The URL can be used to link to this page

DSAC Agenda 01/07/2015 DSAC Meeting January 7, 20I5 3:00 PM 28U0 N. Horseshoe Drive Growth Management Division DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE AGENDA January 7, 2015 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 December 3, 2014 IV. Selection of Chair and Vice Chair V. Public Speakers VI. Staff Announcements/Updates A. Code Enforcement Department update—[Jeff Wright] B. Public Utilities Division update—[Nathan Beals and/or Tom Chmelik] C. Growth Management Division/Transportation Engineering and/or Planning—[Jay Ahmed and/or Reed Jarvi] D. County Fire Review update—[Shawn Hanson and/or Shar Hingson] E. North Naples Fire Review update—[Eloy Ricardo] F. Growth Management Division/Operations&Regulatory Mgmt./Development Review—[Ken Kovensky and/or Matt McLean] VII. New Business A. Impact fee discussion [Nick Casalanguida] B. Water&Sewer Impact Fee Study Update[Amy Patterson] C. Transportation Impact Fee Study Updates[Amy Patterson] D. Correctional Facilities Impact Fee Study Update[Amy Patterson] VIII. Old Business A. Update on the Floodplain Management Planning Committee[Caroline Cilek] IX. Committee Member Comments X. Adjourn Next Meeting Dates February 4, 2015 GMD Conference Room 610—3:00 pm March 4, 2015 GMD Conference Room 610—3:00 pm April 1, 2015 GMD Conference Room 610—3:00 pm December 3,2014 MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE Naples, Florida, December 3, 2014 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, the Collier County Development Services Advisory Committee in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 3:00 P.M. in REGULAR SESSION at the Collier County Growth Management Division Building, Conference Room #609/610, 2800 N. Horseshoe Drive, Naples, Florida, with the following members present: Chairman: William J. Varian Vice Chairman: Blair Foley David Dunnavant James E. Boughton Clay Brooker (Excused) Dalas Disney (Excused) Chris Mitchell Robert Mulhere Mario Valle (Absent) Stan Chrzanowski Eleanor Taft(Excused) Norman Gentry Marco Espinar(Excused) Ron Waldrop Laura Spurgeon DeJohn ALSO PRESENT: Jamie French, Deputy Administrator, Operations & Regulatory Man. Judy Puig, Operations Analyst, Staff Liaison Nathan Beals, Project Manager, Public Utilities Caroline Cilek, M.S., Senior Planner, LDC Coordinator Jeff Wright, Director, Code Enforcement Jay Ahmad, Director, Transportation Engineering Matt McLean, Manager, Engineering Review Rich Long, Plans Review and Inspections Manager Ken Kovensky, Director, Operations and Regulatory Management 1 December 3, 2014 I. Call to Order- Chairman Chairman Varian called the meeting to order at 3:04pm IL Approval of Agenda Mr.Mulhere moved to approve the Agenda subject to hearing item V.B under item VILA. Second by Mr. Gentry. Carried unanimously 9-0. III. Approval of Minutes from November 5,2014 Meeting Mr. Chrzanowski moved to approve the minutes of the November 5, 2014 meeting as presented Second by Mr. Mulhere. Carried unanimously 9- 0. IV. Public Speakers None V. Staff Announcements/Updates A. Code Enforcement Department update— [Jeff Wright] Mr. Wright provided the report"Collier County Code Enforcement Department Blight Prevention Program - Cumulative Code Enforcement statistics— 7/2009—11/23/14"for information purposes. He noted the Tourist Development Council recommended approval of proposed changes to the Ordinance regulating temporary signage for specific events whereby a special category was developed for tourism events. B. Public Utilities Division update— [Nathan Beals or Tom Chmelik] Mr. Beals report was provided under item VII.A. C. Growth Management Division/Transportation Engineering and/or Planning— [Jay Ahmad and/or Reed Jarvi] Mr.Ahmad reported on the following bridge improvements for the County: White Blvd-replace existing bridge over Cypress Canal, scheduled for 2'quarter of 2015. Vanderbilt Drive—2 bridges in the Little Horse Creek area to be replaced, scheduled for 1St quarter of 2016. Chokoloskee-next year including approach roadways and shoulders for pathway use. White Blvd./23rd Ave. —work reinitiated scheduled for completion February 2015. D. County Fire Review update— [Shar Hingson and/or Shawn Hanson] Ms.Hanson reported the Department is meeting its goals for review times and is hoping to link applications with the CityView system. Mr. Boughton arrived at 3:I5pm E. North Naples Fire Review update— [Eloy Ricardo] Mr.Ricardo reported Shawn Hanson received the award of Fire Marshal of the Year from the Florida Fire Marshals and Inspectors Association. 2 December 3, 2014 The Department is experiencing a large volume of applications and working to ensure adequate levels of services are met for review times. They are working on linking the applications with County's CityView system. F. Growth Management Division/Planning&Regulation update— [Ken Kovensky or Matt McLean] Mr. Kovensky and Matt McLean submitted the"Collier County Monthly Statistics November 2014"which outlined the building and land development plan review activities. The following was noted during their report: • November was a record month for meeting the goals for plan review times. • Staff is still working on developing statistics on the average wait time for"permit pick up." Chairman Varian requested Staff to investigate the feasibility of initiating certain aspects of processing review such as impact fee review in those cases where an application is deemed incomplete for minor items such as an omission of a"Notice of Acceptance." Mr. French reported he will review the issue. He noted the process for an impact fee assessment is initiated in these circumstances but the applicant may be unaware of the activity as it does not register in the CityView system until the application is complete. VI. New Business None VII. Old Business A. Need Vote of Support on Utility Standards Manual Mr.Beals reported back to the Committee on questions raised at last months review of the revisions to the Utility Standards Manual noting. • There is standard language developed for easements including those required for pump stations. • The requirement of installation of the slab for odor control requires the connections required for the device to be installed so there is no delay in installing the component when it has been determined it is needed. • Requests for increased flows(gallons and/or gallons per minute)on an existing meter are granted if it is determined the meter can accommodate the proposed flows. He requested a recommendation from the Committee on the proposed revisions. Mr. Chrzanowski moved to recommend the Board of County Commissioners adopt the revised Utility Standards Manual as proposed. Second by Mr. Waldrop. Carried unanimously 10—0. B. Update on Floodplain Management Committee Ms. Cilek reported: • The Floodplain Management Committee continues work on developing the updated 2015 Floodplain Management Plan. • She noted the Committee has developed the following 5 goals for the Plan. 1. Reduce vulnerability and/or exposure to flood hazards in order to protect the health, safety and welfare of residents and guests. 3 December 3,2014 2. Encourage property owners to protect their property from flood hazards through education and outreach measures. 3. Reduce the vulnerability of critical facilities and infrastructure from the effects of flood hazards. 4. Protect natural resources by employing watershed based approaches that balance environmental, economic and engineering considerations. 5. Minimize adverse impacts to surrounding areas and watershed functions. • The Plan will be implemented using tools such as the Floodplain Management Ordinance, a Low Impact Design Manual,a Public Outreach Programs, and identification of projects to be constructed, etc. • One goal of the plan is to achieve reduction in the County's Community Rating from the National Flood Insurance Program from a Class 6 to a Class 5 without changing any of the current regulatory standards in the County. The change would decrease insurance premiums by 5 percent for those residents who utilize the Program. • The Plan is expected to be completed in 2015. • Staff will provide a summary of the proposed changes in relation to the existing plan to the Committee for information purposes. The Committee requested future public notices for the Floodplain Management Committee meetings contain a provision that 2 or more members of the Development Services Advisory Committee may be present. VIII. Committee Member Comments None IX. Adjourn Next Meeting Dates January 7,2015 GMD Conference Room 610—3:00 pm February 4,2015 GMD Conference Room 610—3:00 pm March 4,2015 GMD Conference Room 610—3:00 pm April 1,2015 GMD Conference Room 610—3:00 pm There being no further business for the good of the County,the meeting was adjourned by the order of the Chair at 4:00PM. COLLIER COUNTY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE Chairman,William Varian 4 December 3,2014 These Minutes were approved by the Board/Chairman on , as presented ,or as amended 5 ) 1 ( t t Collier County Code Enforcement Department 1 Blight Prevention Program is Cumulative Code Enforcement statistics 7/2009—12/21/2014: Amount of Fines Waived(BCC,CEB, OSM)since July 2009 $22,110,598.96 , 3 -- F E 1 i Department Performance Statistics 1 Week 4 Week Cumulative FY15 ) 12/15-21/14 11/24/14-12/21/14 Number of Code Cases Opened 155 720 2142 i Number of Educational Patrol Visits 161 619 2266 , Number of Code Case Property Inspections 493 2033 6599 Number of Cases Closed with Voluntary Compliance 40 171 655 • Number of Community Meet and Greet events 2 6 33 Number of Community Clean-up Events 0 1 4 Number of Abandoned Home Sweeps 1 4 16 Number of Other Sweeps 2 8 28 Code Enforcement Board and Special Magistrate 0 39 92 Orders Number of Liens Filed 0 52 103 Number of Nuisance Abatements Processed 0 51 188 Amount of Fines Waived (BCC,CEB, OSM) $1,825,200-00 $2,628,550.04 $3,144,850.04 New Bankruptcy Filing Notifications 0 1 1 Number of Bankruptcy Documents Received 0 8 27 Number of Cases Affected by Bankruptcy 15 24 29 Number of Requests for Property Payoff Requests 6 30 99 Number of Requests for Property Lien Searches 143 588 1924 Number of open code cases included in Lien Search 22 48 145 Results Number of Cases Open due to Lien Search 0 0 1 Number of Permits Issued:Garage Sale, Recreational 26 156 544 Vehicle Number of Citations processed from DAS, PU, PR,SO, _ 66 249 840 & CE Average Time from Complaint to Completion of Initial 1.5 2 2 Inspection Average Number of Code Cases Per Investigator 41 43 42 Open Cases by District Golden Gate—191 East Naples—164 Immokalee—243 Golden Gate Estates—204 North Naples—181 Total Open Cases-983 For period of: 12/15-21/2014 Report by Case Type Animal—1 Accessory Use- 1 Land Use-9 Noise—5 Nuisance Abatement—21 Occupational License—1 Parking Enforcement-1 Property Maintenance—17 Right of Way-2 Sign—2 Site Development—18 Snipe Sign-65 Temporary Land Use-0 Vehicle—6 Vehicle for Hire-1 Vegetation Removal—5 Total-155 Complaint Reported by: 1 Week 4 Week Since BCC policy 3/12/13 12/15-21/14 11/24/14-12/21/14 0 2 274 Elected Official Anonymous accepted 0 4 65 Anonymous not accepted 2 3 768 pursuant to BCC policy Code Enforcement Department Monthly Report November 2014 October Highlights • Cases opened: 686 • Cases closed due to voluntary compliance: 179 • Property inspections: 2060 • Education patrol visits: 643 Trends 1200 Cases Open per Month o N o � �o m Ls) � (.0 N CO 1000 al "' t -----c0---CA —0�° ono LID o 800 --- — r`m 600 Ma uNinM `� 0 X11111 111 mMMv v 11111111 I I I 11 400 - 1 11'1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 200 11 11111111111111111 11 N M m m m M m M m m m M m ct et tt nt .d' d' [t C ri r-I N ri ri r-I r-I r-1 r-1 r-I r-1 r-I r-I r-1 r-I N N H ri r-1 "1 r-1 "1 e-1 U C -0 >! >- C — 40 a ',' > U C .Q " 4- T C QD a V >co z-, ° Q °' m Q Q � 2 < NO z 0 -- 2 Q 2 - to 0 z Code Inspections per Month ul Li) N N O 3000 u ,a. 0 M ^ N v Tr ON1 N N N 2500 N , „) N , , I oN N , o, I N N I I I 0. 2000 �j1 Qlfl [f1l 11111111 1500 11111111111111111111111 1000 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 500 _1 II I 1 11111111 1 - o N m m m m m m m m m m m m d ct d' 'd' et •t cY •7• V e-1 r-1 ri r-1 r-4 "I "I r-I 4-1 r-I r� r-4 -i r• rI r-I ri r� ri ri r1 1-1 r•1 r-I U c 2 a 'C C N a 0 o (Li a v 0 r>�- c 'I'D u o p — LL_ 5 ¢ � ¢ o O z 0 � u. 2 ¢ 2 -, ¢ n O z Total Code Cases by FY 12000 10000 10573 8000 8319 6000 5839 4000 2000 1559 0 I FY12 FY13 FY14 FY15 7000 6391 6417 6000 ' 5000 4713 156 Origin of Case 4000 •Code Investigator Initiated 3000 2000 1126 1019 1000 540 0 -r — _ r _ 7 _ — —. --Y FY12 FY13 FY14 FY15 Community Caretaking List Monthly Totals 1200 - 1000 800 600 III 400 . . . . . . . . . . . . 200 . . ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ 0 r0 ti3 ''' C. 1� y0 ya tia N tic N 'yR ti� N yR 6: 4' c:¢ c a QV aJ �� G p' <<e' 4\ P. N , \4 Oct- Nov- Dec- Jan- Feb- Mar- Apr- May- Jun- Jul 14 Aug- Sep- Oct- Nov- Dec- 13 13 13 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 111 Seriesl 771 976 1045 1098 1048 989 927 881 805 756 690 591 581 539 509 Community Caretaking List Properties Added and Removed 250 200 150 100 0 AL L [ALL LE— ILL � °), a a 0 a 0 � C 0 ��N G N4 ti ti c N. ti ti ti 0( �6 Oe \ac ,O ve O r \-1° Oct- Nov- Dec- Jan- Feb- Mar- Apr- May- Jun- Jul- Aug- Sep- Oct- Nov- 13 13 13 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 N Removed Properties 7 3 51 58 71 73 50 105 63 86 110 16 46 38 ■Added Properties 212 72 104 8 12 11 4 29 14 20 11 6 4 8 Agenda Item VII.B DRAFT st,z Co Co unty 1 •••••••••-%---10%."6,...0.--•••111. Fiscal. Year 2014 WATER AND WASTEWATER IMPACT FEE STUDY For COLLIER COUNTY WATER-SEWER DISTRICT September 15, 2014 PIt Public Resources Management Group,Inc, GUtility, Rate, Financial and Management Consultants f gi f pt 3 ) el 7 iv 0 0 W 9 n 'R a0. i u 10 4p N N CO I„I Z V m b W 4 N 7 M 4 .N•1 0 3 % O p p S O O O l M LL Z < 0 CC h O O 0 Z a 2 N N� O FU tG O. O 004930 O NSt3 e 1,40 N M a 4 4 ° 0 ° 0 0 0 0 0 0 j Z W m Ill O e) 41 4f1 I+c� 41 re 0490049069440' 4 C- W000@8300- 4a w U I 0 0 V ° 0 a 4T 0 `e�, L. 0 4 ro 4 ct W w / LL 0 Z 10 d 440 ^ o0low, QW W ( 2240."'".N99r iv0p o N O 0 N ce0 O O w N W U - pp Z W p o m p° , q O s. 0 0 4i 0 o 0 fO 4-0 el 0 0) mm e4� o�aYOM I— 0 0 W N4t94e.e.M ‹ W 0 Ili U O U O 2 N e) ei 01 ,2; E:m a W . 0 .. 0 1 N N , 4 b 4 N a O w c e Q' g.au WVOQN1,40040000, Q Q r a r n tagV 482 /ASrA 1 j N v " i w e Qy ~w NN ak LL LL O w 494 d,0 e. J a Z/n w Q Ed 0 O ' a W ow W 0 °4 n aq d k C1 e°) (- `r°O,°°. m 1 e N z C ems-N 0 4n rD 4A 4 N O S ... N to-r R:N it, i t It IL Z 4� Y! Cg MM 4AN N w Nk01 U 14 l U • ,o 10 al W a ',..1 E W 'RI W y v a a S' E w . a 1- c m 5 5 fl� Z`o - € W r L a aj(!a' W-s lL e J i 0 Q o 1 DRAFT '!'t Public Resources Management Group,Inc. ling Utility, Rate,Financial and Management Consultants September 15,2014 Honorable Chairman and Members of the Board of County Commissioners Collier County 3299 Tamiami Trail East,Suite 303 Naples,FL 34112 Subject: Water and Wastewater Impact Fee Study 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 utility assets installed by the District;ii)the capital expenditure requirements identified in the District's multi- year capital improvement program (CIP); and iii) County management direction. 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. Based on our review, PRMG is recommending that the water system impact fee be decreased from $3,205 to $2,600 per Equivalent Residential Connection (ERC). For the wastewater system,we are recommending a decrease in the impact fee from $3,220 to$2,515 per ERC. The combined water and wastewater fees with the proposed rate adjustments would be $5,115, a decrease of$1,310 or 20.4% when compared with the existing combined fees of$6,425. The methodology for applying the impact fees per ERC to different customer classes is currently being reviewed by County staff, and recommendations for any adjustments to the methodology are anticipated to be presented to the Board at a later date. The fees we calculated during the course of our analyses were based on the recovery: i) of capital-related costs that have been incurred and which are estimated to have available capacity to serve new development; as well as ii) certain costs anticipated to be incurred by the District during the projection period. 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 legally defensible. In 2006, consistent with the practices of other utilities within the State of Florida, the County adopted Allowance for Funds Prudently Invested (AFPI) fees per ERC (pursuant to Ordinance No. 2006-27) to recover the carrying cost for "holding" capacity until it is reserved by development; these costs are not included as components of the impact fees. The combined water and wastewater AFPI fees per ERC were $1,693, and the collection of these fees had a sunset provision effective in 2012. Consistent with County management direction, PRMG has DRAFT Honorable Chairman and Members of the Board of County Commissioners Collier County September 15,2014 Page 2 assumed that these fees would not be reinstated. During the Fiscal Year 2008, the combined water and wastewater impact fees totaled $7,339 per ERC, while the maximum accrual on the combined AFPI fees totaled $1,693. Collectively, the water and wastewater impact fees and AFPI fees totaled $9,032 ($7,339 impact fees + $1,693 AFPI fees = $9,032). The proposed combined water and wastewater impact fees of$5,115, when coupled with the sunset of the AFPI fees, represent a decrease of approximately $3,917 per ERC to be collected from new development requesting capacity from the System when compared with the Fiscal Year 2008 levels. 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. Robert J.On President Bryan A.Mantz,CMC,CGFM Supervising Consultant DRAFT COLLIER COUNTY WATER-SEWER DISTRICT WATER AND WASTEWATER IMPACT FEE STUDY TABLE OF CONTENTS Title Page No. Letter of Transmittal Table of Contents List of Tables ii List of Figures List of Appendices ii s Introduction 1 Purpose of Water and Wastewater Impact Fees 1 Existing Impact Fees 2 Level of Service Requirements 3 Existing PIant in Service 6 Additional Capital Investment 8 Design of Water Impact Fee 9 Design of Wastewater Impact Fee 12 Impact Fee Comparisons 14 Conclusions and Recommendations 16 1 DRAFT COLLIER COUNTY WATER-SEWER DISTRICT WATER AND WASTEWATER IMPACT FEE STUDY I I LIST OF TABLES,FIGURES AND APPENDICES Table Page No. Table Title [1] No. Table 1 Development of Existing Water Production / Treatment Facility Capacity Available to Serve System Growth 17 Table 2 Development of Existing Wastewater Treatment Facility Capacity Available to Serve System Growth i9 Table 3 Development of Water System Impact Fee 21 Table 4 Development of Wastewater System Impact Fee 22 Table 5 Comparison of Water and Wastewater Impact Fees Per ERC 23 Figure Page No. Figure Title No. Figure 1 Comparison of Water and Wastewater Impact Fees Per ERC 15 Appendix Page No. Appendix Title[1] No. Appendix A Summary of Existing Utility System Assets 24 Appendix 13 Existing Water and Wastewater Impact Fee Resolution [1] Unless otherwise stated,all tables,figures and appendices are located at the end of the report. 1i DRAFT COLLIER COUNTY WATER-SEWER DISTRICT WATER AND WASTEWATER IMPACT FEE STUDY Introduction In 2003, the Legislature of the State of Florida pursuant to Section 189.429, Florida Statutes, adopted the Collier County Water-Sewer District Special Act (formally known as House Bill 849) (the "Act") to create the Collier County Water-Sewer District (the "District") on behalf of Collier County(the "County"). The District is an independent special district and public corporation of the State with the Board of County Commissioners being the governing board of the District. The purpose of creating the District was to provide the District with the overall responsibility for the provision of water and wastewater services to a specified geographic service area of the County as defined in the Act due primarily to the extensive growth that was occurring and anticipated within the County and to meet the public health and water supply issues affecting such service area. The District owns and operates a water and wastewater utility system(the "System")which during the Fiscal Year 2013 provided service to an estimated 54,123 water retail accounts(annual average) and 57,193 wastewater retail accounts. The District has constructed or plans to construct utility infrastructure to accommodate the future developments identified for the County that are expected to be served by the System. Historically,the District has utilized water and wastewater impact fees, which are referred to as "system development fees" in the District's authorizing bond resolution, to fund a portion of constructing the infrastructure requirements associated with new growth. For the purpose of this report,.the terms "impact fees" and "system development fees" shall be used interchangeably. Purpose of Water and Wastewater Impact Fees The purpose of impact fees is to recover the pro-rata share of allocated capital costs that are considered as growth-related from new customers connecting to the System. To the extent that new population growth and associated development impose identifiable added capital costs to municipal services,modern capital funding practices include the assignment of such costs to those residents or system users responsible for those costs rather than to the existing population base. Generally, this practice has been labeled as "growth paying its own way"without existing user cost burdens. On June 14,2006, additional impact fee legislation became effective as Chapter 2006-218,Laws of Florida, and was later incorporated in Section 163.31801 of the Florida Statutes. The impact fee legislation, which has been designated as the "Florida Impact Fee Act,"recognized that impact fees are an important source of revenue for a local government to use in funding the infrastructure necessitated by new growth. The act further states that an impact fee adopted by ordinance of a county or municipality,or by resolution of a special district,must at minimum: • Require that the calculation of the impact fee be based on the most recent and localized data; • Provide for accounting and reporting of impact fee collections and expenditures in a separate accounting fund; • Limit administrative charges for the collection of impact fees to actual costs;and 1 DRAFT • Require that notice be provided no less than 90 days before the effective date of an ordinance or resolution imposing a new or amended impact fee. However, a county or municipality is not required to wait 90 days to decrease,suspend or eliminate an impact fee. On May 21, 2009, Florida House Bill 227 became law, and this legislation added the following language to the Florida Impact Fee Act: "In any action. challenging an impact fee, the government has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the imposition or amount of the fee meets the requirements of state legal precedent or this section. The court may not use a deferential standard." • Based on Section 163.31801 of the Florida Statutes and existing Florida case law,certain conditions are required to develop a valid impact fee. Generally, it is our understanding that these conditions involve the following issues: 1. The impact fee must meet the "dual rational nexus" test. First, impact fees are valid when a reasonable impact or rationale exists between the anticipated need for the capital facilities and the growth in population. Second, impact fees are valid when a reasonable association, or rational nexus, exists between the expenditure of the impact fee proceeds and the benefits accruing to the growth from those proceeds. 2. The system of fees and charges should be set up so that there is not an intentional windfall to existing users. 3. The impact fee should only cover the capital cost of construction and related costs thereto (engineering, legal, financing, administrative, etc.) for capital expansions or other system- related capital requirements that have been or are anticipated to be constructed which are required or available to serve growth. Therefore, expenses due to rehabilitation or replacement of a facility that has been constructed(e.g.,replacement of a capital asset) or an increase in the level of service should be borne by all users of the facility (i.e., existing and future users)to the extent that capacity in such facilities is available to serve the needs of new development. 4. The County should adopt an impact fee resolution or ordinance that explicitly restricts the use of impact fees collected. Therefore, impact fee revenue should be set aside in a separate account, and separate accounting must be made for those funds to ensure that they are used only for the lawful purposes described above. 5. The County should provide advanced notice of not less than ninety (90) days before the effective date of a resolution or ordinance amending the existing impact fees, unless the impact fees arc decreasing. Existing Impact Fees Resolution No. 2011-41, which was adopted by the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County (BOCC) on February 22, 2011 (the "Impact Fee Resolution"), established the District's current water and wastewater impact fees. The current impact fees for an equivalent single family residential connection(ERC)served by the District System are summarized as follows: 2 DRAFT Existing Rate per ERC[1] Water System Impact Fee $3,205 Wastewater System Impact Fee 3.220 Combined $6.425 [1] Reflects fee for standard individually-metered residential unit(generally served through a 3/4-inch meter service and is considered to equate to 1 ERC). A copy of the Impact Fee Resolution is included as Appendix B to this report. Level of Service Requirements In the evaluation of the capital facility needs for providing water and wastewater utility services, it is important that a level of service (LOS) standard be developed. Pursuant to Section 163.3164, Florida Statutes, the "level of service" means an indicator of the extent or degree of service provided by, or proposed to be provided by, a facility based on and related to the operational characteristics of the facility. Level of service shall indicate the capacity per unit of demand for each public facility or service. Essentially,the level of service standards are established in order to ensure that adequate capacity will be provided for future development and for purposes of issuing development orders or permits, pursuant to Section 163.3202(2)(g) of the Florida Statutes. As further stated in the Statutes, each local government shall establish a LOS standard for each public facility located within the boundary for which such local government has authority to issue development orders or permits. Such LOS standards are set for each individual facility or facility type or class and not on a system-wide basis. For water and wastewater service, the level of service that is commonly used in the industry is the amount of capacity (service) allocable to an ERC expressed as the amount of usage (gallons) allocated on an average daily basis. This allocation of capacity would generally represent the amount of daily dependable capacity allowable to an ERC, whether or not such capacity is actually used (commonly referred to as "readiness to serve"). As previously mentioned, an ERC is representative of the average capacity required to service a typical individually-metered or single- family residential account. This class of users represents the largest amount of customers served by a public utility such as the District and generally the lowest level of usage requirements for a specifically metered account. The current level of service standards adopted by the County as expressed on a "gallons per day per ERC" basis are 350 gpd for the water system and 250 gpd for the wastewater system, and these level of service standards were relied upon by PRMG in previous evaluations of the County's water and wastewater impact fees. The primary differences in the LOS standards between the two utilities are considered to be: i) the recognition of outdoor irrigation demands for potable water service which reflect water usage not returned to the wastewater system; ii) differences in unaccounted for water (finished water leaving the water treatment plant compared with water metered at the customer premise) and wastewater inflow and infiltration(groundwater and stormwater entering the wastewater collection system which are treated at the wastewater treatment plants) relationships; and iii)other factors. It is recognized by the industry that the average daily water use and corresponding wastewater flows expressed on a "per ERC" basis have declined over the past ten years, and the County's utility 3 DRAFT system has also experienced this decline. Although this may be attributable to a variety of reasons, PRMG believes that this downward trend includes, but may not be limited to: i) continued water conservation pricing efforts by local governments; ii) improvements in water use requirements for household appliances such as clothes washers and dishwashers, low-flow toilets and water fixtures; iii) increases in customer densities to reduce the costs of construction which results in less pervious surface to irrigate; and iv) general customer awareness of the need to reduce water use (e.g., installation of xeriscape landscaping). With respect to the County, average water sales per ERC for the single family residential class has declined by approximately 17%since 2008 and it is expected by the County that this general reduction in flow will be permanent. In the development of the level of service standards for the impact fee update, the following references were considered and reviewed: • 2014 Water and Wastewater Master Plan Updates (the "2014 Master Plan Updates") prepared by AECOM,the District's consulting engineers(the"Consulting Engineers"); • Collier County Growth Management Plan adopted on October 28, 1997, as amended and supplemented; • Florida Department of Environmental Protection(FDEP)general design standards; • Florida Public Service Commission(FPSC)capacity relationships for private utilities;and • Actual water production and wastewater flow data reported by the District over the past several years. The following table shows the level of service standards contained in some of the reference sources: (Remainder of Page Left Blank Intentionally) 4 DRAFT Comparison of Water and Wastewater Level of Service(LOS) Standards Per Equivalent Residential Connection(ERC) Water ERC Wastewater ERC Description (gpd) (gpd) Level of Service Utilized for Impact Fee Calculations 325 225 Collier County Water-Sewer Dis trio(CCWSD) Water and Waste water Rate Ordinance 350 250 Collier County Growth Management Plan[11 2.40 persons per household 364 242 2.50 persons per household 379 253 2.64 persons per household 400 263 2014 Master Plan Updates[21 2.40 persons per household 295 202 2.50 persons per household 307 210 2.64 persons per household 325 222 Level of Service Standards Recognized By State Government ofFloritls Florida Public Service Service Commission(FPSC)Capacity Relationships for Private Utilities[3] 350 280 Florida Department of Health Design Standards for Sewer Systems[4] N/A 300 Eli LOS standards re&ct gallons per capita per day(gpcd)in Colllor County Growth Management Plan nadtiplied by number of persons per household. Gallons per capita per day derived as fallows: Water Wastewater Total gpcd 185 120 Adjustment for commercial component per County billing records (3 3) (19), Residential gpcd 152 101 Per the 2000 US Census,the persons per hrotsehold in Collier County was 2.39,while the persons per household per the 2010 Census was 2.64. Changing customer dynamics may adjust this number over tine. [2]LOS standards reflect gallons per capita per day(gpcd)in 2014 Master Plan Updates multiplied by number of persons per household. Gallons per capita per day derived as follows: Water Wastewater Total goat 150 100 Adjustment for commercial component per County billing records (27) (16) Residential gped 123 84 Per the 2000 US Census,the persons per household in Collier County was 2,39,while the persons per household per the 2010 Census was 2.64. Changing customer dynamics may adjust this number over time, [3]Rule 25-30.515(8),Florida Administrative Code. A wastewater ERC level of service is assumed to be 80%of the water ERC level of service(350 gpd x 80%—280 gpd). [4]Rule 64E•6.008,Florida Administrative Code, Design standard far 3-bedroom house with 1,201-2,250 square feet of building area. 5 DRAFT Recognizing: i) the current trends in water use per single family ERC; ii) the current capacity planning ERC service levels assumed in the most recent utility Master Plan Updates used in the evaluation of and planning for water and wastewater treatment capacity needs; iii) single family residential and commercial water use relationships based on detailed utility billing information as provided by the District; iv)the most recent U.S. Census data regarding persons per household for the County; and v) discussions with the District staff, the LOS standards recognized for the