY27 $7,132,576 $4,410,619 $1,647,003 $13,190,198 $14,000,000 $17,808,000 $809,802 $4,617,802
FY28 $7,045,336 $4,410,619 $1,647,003 $13,102,958 $14,000,000 $17,808,000 $897,042 $4,705,042
FY29 $9,265,307 $4,410,619 $1,647,003 $15,322,929 $14,000,000 $17,808,000 ($1,322,929)$2,485,071
FY30 $8,249,830 $4,410,619 $1,647,003 $14,307,452 $14,000,001 $17,808,001 ($307,451)$3,500,549
FY31 $8,252,117 $4,410,619 $1,647,003 $14,309,739 $14,000,002 $17,808,003 ($309,737)$3,498,263
FY32 $8,248,320 $4,410,619 $1,647,003 $14,305,942 $14,000,003 $17,808,004 ($305,939)$3,502,062
FY33 $8,248,530 $11,338,919 $1,647,003 $21,234,452 $14,000,004 $17,808,005 ($7,234,448)($3,426,447)
FY34 $8,248,475 $11,332,206 $1,647,003 $21,227,684 $14,000,005 $17,808,006 ($7,227,679)($3,419,677)
FY35 $8,248,074 $11,340,106 $4,234,153 $23,822,333 $14,000,006 $17,808,008 ($9,822,327)($6,014,325)
FY36 $8,249,206 $11,345,241 $4,231,646 $23,826,093 $14,000,007 $17,808,009 ($9,826,086)($6,018,084)
FY37 $5,828,650 $11,333,549 $4,234,596 $21,396,795 $14,000,008 $17,808,010 ($7,396,787)($3,588,785)
FY38 $5,829,209 $11,336,263 $4,236,514 $21,401,986 $14,000,009 $17,808,011 ($7,401,977)($3,593,974)
FY39 $5,830,266 $11,333,577 $4,232,148 $21,395,991 $14,000,010 $17,808,013 ($7,395,981)($3,587,978)
FY40 $23,093,517 $4,233,162 $27,326,679 $14,000,011 $17,808,014 ($13,326,668)($9,518,665)
FY41 $23,095,729 $4,232,159 $27,327,888 $14,000,012 $17,808,015 ($13,327,876)($9,519,872)
FY42 $0 $8,623,529 $8,623,529 $14,000,013 $17,808,017 $5,376,485 $9,184,488
FY43 $8,624,355 $8,624,355 $14,000,014 $17,808,018 $5,375,660 $9,183,663
$196,454,242 $170,561,923 $63,690,845 $430,707,009 $350,000,105 $427,392,134 ($80,775,984)$10,616,044
Loan from User Fee Reserves
Impact Fee Revenue Estimates (1)(Deficit) /Surplus
PUBLIC UTILITIES DEPARTMENT 2
4
Enterprise Fund Revenue Sources
●User Fees
o Used to operate and maintain the utility (53%)
o Fund critical aging infrastructure repair and rehabilitation capital projects
(33%)
o Pay user fee debt obligations and fund statutory reserves (14%)
●Impact Fees
●Pays for expansion related infrastructure to serve growth
o Are pledged to meet expansion related debt service (47%)
o Fund reserves necessary to meet Bond Covenants (53%)
PUBLIC UTILITIES DEPARTMENT 2
5
Recent Board Actions on Expansion
•April 24, 2018, agenda item 16C7 –approved an amendment to Contract 04-3673 with Carollo Engineering to update the design of the northeast water and wastewater treatment facilities
•July 10, 2018, agenda item 11B –granted permission to advertise a resolution to expand the CCWSD service area
•September 11, 2018, agenda item 17B –adopted Resolution 2018-148 expanding the CCWSD service area
•January 22, 2019, agenda item 16C4 -approved selection committee rankings and authorized negotiations with Mitchell and Stark for the design/build Contract Number 18-7474
•February 12, 2019, agenda item 11C -accept the Plan of Finance to fund utility infrastructure expansion in the northeast
•March 12, 2019, agenda item 11B –award Agreement No. 18-7474 to Mitchell & Stark/Johnson Engineering for the Design-Build of the Northeast Interim Wastewater Treatment Plant, Storage Tank and Associated Pipelines
•March 12, 2019, agenda 9A –Adopt a Resolution to authorize issuance of bonds to finance utility infrastructure expansion
PUBLIC UTILITIES DEPARTMENT 2
6
Legal Council, DSAC and CBIA
o The methodology has been reviewed and agreed with
impact fee outside legal council
o The Impact Fee Rate Study was reviewed in detail by the
DSAC subcommittee and accepted unanimously by the full
DSAC at their October 2, 2019 meeting
o CBIA notes that at 27% increase is large, however, proposed
rates have been reduced over 25% since 2008 when the
utility’s capacity expansion plans were placed in hibernation
due to the recession’s impact on demand for potable water
and wastewater services