evaluation of the fees as expressed on a "gallons per day (gpd) per ERC" basis are 325 gpd for a water system ERC and 225 gpd for a wastewater system ERC. This represents a reduction in the overall level of service for the reservation of water and wastewater capacity and appears to be more representative with current conditions and the planning assumptions used by the District and its consulting engineers in the treatment capacity evaluation process. Existing Plant in Service In the determination of the impact fee associated with the servicing of future customers, any constructed capacity in the existing treatment and transmission utility system which is available to serve such growth was considered. Since this capacity was constructed and is available to serve the near-term incremental growth of the utility system, it is appropriate to recognize the capacity availability of such facilities. In order to evaluate the availability of the existing utility plant-in- service to meet or provide for near-term future capacity needs, it was necessary to functionalize the existing utility plant by specific function or purpose (treatment, conveyance, etc.). The "functionalization" of the existing utility plant is necessary to: i) identify those assets which should be considered or included in the determination of the impact fees; and ii)match existing plant type to the capital improvements to meet future service needs. The functional cost categories are based on the purpose of the assets and the service that such assets served. The following is a summary of the functional cost categories for the utility plant-in-service identified in this report. Functional Plant Categories Water Service Wastewater Service Other Plant Supply Treatment General Plant (equipment, vehicles,etc.) Treatment Effluent/Irrigation Quality Water Transmission Transmission Distribution Collection (includes local lift stations,manholes,and Iaterals) Fire Hydrants Meters and Services It was necessary to functionalize the utility plant into these cost categories so that a proper fee could be developed. Generally, the costs of on-site facilities which serve a specific development or customer (not considered as a "System" cost proportionately allocable to all users) include onsite (fronting the premise)water distribution and wastewater collection lines, meters and services, local lift stations, and fire hydrants are usually: i)donated by a developer as part of the District's utility extension program(a contribution of the plant); ii)recovered from the individual properties through an assessment program based on those properties which receive special benefit from such facilities or from the application of a main line extension fee to recover the specific cost of such facilities;or iii)funded from the customer directly (e.g., by a "front-foot" charge where the on-site lines were 6 DRAFT initially financed by the utility and then paid by the customer or an installation charge to recover the i cost of a new service line and/or the potable water meter). Such utility plant should not be a capital cost included in the impact fee calculation_ Additionally, assets or utility plant with short service lives that are replaced on a recurring basis should also not be included since these assets are considered attributable to the existing customers of the System. An example of this utility plant would be general plant(vehicles,equipment,etc.). The County provided PRMG with reported utility plant asset information through September 30, 2013 (the most recently completed fiscal year)that served as the basis of the functionalization of the existing utility plant-in-service. Appendix A at the end of this report provides a summary of the funetionalization of the existing utility plant-in-service for the System. The functionalized existing utility plant-in-service as shown in Appendix A represents the original installed cost of such assets (gross book value) and was based on the reported in-service values as of September 30, 2013 that were provided by the County and detailed in the utility asset records. This information represents the most current information available relative to the plant-in-service to serve the existing and near- term future customer base of each utility system. The assets represent"installed costs"and have not been restated to account for any fair market value adjustments which would reflect current costs (would assume essentially that assets were replaced). If an asset had been replaced by the County as of September 30, 2013, such assets were considered since they are physically in-service and represent the cost actually incurred by the County to provide service to future development. A summary of the functionalization of the existing utility plant-in-service in Appendix A is shown as follows: Summary of Existing Utility System Assets[1] Reported Cross Plant-In-Service as of September 30,2013 Water System Wastewater System Description Amount Percent Amount Percent Water Supply $87,668,101 16.63% — Treatment 185,254,947 35.14% $262,441,103 43.49% Transmission 88,676,682 16.82% 70,383,531 11.66% Distribution/Collection 122,703,644 23.27% 177,780,010 29.46% Effluent/Reclaimed — — 54,002,853 8.95% Meters/Services/Hydrants 9,722,642 1.84% — — General Plant[2] 15,122,726 2.87% 17,283,310 2.86% Other[3] 18.087.012 3.43% 21,560,937 3.57% Totals ,517,235,75,E la= $603.451.739 ,100,00/Q Total Combined Utility SystemAssets 51.130.687.492. [1]Amounts shown derived from AppendixA and do not include construction-work-in-progress o f$59,016,008. [2]General Plant represents equipment,vehicles and assets with short service lives,and was allocated to the water and wastewater system in proportion to all other functionalized utility plant. [31Reflects adjustments to reported assets to remove general-related costs fromthe fee calculations or to allocate portion of asset costs directly to existing users, 7 1 ! DRAFT In order to determine the amount of existing water supply/treatment and wastewater treatment/ disposal plant assets available to meet future growth, it is necessary to identify the amount of unused capacity in such facilities. Table 1 at the end of this report provides an estimate of the unused capacity and the allocated water supply and treatment plant costs available to meet future needs. A similar analysis is shown on Table 2 at the end of this report for the wastewater system. This estimate for water and wastewater capacity and the allocation of existing plant to future growth was based on: i) the permitted design capacity of the respective utility plant facilities; ii) the recognition of adjustments to present the facility capacity on an average daily demand/flow basis to be consistent with the assumed level of service requirements (dependable daily capacity); and iii) actual use of such facilities as experienced by the System service area through the Fiscal Year 2013. Based on this analysis, it was estimated that the existing water supply and treatment and wastewater treatment and effluent disposal plant facilities had the following remaining and available capacity to meet future needs: Plant Capacity(MGD) Wastewater Water Plant[1] Plant[2] Total Permitted Design Capacity(MMDD/MMADF-MOD) 52.000 40.100 Peaking Factor [3] 1.200 1.209 Plant Capacity Expressed on Average Daily Demand/Flow Basis 43.333 33.417 Less Existing Plant Utilization(ADF) 26.776 17.372 Net Available to Meet Future Service Area Needs 16,557 16.045 Percent of Total System Capacity 3821% 48.02%, MMDD=Maximum Month Daily Demand MMADF=Maximum Month Average Daily Flow MGD=Million Gallons Per Day ADF=Average Daily Flow [1] Amounts derived from Table I. [21 Amounts derived from Table 2. [3] The utilized peaking factors are based on a review of historical peaking relationships experienced by the System. As shown above, it has been estimated that approximately 38.21%in existing water production and treatment utility assets is allocable to serve future development. With respect to the wastewater system, it is estimated that approximately 48.02% of its combined treatment and disposal utility assets is allocable to serve new customer growth. Recognizing the amount of the availability of the existing installed capacity to serve new development or growth, no future capacity additions have been recognized in the analysis; the water production / treatment and wastewater treatment / disposal capacity costs in the impact fee calculations represent the average installed costs of such capacity("buy-in"). Additional Capital Investment The District staff and its Consulting Engineers recently prepared a capital improvement program (CIP) which outlines a number of capital improvements for the water and wastewater system over the next ten years. The ten-year planning period was considered by the County to adequately address the immediate needs of the District service area demand requirements and represents projects that will be initiated in the next few years to meet and provide the necessary capacity to meet the respective demands in such planning horizon. The improvements in the CIP are primarily for: i) upgrades to existing assets which benefit both current and future users of the System (e.g., 8 DRAFT replacement and upgrade of water and wastewater transmission mains); and ii) replacement of assets or conducting capital programs which generally only benefit current users of the System(e.g., existing plant renewal and replacement,certain reliability projects). For the purposes of developing the impact fees to be charged to new growth, PRMG was directed by County management and the County's outside legal counsel to potentially recognize only two irrigation quality (IQ) capital projects in the impact fee calculations: Project No. 74030: IO Aquifer Storage and Recovery—Livingston Road Cost Over Next Ten Years: $1,650,000 Project Description: Plan, design, and construct three additional Aquifer Storage and Recovery (ASR) wells (for a total of five) located at the Livingston Road wellfield north of Immokalee Road to meet the demands of existing and future IQ customers. This project provides for construction and startup of the ASR wells in compliance with the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) regulations, as well as cycle testing to insure the proper operation of the ASR system. IO Expansion Business Plan(Project number to be determined) Cost Over Next Ten Years:$19,732,354 Project Description.- Plan, design, and construct required IQ expansions to meet the demands of the CCWSD IQ customers as it grows over the next 20 years. Projects will work towards the goal of increasing IQ water usage from 40% to 60% to provide a long-term water resource benefit to existing and future users of the System. Projects include new Lower Tamiami wells in the south service area,supplemental water used for IQ,and water conservation initiatives. No water capital projects in the ten-year CIP are reflected in the impact fee calculations. Per discussions with County staff, PRMG determined that the IQ Expansion Business Plan primarily benefits customers connecting beyond the ten-year calculation window. Moreover,only 50%of the IQ Aquifer Storage and Recovery — Livingston Road was considered to provide a System-wide benefit that should be reflected in the impact fee calculations. Design of Water Impact Fee As shown on Table 3 at the end of this report, the calculated impact fee for the water system is $2,600 per ERC. This represents a decrease of$605 or 18.9%when compared with the current fee of$3,205 per ERC. In the development of the proposed water impact fees, several assumptions were utilized or incorporated. The major assumptions utilized in the design of the calculated impact fees are: 1. The existing water supply and treatment facilities have an estimated available capacity margin to serve new growth of approximately 38.21% of the average daily capacity of the facilities based on: i) the firm design capacity of the existing water treatment plant facilities; and ii) actual maximum month daily demand to annual average daily demand relationships recently experienced by the water system, including a review of the actual demand requirements for 9 t DRAFT the twelve fiscal year period ended 2013. The analysis is included on Table 1 at the end of this report. No water system capacity additions are projected over the next ten years. 2. Per the directions of County management and the County's outside legal counsel, no water projects in the District's multi-year capital program were included in the water impact fee calculations. 3. The level of service for a water ERC was assumed to be 325 gallons per day(gpd) expressed on an average daily flow basis. This level of service represents a reduction from the 350 gpd assumed in the previous impact fee study. The level of service assumption was predicated on the level of service requirements as contained in the 2014 Master Plan Updates; the County's Growth Management Plan(potable water sub-element); Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) general design standards for water use analysis; Florida Public Service Commission (FPSC) capacity relationships for private utilities (Florida Administrative Code Rule 25-30.020);and discussions with the District staff. 4. Since the transmission function capacity is difficult to ascertain except at build-out conditions, the total existing(original cost and not on a replacement or current cost basis) costs to serve the total capacity of the water system over the next ten years was recognized,thus calculating a new users per-ERC average"buy-in"cost for this functional component of the system. 5. Because: i) the utility system is operated as an enterprise fund; ii) all financial resources received by the District stay within the fund for the benefit of such system; iii) the costs reflected in the fee are at original cost and not adjusted for any fair market value to reflect current cost conditions; iv)there is no interest-expense carry in the impact fee associated with the financing of the capital investment to serve new development; and v) there are no other revenues received by the District from new development for the capital costs / utility plant reflected in the impact fee (e.g., ad valorem taxes on the property), no credit for the future payment of debt service allocable to the properties has been recognized. All impact fee funds remain in the system and the long-term capital financing costs for infrastructure constructed and available to serve new growth are mitigated by using the impact fees for ongoing expansion-related capital project financing or for the direct payment of the annual expansion- related debt service payments. 6. The approach used to determine the estimated impact fee was the "System Buy-in" method which is based on the allocation of the installed cost of the gross plant investment that is available (in-service) to serve new growth. Under this approach, the applicant paying the impact fee is reimbursing the system for the applicant's proportionate share of the facilities available to serve the new development. This method also recognizes that as improvements are made to the system, the available capacity to meet the future demands of the new development is being maintained and therefore the installed cost of the gross plant investment is reasonable. To the extent utility plant assets are upgraded, renewed or replaced but there is capacity to serve new customers, such new customers should be responsible for the pro rata share of the incremental cost of such improvements and such costs have been recognized in the fee;any capital costs that would be allocated to existing customers were not recognized in the impact fee development. 10 DRAFT Since the District has constructed this utility plant investment in advance of the new development, there are no future capital improvements included in the fee calculation. Additionally, the District has several capital projects that are underway and considered as construction-work-in-progress. When completed, the construction-work-in-progress will be placed into service; the then existing assets are assumed to be retired and removed from the fixed assets for financial reporting purposes. Because these capital projects have not yet been completed as of the end of Fiscal Year 2013 (which served as the Test Year for the asset evaluation)and it is unknown at this time the amount of retirements that will result due to the placement of these projects into service, no adjustment was made to recognize the completion of the construction-work-progress in the fee calculation, The following table summarizes the amount of capital investment that has been recognized as being available to serve new growth based on the amount of capacity available to the water system and the amount being used by the existing customers of the water system: Summary of Constructed Utility Plant Costs Allocated to New Development-Water System Description Amount Total Constructed Assets-Goss Plant-in-Service[1] $527,235,753 Less Constructed Assets Directly Assigned to Existing Customers[2] (165,636,024) Less Adjustments for Contributed Assets and Assets Funded from External Sources[3] (14.850.65U Net Constructed Assets $346,749,079 Net Amount Allocated to Existing Customers: Percent Amount $214,256,256 $214,256,256 Net Amount Allocated to Future Customers $132,492,823 Percent of Total Constructed Assets[4] 2513% Percent ofNet Constructed Assets[5] 38.21% [1]Amounts shown derived from Table 3;amounts do not include construction-work-in-progress of $23,997,533. [2]Represents utility plant that is assumed to specifically benefit the property served as opposed to a System cost and includes water distribution facilities,meters,hydrants,services and general utility plant. [3]Includes contributed assets,grant-funded assets and assets funded nom transportation impact fees. [4]Represents percent of total constructed Gross Plant-in-Service(i.e.,$527,235,753). [5]Represents percent of net constructed assets(i.e.,$346,749,079). As shown on Table 3 at the end of this report,the calculated water impact fee is $2,600 per ERC, which represents a decrease of$605 or 18.9% when compared with the current fee of$3,205 per ERC. The primary reason for the reduction in the fee is the lowering of the LOS standard per ERC which results in a lower installed cost allocation to such ERC. This fee would be applied to a standard individually-metered residential customer. Based on the capital facilities associated with the determination of the fee,the functional breakdown of the components of the rate is as follows: 11 . t DRAFT Calculated Cost Per ERC Proposed Fee Water Supply/Treatment $2,047 $2,045 Water Transmission 554 555 Total 2.601 52.600 Design of Wastewater Impact Fee As shown on Table 4 at the end of this report,the calculated impact fee for the wastewater system is $2,515 per ERC. This represents a decrease of$705 or 21.9%when compared with the current fee of$3,220 per ERC. In the development of the proposed wastewater impact fees, several assumptions were utilized or incorporated in the analysis. The major assumptions utilized in the design of the proposed wastewater impact fees are: 1. The existing wastewater treatment and effluent disposal facilities have an estimated available capacity margin to serve new growth of approximately 48.02% of the average daily capacity of the facilities based on: i)the firm design capacity of the existing wastewater treatment plant facilities; and ii) actual maximum month average daily flow to annual average daily flow relationships recently experienced by the wastewater system, including a review of the actual flow requirements for the twelve fiscal year period ended 2013. The analysis is included on Table 2 at the end of this report. No wastewater system capacity additions are projected over the next ten years. 2. Based on discussions with the County, the cost of treatment and effluent disposal includes the direct system-related cost of expanding the irrigation quality water system. The IQ water system is considered by the County to be a component of the wastewater system. 3. Per the directions of County management and the County's outside legal counsel and discussions with County staff, only capital costs pertaining to the IQ Aquifer Storage and Recovery — Livingston Road (Project 74030) were recognized in the wastewater impact fee calculations. 4. The level of service for a wastewater ERC was assumed to be 225 gallons per day (gpd) expressed on an average daily flow basis. This level of service represents a reduction from the 250 gpd assumed in the previous impact fee study. The level of service assumption was predicated on information contained in the 2014 Master Plan Updates regarding wastewater capacity; the level of service requirements as contained in the County's Growth Management Plan (sanitary sewer sub-element); FDEP flow standards as reported in FAC Rule 64E-6.008; FPSC capacity relationships for private utilities (FAC Rule 25-30.020); and discussions with District staff. 5. Since the transmission function capacity is difficult to ascertain except at build-out conditions, the total existing (original cost and not on a replacement or current cost basis) costs to serve the total capacity of the wastewater system over the next ten years was recognized, thus 12 DRAFT calculating a new users per-ERC average "buy-in" cost for this functional component of the system. 6. Because: i) the utility system is operated as an enterprise fund; ii) all financial resources received by the District stay within the fund for the benefit of such system; iii) the costs reflected in the fee are at original cost and not adjusted for any fair market value to reflect current cost conditions; iv)there is no interest-expense carry in the impact fee associated with the financing of the capital investment to serve new development; and v) there are no other revenues received by the District from new development for the capital costs / utility plant reflected in the impact fee (e.g., ad valorem taxes on the property), no credit for the future payment of debt service allocable to the properties has been recognized. All impact fee funds remain in the system and the long-term capital financing costs for infrastructure constructed and available to serve new growth are mitigated by using the impact fees for ongoing expansion-related capital project financing or for the direct payment of the annual expansion- related debt service payments. 7. The approach used to determine the estimated impact fee was the "System Buy-in" method which is based on the allocation of the installed cost of the gross plant investment that is available (in-service) to serve new growth. Under this approach, the applicant paying the impact fee is reimbursing the system for the applicant's proportionate share of the facilities available to serve the new development. This method also recognizes that as improvements are made to the system, the available capacity to meet the future demands of the new development is being maintained and therefore the installed cost of the gross plant investment is reasonable. To the extent utility plant assets are upgraded, renewed or replaced but there is capacity to serve new customers, such new customers should be responsible for the pro rata share of the incremental cost of such improvements and such costs have been recognized in the fee;any capital costs that would be allocated to existing customers were not recognized in the impact fee development. Since the District has constructed this utility plant investment in advance of the new development, there are no future capital improvements included in the fee calculation. Additionally, the District has several capital projects that are underway and considered as construction-work-in-progress. When completed, the construction-work-in-progress will be placed into service; the then existing assets are assumed to be retired and removed from the fixed assets for financial reporting purposes. Because these capital projects have not yet been completed as of the end of Fiscal Year 2013 (which served as the Test Year for the asset evaluation) and it is unknown at this time the amount of retirements that will result due to the placement of these projects into service, no adjustment was made to recognize the completion of the construction-work-progress in the fee calculation. The following table summarizes the amount of capital investment that has been recognized as being available to serve new growth based on the amount of capacity available to the wastewater system and the amount being used by the existing customers of the wastewater system: 13 3 i 1 Summary of Constructed Utility Plant Costs Allocated to New Dmelopment-Wastewater System Description Amount Total Constructed Assets-Cross Plant-in-Service[1] $603,451,739 Less Constructed Assets Directly Assigned to Existing Customers[2] (216,624,252) Less Adjustments for Contributed Assets and Assets Funded from External Sources[3] (13,88048) Net Constructed Assets $372,942,639 Net Amount Allocated to Existing Customers: Percent 51.98% Amount $193,874,025 Net Amount Allocated to Future Customers $179,068,615 Percent of Total Constructed Assets[4] 29,67% Percent of Net Constructed Assets [5] 48.02% [1]Amounts shown derived from Table 4;amounts do not include construction-work-in-progress of $35,018,475. [2]Represents utility plant that is assumed to specifically benefit the property served as opposed to a System cost and includes wastewater collection facilities and general utility plant. • [3]Includes contributed assets,grant-funded assets and assets funded from transportation impact fees. [4]Represents percent of total constructed Gross Plant-in-Service(i.e.,$603,451,739). [5]Represents percent of net constructed assets(i.e.,$372,942,639). As shown on Table 4 at the end of this report, the calculated wastewater impact fee is $2,515 per ERC,which represents a decrease of$705 or 21.9%when compared with the current fee of$3,220 per ERC. The primary reason for the reduction in the fee is the lowering of the LOS standard per ERC which results in a lower installed cost allocation to such ERC. This fee would be applied to a standard individually-metered residential customer. Based on the capital facilities associated with the determination of the fee,the functional breakdown of the components of the rate is as follows: Calculated Cost Per ERC Proposed Fee Wastewater Treatment/Disposal $2,221 $2,120 Wastewater Transmission 396 395 Total S2 1 Impact Fee Comparisons In order to provide additional information to the County regarding the existing and calculated impact fees, a comparison of the existing and calculated fees for the District with other Florida jurisdictions was prepared. This comparison is summarized on Table 5 at the end of this report and provides a comparison of the existing and proposed District impact fees for single-family residential connections (i.e.,one ERC) relative to the impact fees or comparable charges currently imposed by other municipal/governmental water and wastewater systems located primarily in the southwest Florida region. It is important to note that the reader must view the comparison with caution as no in-depth analysis has been performed to determine the methods used in the development of the water and wastewater impact fees imposed by others, nor has any analysis been made to determine 14 DRAFT whether 100% of the cost of new facilities is recovered from system capacity charges, or some percentage less than 100% with the balance recovered through the user charges. Additionally, no analysis was conducted as to the rate of capital facilities currently in service or planned for the utility. For example,the costs of wastewater effluent disposal utilizing a deep injection well system generally has a higher capital cost per unit of capacity than percolation ponds. The following is a summary of the survey results regarding the impact fee comparison of the District's fees with those of the surveyed utilities: !0,000 Brileebraen castle Id August 1014 J •WaWcfnekr UWskr I 23 NA= $5,115 , StWallillillill.11111M11 1uuiiii $ , , , , , , , , , , , , , , loco 17uuuluI111111111IIII IIIIIII « UIIIIiiii If , � IIUIIIIIIIIIIIiiii Ii //// /// // / / 11 / 411 / 1/ 14, je oftea. cf, /if it jp dif, a a. Figure 1:Comparison of Water and Wastewater System Impact Fees Per ERC Some reasons why impact fees differ among utilities: • Water quality and proximity to source of supply • Type of treatment process and disposal requirements (e.g., brine from reverse osmosis process, effluent from wastewater process) • Availability of grant funding to finance CIP • Age of system/level of renewals and replacements • Utility life cycle(e.g.,growth-oriented vs.mature) • Level.of service standards • Administrative decision to maintain fees at a level below what could justifiably be charged 15 DRAFT As shown on Table 5 at the end of this report,the average water and wastewater system impact fees for the eighteen (18) governmental entities surveyed are $2,131 and $2,683 (Combined = $4,814), respectively, for a single-family residence. Of the surveyed utilities, the City of Marco Island had the highest water and wastewater system impact fees of $3,740 and $4,610 respectively ($8,350 combined). The City of Bradenton had the lowest combined system capacity charges in the group with the water fee being $1,183 and the wastewater fee being $1,545 (Combined = $2,728). The calculated water system impact fee of$2,600 and the calculated wastewater system impact fee of $2,515 (Combined = $5,515) for the District are higher than the average of the surveyed utilities' impact fees. Utilities with higher combined impact fees than those proposed for the District include the City of Punta Gorda,the City of Naples, Sarasota County, FGUA—Lehigh Acres(Lee County), DeSoto County,Bonita Springs Utilities,Inc. and the City of Marco Island. Conclusions and Recommendations Based on our evaluation of the District water and wastewater system impact fees,PRMG offers the following conclusions and recommendations: 1. The proposed impact fees are considered by PRMG to support the rational nexus requirements as determined by case law whereby the benefits received by the applicant (new development) must be reasonably related to the capital cost of providing utility services. PRMG considers the proposed impact fees to be cost-based and reasonable. 2. Based on levels of service per ERC and the capital costs identified,the proposed impact fees for the water and wastewater systems,respectively,are as follows: Existing and Proposed Fiscal Year 2014 Calculated Water and Wastewater Impact Fees Per ERC Proposed LOS Fiscal Year 2014 Difference System (gpd) Padstitg Calculated Amount Percent Water 325 $3,205.00 $2,600.00 ($605,00) (18.9%) Wastewater 225 $3,220.00 $2,515.00 ($705.00) (21.9%) Total $6,425.00 $5,115.00 ($1,310.00) (20.4%) ERC=Equivalent Residential Connection (Remainder of Page Left Blank Intentionally) 16 DRAFT ANALYSIS TABLES AND FIGURES LIST OF TABLES Table Page No. Table Title No. Table I Development of Existing Water Production/Treatment Facility Capacity Available to Serve System Growth 17 Table 2 Development of Existing Wastewater Treatment Facility Capacity Available to Serve System Growth 19 Table 3 Development of Water System Impact Fee 21 Table 4 Development of Wastewater System Impact Fee 22 Table 5 Comparison of Water and Wastewater Impact Fees Per ERC 23 AU: DRAFT Table 2 • Collier County Water-Sewer District Water and Wastewater Impact Fee Study Development of Existing Wastewater Treatment Facility Capacity Available to Serve System Growth Line Wastewater No. System 1 Existing Plant Capacity of System(MMADF-MGD)(1) 40.100 2 Adjustment to Reflect Capacity on Average Daily Flow Basis(2) (6.683) 3 Dependable Treatment Plant Capacity(ADF) 33.417 4 Average Daily Flow-Existing System(3) 17.372 5 Remaining Capacity(ADF)at Existing Plant 16.045 6 Percent of Total Capacity Remaining 48.02% 7 Percent of Total Capacity Recognized 48.02% 8 Capacity Available to Service New Growth(ADF) 16.045 9 Capacity Available to Service New Growth(gallons) 16,045,031 10 Level of Service Standard Per ERC(gallons per day) 225 11 Number of ERCs That Could Be Served By Existing Capacity[Line 9/Line 10] 71,311 MGD=Million Gallons Per Day MMADF=Maximum Month Average Daily Flow ADF=Annual Average Daily Flow Footnotes on page 20. 9/11/2014;2:23 PM 19 DRAFT Table 2 Collier County Water-Sewer District Water and Wastewater Impact Fec Study Development of Existing Wastewater Treatment Facility Capacity Available to Serve System Growth • Footnotes; (1) Amounts reflect permitted MMADF wastewater treatment plant capacity of facilities. The permitted capacities of the individual regional facilities are 24.1 MMADF-MGD(North County Water Reclamation Facility)and 16,0 MMADF-MGD(South County Water Reclamation Facility). (2) With respect to the existing wastewater facilities,the plant capacity is expressed on a maximum month average daily flow basis. To be consistent with the level of service requirements for the wastewater system,the plant capacity was adjusted to reflect an average daily flow basis using a peaking factor of 1.20. A summary of the twelve fiscal year actual wastewater flows is summarized below. As can be seen based on the actual reported flow data,the capacity adjustment factor averaged 1.16. Annual Maximum Month Average Daily Average Daily Flow(MGD) Flow(MGD) Peakin&Factor Fiscal Year 2002 15.528 20.160 1.30 Fiscal Year 2003 15.600 17279 1.11 Fiscal Year 2004 15.921 18,899 1.19 Fiscal Year 2005 16.323 19.306 1.18 Fiscal Year 2006 17.372 19,890 1.14 Fiscal Year 2007 15.633 18.391 1.18 Fiscal Year 2008 15.601 18.290 1.17 Fiscal Year 2009 13.837 15.920 1.15 Fiscal Year 2010 14.291 15.747 1.10 Fiscal Year 2011 14.728 16.791 1.14 Fiscal Year 2012 15.834 18.122 1.14 Fiscal Year2013 16.954 18.669 1.10 Twelve-Year Maximum 1.30 Twelve-Year Average 1.16 Factor Utilized by PRMG for Impact Fee Determination Purposes 1.20 40.100 MMDD-MGD Capacity/1.20 Peaking Factor=33.417 AADD-MGD Capacity. 40.100 Less 33.417=6.683. (3) Reflects the highest reported average daily flow experienced by the District's wastewater treatment facilities for the twelve Fiscal Year period ended 2013 as shown below: Wastewater _ Maximum Period Reported AADF(*) 17.372 • (•)Reference is made to Footnote 2 for applicable average daily flow data (4) The level of service factor for an ERC reflects capacity requirements expressed on an average daily wastewater flow basis;the factor was based on the County's capacity planning assumptions and other sources available to PRMG. • 9/11/2014;2:27 PM 20 3 i $. O O O S 8 S A a M V a` Q n H O N 06 ri odo rn oo g O ' ' '' Vi O ,o S Yl t R n v a r M r. N E. N oM0 v-- o rn H v M H 69 69 69 69 69 H 69 GI 69 69 ti 8�+ V . e v a b r m p k0 00 Oa C W 6 w H la N M e e ' N ' ry v a M $ i . r. o N u `NO- m 0N MO n GQi H ° O tE O oc e" M N a aN Y w 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 yd 4 v e ° « 3, . . . • N °. a, Q; , O 1 O. O o A M OrO V1 „ v1 Eco 15 �. H H 49 69 69 69 M 69 an A fs O^ N d• °' ri N G a e /1 [. W en �. 7 m OD trM'1 .o W N N3 69 69 69 69 69 69 c9 69 np 1 0 B a 02 a 6 . N 3 4 z a S FV" If t to it B 1 Q b E e, 5 .90 p s o e7 8 A 4 e ItIIi 3 + 3 u��777 u I 1q �. � p 00 o E e b _r <-s e.4 vc w $ > d `o 3 0 3 x cJ a B-0 ,E ° A d a x I c`3 o7). 1•$o W r£ Z U U �H F. � o Ga3 c g a u ww 88 ° 6 A > EF F H aaa a w a v a .4aa co M p Z .-, N M V Vl ,o N co o. O ,- N M O Vl �•, N-, CO P p v.N... u N a C P.4 O N ,.., O � 'V M n I w o n .. $ o o 'n vNi g 888 vHmKg a 8 in v, °� n in H whin A O M $ ci Os. cl y N on ri 64 V4 69 69 H H N 69 69 44 so •Z g Au Y o .2 li a SS N S .%� M Os. P N r M N M f9 a nb`V•/ h N u a s F 1 V4 44 K K 44 69 64 2� ' N O v1 re:�yG o pip �p M. kn , c VI el 3 w c q. h v 0 < b+ P M O ° `N�' yry N 69 $ .. ra 4' 44 H 64 67 H 49 V9 1 V Y a00 y 8 ° ° n o e M m No a A a „ a TG a " ,`� a `9 a E L 2 N N ` .o Y C a i N b F 69 69 64 i.9 49 44 H . �' N F A E $ •a E V -o o & ; V. c Yd a, V 3 1 k ao 0 S s- 2 �°, z s a > A o Y 2S E 3 o v v ° E B o o s ° 5 a ° G 3 u + U °" y 5 3 8 t t b'CI Al< o > " ° a k e'a" a a .8 �3 z > ti 74E z E c� � ? 000 L5 < 47, Y V ° 4 k e 3 o s a Hs 20 "8 gi r2 _ u ° ° ° C §•3 b - 6 E. °t;., c ° Y° II � - JR 0 i 3 w-- 8 `tn1 III ! ant '3 S f.�Q a 8 I V g F P4 N NT! Y _ g ° ^ N M a h b N CO ON O N el V' vi gyp.. t. co Q+ T u E 4 W 4i 04 Z N• a 1 I i DRAFT Table 5 I • Collier County Water-Sewer District Water and Wastewater Impact Fee Study Comparison of Water and Wastewater System Impact Fees Per ERC[11 i Line Residential 5/8"x 3/4"Meter No Description Water Wastewater Combined Collier County Water-Sewer District I Existing Impact Fees $3,205 $3,220 $6,425 2 Proposed Impact Fees 2,600 2,515 5,115 Surveyed Florida Utilities: 3 Bonita Springs Utilities,Inc. $2,600 $3,925 $6,525 4 City of Bradenton 1,183 1,545 2,728 5 Charlotte County 1,780 2,350 4,130 6 DeSuto County 1,910 4,140 6,050 7 Englewood Water District 2,074 2,850 4,924 8 FGUA-Golden Gate(Collier County) 1,950 1,525 3,475 9 FGUA-Lehigh Acres System(Lee County) 2,696 2,839 5,535 10 City of Fort Myers 2,023 1,966 3,989 11 Hillsborough County 1,750 1,800 3,550 12 Lee County 2,440 2,660 5,100 13 Manatee County 1,970 2,315 4,285 14 City of Marco Island 3,740 4,610 8,350 15 City of Naples 2,549 2,779 5,328 16 City of North Port 1,735 2,388 4,123 17 Okeechobee Utility Authority 1,510 2,935 4,445 18 City of Punta Gorda 2,824 • 2,463 5,287 19 City of Sarasota 900 2,577 3,477 20 Sarasota County 2,720 2,627 5,347 21 Other Florida Utilities'Average $2,131 $2,683 $4,814 Footnotes: [1] Unless otherwise noted,amounts shown reflect fees charged to a standard residential connection(one ERC)in effect August 2014 and are exclusive of taxes or franchise fees,if any,and reflect rates charged for inside the city service. All rates are as reported by the respective utility, This comparison is intended to show comparable charges for similar service for comparison purposes only and is not intended to be a complete listing of all rates and charges offered by each listed utility. 9/11/2014;2:40 PM 23 DRAFT APPENDIX A SUMMARY OF EXISTING UTILITY SYSTEM ASSETS MG DRAFT Appendix A(Summary) • Collier County Water-Sewer District Water and Wastewater Impact Fee Study Summary of Existing Utility System Assets 111 Summary of Reported Gross Plant-In-Service as of September 30,2013 Line Water System Wastewater System No. Description Amount Percent Amount Percent 1 Water Supply $87,668,101 16.63% -- --- 2 Treatment 185,254,947 35.14% $262,441,103 43.49% 3 Transmission 88,676,682 16.82% 70,383,531 11.66% 4 Distribution/Collection 122,703,644 23.27% 177,780,010 29.46% 5 Effluent/Reclaimed --- --- 54,002,853 8.95% 6 Meters/Services/Hydrants 9,722,642 1.84% --- --- 7 General Plant[2] 15,122,726 2.87% 17,283,310 2.86% 8 Other[3] 18,087,012 3.43% 21.560.932 3.57% 9 Totals $527.235.753 jaguau $603.451.739 100.00°4 10 Total Combined Utility System $1.130.687.492 Summary of Contributed Capital Water Wastewater System System 11 Water Supply $1,375 --- 12 Treatment 0 $26,305 13 Transmission 0 6,643,864 14 Distribution/Collection 83,718,193 100,348,652 15 Effluent/Reclaimed --- 2,264,921 16 Meters/Services/Hydrants 29,280 -- 17 General Plant 326.082 372.669 18 Total 184.074.930 $109.656.411 19 Total Combined Utility System $193 73] '340 Footnotes: [1] Amounts shown derived from Appendix A-1 through Appendix A-3,which are available upon request. These appendices contain the functionalization of approximately 6,500 utility assets. Amounts shown do not include construction-work-in-progress. [2] General Plant represents equipment,vehicles and assets with short service lives,and was allocated to the water and wastewater system in proportion to all other functionalized utility plant. [3] Reflects adjustments to reported assets to remove general-related costs from the fee calculations or to allocate portion of asset costs directly to existing users. 9/11/2014;2:44 PM 24 DRAFT APPENDIX B EXISTING WATER AND WASTEWATER IMPACT FEE RESOLUTION PE AU; DRAFT RESOLUTION NO.2011 - 41 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. .. i 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 staff to 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 DRAFT 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 ,22^d day of 2011. ` ..\J�l 3;e3 :•cr.`'',lei ATTEST:,e ,,OF % .BOARD OF CO nwrG ;2=fit : ..: . . �_�� SI��= LER.1a t fi '41G . Al ~ " s* s in a:, 4V tt:,V;�. OF COLLIER COLIN�X � THE GOVERNING :B0Y r'; COWER r. J.- r �.. '. � FDA: By., 4 rte r age p., COUNTY AND AS y�y 7 rte' gr _ (..,. -sa s �, it 'a-" GOVERNING RD { -T R T �7�' RNING BOARD a. Y -%dty'C1erkco COUNTY WATER SEWER. and legal s :'i' !_s_ ... ........ •e i'btr _..... i"'tin 11111,0` �) J1ii?J') .zJ W1°, 4 1Ri+)11V: By: !7 �/. 'Jean e :, FRED W. COYLE, CH• NM')• Assistant County Attorney _.__ 2 4 i .11 ---- ---ir , . ' . . -'---- i i "I : 1 . . 1 s ' ' 1 . . . . ' . : l' I . I I I . H i 1 I I 1. , ' IHI x4 I f 1 . a a . 1 1 . ' I 1i ri 1 it lisd 1 1 ' 1! toil !! iliiif 111 i '. 11 II - $ 11,1: 11--. 11 ' . r; , Jill . aL+ ill . - ' ii - 41 . ki 6 6 .- :11 11 . I Z: 1 4 I --u. ,, ,s . t --- a :hi 1 . h , Ili ! . . 1 I . . , _ - 1 - s ii 1 xi ti a/ hi A 131 . .. . oh 1 t g I g .g i . g ig- a a a .a ____, _ I?A. • ii k 1 ii iii. 11 1 !• E H I iiiii — • --7-- - — --- 1 Ili! 1 I 1 1 . li , t � i. . g • in i I ii ci 'A Y F A .5 $ .q 9 nfl ' F Y p, o e Fr 3 a e o° c U J O 26 aw o z L. 8 a ` 2 u W I; S V C i Om O h ? t), p •� W O S G c.� ,, v $ W 5 p+ u O 0. C c.° d 3 o 5 w I 3 Q $ V z a .. � iii ,r,,i <glici eAti : 4 b 3 3 +�' 1 2 Q 2 m t m 3 0 C g - ¢ g ss ro 1 o I 3 ti w C N Q I t ii o fi x 3 3 " •E U .o 0 0 ,Z a£ 3 3 3 3 0 `5 t a S `s t o ° ° o u 4 c Y O ., .° qL .A n O pO v. A g g V Y .g £ • jy g § 7 > H in Q 0 ti a m Q 3 Q � PR o v g 3� I v N .�.. t1 rVj L Q !, a to 11 °/ z N A fwd Q y,�4, - " •;b L A M r� $ F F K u �5 t' F F u, V a F g 1 •<° Q g Agenda Item VII.0 Cotter County Collier County Transportation Impact Fee Update Study DRAFT REPORT December 16, 2014 Prepared for: Collier County Growth Management Division, Planning&Regulation 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, Florida 34104 ph (239) 252-2400 Prepared by Tindale Oliver 1000 N. Ashley Drive,Suite 400 Tampa, Florida, 33602 ph (813) 224-8862 fax (813) 226-2106 E-mail: nkamp @tindaleoliver.com 073100-06.13 Collier County I Transportation Impact Fee Update Study Collier County Transportation Impact Fee Update Study Table of Contents INTRODUCTION 1 DEMAND COMPONENT 3 Travel Demand 3 Interstate and Toll Facility Discount Factor 4 COST COMPONENT 5 County Roadway Costs 5 State Roadway Costs 8 Summary of Costs(Blended Cost Analysis) 11 Capacity Added per Lane Mile 11 Cost per Vehicle-Mile of Capacity Added 12 CREDIT COMPONENT 13 Gasoline Tax Equivalent Credit 13 Present Worth Variables 14 Fuel Efficiency 14 Effective Days per Year 15 CALCULATED TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE SCEHDULE 16 Transportation Impact Fee Calculation 18 Transportation Impact Fee Comparison 18 TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE BENEFIT DISTRICTS 20 APPENDICES APPENDIX A: Demand Component Calculation APPENDIX B: Cost Component Calculation APPENDIX C: Credit Component Calculation APPENDIX D: Calculated Transportation Impact Fee Schedule Tindale Oliver Collier County December 2014 i Transportation Impact Fee Study Collier County I Transportation Impact Fee Update Study Introduction Collier County's Transportation Impact Fee Ordinance was originally adopted in January 1985 to assist the County in providing adequate transportation facilities for expected growth. The fee was last updated in the 2010 Collier County Transportation Impact Fee Cost & Credit Update Study conducted by Tindale Oliver. Collier County has retained Tindale Oliver to prepare an update study to reflect the recent cost, credit, and demand components since 2010. It should be noted that figures calculated in this study represent the technically defensible level of impact fees that the County could charge; however, the Board of County Commissioners may choose to discount the fees as a policy decision. Following this introduction, this report provides the results of the fee analysis and consists of the following sections: • Demand Component • Cost Component • Credit Component • Calculated Transportation Impact Fee Schedule • Transportation Impact Fee Schedule Comparison • Transportation Impact Fee Benefit Districts The methodology used for the transportation impact fee study continues to follow a consumption-based impact fee approach, in which new development is charged based upon the proportion of vehicle-miles of travel (VMT) that each unit of new development is expected to consume of a lane mile of roadway network. Included in this document is the necessary support material used in the calculation of the transportation impact fee. Most of the analysis in this report was completed in 2013 and additional cost data was incorporated in 2014. The general equation used to compute the impact fee for a given land use is: [Demand x Cost]—Credit= Fee The demand for travel placed on the transportation system is expressed in units of VMT (daily trip generation rate multiplied by the trip length and the percent new trips [of total trips)) for each land use contained in the impact fee schedule. The trip generation is Tindale Oliver Collier County December 2014 1 Transportation Impact Fee Study Collier County I Transportation Impact Fee Update Study expressed in average daily rates since new development consumes trips on a daily basis. The cost of building new capacity typically is expressed in units of dollars per vehicle mile or lane mile of roadway capacity. The credit is an estimate of the future non-impact fee revenues generated by new development that are allocated to transportation capacity expansion construction projects. Thus, the impact fee is an "up front" payment for a portion of the cost of building a lane mile of capacity directly related to the amount of capacity consumed by each unit of land use contained in the impact fee schedule that is not paid for by future tax revenues generated by new development. It should be noted that the information used to develop the impact fee schedule was based on the most recent, reliable, and localized data available. The following input variables used in the fee equation: Demand Variables: • Trip generation rate • Trip length • Percent new trips • Interstate and toll facility discount factor Cost Variables: • Cost per lane mile • Capacity added per lane mile Credit Variables: • Equivalent gas tax credit(pennies) • Present worth • Fuel efficiency • Effective days per year A review of impact fee variables and corresponding recommendations are presented in the following sections. Tindale Oliver Collier County December 2014 2 Transportation Impact Fee Study Collier County I Transportation Impact Fee Update Study Demand Component Travel Demand The amount of transportation system consumed by a unit of new land development is calculated using the following variables and is measured in terms of the vehicle miles of new travel a unit of development consumes on the existing road system. • Number of daily trips generated; • Average length of those trips; and • Proportion of travel that is new travel, rather than travel that is already traveling on the road system. As part of this update, the trip characteristics variables were obtained primarily from four sources: (1) local studies conducted in Collier County, (2) similar studies previously conducted throughout Florida by Tindale Oliver (Florida Studies Database), and (3) the Institute of Transportation Engineers' (ITE) Trip Generation report(9th edition). The Florida Studies Database (including Collier County studies) is included in Appendix A. This database was used to determine VMT, which is developed from trip length, percent new trips, and trip rate for most land uses. The data in the trip characteristics database is based on actual land use studies and was collected throughout Florida using machine traffic counts and site specific land use origin-destination surveys. In addition,trip generation data from the ITE 9th Edition Trip Generation report was used. In instances where trip generation was available from the ITE Trip Generation report and the Florida Studies Database, a blended average calculation was used to increase the sample size. It is important to note that the trip length used for the single family land use (5.88 miles) is based on local studies conducted in 1999. More recent studies conducted in Collier County suggested an average of 7.28 miles, with a range of 3.05 miles to 11.29 miles. In 2010, Tindale Oliver conducted a separate analysis using the 2035 Collier County Long Range Transportation Demand (LRTP) travel model, which suggested that the single family trip length ranged from an average of 6.82 miles in the western part of the county (urban area) to 11.75 miles in the eastern part of the county (rural area). However, to provide a conservative estimate, this study continues to use 5.88 miles. Additional information on single family trip length is included in Appendix A. Tindale Oliver Collier County December 2014 3 Transportation Impact Fee Study Collier County I Transportation Impact Fee Update Study Interstate and Toll Facility Discount Factor This variable is used to recognize that improvements to Interstate highways are funded by the State using earmarked and Federal funds, while toll facility improvements are funded with toll revenues. Typically, impact fees are not used to pay for these improvements, and the portion of new development's travel occurring on the interstate/toll facility system is eliminated from the total travel for each land use. To calculate the interstate and toll (I/T)facility discount factor, the loaded highway network file was generated for the 2035 Lee/Collier Transportation Planning model. A select link analysis was run for all traffic analysis zones located within Collier County in order to differentiate trips with an origin and/or destination within the county versus trips with no origin or destination within the county. Currently, interstate/toll facilities in Collier County include 1-75 and Alligator Alley (toll portion of 1-75). The limited access vehicle miles of travel (Limited Access VMT) for trips with an origin and/or destination within Collier County was calculated for the identified limited access facilities. The total Collier County VMT was calculated for all trips with an origin and/or destination within Collier County for all roads, including limited access roads, located within Collier County. The I/T discount factor of 14.3 percent was determined by dividing the Total Limited Access VMT by the total Collier County VMT. By applying this factor, the total VMT for each land use is reduced, which is representative of only the roadways that are eligible to be funded with impact fee revenues. Appendix A,Table A-1 provides additional detail. Tindale Oliver Collier County December 2014 4 Transportation Impact Fee Study Collier County I Transportation Impact Fee Update Study Cost Component The cost of providing roadway system capacity has decreased in recent years. Construction costs increased significantly in Florida and in Collier County between 2005 and 2007 due to additional construction demand caused by hurricanes, the housing market growth, and other factors. Appreciation in land values also resulted in higher right-of-way (ROW) costs during the same period. In early 2008, costs started to stabilize, and between 2008 and 2011, communities have experienced a decrease in construction costs, returning to levels seen before 2005. In 2013/2014, roadway costs started to increase again. Cost information from Collier County, other Florida Counties, and the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) was reviewed to develop a unit cost for all phases involved in the construction of one lane mile of roadway capacity. The following subsections summarize the methodology and findings of the unit cost analysis for county and state roads. Appendix B provides the data and other support information utilized in these analyses. County Roadway Costs This section examines the ROW, construction, and other cost components associated with county roads with respect to transportation capacity improvements in Collier County. For this purpose, recent bid data for ongoing projects provided by the County and recent construction bid data from county roadway projects throughout Florida were used to identify and provide supporting cost data for county improvements. The cost estimates are provided for seven components: ROW, construction, design, construction engineering/ inspection (CEI), mitigation, and urban overpass costs. The following sections provide a summary of county roadway costs. (1) Right-of-Way The ROW cost reflects the total cost of the acquisitions along a corridor that were necessary to have sufficient cross-section width to widen an existing road or, in the case of new construction, to build a new road. Local ROW cost estimates were based on cost data received for five projects along Santa Barbara Boulevard, Oil Well Road, and Collier Boulevard. A review of these local projects suggested that two different average ROW costs be calculated; a "low" cost, which represents acquisitions of mostly vacant parcels, and a "high" cost which reflects acquisitions along more developed corridors, where parcels have existing structures. The final ROW cost per lane mile was determined by Tindale Oliver Collier County December 2014 5 Transportation Impact Fee Study Collier County I Transportation Impact Fee Update Study weighting low and high ROW cost estimates by the distribution of lane miles in the 2035 Long Range Transportation Plan based on the land use and roadway characteristics. Based on the roadway classification, each LRTP improvement was designated as having a "high" or "low" ROW cost. Improvements classified as being in the urbanized area or transitioning areas were designated as "high", while improvements in the rural undeveloped area were classified as "low". Based on this analysis, a ROW cost of approximately$863,000 per lane mile was used for county roads. Appendix B, Tables B- 1 and B-2 provide a detailed description of the projects analyzed and the weighting process. This ratio is slightly lower than the ratio observed in other communities throughout Florida, providing a more conservative estimate for ROW cost in Collier County. (2) Construction Similar to the process for estimating ROW costs, the construction cost for county roads was based on local projects, costs for projects in other Florida communities, and discussions with County staff. A review of local construction cost data from 2008 to 2014 identified approximately 59 lane miles of improvements in Collier County, including projects along Santa Barbara Boulevard, Oil Well Road, Collier Boulevard, and Golden Gate Boulevard. To increase the sample size of projects, bids from multiple communities throughout the state were also reviewed for the same period (2008 through 2014). This review included approximately 380 lane miles of roadway improvements from 16 counties across Florida. Taking into account all of the local and statewide data, the construction cost per lane mile was estimated at $2.7 million for county, as shown in Table 1. Appendix B, Tables B-3 and B-4, provide additional detail on the capacity expansion projects reviewed. Based on discussions with County staff, it is anticipated that all of the lane miles that the County will construct in the future will have urban design characteristics. (3) Other Component Costs The unit cost per lane mile for county roads in Collier County also includes updated design/CEI, mitigation, and urban overpass costs associated with roadway capacity expansion projects. Tindale Oliver Collier County December 2014 6 Transportation Impact Fee Study Collier County I Transportation Impact Fee Update Study Design/CEI In recent transportation impact fee studies throughout the state, design and CEI costs are averaging approximately 10 percent of construction costs. Based on recent roadway improvements in Collier County design and CEI costs were assessed between four (4) percent and 20 percent of construction. Taking into consideration the range of local data and the statewide average, it was determined that design and CEI should each be calculated at 10 percent of construction costs for impact fee purposes. Appendix B, Table B-6 presents the projects local reviewed for determining the percentages. Mitigation Mitigation cost estimates were developed based on cost data received for five recent projects in the Collier County. Multiple improvements are located in the Panther Consultation Area (PCA), which, on average, tend to have higher costs than non-PCA mitigation. Therefore, the mitigation cost per lane mile was weighted by the distribution of lane miles from all projects in the LRTP that are located within or outside of the Panther Consultation Area. As shown in Table 1, a mitigation cost of approximately $74,000 per lane mile was calculated for county roads. Appendix B, Tables B-7 and B-8, provide additional detail on the mitigation data that was reviewed. Urban Overpass Urban overpass cost estimates were developed based on cost data received for four planned improvement projects in Collier County. The total cost of these improvements was then divided by the total lane miles of needs projects in the 2035 Long Range Transportation Plan. As shown in Table 1, an urban overpass cost of approximately $390,000 per lane mile was calculated for county roads. Appendix B, Table B-9, provides additional detail on the urban overpass data that was reviewed. Table 1 summarizes the total cost per lane mile for county roads by phase. Table 2 presents a comparison of the updated costs to the cost used in the County's previous transportation impact fee updated study. Tindale Oliver Collier County December 2014 7 Transportation Impact Fee Study Collier County I Transportation Impact Fee Update Study Table 1 Estimated Total Cost per Lane Mile for County Roads Cost Phase Cost Per Lane Mile Design(11 $270,000 Right-of-W aylz) $863,000 Construction(3) $2,700,000 CEI(4) $270,000 Mitigation(5) $74,000 Urban Overpass(6) $390,000 Total Cost $4,567,000 (1) Design is estimated at 10%of the construction cost per lane mile (2) Source:Appendix B,Table B-2 (3) Source:Appendix B,Tables B-3 and B-4 (4) CEI is estimated at 10%of the construction cost per lane mile (5) Source:Appendix B,Table B-8 (6) Source:Appendix B,Table B-9 Table 2 Total Cost per Lane Mile Comparison for County Roads Cost Per Lane Cost Per Lane Cost Phase %Change Mile(2010)(1) Mile (2014)(21 Design $119,560 $270,000 126% Right-of-Way $901,000 $863,000 -4% Construction $1,708,000 $2,700,000 58% CEI $119,560 $270,000 126% Mitigation $156,000 $74,000 -53% Urban Overpass $576,000 $390,000 -32% Carrying $170,000 - - Total Cost $3,750,120 $4,567,000 22% (1) Source:Collier County Transportation Impact Fee Update Study Final Report, September 8,2010;Table 1(does not include utilities) (2) Source:Table 1 State Roadway Costs This section examines the ROW, construction, and other cost components associated with state roads with respect to transportation capacity improvements in Collier County. For this purpose, recent bid data from state roadway projects in Collier County and throughout Florida and the FDOT's Long Range Estimates (LRE) were used to identify and provide Tindale Oliver Collier County December 2014 8 Transportation Impact Fee Study Collier County I Transportation Impact Fee Update Study supporting cost data for state improvements. The cost estimates are provided for seven components: ROW, construction, design, construction engineering/ inspection (CEI), mitigation, and urban overpass costs. The following sections provide a summary of state roadway costs. (1) Right-of-Way FDOT has not recently acquired ROW for any lane widening projects in Collier County. Based on discussions with staff, it was estimated that the ROW acquisition cost for state roads is likely to be equivalent to that of county roads. Therefore, a ROW acquisition cost of $863,000 was used to calculate the unit cost per lane mile for state roads. See Appendix B, Tables B-1 and B-2 for additional detail. For state roads, ROW is approximately 32 percent of the construction costs. This ratio is slightly lower than the ratio observed in other communities throughout Florida, providing a more conservative estimate for state ROW in Collier County. (2) Construction Given the limited data on construction costs for state roads in Collier County, the construction cost for state roads was based on recently bid projects from multiple communities in Florida, including one recent bid in Collier County (SR 84 from Santa Barbara Boulevard to Radio Road). This review included approximately 327 lane miles or roadway improvements from 30 counties and calculated an average cost of $2.7 million per lane mile. Appendix B, Table B-5 provides a detailed description of the projects analyzed. Table 3 presents the weighted average roadway cost for state roadways which was used in the transportation impact fee calculation. (3) Other Cost Components The unit cost per lane mile for state roads in Collier County also includes updated design/CEI, mitigation, and urban overpass costs associated with capacity expansion projects. Design/CEI Design and CEI costs for state roads were each estimated at 10 percent of construction phase costs, based on a review of FDOT's Long Range Estimates and recent transportation impact fee studies throughout Florida. Tindale Oliver Collier County December 2014 9 Transportation Impact Fee Study Collier County I Transportation Impact Fee Update Study Mitigation Due to a lack of mitigation cost data along state roadways, it was assumed that the mitigation cost for state facilities is the same as the costs for county facilities. Discussions with staff confirmed that these assumptions were appropriate for planning level mitigation estimates. Appendix B, Tables B-7 and B-8 provide additional data on the mitigation costs reviewed. Urban Overpass Due to a lack of urban overpass cost data along state roadways, it was assumed that the urban overpass cost for state facilities is the same as the costs for county facilities. Discussions with staff confirmed that these assumptions were appropriate for planning level urban overpass cost estimates. Appendix B, Table B-9 provides additional data on the urban overpass costs reviewed. Table 3 summarizes the total cost per lane mile for state roads by phase. Table 4 presents a comparison of the updated costs to the cost used in the County's previous transportation impact fee updated study. Table 3 Estimated Total Cost per Lane Mile for State Roads Cost Phase Cost Per Lane Mile Design(1) $270,000 Right-of-Way121 $863,000 Construction131 $2,700,000 CEl{41 $270,000 Mitigation(5) $74,000 Urban Overpass(6) 390 000 Total Cost $4,567,000 (1) Design is estimated at 10%of the construction cost per lane mile. (2) Source:Appendix B,Table B-2 (3) Source:Appendix B,Table B-5 (4) CEI is estimated at 10% of the construction cost per lane mile. (5) Source: Appendix B,Table B-8 (6) Source: Appendix B,Table B-9 Tindale Oliver Collier County December 2014 10 Transportation Impact Fee Study Collier County I Transportation Impact Fee Update Study Table 4 Total Cost per Lane Mile Comparison for State Roads Cost Per Lane Cost Per Lane Cost Phase %Change Mile(2010)„1 Mile(2014)1�1 Design $241,800 $270,000 12% Right-of-Way $901,000 $863,000 -4% Construction $2,418,000 $2,700,000 12% CEI $241,800 $270,000 12% Mitigation $156,000 $74,000 -53% Urban Overpass $576,000 $390,000 -32% Carrying $218,000 _ - Total Cost $4,752,600 $4,567,000 -4% (1) Source:Collier County Transportation Impact Fee Update Study Final Report,September 8,2010;Table 3 (2) Source:Table 3 Summary of Costs(Blended Cost Analysis) Given that the cost per lane mile for county and state roads do not differ, the estimated cost of approximately $4.57 million per lane mile was utilized as the roadway cost input in the calculation of the transportation impact fee schedule. Capacity Added per Lane Mile An additional component of the transportation impact fee equation is the capacity added per lane mile (also known as the maximum service volume added per mile) of roadway constructed. To calculate the vehicle miles of capacity (VMC) per lane mile of constructed future roadway, an analysis of the 2035 planned improvements (see Appendix B, Table B- 12) was conducted to reflect the mix of county and state road improvement that will be built in the future. As shown in Table 5, the resulting average capacity per lane mile calculated based on these projects is 9,935. This capacity is slightly lower than the figure used in the previous transportation impact fee study(10,217). Tindale Oliver Collier County December 2014 11 Transportation Impact Fee Study Collier County 1 Transportation Impact Fee Update Study Table 5 Weighted Average Vehicle-Miles of Capacity per Lane Mile Lane Mile Vehicle Miles of VMC Added per Source Added(1) Capacity Added(2) Lane Mile(;) County Roads 313.80 2,843,045 9,060 State Roads 135.40 1,619,760 11,963 Total 449.20 4,462,805 Weighted Average VMC Added per Lane Mile(4) 9,935 (1) Source:Appendix B,Table B-12 (2) Source:Appendix B,Table B-12 (3) Vehicle miles of capacity added(Item 2)divided by lane miles added(Item 1) (4) Total vehicle miles of capacity added for county and state roads (Item 2)divided by the total lane miles added(Item 1). Cost per Vehicle-Mile of Capacity Added The impact fee cost per unit of development is assessed based on the cost per vehicle-mile of capacity. As shown in Tables 1, 3, and 5, the roadway cost and capacity have been calculated based on typical roadway improvements. As shown in Table 6, the cost per VMC for travel within Collier County is approximately $460. This average cost per VMC figure is used in the impact fee calculation to determine the total impact cost per unit of development based on the vehicle-miles of travel consumed. For each vehicle-mile of travel that is added to the road system,approximately$460 of roadway capacity is consumed. Table 6 Weighted Average Cost per Vehicle-Mile of Capacity Added Lane Average VMC Cost per Lane Source Added per Lane Cost per VMC(3) Mile(1) Mile(2) County Roads $4,567,000 9,060 $504.08 State Roads $4,567,000 11,963 $381.76 