o County water and wastewater services are essential to
development, the public health and safety and protect the
environment
PUBLIC UTILITIES DEPARTMENT 27
Proposed Impact Fees per ERC
●Existing to Proposed Impact Fees per ERC:
●Breakdown of Change in Impact Fee per ERC:
PUBLIC UTILITIES DEPARTMENT 28
Existing Proposed Difference
System Fee Fee Amount Percent
Water $2,562 $3,382 $820 32.0%
Wastewater $2,701 $3,314 $613 22.7%
Total $5,263 $6,696 $1,433 27.2%
Water Wastewater
Existing Fee $2,562 $2,701
Infrastructure Investment $1,102 $1,027
LOS Decrease ($282)($414)
Proposed Fee $3,382 $3,314
Impact Fees History
•Current Water/Sewer Impact Fees of $5,263 are 25.6%
below 2008 fee structure when expansion plans were
placed in hibernation due to the recession
•Proposed Fee structure represent a 27.2% increase over
current rates despite increases in building materials and
engineering services costs
•Building material costs have increased over 20% from pre-
recession times and Engineering Services costs are up 23%
PUBLIC UTILITIES DEPARTMENT 29
Impact Fees History
PUBLIC UTILITIES DEPARTMENT 30
NE Facilities in Design (12/14/04 10E)NE Facilities in Hybernation (2/26/10 16C2)Design-Build
Building Materials and Engineering Services
0.00%
-1.96%-3.00%-3.72%
-1.12%-1.20%
4.59%
10.96%
7.65%
9.54%10.33%
13.74%
19.71%20.62%
-5.00%
0.00%
5.00%
10.00%
15.00%
20.00%
25.00%
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Cummulative % Change CPI -Building Materials
PUBLIC UTILITIES DEPARTMENT 31
0%
3%4%5%5%
7%
9%
10%
12%
14%
17%
19%
21%
23%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Cummulative % Change CPI -Engineering Services
Collier County
2019 ROAD IMPACT FEE
UPDATE STUDY
Use of Impact Fees
●Pay for growth-related capital improvements
o New roads
o Additional lanes on existing roads (capacity adding)
o Capacity adding turn lanes and intersection improvements
PUBLIC UTILITIES DEPARTMENT 3
3
Technical Analysis
Basic Impact Fee Formula:
Net Impact Fee =
(Cost –Credit) x Demand
34
Cost to add
capacity
Non-impact fee
revenue from
future
development
Vehicle
miles of travel
Technical Analysis
Road Impact Fee Variables:
◦Demand Component
◦Trip generation rate, trip length, % new trips
◦Cost Component
◦County roads, capacity
◦Credit Component
◦Non-impact fee funding for roadway capacity expansion
35
Transportation –Demand Component
Update TGR to ITE 10th Edition:
◦Trip Generation Increase ≈ 20 land uses
◦Trip Generation Decrease ≈ 24 land uses
◦No change ≈ 13 land uses
◦Re-organization of multi-family and gas station w/convenience
market land uses
36
Transportation
Demand per Unit of Development:
◦Trip Generation Rate = Number per day
◦Trip Length = Travel A to B
◦Trip Length Adjustment Factor = Accounts for travel on County
Roads ONLY
◦% New Trips = Accounts for trips already on the roadway
◦Interstate/Toll Adjustment Factor = Accounts for interstate & toll
trips (not charged)
37
Technical Analysis –Cost Component
Cost per Lane Mile
38
Phase County Roads
Design $385,000
Right-of-Way $1,208,000
Construction $3,500,000
CEI $315,000
Mitigation $74,000
Urban Overpass $523,000
Total $6,005,000
Transportation –Cost Component
39
Source: Florida Dept of Transportation, Long Range Estimates
-50%
0%
50%
100%
150%
200%
250%
300%
FDOT LRE Construction Cost -Cumulative Growth Trend (3-yr
Avg)
Construction Costs
Continue to Increase
Study Highlights
•Costs continuing to increase
•24% increase in construction cost per lane mile
•Assessable trip length for Residential and related uses remains very
conservative
•State costs removed from calculation
•Calculated credit included for Local Option Sales Tax
•Significant rate decreases in many commonly used land uses land uses
•Several land uses replaced or reorganized based on improved data
•New land uses provide rate options for new development
•(Residential over Commercial, 2-meal Fast Food, Fast Casual
Restaurant, etc.)