Weighted Average $4,567,000 9,935 $459.69 (1) Source:Tables 1 and 3 (2) Source:Table 5 (3) Cost per lane mile(Item 1)divided by average capacity added per lane mile(Item 2) It is important to note that capacity projects include not only lane additions, but also associated intersection improvements, traffic signalization, and other amenities and technology improvements. Tindale Oliver Collier County December 2014 12 Transportation Impact Fee Study Collier County I Transportation Impact Fee Update Study Credit Component Gasoline Tax Equivalent Credit The present value of the portion of non-impact fee revenues (converted to equivalent gasoline taxes) generated by a new development over a 25-year period that is projected to be expended on capacity expansion projects is credited against the cost of the system consumed by travel associated with new development. County As part of this update study, a review of the County's FY 2013-2017 Annual Update and Inventory Report (AUIR) Transportation Work Program was conducted. This review indicated that a combination of gas tax revenues, impact fee, and grants are used to fund roadway capacity expansion. Based on a review of the Five-Year Capital Improvements Plan, Collier County received a credit of 3.0 pennies for the portion of gas tax and grant funds dedicated to capacity expansion projects. Additionally, the County is using gas tax revenues to retire debt service used to fund roadway capacity expansion improvements. The gas tax dedication for the Series 2003 and Series 2012 bonds equates to 10.8 pennies of additional county credit. As shown in Table 7, a total gas tax equivalent revenue credit of 13.8 pennies was given for county expenditures. State State expenditures on state roads were reviewed, and a credit for the capacity expansion portion attributable to state projects was estimated. The equivalent number of pennies allocated to fund state projects was determined from projects spanning a 16-year period (2004-2019). This period represents past FDOT Work Program expenditures from 2004 to 2014 and also includes the current Transportation Improvement Program (TIP)from 2015 to 2019. A list of capacity-adding roadway projects was developed, including lane additions, new road construction, intersection improvements, interchanges, traffic signal projects, and other capacity-addition projects. This review (summarized in Appendix C, Table C-4) indicates that FDOT spending generates an equivalent gas tax credit of 10.7 pennies of gas tax revenue annually. The use of a 16-year period for purposes of developing a state credit for roadway capacity-expansion projects results in a reasonably stable credit for Collier County, accounting for the volatility in FDOT spending in the county over short time periods. Tindale Oliver Collier County December 2014 13 Transportation Impact Fee Study Collier County 1 Transportation Impact Fee Update Study In summary, Collier County contributes approximately 13.8 pennies toward roadway capacity expansion projects, while the State spends an average of 10.7 pennies for state roadway projects in Collier County. Therefore, a total of 24.5 pennies of credit are included in the impact fee calculation to recognize the future capital revenue that is expected to be generated by new development from all non-impact fee revenues, as shown in Table 7. This represents a decrease of approximately 3 percent compared to the previous study. A reduction in credit results in an increase in impact fee levels. Table 7 Equivalent Pennies of Gas Tax Revenue Credit Equivalent Pennies per Gallon County Revenues1if $0.030 County Debt Service121 $0.108 State Revenues(3) $0.107 Total $0.245 (1)Source:Appendix C,Table C-2 (2)Source:Appendix C,Table C-3 (3)Source:Appendix C,Table C-4 Present Worth Variables Facility Life The roadway facility life used in the impact fee analysis is 25 years, which represents the reasonable life of a roadway before major maintenance is needed. Interest Rate This is the discount rate at which gasoline tax revenues might be bonded. It is used to compute the present value of the gasoline taxes generated by new development. The discount rate of 4.0 percent was used in the transportation impact fee calculation based on the interest rate paid on most recent bond issues. Fuel Efficiency The fuel efficiency (i.e., the average miles traveled per gallon of fuel consumed) of the fleet of motor vehicles was estimated using the quantity of gasoline consumed by travel associated with a particular land use. Tindale Oliver Collier County December 2014 14 Transportation Impact Fee Study Collier County I Transportation Impact Fee Update Study Appendix C,Table C-10 documents the calculation of fuel efficiency value based on the following equation, where "VMT" is vehicle miles of travel and "MPG" is fuel efficiency in terms of miles per gallon. {' — VMicienc T / VMTVeh;areT,pe Fuel Efficiency= RoadwayType MPGye,;ereType)Roadwagvpe The methodology uses non-interstate VMT and average fuel efficiency data for passenger vehicles (i.e., passenger cars and other 2-axle, 4-tire vehicles, such as vans, pickups, and SUVs) and large trucks (i.e., single-unit, 2-axle, 6-tire or more trucks and combination trucks) to calculate the total gallons of fuel used by each of these vehicle types. The combined total VMT for the vehicle types is then divided by the combined total gallons of fuel consumed to calculate, in effect, a "weighted" fuel efficiency value that reflects the existing fleet mix of traffic on non-interstate roadways. The VMT and average fuel efficiency data were obtained from the most recent Federal Highway Administration's Highway Statistics 2012. Based on the calculation completed in Appendix C,Table C-10,the fuel efficiency rate to be used in the updated impact fee equation is 18.43 miles per gallon. Effective Days per Year An effective 365 days per year of operation was assumed for all land uses in the proposed fee. However, this will not be the case for all land uses since some uses operate only on weekdays (e.g., office buildings) and/or only seasonally (e.g., schools). The use of 365 days per year, therefore, provides a conservative estimate, ensuring that gasoline taxes are adequately credited against the fee. Tindale Oliver Collier County December 2014 15 Transportation Impact Fee Study Collier County Transportation Impact Fee Update Study Calculated Transportation Impact Fee Schedule The impact fee calculations for each land use are included in Appendix D, which includes the major land use categories and the impact fees for the individual land uses contained in each of the major categories. For each land use, Appendix D illustrates the following: • Demand component variables (trip rate, trip length,and percent of new trips); • Total impact fee cost; • Annual gas tax credit; • Present value of the gas tax credit; • Net transportation impact fee; • Current Collier County impact fee;and • Percent difference between the calculated impact fee and the current impact fee. It should be noted that the net impact fees calculated in Appendix D are not necessarily the recommended fees, but instead represent the technically defensible impact fees per unit of land use that could be charged in Collier County. For clarification purposes, the calculation of an impact fee for one land use category is presented. In the following example, the net impact fee is calculated for the single-family residential detached (2,000 sf) land use category (ITE LUC 210) using information from the impact fee schedule included in Appendix D, Table D-1. For each land use category, the following equations are utilized to calculate the net impact fee: Net Impact Fee=Total Impact Cost—Gas Tax Credit Where: Total Impact Cost = ((Trip Rate x Assessable Trip Length x % New Trips] / 2) x (1 — Interstate/Toll Facility Disc. Factor)x(Cost per Vehicle-Mile of Capacity) Gas Tax Credit = Present Value (Annual Gas Tax), given 4.0% interest rate & 25-year facility life Annual Gas Tax= ((Trip Rate x Total Trip Length x % New Trips] / 2) x (Effective Days per Year x$/Gallon to Capital)/Fuel Efficiency Tindale Oliver Collier County December 2014 16 Transportation Impact Fee Study Collier County I Transportation Impact Fee Update Study Each of the inputs has been discussed previously in this document; however, for purposes of this example, brief definitions for each input are provided in the following paragraphs, along with the actual inputs used in the calculation of the fee for the single-family detached residential(2,000 sf) land use category: • Trip Rate=the average daily trip generation rate,in vehicle-trips/day(7.65). • Assessable Trip Length = the actual average trip length for the category, in vehicle- miles(5.88) • Total Trip Length= the assessable trip length plus an adjustment factor of half a mile, which is added to the trip length to account for the fact that gas taxes are collected for travel on all roads including local roads(5.88+0.50=6.38) • %New Trips= adjustment factor to account for trips that are already on the roadway (100%) • Divide by 2 = the total daily miles of travel generated by a particular category (i.e., rate*length*% new trips) is divided by two to prevent the double-counting of travel generated between two land use codes since every trip has an origin and a destination • Interstate/Toll Facility Discount Factor = discount factor to account for the travel demand occurring on interstate highways and/or toll facilities(14.3%) • Cost per Lane Mile = unit cost to construct one lane mile of roadway, in $/lane-mile ($4,567,000) • Average Capacity Added per Lane Mile = represents the average daily traffic on one travel lane at capacity for one lane mile of roadway, in vehicles/lane-mile/day(9,935) • Cost per Vehicle-Mile of Capacity=unit of vehicle-miles of capacity consumed per unit of development. Cost per lane mile divided by average capacity added per lane mile ($4,567,000/9,935=$459.69) • Present Value= calculation of the present value of a uniform series of cash flows, gas tax payments in this case,given an interest rate, "i," and a number of periods, "n;"for 4.0% interest and a 25-year facility life, the uniform series present worth factor is 15.6221 • Effective Days per Year=365 days • $/Gallon to Capital= the amount of gas tax revenue per gallon of fuel that is used for capital improvements, in$/gallon ($0.245) • Fuel Efficiency=average fuel efficiency of vehicles, in vehicle-miles/gallon (18.43) Tindale Oliver Collier County December 2014 17 Transportation Impact Fee Study Collier County J Transportation Impact Fee Update Study Transportation Impact Fee Calculation Using these inputs, a net impact fee can be calculated for the single-family residential detached (2,000 sf) land use category as follows: Total Impact Cost=([7.65 * 5.88 * 1.0]/2) * (1-0.143) * ($459.69)=$8,860 Annual Gas Tax= ([7.65 * 6.38* 1.0] /2) * 365 * ($0.245/18.43) = $118 Gas Tax Credit= $118 * 15.6221 =$1,843 Net Impact Fee =$8,860-$1,843=$7,017 The complete fee schedule by land use is included in Appendix D,Table D-1. Transportation Impact Fee Comparison As part of the work effort in developing the Collier County transportation impact fee program, a comparison of calculated fees to transportation impact fee schedules adopted in other jurisdictions was completed. Table 9 presents Collier County's calculated impact fee and a comparison to transportation impact fees in other Florida jurisdictions. It should be noted that the differences in fee levels for a given land use can be caused by several factors, including the year of the technical study, adoption percentage, study methodology including variations in costs, credits and travel demand, land use categories included in the fee schedule, etc. Tindale Oliver Collier County December 2014 18 Transportation Impact Fee Study p -I Y 0 00 V 0 N A W N Y T W P Q i . ,,t1 R s N A w N o 10 j O O 0 y a 0 c N ~ 'c = �1NW k O O c c O O O�v c 0 1 c o o f 0 4 H 3 d o R. O s m n m � m m m k o v c a 3 p c m d S7 n t Om O O£u \ 2:.„ w 6 y rin 7 G N l n N u • 2 5 n F m pp W i O J a O ry a sL r p n a n c o a '1 4 -4 (i m n ry o j c a x' o -1 x ttI ' HIItlh N Z M ° 4 2. n G i d ° n 3c 9 n F N 3gJ v ,"3 . w R. ' m c230 20r n a a o 2..wdo; � Onys; x - Z po3mWw. mn3 x _3 F, 'I' , Y Y r n v o. 3 a m $ a m ° j$ °nag ^ w d 1. K Jw ' m n9 -.n b �i OE ,, 0 o_8 i " 4 r. ., W L^i a 3 a a Hi „? 3 °v H J 4 Q DD 'In! .4 s ° C a d a Y O 3 3. w d .. - v n 3 F..O q YQ N °p 2 = N vs vs 4/Au O J O g g dl J ?g f R . `• h is P jN v '.. s 2 g•3 m �'J 3 ' V. r�D w 4 ? J 3 w o ° ° n n a o,. o a3 0 0 $ ?o o m c,c3 �n a i v H r S § <__ x c 3,9 n c z n. r .1 - 3 - .= g\" ' s n3 .WV o u� ti 3 m °• N a ne $ Rc ' r.mg � e3 . ° P N 3 v _ ''A' i% °o" aa S ° 8 a a 3 o a "o i > Y W N O c u u'a ' q \ ° P 5 I s o 3 P W N 0 a » - F. (,1 �p8p 8 C 3 6 W N ° N L tgyi. gW gW N �1�-. N °` W 'V d m'in a 7 1.1 3 6 § �+ g - m `° T o n C yo 3 - <. d J• W O � J 7 °. in O n S n £ F y� -• N c vv.. ro y A O W V "I.OI 00 ir J n 0. N 'V °i 0 .r. J • Q YW E 04 0.. W W J to f N j �1 /f S J _,• .O l° N T — n �U G V N N N T ° ow b o co to v 1-■ 0 3 ° Qto QO n V vs + '� N vs "iG Z a n N m 3 A iZI m 01 $ A N E P. n 0 1 n o' NJ v. R w.a r t-. o w m w Collier County I Transportation Impact Fee Update Study Transportation Impact Fee Benefit Districts As part of the update of the transportation impact fee program, the existing impact fee benefit districts, illustrated in Map 1, were reviewed. To charge impact fees, the County must meet one of the dual rational nexus tests of proof of benefit to fee-paying developments by ensuring that funds collected are spent on eligible capital improvement projects. Establishing benefit districts enhances this proof, showing a close connection to the fee-payer and their resulting benefit, by restricting revenues to specific areas of the County where the fee is collected. Benefit district boundaries are typically influenced by geographic (i.e., lakes and rivers) or man-made boundaries/barriers (i.e., roads, highways, municipal limits) which in some way restrict traffic. District Boundaries Currently, Collier County has eight road impact fee districts, whose boundaries define the current road impact fee benefit districts. Within these districts, Collier County charges the same transportation impact fee rate, except for Districts 7 and 8, where no fee is charged. Revenues collected in each district are placed into separate funds and can only be used to fund improvements within the corresponding benefit district. For example, revenues collected in District 2 are placed into an individual account and are only eligible to fund roadway capacity improvements within District 2. However, exceptions are made for projects that span multiple adjacent districtsl. In those cases funds from the two adjacent districts can both be used on the improvement. The use of benefit districts restricts impact fee funds to a smaller area with the intent of providing a direct benefit (via new road construction, lane additions, intersection improvements, etc.)to the fee payer. In regard to the geographic boundaries of the districts, no changes are recommended to the existing districts. As shown in Table 10, impact fee revenues collected in Districts 1, 2, 4 and 6 are relatively proportionate. Development in District 5 is expected to pick up with the ongoing development of the Immokalee area, while District 3 (City of Naples) is built-out with little room for new development, explaining the low revenue return. However, because this District's boundaries correspond to the city limits, no changes are recommended. If the City were to annex additional land, the District 3 boundary should be expanded to capture the additional area. Based on a review of the revenue collection 1 Collier County Code of Ordinances,Section 74-203(b) Tindale Oliver Collier County December 2014 20 Transportation Impact Fee Study Collier County I Transportation Impact Fee Update Study levels, municipal & geographic boundaries, and discussions with County representatives, it is recommended that the current boundaries are maintained. Table 10 Transportation Impact Fee Revenues by District Year District 1 District 2 District 3 District 4 District 5 District 6 Total FY 2005 $17,327,097 $11,875,858 $1,490,418 $14,045,379 $1,864,206 $11,140,462 $57,743,420 FY 2006 $12,968,812 $9,275,777 $557,542 $15,168,598 $4,468,761 $8,866,864 $51,306,354 FY2007 $13,598,462 $20,155,717_ $2,078,330 $12,673,929 $4,928,468 $16,001,882 $69,436,788 FY 2008 $14,748,470 $3,185,621 $750,669 $4,042,933 $2,804,124 $2,520,900 $28,052,717 FY2009 $1,917,400 $2,426,744 -$125,590 $7,567,178 $181,984 $795,430 $12,763,146 FY 2010 $992,672 $2,398,827 $0 $3,170,788 $831,426 $4,841,052 $12,234,765 FY 2011 $639,635 $1,112,445 -$61,285 $2,153,551 $233,830 $1,523,791 $5,601,967 FY 2012 $2,406,382 $297,230 $115,747 $5,128,168 $1,621,702 -$1,108,015 $8,461,214 Total $64,598,930 $50,728,219 $4,805,831 $63,950,524 $16,934,501 $44,582,366 $245,600,371 26% 21% 2% 26% 7% 18% 100% Source:Collier County Transportation Engineering Department Impact Fee Revenue Use Across Districts As previously mentioned, for certain projects, revenues from adjacent districts can be pooled together. For example, the planned construction of Benfield Rd (from Wilson Blvd Ext. to US 41) spans across portions of Districts 2 and 4 and would therefore be eligible for impact fee funding from both District 2 and District 4 transportation impact fee accounts, but not District 1. The Benfield extension will provide obvious benefits to transportation flow and circulation in Districts 2 and 4, but no clear benefit can be established for residents of District 1. In addition, funds from the adjacent districts are not restricted to a certain portion of the roadway improvement. Funds from District 2 can be used on portions of the improvement that lie in District 4 and vice versa. Although this approach creates some flexibility, it does not recognize regional roads that benefit multiple districts and requires an evaluation of each project on a case-by-case basis, which can be time consuming and inefficient. As such, the County asked Tindale Oliver to evaluate this aspect of the current procedures and provide recommendations related to regional roads and the use of impact fees from multiple districts. Regional Roads For purposes of the benefit districts analysis, "regional roads" refer to corridors which serve a significant portion of the county and is essential to moving traffic across or through the County, rather than serving as connectors to larger roads. From an impact fee perspective, Tindale Oliver Collier County December 2014 21 Transportation Impact Fee Study Collier County Transportation Impact Fee Update Study improvements to these corridors provide benefit to all districts, whether or not they are located within or adjacent to every transportation district because they are major connectors across the county(east-west or south-north, etc.). As such, it is appropriate that future capacity improvements to the corridors classified as "regional" would be eligible for funding from all of the impact fee districts in Collier County. The process for classifying regional roads is based primarily on the model trip lengths and traffic volumes along major roadways. Corridors with longer lengths and high volumes suggest that these roads are operating as significant regional roads. Model Trip Length Validation To identify regional roads, location and travel demand characteristics were reviewed. For travel demand, the Lee-Collier Florida Standard Urban Transportation Model Structure (FSUTMS) was used. Major arterial roadways within the country were divided into multiple segments. A "select-link" analysis was conducted on each of these segments using the existing 2007 scenario of the Lee-Collier FSUTMS. A select-link analysis determines the characteristics of the travel demand of a particular link in the model network. It allows the origin and destination of the traffic traveling on the analyzed link to be identified. For example, it measures the trip length of every car that passes by a specific point on a specific road. The select link analysis was used in order to determine the amount and route of traffic traveling on the county's major arterial roadways. The multiple select-link analysis allowed the studied roadways to be evaluated to determine the total projected volume and trip length along the corridor. As shown on Map 2, corridors including US 41 (Tamiami Trail), Collier Boulevard, Immokalee Road, Camp Keais Road, and Oil Well Road have higher than average trip lengths, determined through the select link analysis. The average trip length out of any type of development is between one and seven miles, while the corridors identified on Map 2 range from 6.7 to 23.5 miles, with trip lengths increasing as the select links move further away from the City of Naples and the urban core. These long trip lengths indicate that drivers are utilizing these specific corridors for long distance trips across Collier County. Collier Boulevard is the County's primary north-south connector, while Immokalee Road and Oil Well Road provide east-west connections for the northern part of the county. Tindale Oliver Collier County December 2014 22 Transportation Impact Fee Study Collier County I Transportation Impact Fee Update Study Traffic Volumes Map 3 illustrates the 2080 build-out traffic volumes projected for Collier County, which emphasize the importance of these regional roadways2. The analysis on Map 3 is used to show the relative projected traffic volumes between major roads in Collier County. It is not used as a basis for any technical calculations and the absolute volumes projected are not used for the basis of the impact fee analysis. As shown, US 41 and Collier Blvd will continue to be major north-south corridors, while Immokalee Road, Oil Well Road, and Camp Keais Road will be major east-west corridors. Benefit Districts Recommendations Based on a review of geographic barriers, historical impact fee revenue, travel, and traffic volume, it is recommended that Collier County continues forward with the existing benefit district alignments. Additionally, identified "regional roads" should be eligible for impact fee funding from any benefit district, even if the improvement is not located within or adjacent to a funding district. These regional roads include: • US 41 (Tamiami Trail); • Collier Boulevard; • Oil Well Road; • Camp Keais Road; and • Immokalee Road. The travel demand and traffic characteristics of these corridors highlight their importance in moving traffic and connecting neighborhoods throughout the entire county. It is recommended that in future updates Collier County continue to monitor travel and traffic along major corridors to confirm this list of regional roads as well as to identify any additional regional-type roadways that may emerge. z Source:Completed as part of the analysis for the Collier County Master Mobility Plan,Ph.II Tindale Oliver Collier County December 2014 23 Transportation Impact Fee Study 3y Y LL O & U E c _o t 8 i V F d 2 at., y , E.1+ r g � it • r A , ., p d c m .. m Zm , Y N E c o . N O f P !S C • F o pt ac.t ,,,.,t a " . , '�. �- c . s ::lit 1. ' re,. r , a at m CU A S.' E 3 A V e 0 o U a, 1-1E 1 m` r2 ill o � g o v o.ii v E v I C tl if- g H E c P. L20 1! o c it a r i i a . 4 P. : R 4 Q a A. 0 O :3 Ce d 3 T o 1 } N \U i f : • 444 ;I . E ° - co r te gir's■ A 4.- . e• .. P, k ,.. . - i ,,_„.•,,, . „ ,... :,.,.:17,:.., _ T .. . .4 --e y " 3. n d l�L+ C `j C W :C. 5 Y a E c1° 3o u. 2 E mi§ 1 c V 115'0 8 $ o R 01 nA 0 U ~ ~Ug A i- c a`,o e )_ N L) E 0 IC y .0 0 Y N ci Collier County I Transportation Impact Fee Update Study Map 3—Collier County 2080 Build-Out Volumes , _ 144.1661711151111111*/ 111 ill „ rine , Aim _ _ r,nal#4, a Legend: Black= 2 Lanes Green =3 or 4 Lanes Red =6 Lanes Blue= 8 Lanes Line thickness is used to illustrate relative traffic volumes. Tindale Oliver Collier County December 2014 26 Transportation Impact Fee Study Collier County J Transportation Impact Fee Update Study Appendix A Demand Component Calculations Collier County ( Transportation Impact Fee Update Study Appendix A This appendix presents the detailed calculations for the demand component of the transportation impact fee update. Interstate and Toll Facility Discount Factor Table A-1 presents the interstate and toll facility discount factor used in the calculation of the transportation impact fee. This variable was based on data from the 2035 Lee/Collier Transportation Planning Model, specifically the 2035 projected vehicle miles of travel, accounting for roadway improvements included in the 2035 Long Range Transportation Plan. It should be noted that discount factor excludes external-to-external trips, which represent traffic that goes through Collier County, but does not necessarily stop in the county. This traffic is excluded from the calculations since it does not come from a development within the county. The I/T discount factor is used to reduce the VMT that the impact fee charges for each land use. Table A-1 Interstate/Toll Facility Discount Factor VMT Roadway (2 5) %VMT 1-75 1,286,416 10,3% AlligatorAlley 500,244 3.9% Other Roads 10,721,690 85.7% Total(All Roads) 12,508,350 100.0% Total(Interstate/Toll Roads) 1,786,660 14.3% Source:2035 Lee/Collier Transportation Planning Model Single Family Residential Trip Generation Rate Tiering As part of this study,the single family residential trip generation rate tiering was updated to reflect a two-tier analysis (previously three) to ensure equity by the size of a home. To facilitate this, an analysis was completed on the comparative relationship between housing size and household travel behavior. This analysis utilized data from the 2009 National Household Travel Survey (NHTS) and the 2011 American Housing Survey (AHS) to examine overall trip-making characteristics of households in the United States. Tindale Oliver Collier County December 2014 A-1 Transportation Impact Fee Study Collier County I Transportation Impact Fee Update Study Table A-2 presents the existing trip characteristics being utilized in the current adopted impact fee schedule for the single family(detached) land use. The 2009 NHTS database was used to assess average annual household vehicle miles of travel (VMT) for various annual household income levels. In addition,the 2011 AHS database was used to compare median annual family/household incomes with housing unit size. It is important to recognize that the use of the income variable in each of these databases is completed simply to provide a convenient linking mechanism between household VMT from the NHTS and housing unit size from the AHS. Table A-2 Calculated Single Family Trip Characteristics Calculated Values Assessable Ratio to Trip Rate Daily VMT Excluding Tiering Trip Length Mean Single Family(Detached) 7.81 5.88 45.92 1.00 Source:FL Studies for LUC 210,shown later in this appendix The results of the NHTS and AHS analyses are included in Tables A-3 and A-4. First, the data shown in Table A-3 indicates that the average income in the U.S. for families/households living in housing units smaller than 4,000 square feet in size ($58,372) is slightly lower than the overall average income for the U.S. ($58,429). In Table A-4, annual average household VMT was calculated from the NHTS database for a number of different income levels and arranged related to the resulting AHS income data in Table A-3. Table A-3 Calculated Single Family Trip Characteristics 2011 AHS Average Income Annual Data by Housing Size Income(1) Less than 4,000 sf $58,372 1,500 to 2,499 sf $62,563 4,000 sf or more $80,136 Average of All Houses $58,429 Source:2011 American Household Survey Tindale Oliver Collier County December 2014 A-2 Transportation Impact Fee Study Collier County I Transportation Impact Fee Update Study Table A-4 NHTS VMT Annual VMT by Income Category 2009 NHTS Travel Data by Annual Ratio to Normalised Days Daily VMT Annual HH Income VMT/HH Mean to 0.998 Average of$58,372 23,598 365 64.65 1.000 0.980 Total (All Homes) 23,601 365 64.66 1.000 Average of$62,563 24,069 365 65.94 1.020 1.000 Average of$80,136 28,426 365 77.88 1.204 1.180 Source:2009 National Household Travel Survey Database,Federal Highway Administration To calculate a corresponding trip rate for the new tiers it was necessary to rely on comparative ratios. As an example, consider the $58,372 annual income category. First, it was determine that the average annual household VMT for this income level is 23,598 miles. This figure was then compared to the overall average annual VMT per household in the U.S. and normalized to the average of the $62,563 (24,069 miles) category to derive a ratio of 0.980. It should be noted that the $62,563 category (1,500 to 2,499 sf) is not an impact fee tier, but rather the average home size that corresponds with the Florida Studies data shown in Table A-2. Next, the normalized ratio was applied to the daily VMT for the average single family housing unit size (less than 4,000 sf) to generate a daily VMT of 45.00 for the new tier, as shown in Table A-5. This daily VMT figure was then divided by the proposed assessable trip length of 5.88 miles to obtain a typical trip rate of 7.65 trips per day. Table A-5 Trip Generation Rate by Single Family Land Use Tier Estimation of Trip Rate by Assessable Daily Ratio to Tier Trip Rate Trip LengthW2 VMT431 Mean(4) Single Family(Detached) Less than 4,000 sf 7.65 5.88 45.00 0.980 1,500 to 2,499 sf 7.81 5.88 45.92 1.000 4,000sf or larger 9.22 5.88 54.19 1.180 (1) Daily VMT(Item 3)divided by assessable trip length(Item 2)for each tiered single family land use category (2) Source:Table A-2 (3) Ratio to the mean(Item 4)divided by the total daily VMT for the 1,500 to 2,499 sf tier for each tiered sf single family land use category (4) Source:Table A-4 Tindale Oliver Collier County December 2014 A-3 Transportation Impact Fee Study Collier County I Transportation Impact Fee Update Study Table A-6 illustrates the impact that the incorporation of the trip generation rate tiers for the single family (detached) land use have on the County's calculated impact fee schedule. Table A-6 Net Impact Fee by Single Family Land Use Tier Impact of Tiering on Fee ,„ Schedule Trip Rate Trip Length Daily OAT Net Feem Single Family(Detached) Less than 4,000 sf 7.65 5.88 45.00 $7,017 4,000 sf or larger 9.22 5.88 54.19 $8,445 (1) Source:Table A-5, Item 1 (2) Source:Appendix 0,Table D-1 Single Family Residential Trip Length Analysis The current single family land use trip length used to calculate the transportation impact fee is 5.88 miles. This trip length is based on local trip characteristics data collected in Collier County in 1999. In 2008, Tindale-Oliver conducted additional trip characteristics studies to evaluate the demand component for the single family land use. Trip lengths observed ranged from 3.05 miles to 11.29 miles, with a weighted average of 7.28 miles across the four study sites. In 2010, Tindale-Oliver used the 2030 Collier County LRTP Florida Standard Urban Transportation Model (FSUTMS) to evaluate the results of the 2008 trip characteristics studies and review the model trip length results for Collier County and other peer communities. As part of this analysis, Collier County was separated into three geographic areas (West, Central, and East) and three representative traffic zones (TAZ's)were selected for modeling purposes. These TAZ's contained 100 dwelling units and were placed in areas with high concentrations of residential dwelling units. The model runs returned the following trip length data: • West—reflects "urban"character; Average trip length of 6.82 miles • Central—Average trip length of 8.96 miles • East—Average trip length of 11.75 miles Tindale Oliver Collier County December 2014 A-4 Transportation Impact Fee Study Collier County 1 Transportation Impact Fee Update Study Results of this analysis suggested that the current trip length of 5.88 miles represents a conservative estimate of the average travel distance of existing and future residents from a countywide perspective. Demand Variable Changes Since the last demand component update in 2009,the trip generation rate (TGR),trip length (TL), and percent new trips (PNT) has changed for several land uses. Land uses were updated based on additional data included in the Florida Studies Database and the use of the ITE 9th Edition Trip Generation Reference Report. Table A-7 presents the percent changes in VMT (TGR, TL, and PNT) for each land use where the demand component was updated. Tindale Oliver Collier County December 2014 A-5 Transportation Impact Fee Study ? T y 'C c o o C > a v =0 N v y v 7 V al W 6 -O b v, L d L r. C C N N N Q} LL C N o O ° @ LL u • m w LL A O 0.a, y o m '- .s• • 2 2 - Y-• oo C « g o o ? w = O _,.`^ w $ '- ▪ N N ▪ T -C O y N TN T N to ,q N '.0 T T N A no la W V • "'■ C C A o a O C Q W m ea ,N O L c oo h0 C C C E m c c IF c c o -. O to v v v a w - L m a -0 -e -o m -. Y, 3 E w w % o 'c° a m ` O N IE -o -o 7 ao m C stn, ∎ N C G O. a 7 C 9 a C W a L C C N A « W C p 00 E a, a o, a j N j a V N o o.a C 3 N V v 7 'v ' ' 9 0 7 > > L L 7 D 7 7 0 L O O J '7 yO N N J j K T N J m L D 9 m m -o( E 9 E E L E E 41 c LL y o `p p '2 • c c m m 01 v m m m m m m• �+ o .. 4, E d E . E v E c c d b c c G c c c a u (2 W > t oil O bob' o N N N A v co co co V.za na v c 'o o u 'J v , d � v c v c -0 )5 s u .� L u .� u ce u -o ..T.-. N J V H U - u 1- V 2 z a Z 0 F H 0 0 0 o ..• N N 10 rV N M M g O A N V O N. (a• e 0 CD O. i ° n� ^, +° °� °r m m N od o) r i n n 3 4 Q f6 fQ ry L N a r` n O, m rya, rn >` `� tD .-+ .■ M .�ai p L > N N N N Of OD M N od Of U1 n O `,ai T 0 3 U t a c M b.0 • E E E 01 .n o ° N C a 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 v a E o j o co c N f a. Z D I- O. d CD 4. (J i T RI 4J O N C O� C_ 0 a a W an to to ? 8 5 J d t L c N c N L O y N O O W¢a O p m d W . t m C E - c CO 0 w w c . m L' E E E .E 0 -c N § N a CO -o p N E '3 3 z LL L ° $ = v l7 a > O IN o CO 10 9 0 W O LL LL 0, 2 W E y Z O N 0 L V W N 8 ._ .Y 'O N N ,, W u N C d U Q ra OO O L Q:Ei u N s d > C d E N J ` E 3 z" 2 g ¢N ° i a 2 tt c. g 7, g o at E CO 4! o o � o N .. N o . o w o ¢ u IN o — j N M Z v. L.) Q e pt. T c° c z c 0 C 7 r.. .fl° co_ 0 0 0 O N J la N la N N 1 L ✓ w m w m A CU LL re Y Y O V c a ..0 O n a ° ° O [ J Ct a � o �a c '�c c a a a a M E c m m m c c cc o cc c= = 2 = E 2 C 6 m 2 o 8 73 13 c O o 0 o o p O N� d O ` (.c '. m i ++ W W 0 '0 -o �u -5 .0 U L W L �H VI 1n _c -c t L t u r O O S w S a , 5 o s m v v . lL m .c m m W m I- £ • " '� Y m m m y r a 2 w O 2 0e+ N 0 E a. m 2 2 r 2 m m Y a' m 0 a Y m m m m;' a a c re m m a m m ,m m A a 0. a a 0. a a a a Y > a a a a mm ill a a a >{A a a a. O O c c 7-. N a > 0 U m 3 O 0 N A r9 Y c c T N 9 - C m c N c c A u O o O 1- 2 ° O - o w ZY =, m«• m > > j o m m m t m m' m v m > m a .o -O > > O > > e a a N a -o C a a' 4 g * QQ e J * de de 1-1 M 7 Cl A a F M (1V C O .-1 > 0- .0 >. N T > 0- T > > .n .0 .0 .0 .0 0> > > > n a tt 4 N N W N H W d d N m K N C N 1LL d g °° w 2 � v d w m w u m u a)al c V r b m b b c v at a u m a a v m a a a a a a Cti a o a a '0 CC Cr K t u ¢ G 5 G m Cr K CL P l7 , lO t9 l7 U' l9 m l.7 !� FJ �= Z z F- F- F- m r F- F- F- c F F- F- J hINIUUUD c t pp 7.: FAL > fV ®®®®®®®®® t0 M Cl MI IN N r.1 N W n`1 Q p V 01111113111011 G • L N N N m • W te., t a r ; r (5 v CL d C r t U > as Q a E m a c III :o g a 1 c o m O .9 o t o Q. '1.° L g C = g c L c A m 1 m ° g a .d .11 g g u Q g 8 pp x H O ....0. ,e. .-1 0a U o. Z U U yy \U \ 4. m Y Cr t`C 14 p 0 .• O O _ r O N j u m m ; N N N - LL C C C C C a a - O z 6 6 6 6 6 6 a E d - - o C 'D 0 F 0 m .5 0 N c Ti 2 U dj L QJ C W G) t.L. 7• w a I l • ry q U G. b C E N C A o W IP — C Y s0I L u ^ a 0 Q 0 O p y N C tA C C O) W > C CO C 0 0) J L O a D O Ol P 0) N O .0 pp LI 0) Y O C D ti d N` a A G .0 O a N b - c ], = C - o C 0 ii. `�' W CO y v _O Z m m }� d O. t) d ~ S N A 1^� G '� w a u co 0. . L J 0 0 F p1 ,_ Z Z a C g g 00 .� O U N 4 N N g 1p g t�p b V � � U1 N C y u• o tt ° m °m .O1-+ n.) N c. amp N in o LO m vni, 1 nN , 00 • tL 2 a SS n n n n 1n n o m .■ e v v m m m aN m N .r ai 00 n n m p� L > ° i�it d Q a O v <0. M M R V in N g ^� C n 73 w m ' > w ,.. m n .o m A m A m 3 .... V- 70 m m w m m m w m oa N .o .4.04 bri- . .a 4 4 .4 .4 ,' .4 .4 RI U a I. Q. > > m .1, ■ I. LL c N o- af a c 0 a 1 fO n t c n. c - m 0. VI C m m m A L. 0o § t ea v� no m p8m m �n �pQn 8m to § n L . O § § O O N C Q '" g S S S S S S °% ¢ a' °c8 i- N IC .o 1D lD N UQt 8 .'+ IVpp O '.Dp 00 ` O U y v ate+ i N A�. w .-1 w W O. C O L 5 O. 01 N N 01 N W 0) 01 O) Ol 7 O dl E CP. VI cc K K cc C cc cc C K cc z F- V1 0 co 6j � co o g g = a.) H 0 a c oz, t "O XI m p[ � i k O 4, 1 O vl 4`4 E a H I' Ql 11 EE Z v 6 _ r o u 3 1 73 V 0 ,0 o a o I - a 'i .ti .-1 ..4 ci A '° .0 U H i E a Y a K O O N N N N T C = a1 F C IN IN C C C C c C re p 'O a "O a a $ C O 8 O O ru al W a, 01 a, d y 0 b 'L C > Y �..r O. a O. a O. O. W N W .0 'y, is L E E E E E E -c u s ffi 0) Q 0 CO 8 O O O O 8 N' L W q o0 m Q. tn C > T T > > > aJ O 0, N j C a^ CO l 0 co T N fa .0 N Y 2 R J 0, S L X N co (0 f0 ,0 O 2 O 2 Q W a 0 T1 C m A m d . y C C C C W a / L O .O O .O .O O 9 y V v F ° j O. in v - v v 'o > 2 m 3 -8 m a a 21 a a c a C c N G m m m ea O 1 ill o 2 O ° Om « m Y 2, ae 0 .� ., 0> 0 > > > > w s 0s a 0 0. al a 'O a -0 m -o .0 ' {ei,CO m M M m M M° m M IlL w m u N v d w % m al .3.1 m m ° 2 a a m m m c c w c * t a r cc m u cc ¢ m cc Q Z z z Z z Z (7 o Q1 t7 > O (7 0 0 0 -J (7 ' a a a a a a I- m 7 I- a z I-- Z Z Z 1- 1- 1•- r g 0 O .0 g R� m Fn m m m g NV ZJ rte+ N C '� C. O C t .— Yf > 9 P 1 ttpp pp o ��pp aa v� ��pp 1 0) F Cl co V NI Vt N ,D 0o0 N �1 ei ^O t0 lam» to m "� "O O O O O O I § § § § § N vi Q " of N C a v 41 L w m w a a w a .. CU U H CL D 2 v 1 Li C al u 1 co a`) k C, d .c E _ C u o O 4+ _ m d n 2 3 O 2 E a d 1- `o CL a $ d z N N ? F 3 C (D c a1 a co Y ° c m y o I— 3 .o- 0 o v c A z — °' 'O C C 0 o a W O Y r W to To' 3 5 9. n ° 0 0 o LL L 3 o z o C c a a ) LL O a n■ J ¢ } N O .i c o, Ti, 8.1.a ,i E E m S ti ' 1,2 o 3 c •� N m O `.l a a, E _ LL 41 U Q c a i0 CO E c c c t «. .y m E 47 cc u a d, `+ z a ,'� m m & 'x 2 U� (7 S p aml a O ,- =J co co p 2 W W co m co FQ 4.01 I- �7 « a � IZI§ k - � ± = t u E CO L. } \4. - C . C { § 2 j \ _ t ( a ] * \ 0 � $ a in 1 Ti) / ® 0 ` « � - /'t \ ') k kk � § ; 2 0 \ j ( ) \ \ § \ I i - i \ { . . ( \ \ ] } & % . & 4.1- . a W, _ ,§ 0 IS b 2 ] 0 . z Z � 0 \ .r. E z w § o 2 , ) e « ■ a K 4 « 0 t — 0 0 k — $ /C \ - / r o 2 < 2 ' ' © / / / 2 n _ k J ` 0 • � \ g ) \ k k \ ) \ "II u R D 2 L C k § Ea C 0 CO i t . \ c 3 d _ U - § ) ) j •¢ \ \ 5 h. } > o Q U 2 k i k s . 3 W L.el § & « 2 J § § ¢ ? W. , / y , § E , 2 ƒ \ Collier County I Transportation Impact Fee Update Study Florida Studies Trip Characteristics Database The Florida Studies Trip Characteristics Database includes over 200 studies on 40 different residential and non-residential land uses collected over the last 25 years. Data from these studies include trip generation, trip length, and percent new trips for each land use. This information has been used in the development of impact fees and the creation of land use plan category trip characteristics for communities throughout Florida and the U.S. In addition, local studies conducted in Collier County are incorporated in the calculation of trip generation rate. Tindale Oliver estimates trip generation rates for all land uses in a transportation impact fee schedule using data from studies in the Florida Studies Database and the Institute of Transportation Engineers'(ITE) Trip Generation reference report(9th edition). In instances,when both ITE Trip Generation reference report (9th edition) and Florida Studies trip generation rate (TGR) data are available for a particular land use, the data is typically blended together to increase the sample size and provide a more valid estimate of the average number of trips generated per unit of development. If no Florida Studies data is available, only TGR data from the ITE reference report is used in the fee calculation. A comparison of the sample size from ITE and the Florida studies database is presented in Table A-8. The trip generation rate for each respective land use is calculated using machine counts that record daily traffic into and out of the site studied. The traffic count hoses are set at entrances to residential subdivisions for the residential land uses and at all access points for non-residential land uses. The trip length information is obtained through origin-destination surveys that ask respondents where they came from prior to arriving at the site and where they intended to go after leaving the site. The results of these surveys were used to estimate average trip length by land use. The percent new trip variable is based on assigning each trip collected through the origin- destination survey process a trip type (primary, secondary, diverted, and captured). The percent new trip variable is then calculated as 1 minus the percentage of trips that are captured. Tindale Oliver has published an article entitled, Measuring Travel Characteristics for Transportation Impact Fees, ITE Journal, April 1991 on the data collecting methodology for trip characteristics studies. Tindale Oliver Collier County December 2014 A-11 Transportation Impact Fee Study Collier County I Transportation Impact Fee Update Study Table A-8 Number of Trip Characteristics Studies 1TE 9th Ed. FL Studies Total Studies 1TE Code Land Use Studies w/TGR data (Blended) 151 Mini-Warehouse 14 5 19 210 Single Family(Detached) - 55 55 220 Multi-Family(Apartment) 88 13 101 230 Condo/Townhouse 56 4 60 240 Mobile Home Park - 9 9 251 Retirement Community/Age-Restricted Single Family 8 6 14 253 Congregate Care Facility 2 1 3 310 Hotel 10 21 31 320 Motel 10 - 10 444 Movie Theater w/Matinee 1 2 3 565 Day Care Center 12 - _ 1.2 620 Nursing Home 6 1 7 710 General Office Building 78 - 78 720 Small Medical-Dental Office Building - 5 5 720 Medical-Dental Office Building 10 12 22 770 Business Park 16 3 19 820 Shopping Center 302 - 302 826 Specialty Retail Center 4 2 6 841 New Care Sales 15 8 23 850 Supermarket 4 1 5 851 Convenience Market-24hrs _ 8 5 13 853 Service Station w/Convenience Market 10 6 16 880/881 Pharmacy/Drug Store w/Drive-Thru 16 3 19 890 Furniture Store 13 3 16 912 Bank w/Drive-ln 7 1 8 931 Quality Restaurant 15 1 16 932 High-Turnover Restaurant 14 21 35 934 Fast Food Restaurant w/Drive-Thru 21 13 34 942 Automobile Care Center 6 1 7 944/946 Service Station with and w/o Car Wash 16 - 16 947 Self-Service Car Wash 1 2 3 n/a Dance Studio/Gym - 3 3 n/a Mine = = 0 Total 33 Different Land Uses 763 207 970 Source:1TE 9th Edition and Tindale Oliver's Florida Studies Database Tindale Oliver Collier County December 2014 A-12 Transportation Impact Fee Study Collier County I Transportation Impact Fee Update Study Bundled Golf Courses At the request of the County, Tindale Oliver conducted additional research related to the "bundled-golf development" land use. Based on these findings and prior experience with this type of development,Tindale Oliver estimated that, as long as the following conditions are met, no significant amount of additional traffic is likely to be generated due to the golf course and recommend not collecting the fee for the golf course component of the development: • The golf course will be developed as part of a residential development. • The membership to the course will be limited to the residents(and any guests they bring along). • The golf course will not include any ancillary facilities and/or services that are open/available to those other than the residents. Examples of these facilities/services include drive-in ranges, club houses, restaurants, retail shops, golf lessons, and other similar facilities/services. It is our opinion that bundled-golf developments that are deed restricted to comply with these conditions are unlikely to generate a significant amount of additional traffic due to the golf course component of the development. As such, it is reasonable to collect the impact fees only from the residential component. In some cases, the golf course may be open to the public during the construction period. This is considered a temporary use and the County needs to address this short-term impact either by collecting a portion of the impact fee or through another agreement with the developer. Tindale Oliver estimated the impact of allowing for the public use of the golf course during the construction period at approximately 25 percent to 30 percent of the total impact of golf courses that are open to the public on a continual basis. These estimates are based on the ITE trip generation rate of employees versus visitors to golf courses and a construction period of five years. • Tindale Oliver Collier County December 2014 A-13 Transportation Impact Fee Study Collier County J Transportation Impact Fee Update Study Mini-Warehouse(ITE LUC 151) Total 6 1 Trip Length Penerct NeW Location Sin(1,000 sfi Date Trip Gen Rate lime Period Telp length VP& Source Interviews IntenileWS 'Dips Orange Co,FL 107.0 - - - 1.45 - • - Orange County Orange Co,FL 89.6 - - • 1.73 • - - - Orange County Orange Co,FL 84.7 • - - 1.39 - - - - Orange County Orange Co,FL 93.0 . - . 1.51 - - - - Orange County Orange Co,FL 77.0 - - - 2.18 - - - - Orange County Total Size 451.3 5 A69r516•1310 Length: n/a ITE ZASJ 14 Weighted Average Trip Length: n/8 Blended total 1,235.3 Weighted Percent NO Trip Average: - Weighted Average Trip Generation Rate: 1.53 1-16 Average Trip Generation Rate: 2.50 Blend of FL Studies and III Average Trip Generation Rate; 2.15 SingIe-Family Detached Housing (ITE LUC 210) Total 4 Urrip Length Location Size/Units Data Interviews Trip Gen R5te Moe Period Trip langth P""M N'w VIVIT Source Interviews Trips Sarasota Co,FL 76 Jun.93 70 70 1003 • 6.00 N/A MU Sarasota County Sarasota Co,FL 79 Jun-93 86 86 9.77 . 4.40 N/A 42.99 Sarasota County Sarasota Co,FL 135 Jun-93 70 75 8.05 - 5.90 N/A 47.50 Sarasota County__ Sarasota Co,FL 152 Jun-93 63 63 8.55 - 7.30 N/A 62.42 Sera sota County Sarasota Co,FL 193 Jun-93 123 1.23 685 , - 4.60 N/A 3151 Sarasota County Sarasota Co,FL 97 Jun-93 33 33 1.3.20 - 3.00 . N/A 39.60 Sarasota County Sarasota to,FL _ 262 Jun-93 146 146 6.61 • 8.40 N/A 55.52 Sarasota County____ Sarasota Co,FL 393 100-93 207 207 7.76 - 5.40 N/A 41.90 Sarasota County Hernando Co FL 76 May-96 148 148 10.01 9a.6p 4.133 N/A 48.55 Tindale-Olhrer&Associates Hernando Co,FL 128 May-96 218 246 8.17 9a-6p 6.03 N/A 49.27 Gridale.011ver&Associates Hernando Co.FL 232 _May-96 182 182 7.24 9a-6p 5.04 N/A 36.49 lIndale-Oliver 8,Associates Hernando Co,f L 301 May-96 264 264 8.93 93-6p 3.28 N/A 29.29 Tindale-Oliver&Associates Charlotte Co,FL 135 Oct-97 230 - 5.30 9a-Sp 7.90 N/A 4187 Tindale-Oliver&Assodates Charlotte Co,FL 142 Oct-97 245 • 5.20 9a-5p 4.10 N/A 21.32 Tindale-OlIver&Associates Charlotte Co,FL 150 Oct-97 160 - 5.W 93-5p 10580 N/A 54.00 7Indak•Oliver&Associates Charlotte Co,FL 215 Oct-97 156 - 7.60 9a-Sp 4.60 NIA 34.96 tindaie-Oliver&Associates Charlotte Co,FL 257 Oct-97 725 - 7.60 9a-Sp 7,40 , N/A 56.24 Tindale•Oliver&Associates Charlotte Co,FL 345 Oct-97 161 - 7.35 9a-Sp 6.60 N/A 46.20 Tindale-Oliver&Associates Charlotte Co,FL 368 Oct-97 152 - 6.60 9a-Sp 5.70 N/A 37.62 11ndale•Olivecti■Associates Charlotte Co,FL 383 Oct-37 516 - 140 9.s.5p SIM N/A 42.00 lIndale.Oliver&Associates Charlotte Co,FL 441 Oct-97 195 • 8.20 9.-5p 4.70 N/A 38.54 llndale-Oliver&Associates Charlotte Co,FL 1169 Oct-97 348 - 6.10 , 9a-Op 6.01 N/A 48.50 Tindale.01iver&Associates Collier Co,Ft 90 Dec-99 91 - 12.80 Ba-6p 1140 NA 145.92 lindide•Oliver8,Associates Collier Co,FL 400 Dec-99 159 - 7.80 84-69 640 N/A 49.92 lind ale-Oliver&Associates Lake Co,FL 49 Apr-02 170 - 6.70 7a-6p 1(120 N/A 68.44 T3ndale-01iver&Associates Lake Co,FL 52 Apr-02 212 . 10.102 7alu0 7.60 N/A 76.60 rind/de-Oliver&Associates take Co,Ft 126 Apt-02 217 , - 8,50 7a-6p 8.30 N/A 70.55 Tindale-Oliver&Associates Pasco Co,FL 55 Apr-02 133 - 080 So-6p 8.12 „ N/A 55.22 TIndate-Oliver&Associates Pasco Co,Fl. 60 Apr02 106 7.73 8a-Co , 8.75 N/A 67.64 lIndale-Oliver a,Assodates Pasco Co,FL 70 Apr-30 1118 - 7.60 8a-6p 6323 N/A 47.03 findele-Oliver&Associstes Pasco CO,FL 74 Ap602 188 - 8.18 80-60 5.95 14/A 44.67 11rdele-Oliver&Associates Pasco Co,FL 189 Apr-02 261 - 7.46 8a-Go 1199 N/A 67.07 Tindate-Oliver 8 Associates Marion Co,FL 102 Apr-02 167 - 8.02 7,-6p 5.10 N/A 40.90 Klmley-Horn&Associates Marion Co,FL 105 Apr-02 169 - 7.23 7a-6p 7.22 N/A 52.20 Prnley-liorn&Associates Marion Co,FL 124 Apr-02 170 - 6.04 7.-6p 7.29 N/A 44.03 Klmley-liorn&Associates Malian Ca,Fl 132 Apr-02 171 - 7.87 la-Op 7.03 N/A 55.09 laniley-Horn&Associates Marion Cu,FL 133 Apr-02 209 - 4.04 la-Op 4.92 N/A 39.56 Motley-Horn&Associates Citrus Co,FL 111 Oct-01 273 - 8.66 7e6p 7.70 N/A 66.65 Thultde-Oliver&Associates Citrus Co,FL 231 Oct-03 155 - 5.71 7a-6P 412 N/A 27.52 Tiodale-Oliver&Assoriates CAMS Co,FL 916 Oct-03 146 - 8.40 7a-So 3.94 N/A 33.10 Tindale-Onvet&Associates Otrus Co,FL 364 00-03 345 - 7.20 7.6p 9.14 N/A 65.81 Tindak-Oliver&Associates Citrus Co,FL 174 Oct-08 246 - 1130 la-Ga 6.88 N/A 84.62 Tisdale-Oliver&Associates Lake Co,FL 42 Dec-06 122 1126 5.56 N/A 62.61 Tn./isle-Oliver&Associates Lake Co.FL 51 Dec-86 346 - 3822 - 9.46 N/A 172.36 Tisdale-Oliver&Associates Lake Co,FL 59 Dec-06 144 - 12.07 - 1079 N/A 130.24 ilndele-Oliver&Associates Lake Co,FL 90 Dec-06 194 - 9.12 - 5.78 N/A 52.71 findale-Oliver 8,Associates Lake Co,FL 239 Dec-86 385 - 758 6.93 N/A 67.69 Tindale-Oliver&Associates Hernando CO,FL 232 Apr-07 516 • 802 la-6p 8.16 N/A 65.44 Tindaie-Oliver&Associates Hernando Co,Ft 95 Apr-07 256 • 8.08 7a-6p 5.86 6/A 47.51 Tindale-Oliver&Associates Hernando Co,FL 90 Apr-07 338 - 7.13 la-6p 5.86 N/A 41.78 Tindele-011ver B.Associates Hernando Co,FL 58 Apr-07 153 - 6.15 7a-6p 8.39 N/A 51.68 %dale-Oliver&Associates Collier Co,FL 74 Mar-08 503 - 12.91 7a-6p 3.00 N/A 39.07 DI-Wale-Olivet&Associates Collier Co,FL 97 Mar-08 512 - 4.78 la-Op 1129 N/A 99.13 Tindale-Oliver&AsSOdates Collier Co,FL 315 Man08 1,347 - 6,97 7o-6p 6.55 N/A 45.65 Tindale-011ve r 8 Associates Collier Co,FL 42 Mar-08 314 - 9.55 7a-Op 1098 N/A 104.85 I TIndale-Oliver&Associates Total Size 10,380 55 13,130 Weighted Average Trip Generation Rate: 7.81 SFR Trip Length Analysis Total 5 Location She/Units Data 5 Trip Length Trip Gen Rine Time Period Trip Length Percent New VMT Source Interviews Interviews Trips Collier Co,FL 770 Dec-99 175 - 4.32 8,1-6p 4.96 N/A 21.43 Iindale-Oliver&Associates Collier Co,FL 90 Dec-99 91 • 12.60 83-60 1140 N/A 145.92 Tuadale-Oliver&Associates Collier Co,FL 403 Dec-99 309 - 7.80 0a-6p 6.40 N/A 49.92 Gadale-Oliver&Associates _ Total Size 1260 55 655 Avenge Teo langtIc 7.39 Weighted Average Trip Length: 5.88 Tindale Oliver Collier County December 2014 A-14 Transportation Impact Fee Study Collier County I Transportation Impact Fee Update Study Multi-Family/Apartment and Residential Condo/Townhouse(ITE LUC 220/230) _ Total R #Trip Length Percent New Location Six J Units Date Trip Gen Rate Time Period Tdp length VMT Source Interviews Interviews I Trips Sarasota Co,FL 212 Jun-93 42 42 5_78 - 5.20 NIA 3006 Sarasota County Sarasota Co,FL 243 Jun-93 36 36 5.84 N/A - Sarasota County Marlon Co,FL 214 Apr-02 175 175 6.84 • 4.61 N/A 3153 Kirnley-Hom&Associates Marlon Co,FL 240 Apr-02 174 174 6.96 - 3.43 N/A 23.87 Kimley-Horn&Associates Marion Co.FL 288 Apr-02 175 175 5.66 - 5.55_ N/A _ 3141 Kimley-Xnrn&Associates Marion Co,FL 480 Apr-02 175 175 473 - 6 m Associates 88 N/A 39.42 Klmley-Ho &Assoates Marlon Co,FL SOO Apr-02 170 170 5.46 - 5.94 N/A 32.43 Kimley-Horn&Associates Lake Co,FL 250 Dec-06 1.35 139 6.71 - 5.33 N/A 35.76 Tindale-Oliver&Associates _ Lake Co,FL 157 Oeo06 265 265 73.97 - 2.62 N/A 3660 Tindale-Oliver&Associates _ Lake Co,FL 169 Dec-06 212 - 8.09 - 600 N/A 48.54 Tlndele-Oliver&Associates _ lake Co,FL 226 Dec-O6 301 - 674 - 2.17 N/A 14.63 Tindale-Oliver&Associates Hernando Co,FL 312 Apr-07 456 • 4.09 - 5.95 N/A 24.34 Tindale-Oliver&Associates _ Hernando Co,FL 176 Apr-07 332 - 5.38 - 5.24 N/A 28.19 Tindale•Oliver&Associates Hernando Co.FL 31 May-96 31 31 612 9a-6p 4.98 N/A 3048 Tindale-O11ver&Associates Hernando Co,FL 128 M17-96 128 128 647 9a-Gp 5.18 N/A 3331 Tndale-011Ver&Associates Pasco Co,FL 2ai Apr-02 196 198 4.77 9a-6p - N/A - Tindale-Oliver AAssodates Pasco Co,FL 248 Apr-02 353 353 4.24 9a-6p 153 6/4 14.97 _ 11ndalrarver IL Asrodates Total Sire 4,103 Ave rage T4pLengtlh: 434 _ Total Sire(TO 3.631 Weighted Avenge Trip Length: 5.10 LUC 220:Multl-Fancily Total Size 3,467 13 Weighted Average Trip Generation Rate: 631 ITT 18,480 88 ITE Avenge Trip Generation Rate: 665 8lendedtotai 21,947 Blend of FL Studies and ITEAVeragi Trip Generation Rate: 6,60 LUC 2305tudles are highlighted LUC 330:Condo/Townhouse Total Sire 636 4 Weighted Average Trip Generation Rate: 4.97 ITE 10.024 56 ITS Average Trip Generation Rate: 5.81 Blended total 10,680 Blend of FL Studies and Ill Average Trip Generation Rate: 5,76 Mobile Home Park(ITE LUC 240) Location Size/Units Date TobIN BTtp length TN,Gen Rate Time Period Trip Length Percent Now VMT Source Interviews Interviews Trips Marion Co,FL 67 Jul-91 22 22 5.40 46vs. 2.29 N/A 12.37 - Tindale-Oliver&Associates Marion Co,FL 82 Jul-91 58 58 10.80 24hr- 3.72 N/A 4018 Tindale-Oliver&Associates Marion Co.FL 137 301-91 22 22 310 24hr. 498 N/A 15.13 Tindale-Oliver&Associates Marion Co,FL 1.83 Apr.02 147 - 3,51 24hr. 5.48 N/A 1923 Klmley-Horn&Associates _ Merlon Co,FL 227 Apr-02 173 - L76 24hr. 8.80 N/A 24.29 Klmley-Moen&Associates _ Sarasota Co,FL 235 Jun-93 100 100 3.51 - 5.10 N/A 17.90 Sarasota County Marlon Co.FL 297 Apr-02 175 - 4.78 24hr. 4.76 N/A 2175 Kimley-Horn&Associates Sarasota Co,FL 9% Jun-93 181 181 4.19 - 4.61 N/A 1444 Sarasota County Hernando Co,FL 1,892 May-96 425 425 4.13 h-6p 4.13 N/A 17.06 Tindale-Oliver&Associates Total Size 4,121 9 1,303 Average Trlp Ler6th: 431 Weighted Averpe Top Length: 4.60 Weighted Average Ttip Generator Rate: 4.17 Retirement Community/Age-Restricted Single Family(ITE LUC 251) Total #Trip Length Percent New Location Site/Units Date Trip Gen Rafe Time Period Trip length VMT Source Interviews Interviews I Trips Lakeland,FL 67 3/284/2/90 26 24 3.50 9om-4pm 144 N/A 454 Ttdele-Oiver&Associates Marlon Co,FL 778 Apr-02 175 - 296 24hr. 3.49 N/A 10.33 Kimky-Hom&ASsocates Marion Co,FL 877 Apr-02 209 - 2.91 24hr. 530 N/A 17.17 Kinhley-Hom&Associates Marion Co,FL 1,054 Apr-02 173 - 3.65 24hr. 600 N/A 2190 ✓Jrdey-Horn&Associates Marlon Co,FL 3,076 Apr-02 198 • 2.63 21St. 5.16 N/A 1357 Orley-Horn&Associates Marion Co,FL 3,625 Apr-02 164 2,50 24hr. 5,83 N/A 14.513 4Imley Horn&Associates Total She 9,477 6 945 Average Tdp Length: tea rfE 6140 8 Weighted AverageTriplengih: in Blended total 15,717 Weighted Average Trip Generation Rate: 2.75 ITE Average Trip Generation Rate: 3.68 Lem of FL Studies and ITT Average Trip Generation Rater 3.12 Congregate Care Facility(ITE LUC 253) Location sloe/Undo Date TOWN #Trip Length Trip Gen gate Time Period Trip Length Percent New VMT Source Interviews Interviews Trips Pinellas Park,FL 72 Aug-99 25 19 3.50 Tnm-Spm 2.20 79.9 7,70 Tndde-Oliver&Associates Palm Harbor,FL 200 Oct-19 58 40 gam-Spm 3.40 69.0 _ - Tindale-Oliver&Associates Too Size 272 2 83 Avenge Triptength: 2.80 ITC 348 2 Weighted Avenge Trip Length: Sae Blended total 660 Weighted Percent New Trip Average: 716 460 Weighted Average Trip Generation Rate' 3.50 ITE Average Trip Generation Rate: 2.02 Blend of FL Studies and ITE Average Trip Generation Rite: L25 Tindale Oliver Collier County December 2014 A-15 Transportation Impact Fee Study Collier County I Transportation Impact Fee Update Study Hotel(ITE LUC 310) New Location Size(9000w) Date Total lade Length Trip Gen Rate Tines Period Trip Length � � VMT Source Interviews Interview Trips Pinellas Co,FL 174 Aug-89 134 106 12.50 7-11a/3•7p 610 79.0 62.21 TMale Oliver&Associates Pinellas Co,FL 114 Och89 81 14 7.30 12-7p 6.20 47.0 21.27 Tyndale-Oliver&Associates Orange Co,FL 70 - - - L&5 - - - Orange County Orange Co,FL 211 • - - 2.23 - - - Orange County Orange Co,FL 112 - - - 278 - - Orange County Orange Co,FL 1,495 - - 150 - - - - Orange County Orange Co,FL 123 - - 3.70 - - Orange County Orange Co,FL 130 - - - 429 •- - - - Orange County Orange Co,FL 1,499 - - •- 4.69 - - • Orange County Orange Co,FL 190 - • - 4.71 •- - - - Orange County Orange Co,FL 123 - - - 4.81 •- - - Orange County Orange Co,FL 105 - • - 5.25 - - - Orange County Orange Co,FL 120 - - 5.27 - - - Orange County Orange Co,FL 1,584 - • •- 5.88 - - - Orange County Orange Co,FL 128 - - 610 - - - Orange County Orange Co,FL 171 - - - 7.03 - - - Orange County Orange Co,FL 144 - - - 7.32 - - - Orange County Orange Co,FL 98 - - - 7.32 - - - I Orange County Orange Co,FL 106 - - - 7.34 - - - - Orange County Orange Co,FL 100 - - 7.37 - - - Orange County - Orange Co,FL 144 - - - 7.66 - - - Orange County Total Size 6,944 21 164 Average Tdplength: n/a ITE 4,2L0 10 Weighted Average Tip length: 0/a Blended total 11,704 Weighted Percent New Trip Average: 663 Weighted Average Trip Generation late: 5.12 ITE Avenge Trip Generation Rate: 8.17 Blend of FL Stud ea and ITE Average Trip Generation Rate: 636 Hotel/Motel(ITE LUC 310&320) Location Size(Rooms) Date Total tlTAp Length Percent New Trip Gen Rate Time Period Trip Length VMT Source Interview Interview Trips Pinellas Co,FL 48 Oct•89 46 24 - 10a-2p 2.80 65.0 - Tindale-Oliver&Associates Pinellas Co,FL 54 Oct-89 32 22 - 12p-7p 3.80 69.0 Tindale-Oliver&Associates Pinellas Co,FL 120 Oct-89 26 22 - 2p-7p 5.20 84.6 llndale-OlNet 8 Associates Pinellas Co,FL 174 Aug•89 134 106 12.60 7-11a/3-7p 670 79.0 62.21 Tindal.-0liver&Associates Pinellas Co,FL 114 Ott-89 30 14 7.30 12-7p 620 47.0 21.27 Tndale-Ol leer&Assocates Total Size 510 5 268 Avenge Trip length: 486 ITE 4 10 'Weighed Average Trip Length: 5.42 Blended total 5270 'The weighted avg.trip length will be used for the hotel land use Motel(ITE LUC 320) Location She(Roo s) Date Total II VIM,Length Trip Gen Rate Tim.Period Trip Length Percent New VMT Source Interviews Interview Trips _ Pinellas Co,FL 48 Oct-89 46 24 - Lb-2p 220 650 - Tyndale-Oliver&ASSodetes - Pinellas Co,FL 54 Oct•89 32 22 - 12p-7p 3.80 69.0 - Tindale-Oliver&ASsodates Pinellas Co,FL 120 Oct-89 26 22 - 2p-7p 5.20 84.6 - Tindale-Oliver&Associates Total Size 222 3 104 Average Trip Length: 393 ITE 2,160 l0 Weighted Avenge Tip Length: 4.34 Weighted Percent New Trip Average: 766 ITE Average Trip Generation Rate: 523 Movie Theater with Matinee(ITE LUC 444) Total 11 II Trip Length Percent New Location She lSweensl Date T Interview Imerwtew, Trip ben Rats ee Period Trip Length Trips VINT Source Pinellas Co,FL 8 Oct-89 151 116 113.10 20-8p 2.70 ' 77.0 235.13 Tindale-Oliver&Assocates Pinellas Co,FL 12 Sep-89 122 116 63.40 2p-Op 1.90 950 114704 Ttedale-0Iha&ASSodetes Total Site 20 273 AvengeTAplargttc 2.33 ITE lO estimated Weighted Avenge Trip length: 2.32 30 Weighted Percent New Trip Average: 87.8 Weghted Average Trip Generation Rate: 8128 ITE Average Trip Generation Rate(6Th): 15333 Blend of FL Studies and ITE Average Trip Generation Rate: 106.63 Day Care Center(ITE LUC 565) Location She(1,000Sn Data Total NTrip Length Trip Gen Ilan Time Peril Telp length Percent New VMT Source Interviews Interviews Trips Pinellas Co,FL 5.6 Aug-89 94 66 66.99 78-6p 1,90 1 70.0 89.10 Tndale-Oliver&Associates Pinellas Co,FL 100 Sep-89 179 134 66.99 la-Op 2.10 75.0 105.51 Tndale•OIWer&ASSOdatas Tampa,FL - •Mar-86 28 25 - - 2.W 89.0 - Nmiey-Nom 8ASSodeles Total Size 15.6 301 Average Trip length: L20 Weighted Average Trip Length: 2.03 Weghted Percent New Trip Average: 73.2 IRE Average Trip Generation Rate-per student: 4.38 Tindale Oliver Collier County December 2014 A-16 Transportation Impact Fee Study Collier County I Transportation Impact Fee Update Study Nursing Home(ITE LUC 620) Location Site(Beds) tang Total gTrip Length Trip Gen Rate Time Period Trip length Percent New VMf Saone Interviews Interviews Trips Lakeland,Fl 120 Mar-90 74 F6 266 11a-4p 2.59 89.0 959 Tindale-Oliver&Associates Total Size 120 1 74 Avenge Trip length 258 ITE 714 6 WeightedAaeag.Tdp length 239 Blended total 834 Weighted Percent New Trip Average: 89.0 Weighted Average Trip Generation Ram: 2.85 tic Average Trip Generation Rate: 274 Blend 04 FL Studies and ITE Avenge Trip Generation Rate: 2.76 G eneral Office Building(ITE LUC 710) _ location She(1,00014) Date Total 1Trip length Trip Gen Rah Time Period Trip Length Portent New VMT Source Interviews IntaMews Trips Sarasota Co,FL 14.3 Jun-93 14 14 46.85 - 11.30 - 52.041 Sarasota County Gwinnett Co,GA 9 8.0 Dec-92 - - - 1.30 - 5.40 - Street Smarts Gwinnett Co,GA 180,0 Dec-92 - - 3.60 - 590 - Street Smarts Pinellas Co,FL 197.0 Oct-9 431 388 1849 7a-5p 630 90.0 10484 _ TIndaie-Oliver&Associates _ St.Petersburg,FL 262.8 Sep-89 291 274 - 7a-Sp 3.40 94.0 - Tyndale-Oliver&Associates Total Size 742.1 5 736 Average Trip Length: 6,46 RE 15522.0 78 Weighted Averap Trip length: 5.15 Weighted Percent New Trip Average: 92.3 Medical-Dental Office Building(ITE LUC 720) Location S14*(1,490d) Date Toalg 914:Length Trip Gen Rate Time Period Trip length Percent New VMT Source IMeMews Interviews Trips Tampa,FL - Mar-86 33 26 - _ 6.00 A.0 - Rlmley-Horn&Associates Palm Harbor,Fl. 14.6 Oct-89 104 76 33.98 9.-5p 630 73.0 156.27 Tindale-Oliver&ASSodales SL Petersburg,FL - Nov.89 34 3D 57.20 9a-4p 120 88.0 - Tindale-Oliver&Associates Hernando COa FL 584 May96 390 349 28.52 9a-6p 6.47 89.5 165.09 Tlndale-diver&Associates Hernando Co,FL 280 May-96 202 169 49.75 93-6p 606 916 282.64 Tindale-Oliver&Associates Charlotte Co,FL 11.0 Oct-97 - 186 49.50 9:56 4.60 92.1 20967 Tindale-O6ver&Associates Charlotte Co,Fl. 28.0 Oct-97 - 286 31.03 9.5p 3.60 816 9104 Tindaie-Oliver&Associates Charlotte Co,FL 30.4 00-97 - 324 39.80 9a-5p 330 83.5 109.68 11ndale-Oliver&Associates CLus Co.Fl. 36.9 04-03 - 168 3126 8.6p 680 97.1 213.03 Tindale-Oliver&Associates Citrus Co.11. 100 Nov-0 - 340 40.56 8•630p 6.20 924 _23233 Tindale-Oliver&Associates Citrus Co,FL 53 Dec-03 - 20 2336 8.5o 5.25 95.2 146.78 Tindale-Oliver&Associates Orange Co,FL 50.6 - - - 26.72 - - Orange County Orange Co,Fl 233 - - - 1958 - - - Orange County Total Size 298.6 11 763 Average Trip Isag196 5.07 FIE AN& 10 Weighted Average Trip langth 5.55 Blended total 7486 Weighted element New Trip Average. 88.9 Average Trip Generation Rate: 32.59 ITE Average Trip Generation Rate: 36.13 Blend of FLStudes and DT Average Trip Generation Rate: 34.72 Business Park(ITE LUC 770) tarplon She(1.0000) Dote ioWf fTdp length Trip Gen Rate Time Pe nod Trip length Percent New VMT Source hgMaws InteMews Trips Collier Cote. es 14.1 May - 55 33.48 _ 8a-6p 3.50 - 717 8762 Tindale-Oliver&Associates - Collier Con- 66.0 May-99 , - 43 1153 8a-6p 1.70 79A 5198 Tindak•dhrer&Assodates Cakes Co,FL 2111 May-99 - 284 17.91 90-6p 540 93.0 89.94 TMtlaie-dwer&Assodates Total She 291.2 3 Average Trip length: 4.90 FIE rbiiag 16 Weighted Average Trip length: 5.36 Blended dal 6,579.2 Weighted Percent New Trip Average: 89.9 Weighted Average Try Generation Rate 17.22 tic Average Trip Generation Rote 22.44 Bknd of FL Studies and ITE Average Trip Generation Rate: 12.65 Specialty Retail Center(ITE LUC 826) location She(1,0704) Date rams 1TriP Length Trip Gen Rate Time Period Trip length Percent New VMT Spwce Intendewa Interviews Trips Collier CO,FL 12.0 May-99 - 13 19.70 8a-6p 3.70 75.0 54.67 Tindele-OBver&Associates Col6erCo,FL 12.0 Ma•99 - 146 127.50 ga-lip 2.24 84.3 240.76 Tindele-diver&Associates Total She 24.0 3 Average Trip Length 237 RE 100.0 4 Weighted Average Dip length: 297 Blended total 124.0 We Ighted Percent New Trip Avenge: 797 Weighted Average Trip Generation Rate: 73.60 ITE Average Trip Generation Rate(8th): 44.12 Blend of FL Studies and IT!Average Trip Gene ration Rate: 49.99 Tindale Oliver Collier County December 2014 A-17 Transportation Impact Fee Study Collier County I Transportation Impact Fee Update Study Shopping Center(1TE LUC 820) Total!? 6Trlp Length Percent New Location Size 11,00001 Data Trip Gen Pete Time Period Trip Length VMT Source Intervlevx ..m. Trips Tampa,FL - Mar-lib 527 348 - - - 66.0 • Kimley-Nom&Associates Tampa,Ft - Mar-86 170 - - 1.70 - • Klmley-Horn&Associates Tampa,FL - Mar•86 354 269 _ - - 76.0 - Kimlev-tbm&Associates Tampa,FL - Mar-86 144 - • • 150 - - Kimlc'Horn&Associates St Petersburg,FL 1,192.0 Aug•89 384 298 - 11e-7p 160 78.0 _ - Tndalo-Oliver&Assodates IL Petersburg,FL 1323 Sep-89 400 368 77.00 10a-7p 1.80 92.0 127.51 Tyndale-Oliver&Associates Largo,FL 4210 Aug-89 160 120 26.73 10a-69 2.30 75.0 46.11 Tindale-Oliver&Associates Dunedin,FL 805 Sep-89 276 210 81.48 9a-5p 1.40 780 86.69 Tindaie-Oliver&Associates Pinellas Park,FL 6960 Sep-89 485 388 - 94•69 3.20 80.0 • Tindale-Oliver&Associates Seminole,f 4250 Oct-89 674 586 - - - 87.0 - Tindaie-Oliver&Associates Hillsborough Co.FL 134.0 Jul-91 • - - - 130 74.0 - node's-Oliver&Associates Hillsborough Co,FL 151.0 Jul-91 - - • - 130 73.0 - Tndde-Oliver&Associates Collier Co,FL - Aug-91 68 64 - - 3.33 94.1 • Tndale•OI lye,&Associates Collier Co,FL - Aug-91 208 154 - - 2.64 74.0 - Tn dale-Oliver&Associates Sarasota/Bradenton,FL 1090 Sep-92 300 185 - 120-6p - 61.6 - King Engineering Associates,Inc. Ocala,FL 133.4 Sep.92 300 192 - 124-6p - 64.0 - King Engineering Associates,Inc. Gw4nnett Co,GA 99.1 Dec.92 . - 46.00 3.20 70.0 103.04 Street Smarts Gwinnett Co,GA 314.7 Dec-92 • - 27.00 _ - 850 84.0 192.78 Street Smarts Sarasota Co,FL 1100 Ion-93 58 58 122.14 - 120 - - Sarasota County Sarasota Co,FL 1461 109-93 65 65 51.53 - 280 • - Sarasota C000ly Sarasota Co,FL 157.5 Jun-93 57 57 79.79 - 3.40 • - Sarasota County Sarasota Co,FL 1910 Jun.93 62 62 66.79 - 190 - . Sarasota County Hernando Co.FL 107.8 640•96 608 331 77.60 9e-6p 4.68 54.5 197.85 Tndale•Otiver&Associates Charlotte CO,FL 88.0 Oct-97 73.50 9a-Sp 1.80 57.1 75.56 Trtdale-Oliver&Associates Charlotte CO,FL 191.9 Oct-97 - • 72.00 9a-Sp I.40 50.9 87.97 Ttndale-diver&Associates _ Charlotte Co,FL 51.3 Ott-97 - • 43.00 9a-Sp 2.70 51.8 60.08 Tindaie-Oltues&Associates Leke Co,FL 67.8 Apr-01 246 177 102.60 - 3.40 71.2 24837 Tindaie-Oliver&Associates Lake Co,FL 72.3 Apr-01 444 375 05.30 - 4.50 59.0 173.37 Tindaie-Oliver&Associates Pasco Co,FL 65.6 Apr-00 222 - 145.64 9e-5p 146 469 99.62 Tindae-Oliver&Associates Paseo Co,Ft 75.8 Apr.02 134 - 3823 9a-Sp 236 58.2 52.52 Tindal e-Oliver&Associates Citrus Co,FL 185.0 Oct-03 - 784 55.04 ge6p 2.40 88.1 11805 Tlndale-Oliver&Associates Citrus Co,FL 913 Nov.03 - 390 54 50 13a-Op 160 480 76.77 Tndale-diver&Associates Bozeman,MT 104.3 Dec-06 359 359 46.96 - 135 49.0 77.08 Tndaie-diver&Associates Bozeman,MT 159,9 Dec-06 502 502 56.49 - 1.56 54.0 47.59 Tlndatc-diver&Associates Bozeman,MT 35.9 Dec-06 329 329 69.30 - 1.39 74.0 7128 Tndaie-diver&Assodates Total Size 5,757.5 7,536 Average Trip tangM: n/a Weighted Average Trip Length: n/a Figure A-1 Shopping Center(LUC 820)-Florida Curve Trip Length Regression 4.00 -- 3,50 - - ..... _- - 300 -- +*t+*,�+ vt g_ 2.50 - •..