40
Legal Council, DSAC and CBIA
o The methodology has been reviewed and approved by
impact fee outside legal council
o The Impact Fee Rate Study was reviewed in detail by the
DSAC subcommittee and accepted unanimously by the full
DSAC at their November 6, 2019 meeting
o CBIA notes that at some of the Road IF increases are large,
however, the rate schedule also proposes a significant
number of decreases to commonly used land uses. CBIA
further recommended that the increases by phased-in
should the Board elect to move forward with the proposed
rates
41
Recommendations
●Accept the proposed Water and Wastewater
Impact Fee Rate Study and the Road Impact Fee
Update Study which are considered to be
reasonable and meet the criteria established by
the Florida Impact Fee Act and applicable case
law
●Adopt the advertised Impact Fee Ordinance
Amendment and associated impact fee rates
with the recommended implementation dates
42
Questions and Discussion
43
Appendix
44
Proposed NE Developments
●Purpose: Remain in
Compliance and Meet Demand
Throughout the District
o Meet village development needs
o Provide needed reliability to
stressed regional systems
PUBLIC UTILITIES DEPARTMENT 45
Project
Progress
PUBLIC UTILITIES DEPARTMENT 46
Project
Progress
PUBLIC UTILITIES DEPARTMENT 47
Project
Progress
PUBLIC UTILITIES DEPARTMENT 48
Calculation Methodology
PUBLIC UTILITIES DEPARTMENT
Level of Service
(Gallons per ERC)Impact Fee ($/ERC)
Capital Investment
($)
Capacity per Day
(Gallons)
4
9
●Methods Include:
1.Standards Method
o Based on Theoretical Cost of Improvements for Incremental Development
o May Not be Tied to Current Capital Plan
2.Historical Cost / “Buy-In” Method
o Based on the Historical / Original Cost of Assets
o Only Recognizes Capacity Currently in Service
3.Improvements Method
o Based on Future Capital Costs and New Capacity Over a Projected Period
of Time
o Does Not Account for Unused Constructed Capacity at Existing Facilities
Available for New Growth
PUBLIC UTILITIES DEPARTMENT
Calculation Methodology (cont’d.)
50
Calculation Methodology (cont’d.)
●Impact Fees Include Two Primary Capital Cost Recovery
Components
o Identified as System Costs
●Treatment Component (Plants)
●Primary Transmission Component (Lines 10 Inches in Diameter or
Greater, Storage, Master Pump Stations not built by developers and
conveyed)
●Does Not Include Onsite Costs Specific to Development
o Water Distribution Lines, Hydrants, Meters
o Collection Lines, Manholes, Local Lift Stations
o Generally Donated as Part of Development Process or Funded from a
Separate Rate
PUBLIC UTILITIES DEPARTMENT 5
1
●Method Utilized in Impact Fee Study
o Blending of Buy-In and Improvements Methods
●Includes Historical Costs of Existing Facilities
●Recognizes Plant Capacity Available from Existing Facilities
to Meet
Near-Term Growth Requirements
●Includes Projected Near-Term “Incremental” Capital Costs
o Links Constructed Infrastructure Cost to Timing of
When Fee is Applied
PUBLIC UTILITIES DEPARTMENT
Calculation Methodology (cont’d.)