♦`• -- .6 2,00 + ---- - - - 3 EL 1.50 - - I- I- 1.00 0.50 0.00 r' r I I s 1 I 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 Square Footage Source:Regression analysis based on Florida Studies for LUC 820 Tindale Oliver Collier County December 2014 A-18 Transportation Impact Fee Study Collier County I Transportation Impact Fee Update Study Figure A-2 Shopping Center(LUC 820)-Florida Curve Percent New Trips Regression 90% - N 60% ,a . 50% a1 Z 8)▪ 40 ■ Lu O. 30% 20% - 10p%/ 0% i - , , - , i , I I 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 Square Footage Source: Regression analysis based on Florida Studies for LUC 820 New Car Sales(ITE LUC 841) Location Size(1,000 sQ Date Mb'a NTrip length Trip Gen Rate Time Period Trip tenet Pen'"New VMT Source Interviews interviews Trips St.Petersbteg,FL 43.0 OM-89 152 120 - 9a-5p 4,70 79.0 - Tind:He-OI leer&Associates Clearwater.ft 43.0 Oct-89 136 106 ]9.40 9a-5p 4.50 78.0 103.19 Tin dale-Oliver&Associates Orange Co,Ft 116.7 - - - 22.18 - - - Orange County Orange Co,FL 99.8 • - - 13.45 - - • Orange County Orange Co,FL 39.1 • - - 10.48 - - - Orange County Orange Co,Ft 66.3 • - - 28.50 - - - - Orange County Change Co,Ft 46.7 • - - 40.34 - - . Orange County Orange Co,FL 34.4 - - --- - 73.45 - - . . Orange County.._ Orange Co,FL 13.8 - . - 3575 - - - - Orange County Intel Size 502.7 9 2E8 Average Trip length: 4.46 ITE 5705 15 magma Average Tr*latgth 4.03 Blended total 1.072.7 Weighed Percent New Trip Average: 78,5 Weighted Average Trip Generation Rate: 23.22 RE Avenge Trip Generation Rate 32.30 Blend of FL Studies and nE Avery/0 TOp Generation Rate: 27.12 Supermarket(ITE WC 850) Total a NTrip Length Percent New Location Sire 11.000d) Date Interviews Interviews Trip Gen Rate Time Period Trip length Trips VMT Source Palm Harbor,FL 62-0 Aug-89 163 62 106.26 9a-4p 2.08 56.0 123.77 Tindale-Oliver&Associates Total Size 620 1 163 Average Trip tomtit: 208 ITT 156.0 4 Weighted Avenge Trip tend: La Blended total 218.0 Weighted Percent New Trip Average: 56.0 Weighted Average Trip Generation Fate: 106.26 ITE Average Trip Generation Rate: 102.24 Blend of FL Studies and RE Avenge Trip Generation Rater 103,33 Tindale Oliver Collier County December 2014 A-19 Transportation Impact Fee Study Collier County I Transportation Impact Fee Update Study Convenience Market-Z4hrs.(ITE WC 851) Total II 0 Trip Length Percent New Location Sire(1,0si) Date Interviews Interviews Trip Gen Rate Time Period Trip Length Trips VMT 60 Source Tampa,FL - Mar-86 80 - - - 1.10 - • Kimlee-Han&A uodates Largo,FL 2.5 8/1515/89 171 116 634.80 - 1.20 68.0 518.00 Tindale-Oliver&Associates Ckawater,FL 2.5 Aug-89 237 _ 64 69080 - 1.60 27.0 29643 Tindale-Oliver&Associates Clearwater,FL 2.1 Nov-89 143 SO 635.24 245r. 1.60 35.0 35573 Tisdale-0liver&Associates Marion Co,FL 2.5 Jun-91 94 43 787.20 46hrs. 152 46.2 552.80 Tindale-Oliver&Associates Marion Co,FL 2.5 Jun-91 74 20 714.00 48hrs. 0.75 27.0 1.44.59 Tisdale-Oliver&Associates Collier Co.FL • Aug-91 146 36 - • 253 24.7 • Tindale.Oliver&Associates Collier Co,FL • Aug-91 148 38 - • 108 25.7 - Tndale-diver&Associates Gwinnett Co,GA 2.9 12/13-18/92 - • - • 2.30 480 - Street Smarts Gwlnnett Co,GA 3.2 12/13-18/92 - - - - - 37.0 Street Smarts Total 512e 18.2 7 1,093 Average Trip Length: 1.52 ITE ISO 8 Weighted Average Trip Length: 1.52 Blended total 34.2 Weighted Percent New Trip Average: 41.3 281 Weighted Average Trip Generation Rate: 69430 ITE Average Trip Generation Rate: 737.99 Blend at FLStudies and RI Average Trip Generation Rate: 719.18 Service Station w/Convenience Market(ITE LUC 853) Location Size(I,000sf) Date Total gTrip Letyth Trip Gen Rata Time Period Trip Length Percent New VMT SoUrce Interviews Interviews Trips Tampa,FL - Mar-86 72 - - 2.50 - Kimley-Morn&Associates Marion Co,FL 1.1 Jun-91 77 20 54480 24hr. 0.89 26.0 126.07 llndale-Oltver&Assodales Marlon Co,FL 2.1 Jun-91 66 24 997.60 24hr. 1.57 36.4 606.42 llndale-0liver&Associates Marion Co,FL 4.4 Jun-91 85 25 486.70 48hrs. 1.06 29.4 151.68 llndale-Oliver&Associates Collier Co,FL - Aug-91 96 38 - • 1.19 39.6 - Tndale-Oliver&Associates Collier Co,FL - Aug-91 78 16 - • 1.06 20.5 Tndele-Oliver&Associates Tampa,FL 2.3 10/13-15/92 239 74 - 24hr. 1.06 31.1 - Tindale-Oliver&Associates Ellenton,Ft 3.3 10/2622/92 124 44 - l 24hr. 0.96 35.3 - Tlndale-0liver&Associates Tampa,FL 3.8 11/1612/92 142 23 - 24hr. - 3.13 164 - Tlndele-0liver&Associates Marion Co,FL 2.5 Apr-02 07 - 719.79 24hr. 162 32.8 322.19 Kimley-Born&Associates Marion Co,FL 2.5 Ap-02 23 - 610.46 24hr. 177 11.7 126.61 Klmley-Man&Associates Marion Co,FL 3.0 Apr-02 t 59 - 606.02 241r. 583 32.6 195.00 li Kimley-Mom&Associates Total Size 25.1 9 1,148 Average Trip Length: 1.44 ITE 30.0 10 Weighted Average Trip Length. 1-51 Average Trip Length(Collier): 113 Blended Taal 55.1 Weighted Percent New Trip Average 27.7 ITT Average Trip Generation Rate(per fuel pos.): 54260 Pharmacy/Drugstore w/Drive-Thru(ITE LUC 880&881) law 0 0Trip Length Percent New Location Site 11,000 sal Date Interviews Interviews Trip Gen Rate Time Period Trip Length Trips VMT Source Pasco Co,FL 11.1 Apr-02 138 38 8897 - 2.05 27.5 5623 Tindale•O9ver&Associates Pasco Co,FL 12.0 Apr-02 212 90 122.16 - 2.04 42.5 10579 Tndale-Oliver&Associates Pasco Co,FL 15.1 Apr-02 1192 54 97.96 - 2.13 28.1 5869 Trrrdde-Oliver 14 Assodates Total Size 382 3 1542 Mirage Trip Length 2.01 ITE 196.0 16 W.Ightad Averag.Tdpleegtln 2AX Blended total 234.2 Weighted Percent New Trip Average: 32.5 Average Trip Generation Rate: 103.03 ITE Average Trip Generation Rate(LUC 880/8811: 90.06/9651 Blend of FL Studies and ITE Average Trip Generation Pate: 99.96 Furniture Store(ITE LUC 890) p Length I Interviews IMeruiesw Percent New MIT Source TWItl tlTd le h Trips Legion Size(1060s1) Gate Trip Gen Rase Tote Period Trip Largo,FL 140 7R&38/92 64 34 • - 4.63 52.5 I - Tindal e•Oliver&Associates Tampa FL 16.9 Jul-92 68 39 - - 7.38 55.7 1 - Tindal e-Oliver&Associates Pompano Beach,FL 585 Jun.06 31 140 3.70 9a-6p 438 852 16.21 Runner Group-Collier County Stuart,FL 1060 /un•06 198 154 650 9a-6p 3.14 79.4 20.41 Nunner Group-Collier County Boo Raton,FL 191 Ain-06 198 108 11.00 9a-t 436 74.5 l 47.96 Runner Group-Collier County Total Sim 209.5 132 Average Trip Length: 478 177.6 Weighted Average Trip len8tln 405 ITE 897.0 Weighted Percent New Trip Average: 77.8 Blended total 1074.60 Average Trip Generation Rate: 6.06 ITE Average Trip Generation Rate: 5.06 Blend of FL Studer and ITE Average Trip Generation Rate: 5.23 Tindale Oliver Collier County December 2014 A-20 Transportation Impact Fee Study Collier County I Transportation Impact Fee Update Study Drive-In Bank(ITE WC 912) Location Size(1,00010 pate Total NTrip Length Trip Gen Rate Time Period Trip Length Percent New vM7 Source IMesuiews Interviews Trips Tampa,FL - Mar-80 77 - 140 - Kimley-Horn&Assodates Tampa,FL - Mar-86 211 - - - 54.0 - Kimley-Horn&Assodates Clearwater,FL 0.4 Aug-89 1 113 52 - 9a-6p 5.20 460 - Ttndale-Oliver&Associates Largo,FL 7.0 Sep-89 129 94 - - 1.60 73.0 _ - 1Mdale•WNer&Associates Seminole,FL 4.5 Oct-89 • - • - - Tlndale-Oliver&Assodates Marion Co,FL 2.3 Jun-91 69 29 - 24hr. 1.33 42.0 - Tndele-Oliver&Associates Marlon Co,FL 3.1 Jun-93 47 32 • 24hr. 1.75 681 - Tindal.-Oliver&Assodates Marlon Co,FL 2.5 Jul-91 57 26 - 48hrs. 2.70 45.6 - Tlndale-Oliver&Associates Collier Co,FL Aug-91 162 96 - 24hr. 0.88 593 - Tndale-Oilver&Associates Collier Co,FL • Aug-91 116 54 - - 1.58 466 - Tndele-Oliver&Associates Collier Co.FL • Aug-91 142 68 - 2.08 47.9 - Tindale-Oliver&Assodates Hernando Co,FL 5.4 May-96 161 41 - 9a-6p 277 24.7 - Tindale-Oliver&Assodates Marion Co,FL 2.4 Apr-02 70 - - 241x. 3.55 54.6 - Kimley-Horn&Associates Marion Co,FL 2.7 May-Do 50 - 246.66 24hr. 266 40.5 265.44 Kinsley-Horn&Associates T01315110 25.2 9 1,407 Average Trip length: 2.38 ITE 210 7 Weighted Average Trip Length: 146 Blended total 46.2 Weighted Percent NeW Trip Average: 46.2 717 Weighted Average Trip Generation Rate: 246.66 ITE Average Trip Generation Rate: 148.15 Blend of FL Studies and ITE Average Trip Generation Rate: 156,34 Quality Restaurant(ITE LUC 931) Location Size(1,0002(( Date Total eu If Trip Length Trip Gen Rate Time Period Trip Length Percent New VMT Source Interviews Interviews Trips Tampa,FL - Mar-86 76 62 - - 2.10 82.0 - Kimley-Nom&Associates St.Petersburg.FL 7.5 Oct-89 , 177 154 - 114.2p/4-8p 350 87.0 - Tyndale-Oliver&Assodates Clearwater,FL 8.0 Oct-89 _ 60 40 110.63 104-70/5-56 2.80 673 20754 Tindale-Oliver&Assodates Total Size 15.5 2 313 Average Trip length: 1.80 ITT' 72 15 Weighted Average Tdpl.ngth: 3.14 Blended total 150.5 Weighted Percent New Trip Average. 767 ITE Average Trip Generation Nate(per seat: 2.86 High-Turnover Restaurant(ITE LUC 932) _ Total NTde Length Percent New Location Size(1,030 11) Date Interviews Interviews Trip Gen Rate Tme Period Trip Length Trips VMT Source Hernando Co,FL 6.2 May-96 242 175 187.51 9a-6p 276 723 375.00 Tindele•Oliver&Associates Hernando Co,FL 62 May-96 , 154 93 10271 9a-6p 4.15 602 256,43 Tndale-Oliver&Assodates St.Petersburg,FL 5.0 Ora-89 74 68 132.60 1130-7p 2.00 92.0 24398 Tisdale-Oliver&Associates Kenneth City,FL 5.2 Oct-89 236 176 127.88 4p-730p 2.30 75.0 720.59 Tindale-Oliver&Associates Pasco Co,FL 5.2 Apr-02 114 88 82.47 9a-6p 172 77.2 23681 Tindal.-Oliver&Assodates Pascoe°,fL 58 Apr-02 182 102 11697 9a-6p 3.49 56.0 22677 Tindal,-Oliver&Assodates Orange Co,FL 8.9 - - - 52.69 - - - - Orange County Orange Co,FL 113 - • • 62.12 - - - Orange County Orange Co,FL 6.7 - - - 8158 - - - - Orange County Orange Co,FL 114 - - • 91.67 - • - orange County Orange Co,FL 113 - - - 9539 - - - orange County Orange Co,FL 7.2 - - • 98.06 - - - • Orange County Orange Co,FL 53 - - •- 100.18 - - - - Orange County Orange Co,FL 9.7 105.84 - - - - Orange County - Orange Co,FL 4.6 - - - 129.23 - - - - Orange County Orange Co,FL 7.0 - • - 12640 - - - - Orange County Orange Co,FL 9.7 - j - - 132.32 - - - - Orange County Orange Co,FL - ._ 5.0 - I - - 13568 - - - Orange County Orange Co,FL 5.6 - - - 14559 - - - - _._ Orange County Orange Co.FL 7.4 - - - 147.44 - - - Orange County Orange Co,FL 5.9 - - - I 147.74 - - - - Orange County 1 • Total Size 152.8 21 1.102 Averag.TdpLength: 307 ITE n,Q 14 Weighted AvengeTrlph.egtic 317 Blended total 250.8 Weighted Percent New Trip Average: 70.a ITE Average Trip 6enentien Rat.Iperseat): 431 Tindale Oliver Collier County December 2014 A-21 Transportation Impact Fee Study Collier County 1 Transportation Impact Fee Update Study _ Fast Food Restaurant w/Drive Thru(ITE LUC 934) Location Size(1,00001 Date Totaa 174 Length Trip Gen Rate Time Period Trip Length Percent New VMT Spurn Interviews InteMews Trips Tampa,FL - Mar-86 61 - • 270 • - Kirnley-Nom&Associates Tampa,FL - Mar-86 306 • - • - 85,0 - Kimley-Horn&Associates Pinellas Co,FL 2.20 Aug-89 81 48 502.80 11a•2p 1.70 59.0 56431 Tindale-Oliver&Associates Pinellas Co,R 4.30 Oct-89 456 260 660.40 _1day 2.30 57.0 865.78 T-mdale-Oliver&Associates Tarpon Springs,FL - Oct-89 233 114 - 7a-7p 3.60 49.0 - Tindale-Oliver&Associates Marion Co,FL 1.60 tun-91 60 32 96250 486rs. 0.91 53.3 466.84 Tindale-Oliver&Associates Marion Co,FL 4.00 tun-91 75 46 625.00 48hrs. 1.54 61.3 59001 Tindate-Oliver&Associates Collier Co,11. - Aug-91 66 44 • - 1.91 66.7 - Tindale-Oflver&Associates Collier Co,FL - Aug-91 118 40 - - 1.17 33.9 - • Tindaie-Oliver&Associates Hernando Co,FL 5.43 May.96 136 82 311.83 9a-6p 1.68 60.2 315.27 Tindale-Oliver&Associates Hernando Co,Ft 3.13 May-96 168 82 547,34 9e-6p 1.59 48.8 425.04 Tndale-Oliver&Associates Lake Co,FL 2.20 Apr-01 376 252 934.30 - 2.50 74.6 1742.4.7 Tndale-diver&Associates Lake Co,fL .3.20 Apr-01 171 182 654.90 - 4.10 479 . Tndale-011ver&Associates Lake Co,FL 3.90 Apr-01 188 137 353.70 - 3.30 70.8 82638 Tmdale-Oliver&Associates Pasco Co,FL 2.66 Apr-02 100 46 283.12 9a-6p 5.10 46.0 - Tn dale-Olive r&Associates Pasco Co,FL 2.96 Apr-07 486 164 515.32 9a-6p 2.72 33.7 472.92 "Fir dale-Oliver&Associates Pasco Co,FL 4.42 Apr-02 168 120 759.24 9a-6p 1.89 71.4 1024.99 Tndale-Oliver&Associates Orange Cd,FL &93 - - - 377.00 - - . Orange County Total Size 48.8 13 4,463 Average Trip Length: 2.42 ITS 630 21 Weighted Avmnge7dpLengt 1 205 Blended total 111,8 Weighted Percent New Trip Average' 57.9 34.0 Weighted Average Trip Generation Rate: 530.19 ITE Average Trip Generation Rate: 496,12 Blend of FL Studios and ITE Average Trip Generation Rate: 511.00 Service Station with and w/o Car Wash(ITE LUC 944&946) Location 61ze11,010 sf) Crate Total aTrip length Trip Gen Rate Time Period Trip length Percent New VMT Source Interviews Interviews Trips i Largo,FL 0.6 Nov-89 70 14 - 8,0-5pm 190 23.0 TB:dale-Oliver&Associms Collier County,FL - Aug-91 168 40 - - 101 23.8 Tindale-Oliver&Associates Taal Size 16 1 238 Average Triptengtle 1.46 ITE LX 944(vfp) 48.0 6 Weighted Average Trip Length: 1.90 ITE LUC9461vfp) 120.0 10 Average Trip Length(Coiger): 1.01 Weighted Percent New Trip Average: 23.0 ITE Avenge Trip Generation Rale-per fuel position(LLK 944): 15856 ITE Average Trip Generation Rate-per fuel position(LUC 946): 152.84 Blended ITE Average Trip Generation Rate-per fuel position: 157.33 Self-Service Car Wash(ITE LUC 947) location She(gays) Date Total a rhea length Trip Gen Rate lime Period Trip Length Percent New vMr I source Interviews interviews Trips largo,FL 10 Nov-89 111 84 - Barn-Spur 200 76.0 - I TindaleOliver&Associates Oearwater,FL - Nov-89 177 log - 10arn-5pm 1.30 61,0 - Tind:de Oliver&Associates Collier,FL U Dec-09 304 - 3124 - 250 57.0 - Tindale-OINer&Associates Collier,FL 8 ten-09 186 - 22.75 - 1.96 72.0 - Tyndale-Oliver&Associates Total Size 29 3 778 Average Trip lenttic 191 Total Size(TOR) 19 2 Weigleed AveragfeTr(planatte 471 ITE 5 1 Weighted Percent New Trip Avenge: 67.7 Blended total 24 Weighted Average Trip Geoeratloe Rater 27.09 ITE Average Trip Generation Rate: 109.00 Blend of FL Studies and in Average Trip Generation Rate: 43.94 Dance Studio/Gym(ITE LUC-) Location Sire 1190041) Date Total A Avenge Dally Tdp Gen Rate Time Period Trip Length pveent New VMT Source Interviews Trips Trips CoSIerCo,FL 7,0 May-08 - 212 30.29 - . - • Tndste-011ver&Associates ColllerCo,FL 20.5 May-08 - 352 17.19 ' - • . - Tindak-Oliver&Associates Collier Co.Ft 87 May-00 - 208 23.89 1 - . - - Tndae-Oliver&Associates Total Size 36.2 Average Trip length: n/a Weighed Average Trip Length: n1a Weighted Percent New Trip Average: n/3 Weighted Average Trip Generation Rate: 2133 ITE Average Trip Generation Rate: - Mine(ITE LUC-) Tonnage Totals Assessable I Percant New location Date Trip Gen Rate Time Period Trip Length VMT Source (1800 CY) Interviews Trip Ends Trips Collier Co,FL 7,800 Jan-09 55 108 . . 17.33 98.0 I - Ti r dale-Oliver&Associates Collier Co,FL 33,620 Jun-09 20 36 - - 807 90.0 I - 11rdale-Oliver&Associates Collier Co,St 15,009 tan-09 22 44 - • 14.20 1000 I - TindairOiiver&Associates Total Trip Ends 188 Avenp Trip length: 13.20 WelaRedAvenge Trip length: 1492 Weighted Percent New Trip Average: 96.9 Weighted Average Tdp Generation 6,10: 0.01 ITS Average Trip Generation Rater Tindale Oliver Collier County December 2014 A-22 Transportation Impact Fee Study Collier County I Transportation Impact Fee Update Study Appendix B Cost Component Calculations Collier County I Transportation Impact Fee Update Study Appendix B This appendix presents the detailed calculations for the cost component of the transportation impact fee update. Backup data and assumptions are provided for all cost variables (for county and state roads), including: • Right-of-Way • Construction • Design/CEI • Mitigation • Urban Overpass • Roadway Capacity Right-of-Way The ROW cost reflects the total cost of the acquisitions along a corridor that was necessary to have sufficient cross-section width to widen an existing road or, in the case of new construction, build a new road. County Roadways The ROW cost reflects the total cost of the acquisitions along a corridor that is necessary to have sufficient cross-section width to widen an existing road or, in the case of new construction, build a new road. The Collier County Transportation Engineering Department provided recent ROW cost figures for five local improvements, including three recent acquisitions and two future estimates. Due to significant variation in the cost per lane mile for these projects based on their geographical location, the improvements were grouped into "high" and "low" ROW cost per lane mile designations. The "high" ROW category included improvements along Collier Boulevard, while the "low" ROW projects included sections of Oil Well Road and Santa Barbara Boulevard. To determine a single weighted average cost per lane mile for the impact fee calculation, the "high" and "low" ROW costs were blended based on the ROW designation of all capacity expansion improvements listed in the 2035 Long Range Transportation Plan. Improvements located in rural areas were designated as "low", while improvements in urban or rural transitioning areas were designated as "high". Table B-1 details the specific improvements used to calculate the high and low ROW costs, while Table B-2 details the weighted average Tindale Oliver Collier County December 2014 B-1 Transportation Impact Fee Study Collier County I Transportation Impact Fee Update Study calculation. Additionally, Table B-12 provides the project-by-project ROW designation for all roadway capacity expansion improvements in the LRTP. State Roadways Based on discussions with staff, the ROW cost per lane mile determined for county roads reflects the same costs expected for state roads. Tindale Oliver Collier County December 2014 B-2 Transportation Impact Fee Study T (6 .0 C I� co to Q) Op?� ac�-}i O? 0 N n d N .r-1 00 t0 M U N G 'a L.4 Ni. QO ,1 .,-4 N N N a) li o m • CU C- O U E Cr. G 0 co gg � 00 s � t N C) O M m 0 M .4. OOH m m n O O Ol ^ ^ l0 c v us to t u t!? t/? 1.4 tn. Vim? tIN t I C CO Oa I- C p M C NO QN1 W op O 00 0Q n )1 � LLrI MI vt d O co* Omit • d .�-+ j N Lfl o ' . o a °CC m e � � � �, Y V1 4-• Y Y f6 0 II (O • i 7 7 7 .7, .Y DG M O a tit I C..) U Q Q C .4 d rJ H 0 in 0 LI VS u to CU °? co ril -0 1 3 4 m c o 3 > o v. CO W >> I L r»co 47 C 4J u C ..'3,.. 2. aQ CO OD _ v �- a u es ry O .7 c .a E 3 t11 In I— C m Y N = ~ r a c S O "0 N 0 Q a o H CL oD .o M P. -0 CO E > > o t- 'v, E iii ✓ '^ > v co m m c „i CC d �' > .a = CO 9 U C T T Y y v o H +� N ca w 7 l7 U t 0 . a+ E C W +�+ m o 0 ,n .m-,c E o. � a s ./..9 tea cu d ` °:be Di W 0 — C CC F H- LL b E E s 01-°> _ n V vYi u u n o m v 0 O I- ?3 Y C G.' v CD ° ° ° o o Sao N N cc o E c — v o E , z d c VyM v, .x ro +� C aJ 0 E >PO N a; O — 0 0 O ro m O ui a T fel i 0 a ."° O ,� H w In 73 in a• C C t� N Y w m F O C c .— U D C CU v d te v ha ce 0,5 0 L 4.0 O, >. 0 d > Q U E c U N IN -v 0 - o O ;13 1-3 p `a -- -- 5 's � �u m mo � v � d 011 (0 � _ o •- CO L 4C' =•_. — U y 4 G CU U 1./1 0 u U° i°- Q w N z F= U Collier County I Transportation Impact Fee Update Study Construction County Roadways The construction cost for county roads (urban section design) was based on local projects, costs for projects in other communities in Florida, and discussions with County staff. Based on discussions with County staff, it is anticipated that all of the lane miles that the County will construct in the future will have urban design characteristics. A review of local construction cost data for the past seven years identified approximately 59 lane miles of improvements, including projects along Santa Barbara Blvd, Oil Well Rd, Collier Blvd, and Golden Gate Blvd, with a weighted average cost of $2.0 million (Table B-3). Of these projects, three were bid in 2008 and 2009, while the remaining two were bid or estimated in 2014. These 2014 projects (Collier Blvd from Golden Gate Blvd to Green Blvd and Golden Gate Blvd from Wilson Blvd to Desoto Blvd) have the highest cost per lane mile, which is approximately $4.5 million, while the projects that were built four to five years ago have lower costs. Due to the limited sample of local projects, recent bids from multiple communities throughout the state were also reviewed to increase the sample size of data. This review included approximately 380 lane miles of roadway improvements from 16 counties across Florida, including several projects in FDOT District 1. As shown in Table B-4, the weighted average cost per lane mile for the statewide county road improvements is approximately $2.1 million. When looking at the weighted average cost by year, the data shows that construction costs are steadily increasing in Florida. Taking into account all of the local and statewide data, a cost per lane mile of $2.7 million for county roads was used in the transportation impact fee calculation, as shown in Table 1. This estimate accounts for the higher recent bid costs seen in Collier County, but also reflects the older Collier County bids and bids from other Counties which have not increased as drastically. Historically, Collier County bids have been higher than the statewide average, and a construction cost of$2.7 million per lane mile continues this trend.Table B-4 provides additional detail on the projects reviewed. Following the detailed list of county road improvements in Tables B-3 and B-4, Map B-1 illustrates the location (by county) of the improvements that were reviewed. Figure B-1 Tindale Oliver Collier County December 2014 B-4 Transportation Impact Fee Study Collier County I Transportation Impact Fee Update Study illustrates the trend of county roadway costs in the Tindale Oliver cost database (of which Table B-4 is a subset)and the construction cost per lane mile figures for recent local bids. Tindale Oliver Collier County December 2014 B-5 Transportation Impact Fee Study $ / \ 7 03 § \ § ) 7= � a ƒ % / e ( � $ # - % U2 \ q § / / / ) ƒ§ E ^ ~ r1 2 Col 2 m ) N C / \ $ $ ~ § CO 0 U ® t 0 _ % q ¥ ° §m ] § § ® e @ $ \ � 3 ' J ( k LD ..7 N N/ =q ] 'ti to co C § § e 2 - § 4... ' e R \ \ \ \ \ \ cv I _ 4 § $ _ o / / \ \ \ m u c cu § ch § co 2 G M `1. ) 2 fa t -a N N N N N C ■ § Fa _ § a_ "Ci o $ 0 » 0 > ao ; 1 4+ R ] / E 7 - co ( 0. ct t ° ° { % m # 2 0 ka4 ) } / 2 2 RI Er§ o I [ I ¥ C E CO I ) 3 ( o � . a \ 0 » U _ ) 2 jk � \ \ \ © 2 E / 2 z c ) 0.. f 3.$ 4 7 } 2 . . 9 m \ ( 3 2 1 7 C ! § « ( E + g / 8 , 3 Z. % ƒ \ 3 � � � ° o ;4 } / / / & $ / f \ - ) x, a` m - - ,- 2 a ; • 2 e § •7 \ \ 2 § CO a d . a ) as ) % / 7 ( / 0 Collier County I Transportation Impact Fee Update Study Table 8-4 Statewide Roadway Construction Costs-County Roads 49,3 MIST"ri=1�,.._ ._-T n.'Oa.1034 Il=11r J�E"CTEEr..7p�?'^ .'T'3f31 mOt 0. CF.4011.M 0110 0d Obi 033 066 5156043 f31*,w .Mk �Cw..Y..l6 x Rio W.H.4. d ae 3134 312 ® 610 5105211]8 3.73 Pan MO 1 b ia _ldd Pale o..y Pace Rd 0d 2134 440 SO 3-5]110 S3 ] ®O smeeald..lSlw PA I in IFOF G.pc 10 Pm Pee.. �E2E1�on7®0�� iT t. L�©ow,.r --1311,.o14 Prnsdemnwd 11111171ECIMc1�7®��®0�� ®©s wou.nnw.mw•n I S.0111,1 Ur.. 16x00 11. mE2EEi+s©® IMICE ©s ' I EMIIMII]Q.6..-1...4 NMI am m®o=imminii0oo•TIMMEn' "w'TF' InecciriO20 immETIMIIIIImillollion oo. I IIIIMENImWIMIOIMMIII1 mil®L'F3 wll.baoaN ®111,01 N1MI1 OM.. UxMI. 47, 2001 01d }10 6 la 112 ® 105 $10pe.111 5x438.870 Oa . 3.3.3.10.1 4,.011 On.F4e1w 1101 0d 410 6 us 1.70 53,13.00 5/9040110 Ow .331 t C and, 31.4 ad 0203]84 G 20011 Id 20 1.10 210 0.616 603 316 71171EBIE:. "• e.wo M VIII E,:IEITIMIETIMMmEI! D1oMEE:12=1111111111= ©t .mil ro'oo.. Crr.1■o IE>aMEIMMEIMIII©IM®I3mr©13mm IM■t MIMS:1 E1• w::::.Ey.werr7wrno®©4 .20 513.3 1.3 3x31,3} IPM ®0I.0 .0.11110 0.Pp.. w 001M TOM NJ 1134 NM. 1.01 ® 100 $6246,611 53.301.134 CMd. lded310adera.ld. WOb Pm US. 3010 0d 1b4 Su5.n b„ 1.20 210 511.152 51,3}]115 in.1030 17nian SW 37* . Mb. 1000 0d 3 i IR. OS7 51 525;• $]. 33 II',) EMI2Nhro.1.__ 751.. 77011. .S.v ��L".m®tom©I�03I� re.8...h -...I.bM t".EI w.id w:33.33., lrgillEralltmMITE©l�_____1��IDIF i r:o.rwih IOC �ImE��tml�l©� 33.01.39 �EIt,PPP:1•- 0,53 O.of id 6.60.0 Cpvl ]006 fE�E�Em '®' I©I®'�r�' ' ......1}0 ISO.M Ya.ob Ad abl Wore Rd ... .1 OMII:MIE!=IIMmIIEM■1EAE1 M"..15.11111111111=7 MM•(920..'1 PeS. d Io.d M 6401010 I®ETIME%1IIII• 11E107•©■ESO ',+.630,321 1111.1TEDM 40'- ®716'®11tl<, 16019150, Clan M S_OMM}MIER t"lIEI3fa.3dwe10 nom... Ali'Fyn"7E E13E1ERCS,11�©IElir._7�' a�+t' 11 °,a,50 4.1M.I.deoa1P1.. /V ReW Prey 0700 ®OWCm11wM 0.792 ��®' <,ct. ®Op„tl a Ma11PM1U 1... 0evwwaMa OW 0d Urban 451 ® 3.34 $5366,000 SIAN.° Ou 1313 Mr1PM NW)1410 ... US 12692 0d 1104 Urban l4 SAD $16p04000 53100,000 . 1. old 20113,.td MI UH N finial;60 ad 210 4 Urban L20 4.60 514 1,000 $iMO�fb RnT.T"AMIMM IPalm1...,103d Pebble./ 10.4 mE2Ets31•s!7L7mErl1111NEIMS "t�i't^]R31 sal xb... 1. Ran37.11.17h IV) 4661.110 w1060.our' 133 50 10B FlmwwH hl .11310 1010.03, 104 '®' ®EN®®MENEMIEN ®rrviRd110M IPh 111 4003 Rd t.bmM 3009 qd 3131 1.29 ® 132 f1351.eM 53393.984 Calv4aiMM*WW1 UI) ITS 501} 1009 114 106 LI0 5.10 50 76,393 5x699,331 Cron 10w Rd 43x3].IRS[ U. 2008 Nd 0132 010 ]AO 1.Pot 0x9 81.0.7re)xl: 6Mbe41dxf1 NW C654/ewPnlbry MOO 01 001 ® ]M �� 113.60361] SI.7512.2 ndlaa Pall N w.IaifiM en CO Mm. 2001 N1 *4 Pal IaH..h ' : 6 of Frlbld SmallN St ® :,.... al. N lads, Yawab10 ®�i111a�®' ®� tffiMIO t N . n pEJE1SE�m© � ��=f1 3∎3 7 �Et• .0 =W: 1111' E�a I W.,Re-•a 'ern.Wl Et 7ElT ��r�EERTr7� JE1l?3ttL•f 17]11•∎E13• 1 ,•.:.-.sfti" '^E'1T1.7' =E^.7 Q11®®t67ER�E© ■ =1 wll.6a632 00000"10 900131.M 1011 Shoals, NW 02 210 0 Ulan ISO 5.30 173,3M,60 $.15.330 boaar0 6413334 . 642020.0/510111tH S1111US444, 2010 0. 2b. S. 20. 4.10 $1.1•.r S1 7 I. SIR 00.71(0..0 Mu. 40.1.M.V 6 30w.41e1 MIA MO 0d 204 I 64 303 41/ 56211.312 1,011.101 0101100 1633 M 1013851 lona 100, 1010 Rid 304 5taa2.3 n 3.10 4. 0.6211., $3.054,138 1141a00m 50011 Poo NW 020.211000 1010 Old 0 04 30 2.174 0.16 67100000 0007143 Pd.Pm ]1.431 1•11.1111.01 lM4.0w14 2010 01 1444 50 i.. 57505.313 514 102 Palml..1% 411h51 k,6. LOWwTI1l, 1010 0120 104 4Nn SO 3A0 }1}.413103 M,1*3.0M .1 Meth M s.6f.. x.143013, Mao M4 0104 UMn 200 PIMA. 531,100 1010 each am PI 601060 10 2010 406 WMn SO X00.600 52.357.991 30 •113 Math ® 'M 93000.0 2010 A 104 WMn 30 Ho 5;2923911 aM barb 50 4.13 ;001 n 11135 MOO ,4 701 WMn 4 .,:J 11,001 0 306 S.e Fa.fan 11.0 1020 ,04 104 Uben V0 ]1 f14g43u 52,102.261 ®H 00,10.0103 016 We340Ma Rd X00 W 0131 N1. 2.0 111 A f 7.330165 PAWN. barb[4700630 NcNldson 061 MsmM 2132 01 ]131 UNR >55 510 1153 - ,1 1M lT p YNd.M,. '0._' egad - - II�E E�E?P7i&7EF;iE��irMEEM£373D [.�!f� Ma.eM 5 ■ IIImiESEE immammEF1EEounIEEID4.'7Fm 21 11.44 amp G535>t h toil 0063 25 00010 ®6.ad0m10 1011 ��®®®® 1••, 101}'0.., 42 3 r1Z113:131111111 mum usi S•Eim®©more:1 s 1ExffiID aU .4.x3 Mbd ID L�JL '� ®®��®®'1RE =====... Rd Rd IC I.wblab.d.00. 7'rC++iEfrttl's»E'_'1E1�.Em0Et1EEII1EfEIl=EE�fID fv.______ nosw.3.Phl 3 - 611...4 FEE'.17EM E>L''©EEf31 __ls 110 ' �e� • ••61013..1 3000 2313* 11112MINISM � E EMl7i��RR1Ft��6�0►�rR��F�n� a,alU35Mde�01i 2600 651 EN Md IN�®` ®� 3210„-11111M;-Nil mimic 1611 NNW.M 1,7.534 1Ph 111 60.9,9, PAM 1032 ad Ise ,1....5 $5.164,11 0.1 II Ce.e Rd fmletm an.l)0.10 Per ien U 303 0d 3 04 t'S.i70p57 $1406.311 Wlwb 3,100000 LM 091N1710 x.611.19.7 P.p. 2932 04 4I.. Uri. 070 1 1.61 $3/.331. 11.210.,0 AI.n P. ]W.1..s.t me ..1. 113 P. ,. 1031 lid 113. UM. Ow i 1 1.60 ,611;717 55}11,10 Alm 0x06 f1516511 Fa E0 it11*Rwlh a. 100 2012 ad 0es 3 0164 1.SO 30 ,412x10 51573,1 MMI . 0 Ann 3 nmP01.31.d wiabar, m0E3s ubm mEF.i•��tf*^T�� e0w0 .w.NW42 x» '.Mb04 61.0 U1* 0. 416 LM 7 0.4 521.211.12. 5320. CAW 6.20.0 d 931.01.4 ..2230 0124 104 113. 021 I 212 205.0.111 H+501,0 bawd ®C.. 0■01W le 3,6 nlawvm • . 0600111 101* N/ 002 L 1 2 622 5 .23 u7 S1 4,1.1 lee 00... .0 0 1. EEC .La-P1:32_1•111111Mf= 131313tH EE1an tZRxfaf'71�=t1 Source:Roadway bids from recent impact fee studies throughout Florida as well as recent bids from the Tindale Oliver Cost Database,with Information having been provided by each respective County 3333. _ _._ -_. ._ .. .. ..,...,... Tindale Oliver Collier County December 2014 B-7 Transportation impact Fee Study � ? i c 4,14- n i a O) Li- , 0 u U ra o E c N 0 1 co , a, a, E VI i . _ a y E E _ Cl y E C) cu c c v m E c co _ Cl a c K Y - m Q�I C - E '° CO M C N o r'., E 3 c d0 my Rn• aM ion o0 ., °�° `-° m M C Nv u�; ° vs m a a Cl E m � � m ul a a .0 -o p 0 C 6. N a � rn c O. �L71 �0 IA .B tt ro 0 °O, 'a `= al 0 Al . t a rkir \ , CC a, LIIIa. E 1 3 g rte' II LA N ii aJ �f 4) 00 CO 20 rvepo. --� _ N � N VI m h y �° a Vi tr, a w 0 N d C J M ta lir 3 C V N ,n y y N pp N U O m E co O g . cn C b M fl. O d .0 v _° 00o w N cr' c ti = C m .0 '' a .n �.vi 0 :O O. e• = C V !v u. rl S v■ m U O Q ■ I us C I— • ci- a C . j N v 1 cu i "0 u IC y go C 3 O 'n u a a, GIB o m a; 0 u a 0 ns • _ v — i oN o 3 1 C coo I t O O p L u o 0 1 a N v VI I No c a RI 1 1 - O p f-- I m CO c I O 77 to 1 N 4' c_ 1 `-I O 1 4J 1 0 U a) .1/1 1 N a Oa 1 - ~ E m Q. 1 I O a) 1 1 VI es s ri 71 '0 V1 I NN I .fl c ru 19 — I +,+ O RI 1 al 7. Inn I Co" 00 -1 (0 O 4. 3 O c = To o N c a) U 0 I U ^ `° I-i v `° c cil ms m -CD 70 v L a 0 U O U 01 N u. p CD i. WI t+ c m O L 0 L7 U m u t9 C CO o 'Q 0 00 w L' m IV te) U. n ro w a a) I.. - .fO - QQi o ea C 0 N L r. ea C y' N m Q 0 0 D U N U CU N O N O7 > G. 'fl c U. 0 E v N c.0 d +-' > y 0. N "O u a Q H v d n O CL' U o ° t4 3 Ln c eyC 00 v 5 o 01 L N .O t N m a > C c 0 In O 3 ,, c -o ICO o o 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 o 2 N a- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .n 0 ,_ CO c I— O S 0 0 0 0 O 0 O 0 d' p co N O O O O O O O O O o "- a c� 0 O O O O O O co O O u .E v >. O u1 O u) o in O Ln O in L —1 Cr C U) d C M m N N .--1 i-i �' O !-' ON C L O .n .n .r. .v} .r} v} v} .v} 1/1. ut 3 * 0 j N U O d la I. -a C m U F= 0 Collier County I Transportation Impact Fee Update Study State Roadways As shown in Table B-5, a statewide review of construction cost data for recent state roadway capacity expansion projects identified 58 improvements dating back to 2008. Of these 58 improvements, one project is located in Collier County (SR 84 from E. of Santa Barbara Blvd to W. of Radio Rd), with an additional 18 projects located in District 1. To increase the sample size, the Collier County and other District 1 improvements were combined with an additional 39 projects from throughout the state to determine the roadway cost per lane mile for state roads. Based on a review of these 58 improvements, a weighted average cost of approximately $2.7 million per lane mile was used in the transportation impact fee calculation. Following the detailed list of state road improvements in Table B-5, Map B-2 illustrates the location (by county) of the improvements that were reviewed. Figure B-2 illustrates the trend of state roadway costs in the Tindale Oliver cost database (of which Table B-5 is a subset) and the construction cost per lane mile figures for recent county and state roadway bids in Collier County. As presented, construction costs in Collier County have been consistently below the average of state project costs and the current construction cost estimate for state roadways in Collier County is consistent with this trend. Figures B-3 through B-7 illustrate the recent changes in units costs for earthwork, base, steel, asphalt, and concrete for both District 1 and statewide. Each of these graphs indicates that costs are recovering since the crash in 2009/10, which is consistent with trends observed in the County's construction costs. The average increase for each component in District 1 is indicated below: • Earthwork= approximately a 13%cost increase between 2010 and 2013 • Base = approximately an 11%cost increase between 2010 and 2013 • Asphalt=approximately a 5%cost increase between 2010 and 2013 • Concrete= approximately a 5%cost increase between 2009 and 2013 • Steel =approximately an 11%cost increase between 2009 and 2013 Tindale Oliver Collier County December 2014 B-10 Transportation Impact Fee Study Collier County I Transportation Impact Fee Update Study • Table B-5 Statewide Roadway Construction Costs-State Roads 10a10,. SA83(US 3115 SR 30115981 5 nd el Chocur6,341 3008 84 71e. 0r6.6 2.01 416 511,619,315 12909378 4611sboronph 0530110414 S.6 Balm Rd N.of Gibson.*Rd 21101 Bid 2106 Urban 6.3 26.11 555.702,777 62,109,402 Indian River 305(US 1) 1..60.1.Rd S.of Indian Rivr bend 2008 lid 4106 Urban 1.70 3,40 $14,953062 $4,311,106 Indian Rlwr 9000/0scwla64 We/82 Ave 66610n/C6505 _2008 Old 4606 Urban 215 430 511496.793 54,301580 prangs 5150 bawd Names Rd RneNI1104 2008 814 4146 Urban 161 726 $35519911 54.949.023 Iron 3010 ah6tan0riw) Drops.Mayon Walden Rd 2009 lid 2604 Urban 3.10 4.341 $18003510 52916995 Indian Neer 404050.c4da Bled) W.616.95 W.of 811d Ar55609 2008 Rd 4106 Wt. 3.07 614 57160,557 $1399,705 Sarasota 86391 WoadSI Made Am 2009 lId 4606 Urban 230 - 120 511374,050 $1133487 Sarasota 96301 Walt/re 012030 Rd 1009 Bid 4606 IOM, 1.00 209 51293471 54346,636 Paste 3114166457 barer Rd Ridge Rd 2009 Bid 2604 Urban 224 5.68 512,685077 52259,779 in 10739 1/541(91104604) Sot 01LaC9p04 80e.y 2009 Bid 0006 Wan 2.77 16.62 520663.970 53243/17 Manatee US401 (216 Rd __,c11 675 2009 ad 4146 9064. 4.10 620 521,040000 41515.854 Marlon 5035(20301) '1000000Ofly Una 529'5110447 2009 810 3104 Urban 1.40 2.80 53,536000 51,204,206 MOaml-Dada Perimeter Rd NW 72 Avenue NW 57 Ayem* 0009 Old 2to4 11san 150 3.00 00.3113386 $2,127,761 Polk U527 06.14 CR546 Sot 34 544 2009 910 204 Urban 156 313 74,100569 51,314,125 53nta Rota SR211(Aral. Old) N.of CS(11/R&Idp S.of Commerce Rd 2009 ad 1904 Urban 090 1.96 15621000 52167,860 Sam.Rosa SR 211(Axton Medi Golf 64 S6100$ 2009 814 7 to A Wan 1.78 3.56 59.150583 52570904 St.Wlie SR70 MP 5260 6110.116 2009 414 2144 Urban 436 632 512,426030 51.425002 S umter 10 35 86 301) 4elCR204 Marlon COUm7U. 1009 8. 2404 Urban 131 302 539564/8 $1277049 Washington SR79 6Emaronnm 1114 559tkisnd R4 2009 94 2234 Urban 1.72 3.23 01177,329 0018/6/7 Lake SR30 E. Grand 6.* W.of Hamm*ad 2010 M4 4046 Urban 1.30 2.61 $4,419,533 51903.705 Pd. SR559144.1. 316551P.ker*WI Darer hue 2010 ad 0602 Urban 049 1.18 $2,751192 51993,907 Santa Russ 5A 281 WM9on Ned) A 49-101 S of Mear'l 0060 2010 bid 200 4 Iran 015 1.70 $5,370.226 63169,662 Sum Iles. 58111(AMIolNld) 5.dM Moor*badge /Ltd C49 R/R&idge 2010 ad 2104 Urban 141 296 57445212 $2,413,303 lee 0541 Corkscrew Rd 506 pop MVd 2010 ad 4706 Urban 448 896 $12,152,677 51931,103 Pnl6 US 15 Lot Manor Or 601045406 0010 ad 4ro6 Urban 3.33 6.64 512092.942 51,670459 10 Weis 5870 OkomS.beeCOenty Om MP 1871 2010_ 60 204 Urban 5.17 1174 $10.781430 51,599983 Polk _ US98(artow Awl Oroou1 Edpmad Or 2011 end 406 Urban 0.72 3.44 54561917 51015,220 HIII4berou5b CR39/Naande36 4..014 N.of RN11,961rlf9n 2011 Bid 001 Urban 319 12.76 514,782,852 $1,150,532 P.O. SA in(unrafon69 E.of1166111 W.061erdnd009011. 2011 Bid 406 Urban 150 3.00 016504,929 359596310 Polk SP60(WnNW) W.of US98/Bro0dw,y W C4 1517)5R551( 2011 814 204 Wan 026 1.72 59540,473 55546.767 Lake I 10 SOO(US 441) Moran Wore King.0.Blvd Urb6la Pd 2011 044 406 Urban 3.25 6.90 $16,378985 $2504,444 IUIlabp math 55574(Mall ad) W.of H1 _a E.of Persona Pee 2011 Bid 305 Urban O91 1.82 57.147.510 59,007,203 C0Ber SR44(Dm.IWd7 Ltd San.Sorbs.Ned W.el Radio Id 2013 OA 2046 Urban_ 1.77 7,41 $80931191„ 53247406 951554. 58415 10mlm6e CO.Um Reed this Rd 2012 lid 204 Urban 226 4.53 $71,711637 $4,137,949 097,1, SR415 50.,3611004 0.3 nil06 of Aron lab 2012 Old 2054 Urban 507 1013 511110,043 0915286 Knell.. 03 19(36 551 N.ol CR 576/5unset PM S.of Count9ade Byd 2013 bid 6010 Urban 1.76 704 517,196450 53942,621 M13014200 1853300W 510,Ave 00.201466 W.460 St 2013 Sid 406 Urban 1.411 226 014001161 14,767,149 Hermndo 1650(Cons 819.1 ''US 19)0655) W.of CR 59754aalra Ned 3012 Old 2te6 Urban 602 1204 539,144222 $3,275,090 Orange 5850 E.01 Westo.l.Mill W.ot Good Nona.Rd 3062 ad 406 Urban 0.45 0.90 50.694472 59.660.524 Clay 3923 0.6.1Pl4na9Un Nwy Oldlarmings 2017 BM 002 Urban 314 628 513,231311 12306345 Renbe 5110 31r0bwod Pay 011103 lane 2012 916 2604 Wan 540 3020 612155592 51,299303 H endry 55 BO 1C0030 0677 3011 bad 304 Wan 3.90 520 $g,ll>430 $]399,6 9 We _ 5R739 00920031 Manson SS 2012 BM 09e 6 Wan 1.34 8.01 514470,932 91244.539 2e04.04. 11434 I.1 0.48410.10 1012 ad 406 Urban 1.0 300 010,111133 02,001.704 Palm Inch 51 710/Idlne Hwy W.of Congress Ave W.el***Alan A.e 2012 ad 2 42 4 Urban 024 1.63 512,119,533 57,255.674 Polk 6527 N.01N11011,Rd S.ol Barry Rd 2012 Bid 406 Urban 340 6.40 524,442,011 $2,235,456 Polk 9435(SR 35597M7 N.el 1005400 50540 2011 Old 4106 Urban 3,45 6.90 179404051 52,609,263 Brewrd 9050611 6.01..52 9,06 04.9 Rd 3012 Bid 406 Urban 321 7.60 129,340,534 03122,986 Newrd A 1071115045$1) Melbourne 644 fee/we 2013 Old 2194 Urban 096 1.10 53167,891 54696483 4011960r0186 A 41 053414 5.olTamp 690.84 0.41 6W 14•r me 2019 Old 224 1e6.00b 121 341 519751965 54165,311 lee US4111150. UWILn Rd 51739 2013 lid 204 049.. 1.23 2.46 51988}43 $3.450196 Orange A501Colon301Dr} 1dG425(Dean Rd) 'Ed Old Meow.. 2003 64 4606 Wa0 4.91 922 066201,014 $6,041516 Okeechobee 9370 NE 3415 Rye 40619 A. 2014 914 204 Wbon 5.00 , 720 323.707965 54,492.640 14ar4n CA7945.04..51 T.10144 ran Komi Mad W.d0MPO Rd 2014 Bid 204 Urban 1.117 9.74 514533957 $3903571 Brainerd 107 6d Ha8md0leed 50309611109'0506 1014 Bid 4606 Urban 1.79 837 510579214 51532365 610,Ord Andra*Ave ht. Pompano Part Place 5.of Atlantic O* 2011 hid 204 Urban 036 0.77 53,177930 14.413236 Cnarl0M 154151457 Entsple•Dr Swam.county tine ( 2814 ad 406 Urban 3602 724 131,131076 $4399964 TaY 326.64 0181.772,634 $1.737,490 Source:FOOT ecently-bld projects by transportation district,available at www.dot,state.N.us/.See Map 5-2. Tindale Oliver Collier County December 2014 13-11 Transportation Impact Fee Study I ' ' c = o m L ar ai LL L V UQ co E c TA- N 2 d a7 ++ m CU a, E a, E a a, i v 01 w as at O ^ E E m t m U c a£i E fl C of E U , 43 C ra .d M y N 'tom. m ma/ n3 "D i 61 E ODD co a N V co CO M N N p ,9 m is ti 2 N y N N C ao r` N C N d O. m 00' .E t .E- 0 CI L CP, m CO N - ..n a N cu O m .N m Echo O � ;a a " N C O m N N y L E 3 H "+ 'D N ' 1p CI. w > v -o .c E0 > T to ri d M t!1 to a"O ^' a cv tO `\ O ti p cc B al R.4 --------9111— ;PA' ... L a 441 =E'E E 1.7 atifs.N 1 m m U 'i Id a N CL N E ; _ � 41 E « m -1 a a a m v ar N Ti to .a ` = m al ` Nd �'� h a°, O m E v ^ v C N d 'E a7 9 H0 e y ' a u `- I ro d to °1 a �o 9 a H era c E a+ 3 0 '^ E °—' a o et 'O p o f -0 m v_' N c t y _ £ a • CL 00 0 LL C v W a O ! d M C m M CU CU O M - d d N . N W W M N 0 L { Ei 7!V a N vi = C al h u t _p E a m N ° 1/1y d a y N ...... e E V u J O o o m ° �; Tv m m ti x 'i Ip ea 3 ,:r Co `I I 44 0.w y � a ■ O .c i q N , C ! 1.- 4-1 O 3 a j N a. W p ro • li _o u d O c a V t R. 0 f = 0 tan a) ± U k 'a 2 E \�|.| • o /§ I/ 1 N | \ 7 1 - t . _ VI \ \ - / « \ J - » Ili ■| 5 \ 2 ! @ k � I _ $ 14 in cu < 0 I, I � + m © I 0 \ 2 U | - >. C I I 00 + / ; _ N , c 4-, / k k I • CO C 8 8 , ( m . O. • / .0 f§ a a � .6' § | \ a c | ' ; -a § . G ƒ t \ JT1 W i o 0 0 § 0 0 0 0 E 0 E R 0 0 ® / k ƒ k k 0 = 3 g % \ Cr) 2 j \ N 2 � 2 " k % Q / 3 Collier County Transportation Impact Fee Update Study Figure B-3 FDOT Earthwork Cost Trend $14.00 Statewide $12.00 – +10111+MbDistrict 1 u $10.00 d a. u $8.00 _ ao $6.00 re y,. $4.00 $2.00 - $0.00 , i r —T r 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Source:Cost Trends by Fiscal Year for Major Pay Item Groups,July 2004–August 2013;State Specification&Estimates Office Figure B-4 FDOT Base Cost Trend $25.00 Statewide >- $20.00 - +District 1 - v) aa, $15.00 — u $10.00 - – — L 4 $5.00 -- $0.00 r r r r— r r 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Source:Cost Trends by Fiscal Year for Major Pay Item Groups,July 2004–August 2013;State Specification& Estimates Office Tindale Oliver Collier County December 2014 B-14 Transportation Impact Fee Study Collier County ( Transportation Impact Fee Update Study Figure B-5 FDOT Asphalt Cost Trend $140.00 - - $120.00 - - -- z ` $100.00 Z15 a u $80.00 OD $60.00 CO $40.00 Statewide $20.00 District 1 _. $0.00 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Source:Cost Trends by Fiscal Year for Major Pay Item Groups,July 2004-August 2013;State Specification&Estimates Office Figure B-6 FDOT Structural Concrete Cost Trend $1,400.00 - $ 6 -- — a u $800.00 m • $600.00 CO > $400.00 - a Statewide $200.00 411mrDistrict 1 $0.00 ■ r r 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Source:Cost Trends by Fiscal Year for Major Pay Item Groups,July 2004-August 2013;State Specification&Estimates Office Tindale Oliver Collier County December 2014 B-15 Transportation Impact Fee Study Collier County I Transportation Impact Fee Update Study Figure B-7 FDOT Reinforcing Steel Cost Trend $1.20 $1.00 `K1 $0.80 $0.60 — - — a oa $0.40 Statewide $0.20 --- — ...a•District 1 $0.00 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Source:Cost Trends by Fiscal Year for Major Pay Item Groups,July 2004—August 2013;State Specification&Estimates Office Design/CEI County Roadways The design/CEI cost factors for county roads were determined based on a review of recent roadway capacity expansion projects in Collier County. A total of 11 projects completed or bid since 2006 were evaluated. The design and CEI cost figures for each project were calculated as a percentage of the total construction cost for each respective project to determine both a design and CEI percentage-of-construction factor. As shown in Table B-6, these factors ranged between 4.5 and 20.1 percent, with design averaging 9 percent and CEI averaging 11 percent. A review of recent transportation impact fee studies completed throughout Florida indicated that design and CEI are typically assessed at 10 percent of construction each. Based on the variation of the local data, the average of the local data, and the statewide average, it was determined that design and CEI should each be assessed at 10 percent of the construction cost of county roads for impact fee purposes. State Roadways For state roads, because estimates from the FDOT District 1 were not available, the FDOT District 7 Long Range Estimates were evaluated, which calculated design and CEI at 15 percent of construction each. Based on discussions with staff, and a review of recent transportation impact fee studies completed throughout Florida, design and CEI for state roads was estimated at 10 percent of construction costs. Tindale Oliver Collier County December 2014 B-16 Transportation Impact Fee Study g a r a 4 ;41 .� ed .'s. i°v F-5. °' .M S d u u LL u X m ggo gg* g4 U L co 0 ° n °i CO at na r P O CO E 4-1 C C O C u ti O N N N N N N i n N N N F- -3 V =� .fi us ot an on an an an(it n?.! 4 'N '.I.t p en , 03 C f� 0, .. 40 T 4DN an an u1 .a'� - N ;vi v ° O N Gl O .] CO n4 V 2 U ptN N n f i N N N N U n n u .. N e N 'y b 0 m U C J d W . r O N an n An N N N an N N N N V 8 a E gd * ii?g8M y tn.(to N�A Nan an H in N• N . S 8 R 4 8 2 8 W Q 8 c : : : : :::: : :: 0 3 a V I Y88A88PA'. gE�1 m nS 44 ni d � : � e c J r~y e m m u ® m = c c c fl c c=2 2 I _ .p� a .n.2EE-2 -2 a a W U L b N 0 'O 10\'0 'O a CO C R r $ w ° a0 0 0 0 w m .° a n Na o " rat ■.0 c c t4 OD O T v I n I M N I N.°v A a , m > 4.7 V v 2 E E 3 o M A i i m w y 7 ,n 2 m v v Y° »- n > — 3 m° . c n m m 8 F 5 o m t Y 41 4n A `O Q d 0 N .s d b d SI V 8 8 8 8 W 3 '.5 n e° H E. v E E c 7 o LL W to a e v J y y s a 0 y a i m c ur FO .E g E2 ° a= ° 3 _a o e� m all w 46. in C ° E � Eo o 2 a 9 0 A T ff. ry y 1- 6 y U W W C C d ° .B 2.- E-•a a y um a d N_ C r U a d o C H c v y� S A A v V d t?i c •Q 13 ` ` - a v 4 m S w o u O d 1 o v m q 3 a 8 E m 3 3 u ml P v 2.�° 3 F r8 ° � so� � �lS ,° � P8 Collier County I Transportation Impact Fee Update Study Mitigation County Roadways Mitigation cost estimates were developed based on cost data received for six recent projects in the County: • Santa Barbara Blvd Extension (from Rattlesnake Hammock Rd to Davis Blvd) • Oil Well Rd Seg. 2 (from Immokalee Rd to Everglades Blvd) • Oil Well Rd Seg. 4(from Oil Well Grade Rd to W. of Camp Keais Rd) • Collier Blvd (from Golden Gate Blvd to Green Blvd) • Golden Gate Blvd (from Wilson Blvd to Desoto Blvd) • Collier/Davis Intersections(from E. of Radio Rd to Collier Blvd, SR-84, Davis Blvd) Both Oil Well Road segments are located in the Panther Consultation Area (PCA), which, on average, tend to have higher costs than non-PCA mitigation. As shown in Table B-7, a weighted average cost per lane mile was developed for PCA mitigation and non-PCA mitigation from the five recent mitigation projects. To develop a weighted average mitigation cost for all county roads, regardless of location, the PCS and non-PCA costs were weighted by the distribution of lane miles from cost feasible and needs plan projected in the LRTP that are located within the PCA or outside of the PCA, as shown in Table B-8. Based on the six mitigation projects and the weighting analysis, an average cost of approximately $74,000 per lane mile was used in the transportation impact fee calculation for county roads, which is a decrease from the estimate used in 2010. Map B-3 illustrates the Panther Consultation Area boundaries in Collier County. State Roadways Due to a lack of mitigation cost data along state roadways, it was assumed that the mitigation cost for state facilities is the same as the costs for county facilities. Discussions with staff confirmed that these assumptions were appropriate for planning level mitigation estimates. Tindale Oliver Collier County December 2014 B-18 Transportation Impact Fee Study > > o a " C C tD m h � b ti o r q O N; a co .d Lc .I Ln w ao � no a — V} tn.N iR N tn.N CU LL r 4- 5 IS u U t° !Z N v g m 2 W a o's 6 ui Gi _E C C C O r3 3 E t`o t $ o n n n v N V r dt d IN in Tr fJ tr1 Cr N a y a Q O O Gpp' tZ el d J U U U C co co al 071 C 0NO N W N m � y d Q do 0�0 8 II �- ~ O N' po m 00 I� 00 > O O > M ' - C. ' L a,•�• " ▪ i* u� `— to MI — c c t OA a) Ln v d y CC y C V tD V N N N N M �' a) J C C •+ O. N a a C +• Z lD O0 p e G1 C .T. o Z U c c m to c Lc, `•-i.). lD 0 w (o o V) .. 0 0 0 0 0 0 I o N co- IA 13 r,fJ O " N N tC C tp i' cu i/} i/} rp d t9 . N O 00 410. — 00 0- cc cc c E o a u U m O °° ` co oO U d _a 0r O N _U m H v - CO CO - C 47 -1 0 W V O 'a ri CU N s O. aJ al c\ J] .,. r J] Q C 7 ±' t a • — 0 > u t9 M 9 OF 'bD Ln H C 65 14 Ea;— > > 0 I - 2 — 3 C v E > _ O m �? O cu v co m m u o v O w l7 U Y t0 il▪l y C a U y f - 0 at 2 c c t9 O E +-I W C▪O '73 o CO E O cu co +t E Cli O a D CO L Q al O 5 dr N �• .-I t\ N v "0 cu E E v v'3 'a > a c ram , E LL = a m v a' 4 t— �' O N ar a�- d y ¢ 40 rn .r.' 7 U d -_,53E .]:=, t Si v 0 A > o s sDO p N m Cli N Y m • o• @ U U ate-. "0 Oi 0 is Q. m o3 ' on' or0c � •o i� 3 •u; C 0.0 MI a, t a t o 0 CO u O o v C O tv to to + a, 13 C Y ro n. Z 3 N m CO C CO N a W C c O io 0 C N to a > m hE� �'' > m co N C 'C m or v ac E re ,_ to a^ L° �la U y a F- vt L 1.. ezccm � 0 c c m v v o 0 ri C S° 3 u ta° °u ° ` v a, a 0 O '' U � •L tj 0 L z — E W c - tu Z > Y Z Z Z , v -' m V E a) v cc u Ot1 C O O C CU U vi Z F O sI, • /z ' " a o \ \\::::N; ., C L.: :\•,, .ti 4\ \ . \ \\,, \\\ \ a;. IIN '-' :::-• I:'`' . \ \, N C p � \ r to i4 7 \ l\ ,;:, , ,,, • \\ LJJ „ V , .I_. t \\ 1,.... ' •! ' ,..00, a ' ry: t� . II": e.1500/1ji. Fri. T. V. r a. m a w -y4Y u a E A C 01 g N "is O 73 U Q A r o a a r a gdig R $ PJ - O r: EJ LJO 4 0 N O 6 E v $ u° if 8 Collier County I Transportation Impact Fee Update Study Urban Overpass County Roadways The urban overpass cost estimate was developed based on four planned improvements in the LRTP Cost Feasible Plan. The total estimated project cost for these improvements is approximately $175.3 million. This total was then divided by the total lane miles in the 2035 Long Range Transportation Plan Cost Feasible and Needs Plan to develop an urban overpass cost per lane mile. As shown in Table B-9, the urban overpass cost is approximately $390,000 per lane mile for county roads, which is a decrease from the last study. State Roadways Due to a lack of urban overpass cost data along state roadways, it was assumed that the urban overpass cost for state facilities is the same as the costs for county facilities. Discussions with staff confirmed that these assumptions were appropriate for planning level urban overpass estimates. Table B-9 Urban Overpass Costs—County Roads Urban Overpass Status Cost(1) Immokalee Rd&Randall Blvd Cost Feasible Plan;2026-2030 $54,000,000 1-75 @ SR 951 PD&E Phase $49,350,000 US 41(SR 90)Tamiami Tr East Unfunded $35,957,477 @ Collier Blvd (CR 951) lmmokalee Rd&Collier Blvd Unfunded $35,957,477 Total Urban Overpass Cost $175,264,954 Total 2035 LRTP Cost Feasible/Needs Plan Lane Miles Added(2) 449.20 Total Urban Overpass Cost Per Lane Mile{31 $390,000 (1) Source:Collier County LRTP Cost Feasible Plan&Collier County Staff (2) Source:Table B-12 (3) Total urban overpass cost divided by the LRTP lane miles added(Item 2),rounded to thousands Tindale Oliver Collier County December 2014 B-21 Transportation Impact Fee Study Collier County I Transportation Impact Fee Update Study Roadway Capacity Tables B-12 through B-14 present the Collier County 2035 Long Range Transportation Plan projects and accompanying summaries used in the cost component calculations. Tindale Oliver Collier County December 2014 B-22 Transportation Impact Fee Study z4- MWAW4WiVilMM5 § §Ul- m Ogig ry °..g$ Fj r%".-I5 g8i g ag g g .$ n i^ui n .a '.+.t.4 8 m .o m e v a d i u Q d - vi U V m "S�RIf+ "M°: ""°I �N e 0 iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii g""!"'""'" Mil iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii O $ 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O N 0 m O �o m m m fi `.� ry `a nr� `a $88R4. 8. 5i r ° 8 c a iwiwii:iiiiiiiiiiiiiii 4 "° o d -- - " ii 1111111U11U N N N= C N V N N N N n N N n'. 00000000000000000000000000 m g 8� 8 o g8 $ o 0 8 1� J eN "I tD N N O eV !`� (`I (V 0 �il t a� a 3 ` :i:i:i::::::i :: 3 3 3 3 m m m Leo 3 3 m yq m m'Lao N o c • o 9 9 4 s 3 Y = 9 9 x x x Y x c z E. A x ii E N O i r iii¢ m¢ ¢ a ° ° c c z. U Y LL 5 E s o $i g i N o d 1115 i i 1 E e a m i E - a c g c a u 1 V a N ,, E C a a>a u O t L a y o 8 1 t.t a4a z4- 3 > > > > = � a > t g a yazaa ° k U V V 8 U U 8 8 V 3 u U V U 3 U N U V U U pU V V u V V V 8 8 U p — F, IS ? M a := 11 u 23i td! > � g � 5� 5� 5� 5� g q g o a ✓Nc;WMRM `ee2pE3rY� A5 5y r.g.VIpgpa`f U §vvmff '�'mgr'X F" ISS § MHMy� u E V .-I N m p 'A C N N N O 4 n .wit ei N N N N .1 iV M n O O Q u jq �RQvo � S� y5�� QR pRrvgn4S $$ R � 8. r; b� Z6265SK :i 3mm .-imoi lii.�i m m c 5 g. m a, .�n M m m v.'°. m n 1 n m m m N N - 3 rt a _ l .0 00 $o'O 8 8 Q Q g 0 0 o g 0 0 0 0 0 0 m m 0 0 0 g e KK KK bn Ptea o % ^ J + a mm 5. A v 88 88 & 588888 ° 88888. N88888. 8g2 4 $ 3888 4S8 a de .VaN 4ti4600dN :4rid0io g *4 IgM 2 a � n , :77 .A Y Q e c a 3 3 gg vg W C4 6 6 d 8 b N d V .O N N N N N ry O N N e N N N V N N . ry a N N C 21 ;0 3 m o o 5 = _ pps N .0 Z y > Y t 588 °2 °5885m $ 8888g ° Si888 ° 8 = " g SI 2 O a .+ tJ .-i ry OI d N N m vi '7 .-i N vi d d O m n �O U O U of• - 2 z - } } } } } } Z 2 Y } } 5- Z25- } Z Z Z > } } Z O C 8 P y° • 0 C. m m-2,-E 3 3 m m m 3 3 3 3 m 3 3 m _ _ �o eo m1. m m m a ¢ m Y .3 'xfi99f 'x = 5 _°. ° ° ti's29 '.2i = xxxx t g m a, ° C C C E N W .D (0 N p O v V 4 v N N ( N N N a N N m a 4 N N 3 m tYz 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a G C 0 N N O O N N N N N O O O ry O 0 0 0 0 0 N N 0 0 0 N E m m M , . GI 0 71 N H 2. 2 9 6 3 z 5as D "g28 ,.0.723-. t0 d W 2 S o S_w Q d L° O % a O qq w C O a O 2 .W Y Y Y 2 ? Y ~>o Y 0 8 j a = C U C E v°, `c c E £ 2 3 °n1 g :2 -2 =1; g15., ...-6 !.^. 2..-6 M i-. z° j� 33„ if. E Vi .. ELL =S EY3MEm3 I o N S t a r _ c F j a a P. Fa C c 0 C V G O L a S n 4. Y E .°`. m ¢E ¢ 2 L 3 4.7 %LU m u 0 Y L C m Y Y m° aa aG VI LLm m V _K Y N Y Q Y— Y « e ` m 3 E oj ° °' m c y o a, o E ra ° E mo c°a . 26R E°. .5 >° 3 u2i H E 'S x , c 3mo s u '6 z S O Ya m ,Na a ! a a a a a a a a tp a V r m a a a m m m E Oc — rvM , 41' e $ o _ uu p ag . N ,�5, ,,AMfAAcAH5,, r 333 'C I o 9 ti j g >>c c' « 3 .L° N.L° :: «' Z pc c c c < ¢°° pu°1 T. ~ a U U U U U " N' .A N N U U U U U U U U U U U a S S & y -,118 Collier County I Transportation Impact Fee Update Study Table B-11 Collier County 2035 LRTP—ROW Designation Summary ROW Lane Miles Percentage Jurisdiction Designation Added of Total Low 124.40 40% County High 189.40 60% Total 313.80 100% Low 86.80 64% State High 48.60 36% Total 135.40 100% Total Low 211.20 47% (a) High 238.00 53% (b) Total(All Roads) 449.20 100% Source:Summary ROW Designation(Item 1)at the bottom of Table B-10 Note:Letter references(i.e.,"a")are used to assist with footnotes and sourcing Table B-12 Collier County 2035 LRTP—Mitigation Designation Summary PCA/ Lane Miles Percentage Jurisdiction Non-PCA Added of Total PCA 195.00 62% County Non-PCA 118.80 38% Total 313.80 100% PCA 105.60 78% State Non-PCA 29.80 22% Total 135.40 100% Total PCA 300.60 67% (a) Non-PCA 148.60 33% (b) Total(All Roads) 449.20 100% Source:Summary of Panther Consultation Area(Item 2)at the bottom of Table B-10 Note: Letter references(i.e.,"a")are used to assist with footnotes and sourcing Tindale Oliver Collier County December 2014 B-25 Transportation Impact Fee Study Collier County I Transportation Impact Fee Update Study Appendix C Credit Component Calculations Collier County I Transportation Impact Fee Update Study Appendix C This appendix presents the detailed calculations for the credit component. Currently, in addition to the capital support that ultimately results from State fuel tax revenues, Collier County also receives financial benefit from several other funding sources. Of these, County fuel taxes that are collected in Collier County are listed below, along with a few pertinent characteristics of each. 1. Constitutional Fuel Tax(2C/gallon) • Tax applies to every net gallon of motor and diesel fuel sold within a county. Collected in accordance with Article XII, Section 9 (c) of the Florida Constitution. • The State allocated 80 percent of this tax to Counties after first withholding amounts pledged for debt service on bonds issued pursuant to provisions of the State Constitution for road and bridge purposes. • The 20 percent surplus can be used to support the road construction program within the county. • Counties are not required to share the proceeds of this tax with their municipalities. 2. County Fuel Tax(1C/gallon) • Tax applies to every net gallon of motor and diesel fuel sold within a county. • Primary purpose of these funds is to help reduce a County's reliance on ad valorem taxes. • Proceeds are to be used for transportation-related expenses, including the reduction of bond indebtedness incurred for transportation purposes. Authorized uses include acquisition of rights-of-way; the construction, reconstruction, operation, maintenance, and repair of transportation facilities, roads, bridges, bicycle paths, and pedestrian pathways; or the reduction of bond indebtedness incurred for transportation purposes. • Counties are not required to share the proceeds of this tax with their municipalities. 3. Ninth-Cent Fuel Tax(1C/gallon) • Tax on every net gallon of motor fuel sold within a county. • Proceeds may be used to fund transportation expenditures. • To accommodate statewide equalization, this tax is automatically levied on diesel fuel in every county, regardless of whether a county is levying the tax on motor fuel at all. Tin dale Oliver Collier County December 2014 C-1 Transportation Impact Fee Study Collier County I Transportation Impact Fee Update Study • Counties are not required to share the proceeds of this tax with their municipalities. 4, 1st Local Option Tax(up to 6C/gallon) • Tax applies to every net gallon of motor and diesel fuel sold within a county. • Proceeds may be used to fund transportation expenditures. • To accommodate statewide equalization, all six cents are automatically levied on diesel fuel in every county, regardless of whether a County is levying the tax on motor fuel at all or at the maximum rate. • Proceeds are distributed to a county and its municipalities according to a mutually agreed upon distribution ratio, or by using a formula contained in the Florida Statutes. 5. 2"d Local Option Tax(up to 5C/gallon) • Tax applies to every net gallon of motor and diesel fuel sold within a county. • Proceeds may be used to fund transportation expenditures needed to meet requirements of the capital improvements element of an adopted Local Government Comprehensive Plan. • Proceeds are distributed to a county and its municipalities according to a mutually agreed upon distribution scheme, or by using a formula contained in the Florida Statutes. Each year, the Florida Legislature's Office of Economic and Demographic Research (EDR) produces the Local Government Financial Information Handbook, which details the estimated local government revenues for the upcoming fiscal year. Included in this document are the estimated distributions of the various fuel tax revenues for each county in the state. The 2012-13 data represent projected fuel tax distributions to Collier County for the upcoming fiscal year. In the table, the fuel tax revenue data are used to calculate the value per penny (per gallon of fuel) that should be used to estimate the "equivalent pennies" of other revenue sources. Table C-1 shows the distribution per penny for each of the fuel levies, and then the calculation of the weighted average for the value of a penny of fuel tax. The weighting procedure takes into account the differing amount of revenues generated for the various types of gas tax revenues. The weighted average figure of approximately $1.38 million estimates the annual revenue that one penny of gas tax generates in Collier County. Tindale Oliver Collier County December 2014 C-2 Transportation Impact Fee Study Collier County I Transportation Impact Fee Update Study Table C-1 Estimated Fuel Tax Distribution Allocated to Capital Programs for Collier County& Municipalities, FY 2012-13(1) Amount of Levy Total Distribution Per Tax per Gallon Distribution Penny Constitutional Fuel Tax $0.02 $3,937,580 $1,968,790 County Fuel Tax $0.01 $1,722,147 $1,722,147 1st Local Option (1-6 cents) $0.06 $7,787,693 $1,297,949 2nd Local Option(1-5 cents) $0.05 $5,941,620 $1,188,324 Ninth-Cent Fuel Tax $0.01 $1,384,624 $1,384,624 Total $0.15 $20,773,664 Weighted Average(�) $1,384,911 (1) Source: Florida Legislature's Office of Economic and Demographic Research, http://edr.state.fl.us/content/local-ROVern ment/reports/ (2) The weighted average distribution per penny is calculated by taking the sum of the total distribution and dividing that value by the sum of the total levies per gallon(multiplied by 100) Gas Tax Credit A revenue credit for the annual gas tax equivalent expenditures on roadway capacity expansion projects in Collier County is presented below. The two components of the credit are as follows: • County gas tax equivalent pennies • State gas tax expenditures County Gas Tax Equivalent Pennies A review of the County's FY 2013-2017 Annual Update and Inventory Report (AUIR) Transportation Work Program indicates that a combination of gas tax revenues, impact fees, and grants are used to fund roadway capacity expansion projects. As shown in Table C-2, Collier County receives a credit of 3.0 pennies for the portion of non-impact fee revenues dedicated to capacity expansion projects such as new road construction, lane additions, and intersection improvements. The gas tax credit in Table C-2 does not include the portion of gas tax revenues being used to repay the debt service. Tindale Oliver Collier County December 2014 C-3 Transportation Impact Fee Study Collier County I Transportation Impact Fee Update Study Table C-2 County Gas Tax Equivalent Pennies Number of Revenue Equivalent Source Cost of Projects from 1 Years penny�3� Pennies{'” Grant Revenues(1) $37,049,000 5 $1,384,911 $0.054 Gas Tax Revenues(2) $3,835,000 5 $1,384,911 $0.006 Total $40,884,000 10 $1,384,911 $0.030 (1) Source:Table C-5 (2) Source:Table C-5 (3) Source:Table C-1 (4) Cost of projects divided by number of years divided by revenue from 1 penny(Item 3)divided by 100 As previously mentioned, the County is currently using gas tax revenues to retire debt on the Series 2005 and the Series 2012 Gas Tax Bond Issues that are being used to fund capacity expansion improvements. As shown in Table C-3, a credit of 10.8 pennies is given for outstanding debt service in Collier County. Table C-3 County Gas Tax Equivalent Pennies for Debt Service Revenue Source Total Payment Number of from 1 Equivalent Remaining Years Pennei Pennies(4) Gas Tax Bond Issue,Series,2005(1) $123,376,100 12 $1,384,911 $0.074 Gas Tax Bond Issue,Series,2012(2) 47 200 400 10 $1,384,911 $0.034 Total $170,576,500 - $1,384,911 $0.106 (1) Source:Table C-6 (2) Source:Table C-7 (3) Source:Table C-1 (4) Sum of equivalent pennies(Item 4)for each bond issue State Gas Tax Expenditures In the calculation of the equivalent pennies of gas tax from the State, expenditures on roadway capacity expansion spanning a 16-year period (from FY 2004 to FY 2019) were reviewed. For calculation purposes, the 16-year period was broken into three increments; two historical (FY 2004-2009 and FY 2010-2014) and one future (FY 2015-2019). Information on historical projects'funding and the future year estimates was obtained from the FDOT Work Programs and the County's FY 2015-2019 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). The use of a 16-year period, for purposes of developing a State credit for roadway capacity expansion projects, results in a stable credit, as it accounts for the volatility in FDOT spending in the county over short periods of time. Tindale Oliver Collier County December 2014 C-4 Transportation Impact Fee Study Collier County I Transportation Impact Fee Update Study The total cost of the capacity-adding projects for the five-year "historical" periods and projected in the five-year Transportation Improvement Program are as follows: • FY 2004-2009 work plan equates to 0.8 pennies • FY 2010-2014 work plan equates to 17.2 pennies • FY 2015-2019 TIP equates to 7.4 pennies The combined weighted average over the 16-year period of state expenditure for capacity- adding roadway projects results in a total of 10.7 equivalent pennies. Table C-4 documents this calculation. The specific projects that were used in the equivalent penny calculations are summarized in Table C-9. Table C-4 Equivalent Penny Calculation for State Portion Revenue Number of froml Equivalent Source Cost of Projects Years Penny(4) Pennies(s) Projected TIP(FY 2015-2019)(1) $51,342,420 5 $1,384,911 $0.074 Historical Work Program(FY 2010-2014)(2) $119,296,602 5 $1,384,911 $0.172 Historical Work Program(FY 2004-2009)'3) 66 700 265 6 $1,384,911 $0.080 Total $237,339,287 16 $1,384,911 $0.107 (1) Source:Table C-9,total cost of expansion projects (2) Source:Table C-9,total cost of expansion projects (3) Source:Table C-9,total cost of expansion projects (4) Source:Table C-1 (5) Cost of projects divided by number of years divided by revenue from 1 penny(Item 4)divided by 100 Tindale Oliver Collier County December 2014 C-5 Transportation Impact Fee Study Collier County I Transportation Impact Fee Update Study Table C-5 FY 2013—FY 2017 5-Year Work Program(AUIR) Roadway Capacity Expansion Expenditures FY 2013-2017 Work Program Expenditures and Revenue Expenditures and Sources I Revenues«! Work Program Expenditures Total -Capacity Expansion Projects $68,990,000 Revenues available to fund capacity expansion(new projects) -Impact Fees(including interest) $28,106,000 -Grant Funds $37,049,000 -Gas Tax(including interest) $93,812,000 Total $158,967,000 Revenues used to fund capacity expansion(new projects) -Impact Fees(including interest) $28,106,000 -Grant Funds(used to fund capacity expansion projects) $37,049,000 (a) -Gas Tax(used to fund capacity expansion) $3,835,000 (b) -Gas Tax(used to fund debt service)(2) $70,879,561 Total $139,869,561 Remaining revenues available to fund capitalized maintenance -Impact Fees $0 -Grant Funds $0 -Gas Tax 19 097 439 Total $19,097,439 (1) Source: FY 2013-2017 5-Year Work Program(tied to FY 2013 Adopted Budget) (2) Source:Appendix C,Table C-8 Note:Letter references(i.e.,"a")are used to assist with footnotes and sourcing Tindale Oliver Collier County December 2014 C-6 Transportation Impact Fee Study Collier County I Tra Impact Fee Update Study Table C-6 Debt Service—Gas Tax Bond Issues,Series 2005 Total Debt Year Principal Interest Service FY 2014 $1,690,800 $4,344613 $6,034613 FY 2015 $1,770.000 $4260,113 $6,030,113 FY 2016 $6,100,000 $4171613 $10'271,613 FY 2017 $6,400,000 $3,866613 $10\266'613 FY 2018 $6,725,000 $3,546,613 $10,271'613 FY 2019 $7,060,000 $3,210,363 $10\270'363 FY 2020 $7'410\000 $2.857,363 $10,267\363 FY 2021 $7,780'000 $2,486,863 $10'266863 FY 2022 $8,170'000 $2,097\863 $10'267,853 FY 2023 $8,500,000 $1,689363 $10\269,363 FY 2024 $13'320,000 $1,260'363 $14`580.363 FY 2025 $1I985.000 $594'363 $14`579\363 Total $88,990,000 $34,386,200 $133,376,100 Payments Remaining 12 Annual Average Payment $10'281,342 Source:Appendix C,Table C-8 Table C-7 Debt Service—Gas Tax Bond Issues,Series 2005 i Total Debt Year Principal Interest Service FY2014 $6350,000 $1'759,150 $8109,150 FY 2015 $6,605'080 $1,505'150 $8,110,150 FY 2016 $I.700,000 $1,174,900 $3'874900 FY 2017 $2,835,000 $1'039\900 $3'874,900 FY 2018 $2.970,000 $898,150 $3,868'150 FY 2019 $3'120,000 $749,650 $3,869,650 FY 2020 $3,280,000 $593,650 $3,873,650 [ FY 2021 $3445UOU $429,650 $3,874,650 ' ' ' ~ ' FY2O22 $3,615,000 $257,400 $3,872400 FY 2023 $3'760000 $112'800 $3'872'800 Total $38,680,000 $8,520'400 $47,200,400 Payments Remaining 10 Annual Average Payment $4,720,040 Source:Appendix C,Table C-S _ ___-�- -____ __'-__..~__-_ _ -_~�-`_-_-----_-___~~-�___�' _____ __- _ Tindale Oliver Collier County December 2014 C-7 Transportation Impact Fee Study > > 03 pp M 2 N 2 2 M NN 2 N N H N g > -Fa 6 w N - N d dN p L r us t.4 n8 i -1 M (1 O QI 2 b g T 5 4. H r p a N H vl p n R n t N 44 N N N N 14 N N N N N N N E N p •O 11QpI 0 ry ry IM C ra IN t d ' N N N N N 8 N N N 188.1 8 N ~ p M LL > LL LL LL LL > LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL a U. p 14444444444444w444 ,04444444444_ _ o eC N y� LL r 140262244442284: 224426252V COr .°S N 1 a ti a O ' � e N m rt1 N.w 3 8 8 8 8 4 8 2 P " 2 $ N m;' . 1 g m N a' "- N N f O 6 Q g N N g N - M .ti V N N N 'N V i J 1 rI "I p 'N N N N N N N N N N N N N K O r C 2244444444-44444444444444444S •N ^p pp m v1 �J �yn� � � �pD . EO so u� m � pp � op pp w .4 a y P .Oyy ttop 03 2 2 2 4 N fV N A �T(y� O O .12442282N44 ./� u2 �Np .4 I2 I2 y8 pO .-1 .4i tp4 • .. p N N N 0 0 2 2 8 8 V Q N N 2 ci 2 n P O O .N+ .. 8 2 b N ry 2 : E 5 T"1 n "1 4 14 r4 N N r4 N rl.4 eS.4.4.t.l .y N N N Vf VT N w N N N to N N N N N N N N 4M1 N N N N N N vii N ul .41 °' LD 8 S 8 S 8 8 8 8 Op 8 8 8 S O Q �/§ 1 y§ ' pOa O • 89 O O ' p§ Vry§ ' O ' O O § ~ a Ln O$O gO oompp UO N m r-1 t0 N to t41 ttm1 el boy N N vii N N A A P n ; r .