52
Impact Fees Legislation
●Section 163.31801 Florida Statutes is Cited as the
Florida Impact Fee Act
●Signed into Law June 14, 2006
o Most Recently Amended July 1, 2019
●Must Meet “Dual Rational Nexus” Test
●No Intentional Windfall to Existing Users
●Only Covers Capital Cost of Construction and Related
Costs for Capital Expansions to Serve Growth
●Fee Must be Based on Most Recent and Localized Data
PUBLIC UTILITIES DEPARTMENT 5
3
Developer’s Agree to Advance Impact Fees
o An Interlocal Agreement with the Big Cypress Stewardship District to
allow the CCWSD to provide potable water, wastewater and irrigation
water service within the River Grass Village agrees to advance 250 ERC’s
in water and wastewater impact fees to share in the burden of expansion
related utility infrastructure
o Business points included in a forthcoming Developer’s Agreement for
Hyde Park Village include an advance payment of impact fees equivalent
to the number of ERC’s in phase 1 of the development
PUBLIC UTILITIES DEPARTMENT 5
4
Major Assumptions –Cost of Infrastructure
●The Water-Sewer District has $1.4 Billion in Constructed Water and
Wastewater Utility Assets as of 9/30/18
o $614.6 Million Excluded from Fee Calculations
●Miscellaneous Equipment, Non-Backbone Distribution, and Collection Lines
●County 11-Year Capital Improvement Program (“CIP”) = $1.0 Billion
in Water and Wastewater Infrastructure Needs (2019 through 2029)
o $668.8 Million Excluded from Fee Calculations
●General Capital Improvement, Non-System Improvements, Retirements
o $334.4 Million “Incremental Cost” Increase in Estimate of Installed
Infrastructure Assets; Includes Permanent Portion of NE Plant Expansions
and Transmission Mains currently under construction
PUBLIC UTILITIES DEPARTMENT 55
Major Assumptions –Cost of Infrastructure
PUBLIC UTILITIES DEPARTMENT 56
Water Wastewater Total
Total Assets in Service as of 9/30/18 $660.5 $781.5 $1,442.0
Less: Serves All Customers 257.2 357.4 614.6
Treatment and Transmission Assets $403.3 $424.1 $827.4
% Capacity Consumed by Current Customers 62.4%54.2%
% Capacity Available to Serve New Growth 37.6%45.8%
Amount Recognized in Impact Fee $151.8 $194.3 $346.1
Water Wastewater Total
Total Planned Capital Expenditures $441.3 $561.9 $1,003.2
Less: Projects to Serve All Customers 253.5 362.0 615.5
Less: General Depreciation over Plan Period 35.7 17.7 53.4
Net Amount Recongnized in Impact Fee $152.1 $182.2 $334.3
% Total CIP Recognized in Impact Fee 34.5%32.4%33.3%
$ Millions
ASSETS CURRENTLY IN SERVICE
CAPITAL EXPENDITURES 2019 - 2029
$ Millions
Major Assumptions –Existing Capacity
●Water Treatment Capacity and Flow
o Water Treatment Constructed Capacity –52.750 MMADF-MGD
●Excludes unused Golden Gate water treatment plant capacity that will be
repurposed and/or decommissioned
o Dependable Water Plant Capacity –45.085 ADD-MGD
o Available Capacity for Customer Growth –16.971 ADF-MGD
●Wastewater Treatment Constructed Capacity and Flow
o Wastewater Treatment Plant Capacity –42.350 MMADF-MGD
o Dependable Wastewater Plant Capacity –37.149 AADF-MGD
o Available Capacity for Customer Growth –17.018 AADF-MGD
●Availability of Capacity Supports Buy-In Method
PUBLIC UTILITIES DEPARTMENT 57
Major Assumptions –Level of Service
●Level of Service (“LOS”) = Allocated Capacity / Flow per Equivalent
Residential Connection (“ERC”)
●LOS (gallons per day) is based on:
o 2019 Master Plan Update (AECOM Report dated December 7, 2018)
o Actual Water Sales and Production Data
o Wastewater Billing and Treated Flow Data
●Proposed Fees Reflect Reduction to Current, Localized Data
•Consistent with Trends Experienced in Florida and in line with a similar
and comparable utility in Hillsboro County
PUBLIC UTILITIES DEPARTMENT
Water Wastewater
Existing LOS per ERC 325 gpd 225 gpd
Proposed LOS per ERC 300 gpd 200 gpd
58
Level of Service Comparison
Water LOS (gpd)Wastewater LOS (gpd)
Collier County –Existing 325 225
Collier County –Proposed 300 200
Charlotte County 325 190
Hernando County 350 280
Hillsborough County 300 200
Lee County 250 250
Manatee County 250 185
Pasco County N/A N/A
Pinellas County N/A N/A
Sarasota County 200 200
Surveyed Utility Average 279 218
gpd = gallons per day
PUBLIC UTILITIES DEPARTMENT 59
Impact Fee Comparison
PUBLIC UTILITIES DEPARTMENT 60