-1 r� m 'Q C N N N N N N N a N c o2888888888 �S+ �88� 88 „88� 88888 . ' ' "2' T4 ao v ldpp QMry� »fin pip a§' "gym ic�� ti 6d m .mp od bd n8 n8 yI 2. X a 4.N N 92, N r M VI N N.il C e., f� N if^1 N 10 , n N W w b N N Vn.N h N tJ'N N N N g N 1 'u r GQN _ ' 2888888888888888888888 . . . "M u N 6 N n N O "i O 6 a0 NaO W�pryp� W O C N N + vaI O ape ^ o . H N pp ppp Npp ym1YV , N pp N V.V1,,N,,H N N N .A I V1 VItn.N' N V 5 O M g o -CO m CO^ .NO. r S 10 • 6 u eg ell C N H N N N N M F� L N N N & 1 .CI SI d v 'E 44441444444444444444444444444 M W n ° " � i 0 m n a ° a 4 m N b `n m N ,4 a . mm .. mr 0m . aaIc v o r..4 a .c ry w I C N N N 1N.2 Ci N N h i N 22 N 22 N N to i1 N ER N mN N H7 z. r3 NN 1.4 rd C N I 88 N 4 A N N N N N N N 4 4 N N N N N g.-; N N N N N N n A y � U C .J m m e o a T .O d O O,,m El 1 N m W , , 27°' . V .� E ,,n ,r , JV ,,, y -- iy y N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N V1 N N N N N a .., . 8e 75 e F o m 01 .1 N N N N N N N N N g A. N 4z; a. 0 7 N N . N . . . . . • . . 1 • . . 1 1 . . 1 . 1 . . • . .I N I l u g 1. = L° R m W 1 U pp C 111 � o m " O Q F zi H . t' A .A £ C N N N N 6 G u 3. 0 8 3. M • ✓ a o 4' 1 t' .c w A y c. ` C O v N O d V � "" ."i v a n e : m m N N ry m m e N N � u C U C C C 6 C L C 6 C 6 C 6 C C C 6 C 6 C y c u° _ _ N o ti uq ° a E iiiiifiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii ill e 4 ffiliffiffilIMUNIMINLIffiffirniffiffilliMMON UM 11110ffilliffillikffilliffiffiffillinffillifililiffiliMi Mil IHI„IIIliill��Iif� ilI 1I HU IH HH L-ll��I��I �� ~_MILI�i- fir, ilili hli iiiiiiiiiiihi iIt iihi ii i i i0 , �� :�H . ii ffillifinffilikililleiiiiihtinitiM IffilliKIMOMMINIMININKINNINffiliffil I N N N Nl U O F3C (�[ F'�F3F�7 !YA') [� 67N _.I-■■�■i iii■��i�■■■�rr■l''�■■fi■ i■ t. 1 ■�� ■� 1111 .��■1F■.11■1■{■{■''''1111- -..F,�(y a C .�llIl■lIiiil �il kliI.IILifilli _ IIIIIIil�IiIllIlI iffii■ iUlU■E a I a Q _iii iIIkhliJklJliIhii i .H uiHhi iiIliiffill liiI-IIIi.I_ :NI o u Iil kill I likiI� � i IiiIiffilli IflhiiIiii ll IMF ilifi I Ui ik Iliii luIiIifliHiilininl lliffi iDilli lie -fillilliffillikinffiliffill 11: : : O D � 1II11hH1IHIIHIIIDJ as Y. I II a Y Y I m - 6- 1. x: �; E � Q a 1' ; fu- l' s . i6y j g £i g ig ' 1 y -1 J F !E Yas s a � stl s'. a A s �cn " a i J 110;: E : ! 3 : LL m 8 0 N LMIE 08E00EEIL MET 11 1 0000 EM 060001 0 u o d c y F v c -° Y 0. o o v) U a.) di Lc-, n LL •E •O u C o c to E o o cu a a tru o o ° a (� rl tf'7 M c N 00 Ol 01 al }"• �0 F- di y C l- H I-co d 0 0 0 (71 .- l 4 N . c c 4+ 0 00 0 N N Obi t CU O O O p0 O t 0, � +O •' kf O 0 O O U1 u'y 00 0) N H ! m O N d' Ol Lr ry i O c1' O .--� Ol 00 Q1 O " F a, N v P 55 lr0 Lmrr 001 O N f\ H = m M rt. N ,. p N 0 x a -•. L 0 0 o U O 3 Y• 1 U O' 0 o O un Lin O N N c� ( O a '_v p o oo IO td r ( `i m � O 0 00 O qt co N v i o r V ~ d a cOOO N 8 N cn N w M t0 O N (aj en o w Q `,_ : ti dd• m CO t00 c t\ u1N-1 N E n 13 3 w ey o c rV N — e-1 N V '17 ( � ON CU s I ai C7 Q +., d I E > 0 -0 L o g o . C N Ol e-4 - o 0. O 00 0 O 0 m ri cr m adi G 0 O O t`4i r- m u,-E1 O01 fv ra v, U.. d O 0 O 0 :!3 E O V '' M m d' i N IID N v "O �+ t0 ', CD e-1 e-1 CI N , N 00 OD N ti CO C Q al O r-1 a0 O . .4 ui c ,,, 0 E N WD 0 a .}, Q m m .4 o c Ns I c ul ;9 , E O a c O I t0 i' 0 c c li 1. >O H � 0. O ^ To v CO o I- C - a., > CD c u 0 , H - ' C) c ,-1 L FJ [) (... — , (9 N a) � c, 0 �_ f0 Cl) a, 3i ro rho e•-1 C o tom+1 -Q N 2 12 'r? L a QJ .> N U Q GC 0 L > > r" p v L Q C O .o L L L L L L v — N Q1 E +L+ M at+ i+ ate.. �.+ C i- O c O -O aJ 0 6 U 0 0 0 i-- 0 0 0 I- a _c N i 0 o _ c n N a 01 CO IN M .r ID .D V1 VO N CO (0 M .i n ul 01 N CO CO 01 .i CO O N CO 4D "'� N 0: CO 01 N lD u1 b el 00 m IN 00 .i (O .ni GO W _d O to 0 W N .i Op u) CO N N m 01 .4 M u1 L.1 C O u 41 J CO n m n CO co 01 lD M ."1 N 01 W N L C U. N M 01 a (IL O1 01 (0 N M O e LL W 2 _ . N M .0 m ' u O d °1 _ Q O C 0l m E U f� - } L Q ar a � " AN o E �„ L R 0 m N 0 m UN 01 °o P N CO P P Cr. „ E CO a f"' a u� 0 CO m N 0 0 I0 I .-1 CO N ■i m (D (D .m'� u n c a F m m K o N. m m .1 m o m C v s O OC ,Q 1.. (D N N O N .-1 00 Ol U1 00 N M V G .>' II 4 CO Y in O M .4 U1 00 r1 N f0 N N la el N y O b (�O C ,, a Z j p 7 0. CO Ly D d '� v J W 2 0 0 0 N Q. I- Z ,0 Q N W > 0 Ol G 113 C p R N !0 Z - C N �( (9 ry �'� E L CO 7 01 40 M CO 0 N N M 00 CO .-1 N Ot (y 0 3 p m d � VI N. N M LO N Y1 N 00 Ci 01 Cl IN N ... C > u LT F Of N .-1 N N O( I1 d 1l1 M CO 10 N N Op L L _ ✓� CO O .4 (O 0H 00 00 a P ..1 0l 00 •1 D m c o (� CO N N Cl N 0 m 1D (0 lD M ^I > .1 M M 00 a CO 00 lD n (0 lD 11 J U N N N M ( HI 2 O r S M N L d u O +�+ a > I' '' « 01 ai l E (I m E c U v C o Y >. Z 1-1 01 1D (0 CO N N 00 a .i 00 N O 00 0 y .i = (p p 01 m n m .1 a (0 In 01 (0 in m N - C to m C 2 1n 1.o M Lo 1n 0 1D m o 01 m vi m n ao CO N ui u1 O M (O rt v E .0 Z CO N .-I Q1 M m n .�i a tp N 0N3 ti D V N N L. ``w^ v W/ m N n U C d °0 L 2 H N N a' C a _ 'J v 4 O m C U O H 01 m > - ° 1 t CO t0 O m .4 N (0 00 N n l0 O CO n 9 d pp 2 Z ^7 N Cl a VI O u1 01 N 00 01 u1 n '(0 O m It O « !� Oi ^ 0. a a tp O a O N' a tO .-I _L u C y'1 a ,-I 00 .1 CO Lb O 01 .i O 00 9 A .0 .0 : J � 0 O Cr. CO.00 .ai Z « _> a e0 N VZ-i F .3 W :t' a .5 ei f0 � .01' °0 iO o x• . 01 N Lb l0 0 N 0 00 .D N M CO a CO 01 C - W tl !� ( > 00 a u1 00 m N 0 00 N CO N 01 n V.Y 01 s m /- N CO CO m 0 .1 CO 0 0 lD 00 0 N O .i H y ?C G y, U al C `U m 00 a N O 01 •0 .i 00 .4 M M m 3 = > a-i 00 O U a 00 O\ N co M b u1 ~ 000 Cl •- ui m Q r Z ' !1 S = Z O vi «O v . t E V C 3 3 . s U CO l0 .-1 .-+ 01 v m In 01 01 N In CO " v `L' 01 G °1 W 2 cc W N m m a vi vt .i In O 01 01 P m n C :: 2 N .� ? g l0 O O N m (0 O n u1 IN N m .0 .O Op Sy .1 L @ 6 T La N N ul N 40 Oi .a1 tO0 .mi .N-I N N U C CL C > 1- 'V C m n m o m « 0 v 00 (z N C "O E O r O O N N 01 O CO 1C N n N 00 01 01 0 u1 m u1 E D EO N N Q K W N 00 N .-1 1D CO 01 M .i a .-I u1 CO L" N 0 J N o0 M al 00 01 n H 0l .n 01 ."1 O d 0.n O O w co C 0 > .4 N M n N 0 .m-1 N If1 N N 00 .. O m a S G U CO a 3 r 0 }i A E a C 00 L (0 i. C «O D 0v Nr .° c 'a TC n' 0 a n .1 141 CO 1D N N ./1 N m m m S C n1 y C) y J W Ol .1 N 00 01 00 N m CO 40 01 u1 00 -O c q m O n .-1 O O 00 N N a CO N y > y Z E W 3 .+ (0 ai u1 Oi a t.i .+ .-1 (0 .1 Y 'O" W p « U. I ° V a r.1 N CO a .i (O lD n •-( CO CO 0 W _ C H N N La m .i .a: O .-1 m La d D L '- y D d t (a O .: N ri N w E _ 2 r L c J > v) � a N > m 3 L E a E u .42 m C « a° u 'r-' N a 'S C (0 0J L co = C a a+ a a o S' m .n iii CO Q n 0� .y^ O d/ v « N N O 4 >Y �.i /I� U p p L C) N Cl C W N a C E y q C 0! C Vl t m m v c = 0 c u ° ... « E m im A (° v - O m N 'o L ° N d C 0 0 O d � D . . c _ a E E c m E o n 'n w v C P .°' 'E v L - v -, a E 'm a VI a ° w 1, = E �° u 2 G D Z' 2 C O O Q c O a 1.2 Z ` Q a Q E u. ! Q Q m To .'' oti w .1. v. 3 E w ca C Q a 3 i. ° Is > L V y �' N N N N N N N N N N N N N N LL C G 0 O XI I44 Lm W O .i .-1 .i '4 .1 .i .4 01 .1 O O O O O O O P o O .1 O .1 o O d 4 2 L g m L 1- .. y N > N N N N N N N N N N N N Cl N 9' 0 vi N > r a 2 a° 'r F y' a 0 U H 0 Collier County I Transportation Impact Fee Update Study Appendix D Calculated Transportation Impact Fee Schedule C g « x g g g « x , n n 1 r n $ A x A A A 8"yy N IL igunim 6, A 7.,,' Eri q _O r u .. u is 2 a h I m N 2 a a E I I 1 N h .7 un .t 1 �i i.+ H N i $ « z 6 v 'CEfCiiCii m B a ICUUCIEI m S S e w m SI c v g 2 a iirccrcicIr S a m .n m N N H '^ rl, N F i IICEEIUII z-,.' a m u 9i t'mmirn m p j p n ! p ? I i LL LL LL Ai 11 E d S c PI x E , m a s p $ 2 2 a , d o c o C gry = u ' 3 s .. � -3, � - a LL a a - I e e. e o S ._ H LL C A o N m u e �. a4c �v $ I uIEECi m ! F, F. ! .. ry r a e 6 W o o p A 111:11 p o pa` 5 a c _ d W $ D W W W w$l h i i a w a I m E _ _ _ t t m C t r $ n a 64 IIiiUiIIIw ~ Q E N S y b 2 3, IEEE i p m s � I 7 a s I € g i - i g a g E z P. :- - r 8 4 31 i s` $ 74 c d 6 .2 - f C E N°c P N _a g _ $ _ c E t $ m 41'r d -� N r ry r r 3 " r m m m m e i i z s . A E 8 F a :c 7, 7, A g x m 5 5, 5. 5 A gi 5 x « M m m 5 6, 5 x d L & ri 8 ,, ^ Q n w $ 4 m ! a 6 k c A f n £ C g p O E 3 ."� r'S n �' .'g "� n 3 e ^ a n 8 ?°3p m I .'rn d R A st d g an w ., A ∎ M : 3 4 ▪ S 61 A 2. A N N r. �°.°j e° S S 6 B ^ R o r ^ c O A A. ^ r. ^ m a A A, m A m m i x v d .. .� d C d u U z ,.• d u „ , d d e ,. .. e d LL LL W LL m e 1 a u cu e .r LL 7 u .g g d E d . LL , d LL d d W u LL W d LL ,. d a O ,R a h y r a c . d - ! ! $ n N ! ! ! 5 m ! 5 ^ ^ n ^ 1 & T m ! S A C2 0 5 t n 5.t xg `o a `33 0` ,p g a' `l^ 5 o ,_ .`. `d a `o it 11 gg9 S o S S 9 g n . .oF 1 3 . 3 111,1 & O1 “ A g s w i..=-=4'A t,3 i. A is a g a a a a c.- - - - - t m - - r r ,- r 0 3 h 1 'A r .4 d 4 .. ■ ^ .. a ., B gi m * m A A m m A a N F m ;'„' Z 2 2• Z !X a 1 -1 X g g g g g g g g g• S § g g § g g g g J 4 .4 _ at t n s 2 m g Y o a 6s s s v N a s $ fi Z' Q t z . 0 0 5 5 4 0 0 ° $• g $ 7,' ° 8. 8, !, 8 a c f t= r n e 8 m {g- d e C ¢ e 0 G ! - 8 3 § m i N V �` {3 0' i z i5 t� 2! s ° c a a z' z z c d m E 1 R 3 $ R e e g I u 8 1®{ § 4 . , , , , , , n § ! ( , . , , ! ■ r ( § ■ K \\ ` ` k k \ F E ! ! [ 2 % m ) § ( ! ) R 2 2 ; ,§\ 2 k i = a k . © - ® - - - ! « Lf a ! . _ _ - ! I 1 i ICIECCEEEEEEEEIEEEEE k ECE & It: lEE IEEEIEEEIIEEEE \a . / : r . io I ,-: \ \ \ `_ -`` ! k / 9. _ , ` 5 . § : § i{{/ II IIIIIIIIIIIIIIEIK � � ! i \ §! ,_„ k \ § .., ,,i .. ; ( , ! 1 - ` i ` _ ■ }_ { r 3 ' \ ) i \ | ) \ 1 g . \ ! a | E l ! ! ! E - - ! ; \ . ■7 ! « 3 ] \ \ } / \ \ / ) § 2 ) ` \ ! i 5k e \ § } e } 2 ■ \ 1 : | ! ' S 2 �� -- . . . . . . . : . as 4 ! r f 4 . . ~ U ~ 1\ , ! ak , £ E � | f ! m \ ! ` I \ E a « 5 ; | f { ¢ ) Ti d At z ' 7 ! ! ! ) k \ 41 4: TI Ili" ` ® § 2 /J ` �k k k \ . \ E ) } k/\ )| | ■ | |7 X IS IA . f ) / { r r r , ;${, { /• § i ` m ) ! 2 ,• , k _� k k a !� : $ - I -,--..Kg z ; % § !! § 7 - 2 § | s ■ ! ,l :t, 6- .2- ® k!k}E 7 #{! , = t ) )} ! ! 5 o& 1—W S ^".@71- § .%! °"/ § J # 0.- a | [®�k § / \ $ gfi{ e! # &|kt f elz ; ! ! 5 81 .2s = ,E,. a ; °v$ .f2 2 2 t!!kk i { , - - - �Ia | �! « ; , k k k # ;2& ®! . , §{2k. / , �!}�i\ f |tI. m ƒ tiTTV ; § ) k)) k\\! E |a2, |, <:72`� � !=gg :8 I f ■ | a§ 3 ` -�! 2 § ! ! ! :� | §« 5. - § k k $ i ) k{\\kkk $1 § - ! !#!!!! $ §' ! y ia -,�..., as Agenda Item VII.D Collier County Correctional Facilities Impact Fee Update Study DRAFT Report Collier County Prepared for: Collier County 2800 Horseshoe Drive N. Naples, FL 34104 ph (239)252-8192 November 24,2014 Tindale Oliver 1000 Ashley Drive, Suite 400 Tampa, FL 33602 ph (813)224-8862,fax(813)226-2106 Collier County f Correctional Facilities IF Update Study Collier County Correctional Facilities Impact Fee Update Study Table of Contents INTRODUCTION 1 FACILITY INVENTORY 2 SERVICE AREA 7 POPULATION 7 Apportionment of Demand by Residential Unit Type and Size 9 Functional Population 10 Residential Functional Population 11 Non-Residential Functional Population 12 Functional Residents by Specific Land Use Category 17 Residential and Transient Land Uses 17 Non-Residential Land Uses 17 LEVEL-OF-SERVICE 22 COST COMPONENT 25 CREDIT COMPONENT 26 Capital Expansion Expenditures Credit 26 Debt Service Credit 29 NET CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES IMPACT COST 31 CALCULATED CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES IMPACT FEE SCEHDULE 32 IMPACT FEE SCHEDULE COMPARISON 34 APPENDIX A: Building and Land Value Analysis/Supplemental Information Tindale Oliver Collier County November 2014 i Correctional Facilities Impact Fee Study Collier County I Correctional Facilities IF Update Study Introduction Collier County implemented correctional facility impact fees in 1999, which have been periodically updated, with the most recent technical study being prepared in 2009. In accordance with the County's impact fee ordinance requirements and to ensure that the impact fee reflects the most current localized costs for providing correctional facilities, the County retained Tindale Oliver to conduct an update of the County's correctional facility impact fee program. Most of the data collection and analysis for this report was completed in 2013, with minor adjustments in 2014. Correctional facility impact fees are used to fund capital construction and expansion of land, facilities and capital equipment required to•,support the additional correctional facility demand created by new growth. This report presents the results of the correctional facility impact fee update study for the County and will serve as the technical support document for the updated correctional facilities impact fee schedule, There are several major elements associated with the development of the correctional facilities impact fee. These,include: • Facility Inventory • Population • Service Area • Level-of-Service • Cost Component" • Credit',.Component • Net Correctional Facilities Impact Fee Cost • Calculated Correctional Facilities Impact Fee Schedule • Impact Fee Schedule Comparison These various elements are summarized in the remainder of this report, with the result being the calculated correctional facilities impact fee schedule. Tindale Oliver Collier County November 2014 1 Correctional Facilities Impact Fee Study Collier County I Correctional Facilities IF Update Study Facility Inventory The correctional facilities inventory includes the County's jails and other related facilities that are primarily for the provision of correctional services and does not include any of the buildings or portions thereof included in the calculation of other impact fees. According to information provided by the County, Collier County has a total of 417,000 square feet of correctional facility-related space. This includes the square footage of the Naples Jail (original and new), the square footage of the accompanying parking garage associated with the Naples Jail, and the Immokalee Jail. Table 1 presents a summary of the correctional facilities land and building inventory, including a total land value of $319,000 and a total building value of $91 million. As previously mentioned, these values do not include building space or land associated with other County departments., The building value per square foot is estimated based on research on recently built correctional facilities, discussions and information from architectural and construction companies, and the insurance values of the existing correctional facilities in Collier County. This value is estimated at$300 per square foot for correctional facilities and $52 per square foot for the parking garage. Appendix A provides further detail on the building cost estimates. The land value for both the Naples and Immokalee Jails is estimated at $25,000 per acre based on an analysis of vacant land values and parcels sold in the Immokalee/Big Corkscrew area over the last three years (see Appendix A). Vacant land values and sales within the Immokalee/Big Corkscrew Area were used as a basis for the land value since discussions with County staff indicate that this is the area where land for future jail sites is likely to be purchased. This value is conservative, as the value per acre for the parcel on which the Naples Jail is located is much higher, due to the area in which the Naples Jail is located. Tindale Oliver Collier County November 2014 2 Correctional Facilities Impact Fee Study i/ %!IA ) k E i11111 f i j III ! Hi J .} : Q§ IH | 11ui ) /\ / i 2 i ƒ / / t 'rEs ! § k k _ \ \ , y 2 } co 11 2 co ,8 0 f zi § \ }/ , ` _11 ! § ` \ ! Z \ | e \ / 1§ 62 / 0 } { \ / 2 k 7.'1 ! 0 T. ƒ k ) 6 2 § t | el k - E • L'-' 3 / i _■70- E ; 2 2 ] a §2 § ; , * \ƒ/ / \ ( ;iii zi �£ƒ A { 4 . _ 2{/})7 § y ea !Zo k \ ` � 2E . 2a \ n i {) {{ 727 ;u. ) ({:)f! ( g{§) « } § , ; {7! {E !« !f! ! ) ' % ( $ � | 1u, ;}7! 2!&47 < 8t 1� �22$ ,, |f9� t: .gia . , � . \ &� l=:I « ,= .�� ; J . )�,))�`= a&!](f f 2 8% 8£1_ 8 § - i � kk{kj)kk)72 (g) . . ` i \ sa E2 2 2 J{ © « t 8 / z Collier County ( Correctional Facilities IF Update Study In addition to building and land value, because correctional facilities are typically funded with bond issues due to the large scale investment needed, an interest cost is also added to the inventory value. Collier County funded both the Immokalee and Naples Jails with bond issues, which were then paid back with impact fee and general fund revenues. The determine the appropriate cost factor, the interest cost for the expansion-portion of the Naples Jail debt schedule is brought back to present value and divided by the square footage of the jail expansion. This resulted in an interest cost of$119 per square foot. As presented in Table 1, this value is applied to the square footage of both the Naples and Immokalee jail facilities. In addition to land, buildings and interest costs, the correctional,facility services also require the use of necessary equipment and vehicles. As presented in Table 2, the total vehicle and equipment value is estimated at $6.8 million based on information provided the Collier County Sheriff's Office. Tindale Oliver Collier County November 2014 4 Correctional Facilities Impact Fee Study Collier County I Correctional Facilities IF Update Study Table 2 Correctional Facilities Equipment and Vehicle Inventory Class Description Units Total Value 1000 Furniture 9 $73,213.72 2030 Office Equipment 15 $57,734.26 20808 Recording Equipment 1 $1,407.24 20801 Minor Recording Equipment 108 5663,186.33 20900 Minor Computer Equipment 49 $787,211.42 20901 Desk Top Computers 24 $50,148.47 20921 Major Computer Equipment 10 $266,560.22 20922 Servers 3 $36,234.93 20923 Computer Software - $85,102.92 . I. 20939 Laptop Computers ', . 9 $36,900.00 21000 Kitchen Equipment $351,186.56 21110 Minor Appliances , ' 9'. $24,137.98 , . 22000 Jail Equipment , 45 .$170,878.70 22300 Security :, : 18 ,$68,300.08 22600 Medical Equipment 70 $120,882.13 23100 Less Lethal Delivery Systems; ;: 19 $g,i.89.27 23105 Tasers ' ,,' 101 $2,625.81 23400 Shotguns $1,071.83 , 25000 Storage&Sheds $7,749.26 26100 Trailers ' , !', , . : , 2 $9,942.22 27106 Camera _ 51 $126,299.42 27111 In-car video , , ' $41,600.00 , 27121 Projector 'L , , '1' ,„ $2,758.26 27124 ,Digital Camcorder ,, .• , 1 ' ' , $1,718.17 28060, Buildihg Fixtures - ' ' , :i T' , 1 $56,524.62 282od Utilities ' ., ; ' , '', ., , 2,' $34,167.25 30005 Minor Corrim.Equip ,, 37 $1,664,282.79 31000 , Maintenance Equip : , i 3 $11,420.41 . . 32113 Mobile Radios' . . - ,, 9 $45,00000 32114 Portable Radios . ' , ' , 140 $546,000.00 32223 Mobile Radios 5 $17,247.12 , . 33004 Other Detection' , 9 $79,796.31 33100 Evidence Gatherleig''. 2 $10,717.92 34200 Protection , 4 $10,105.71 35000 Vehicles' 28 $742,000.00 35010 SpeciaitY Vehicles 6 $159,000.00 35100 Auto AcceSsories 5 $12,796.10 _,_,__, 36200 SpecialtY6uipment 15 $82,243.89 37000 - iviise Equip 4 $34,267.10 37002 Uied'Equip 2 years 2 $15,511.63 37003 Used Equip 3 years 2 $13,018.86 37004 Used Equip 4 years 5 $6,197.03 37008 Used Equip 8 years 8 $15,822.29 37009 Used Equip 9 years 105 5236,298.53 37013 used Equip 3 yrs Excluding Vehicles 2 $16,254.65 38100 K-9 Dog Equipment 1 $1,478.14 40100 Shop Machinery 3 $18,882.34 40200 Minor Shop Equip 3 $14,355.12 Total I 1,030I $6,835,426.99 Source:Collier County Sheriff's Office Tindale Oliver Collier County November 2014 5 Correctional Facilities Impact Fee Study Collier County I Correctional Facilities IF Update Study Table 3 provides a summary of correctional facility related capital assets owned by the County. As shown, total asset value associated with correctional facilities amounts to $131 million. However, the County is still paying debt service on a portion of these assets. In addition, it is the County's policy to use impact fee revenues to pay debt service associated with capacity expansion projects. To ensure that new development is not being overcharged for these future payments, the portion of the remaining principal for the Naples Jail addition that is to be repaid with impact fee revenues ($25.1 million) is subtracted from the total asset value in Table 3. The resulting net asset value ($105.6 million)or 81 percent of the total asset value is used in the impact fee calculations. Table 3 Correctional Facilities-Total Asset Value, Percent of Description Figure Total Cost Building Value(1) $90,542,188 69.26% Land Value(1) $319,000 0.24% Interest Cost(1) $33,035,709 25.27% Equipment Value(2) , 6835,427 5.23% Total Asset Value $130,732,324 Less: Portion Not Owned(3) $25,135,506 Net Asset Value(4), $105,596,818 Net Asset Value as a:Portion of Total Asset Value(s) 81% (1) Source:`;Table 1 (2) Source: Table 2 (3) Source: Collier County Office of Management and Budget (4) Total asset value less portion not owned (Item 3) (5) Net asset value(Item 4)divided by total asset value Table 3 also provides the distribution of assets, which would be used for indexing calculations. Of the inventory components, the interest cost should not be indexed since it represents a fixed cost determined when the bond was issued. All other components would be indexed according to the methodology described in the indexing reports adopted by the County. Tindale Oliver Collier County November 2014 6 Correctional Facilities Impact Fee Study Collier County I Correctional Facilities IF Update Study Service Area Correctional facilities and related services are provided by Collier County in all areas of the county. Therefore, the proper benefit district for the correctional facilities impact fee is countywide. Population The correctional facilities impact fee program requires the use of population data in calculating current levels of service and to be consistent with the population utilized in the County's comprehensive planning and Annual Update and Inventory Report (AUIR) process, this impact fee study considers not only be resident or perma'nent population of the County, but also the number of seasonal residents and,visitors as Well. Therefore, for purposes of this technical analysis, the peak season population will be used in all population estimates and projections. Peak'season population'projections were provided by Collier County's Comprehensive Planning Department, Table 4 presents the population trends for Collier County, The projections indicate that the population of Collier County is projected to increase by 37 percent between 2014 and 2034. Tindale Oliver Collier County November 2014 7 Correctional Facilities Impact Fee Study Collier County I Correctional Facilities IF Update Study Table 4 Collier County Peak Season Population Estimates&Projections Peak Season Year Population Figure 2000 309,511 2001 325,159 2002 341,954 2003 359,191 2004 374,384 2005 386,668 2006 396,310 2007 400,027 2008 399,532 2009 399,979 2010 387,183 2011 392,180 2012 398,107 2013 403,435 2014 410,297 2015 418,048 2016 425,979 2017 434,060. 2018 442,295 2019 450,685 2020 458,670 2021 466,233 2022 473,920 2023 481,734 2024 489,677 2025 497,236 2026 504,399 2027 511,666 2028 519,037 2029 526,514 2030 533,638 2031 540,396 2032 547,239 2033 554,170 2034 561,188 Source:Collier County Comprehensive Planning Department Tindale Oliver Collier County November 2014 8 Correctional Facilities Impact Fee Study Collier County I Correctional Facilities IF Update Study Apportionment of Demand by Residential Unit Type and Size The residential land uses to be used for the correctional facilities impact fee calculations include the following: • Single Family(Detached) • Multi-Family • Mobile Home/RV(Tied Down) Table 5 presents the number of residents per housing unit for the residential categories identified above in Collier County. This analysis includes all housing units, both occupied and vacant. To address fairness and equity issues between land uses, the single family land use is tiered based on two categories of square footage: less than 4,000 square feet,`4,000 square feet and greater. To accommodate the tiering of impact fee assessments for the single family residential land use category, an analysis was completed based on housing unit size and persons per housing unit, comparing nationwide averages`to those of Collier County. This analysis utilized national data from the 2011 American Housing Survey (AHS) and data from the 2012 American Community Survey(ACS) to examine this relationship. Table 5 Residents per Housing Unit Ratio to the Avg Residents/ Housing Housirg Type Populationil Population per Housing l Izl Population p Units Housing Unit131 Units1A1 Single Family Detached `243,644 90,769. 2.68 -Less than 4,000'sf 99% 2.65 -4,000sforgreater 113% 3.03 Multi Family 116,082 95,570 1.21 Mobile Home/RV(Tied Down) 23,122 10,958 2.11 Weighted Average 382,848 197,297 1.94 (1) Source:2012 American Community Survey(ACS),Table B25033(adjusted for peak seasonal population) (2) Source:2012 American Community Survey(ACS),Table DP04 (3) Ratios developed based on PPH data derived from the 2011 American Housing Survey (4) Population(Item 1)divided by housing units(Item 2) Tindale Oliver Collier County November 2014 9 Correctional Facilities Impact Fee Study Collier County I Correctional Facilities IF Update Study Functional Population For correctional facilities, this study uses functional population as the demand component, which distributes the cost associated with the availability of correctional facilities among various land uses based on the density of people at each land use throughout the day. Functional population, as used in the impact fee analysis, is a generally accepted methodology for several impact fee areas and is based on the assumption that demand for certain facilities is generally proportional to the presence of people at a land use, including residents, employees, and visitors. It is not enough to simply add resident population to the number of employees, since the service-demand characteristics can vary considerably by type of industry. Functional population is the equivalent number of people occupying space within a community on a 24-hour-day, 7-days-a-week; basis. A person living and working in the community will have the functional population coefficient of 1.0. A person living in the community but working elsewhere may spend only 16 hours per day in the community on weekdays and 24 hours per day on weekends,for a functional population coefficient of 0.76 (128-hour presence divided by 168 hours in one week). A;person commuting into the county to work five days per week would have a functional population coefficient of 0.30 (50-hour presence divided by 168 hours in one week). Similarly, a person traveling into the community to shop at stores, perhaps averaging 8 hours per week, would have a functional population coefficient of 0.05, - Functional population; thus tries to capture the presence of all people within the community, whether residents, workers, or visitors, to arrive at a total estimate of effective population need to be served..! This form of adjusting population to help measure real facility needs replaces the population approach of merely weighting residents two-thirds and workers one-third (Nelson and Nicholas 1992). By estimating the functional and weighted population per unit of land use across all major land uses in a community, an estimate of the demand for certain facilities and services in the present and future year can be calculated. The following paragraphs explain how functional population is calculated for residential and non-residential land uses. Tindale Oliver Collier County November 2014 10 Correctional Facilities Impact Fee Study Collier County I Correctional Facilities IF Update Study Residential Functional Population Developing the residential component of functional population is simpler than developing the non-residential component. It is generally estimated that people spend one-half to three-fourths of their time at home and the rest of each 24-hour day away from their place of residence. In developing the residential component of Collier County functional population, an analysis of the County's population and employment characteristics was conducted. Based on this analysis, it was estimated that people, on average, spend 16.4 hours, or approximately 68 percent, of each 24-hour day at their place of residence and the other 32 percent away from home. This analysis is presented in Tables 6 and 7. Table'6 Collier County Population:&`'Employment Characteristics Item/Calculation Step Figure Workers who live and work 41',Collier County(20±0)1�1 121,530 Workers who live in Collier County but work elsewhere (2010)1 1) 10,293 Total workers living in Collier County12l 131,823 Collier County Census Population (2010)131 321,520 Total workers,as a percent:,of population l4l, 41.0% School age population(5-17years) (2010))51 45,811 School age population as a percent of population(6) 14.2% Population:net of workers and school'age population171 143,886 Other population as a percent of total population(8) 44.8% (1) Source: Estimated; based On data from the 2010 U.S. Census and the Bureau of Transportation Statistics,Census Transportation Planning Package(CTPP)Pt.3 (2) Sum of workers who'live/work in Collier County and workers who live elsewhere but work in,Collier County (3) Source:,2010 U.S.Census (4) Total workers living in,Collier County(Item 2)divided by the Census population(Item 3) (5) Source:2010 U.S..,Census (6) School age population(Item 5)divided by the Census population(Item 3) (7) Census population (Item 3) less total workers living in Collier County (Item 2) and school age population(Item 5) (8) Population net of workers and school age population (Item 7) divided by Census population(Item 3) Tindale Oliver Collier County November 2014 11 Correctional Facilities Impact Fee Study Collier County I Correctional Facilities IF Update Study Table 7 Residential Coefficient for Functional Population Hours at Percent of Effective Pop.Group Residence Population PopulationtZ� Hours i3t Workers 13 41.0% 5.3 Students 15 14.2% 2.1 Other 20 44.8% 9.0 Total Hours at Residence'') 16.4 Residential Functional Population Coefficient(5) 68.3% (1) Source:Assumed (2) Source:Table 6 (3) Hours at residence (Item 1) multiplied by percent of population (Item 2) (4) Sum of effective hours(Item 3) (5) Total hours at residence(Item 4)divided by 24 The resulting percentage from Table 7 is used in the calculation of the residential coefficient for the 24-hour functional population':,These actual calculations are presented in Table 9. Non-Residential Functional Population Given the varying characteristics''of non-residential land uses, developing the estimates of functional residents for non-residential land,'uses is more complicated than developing estimated of functional residents for residential land uses. Nelson and Nicholas originally introduced a method for estimating functional resident population, now used internationally'. This method uses trip generation data from the Institute of Transportation Engineer's' (ITE) Trip Generation Manual and Tindale Oliver's Trip Characteristics Database, information'on passengers per vehicle, workers per vehicle, length of time spent at the land use,and other variables. Specific calculations include: • Total one-way trips per employee (ITE trips multiplied by 50 percent to avoid double counting entering and exiting trips as two trips). • Visitors per impact unit based on occupants per vehicle (trips multiplied by occupants per vehicle less employees). • Worker hours per week per impact unit (such as nine worker-hours per day multiplied by five days in a work week). 1 Arthur C.Nelson and James C.Nicholas,"Estimating Functional Population for Facility Planning,"Journal of Urban Planning and Development 118(2):45-58(1992). Tindale Oliver Collier County November 2014 12 Correctional Facilities Impact Fee Study Collier County I Correctional Facilities IF Update Study • Visitor hours per week per impact unit (visitors multiplied by number of hours per day times relevant days in a week, such as five for offices and seven for retail shopping). • Functional population coefficients per employee developed by estimating time spent by employees and visitors at each land use. Table 8 shows the functional population coefficients for residential and non-residential uses in Collier County. The functional population coefficients in Table 8 were used to estimate the County's functional population in Table 9. srui�Yr ,�p r, P 4 i e . A r a Tindale Oliver Collier County November 2014 13 Correctional Facilities Impact Fee Study > >. I o N N I a1 41 LL. O pp ^^.yy RR pp11 eepp U a M N N N N .nl N N a E 1 r$ t o 6 o 0 0 0 .i o G ° i 4 E v) o g xqq d a L a ±+ C — b ' 'v . IIIIuIIIii w a is LL o n P ° C ° 3 w E S O 11111111111111 .'; ,. '� 3 a`r O r Lam U 3 o O o '- b O & k 8 9 8 N N 0 i. lv D 2 d o �" • p F. m .t2. 1 w e . E I n I.3 m m m 4 5 d 3 .J .. .4 . , . .4 . p g k e ag . , a-2 ,4 E 4 g E r E bC c ° m o t d 1 w ° E m 00 = o 0 3 s i ,z g , " t S a 3= ° - a ,• w = 5 N= E a . .a A ui o 3 g 4, r v $ $ o E 3 E t& o ° i E g fi a' c n _ 2 ^ aa° . n g. o Om !C OY w X ;a 'L � I_ _ i,p }, w • a s O W 54 M N OI 7.1 p M 0 p d s €p E 1 C Y KIM r ,. m N cn n % a ° Q E x w o E .o O. m c ° u . ° b m I. r S a LL. w n ° m ,= ° u ° Wb Ev w m Y3 « ` ♦ ° b H i 8 88888888 d d $ " $ § § N m N � a ln $ o E Q o ' vi v. °i of . of of of Ix c m onevi ., _' w, L % 4.'•- . ... • A o r u .. a, bm a n b n N ° ° V % t V -E tt 2 gg ° 51 Q ° D °-- a w b i 2 , w Z l .r .. n Z .o a+ ad d i..�m z g ~eb g r a o h e c q N _ v 'o '0 0 0 o n« o 'E a 2 m ' m u ° . z °ao 0! n E n n E > 0 ; u d C o o Y LL d 2 9? C E m 9 $a r w t a i n .z LL Etl v n E w V 5n a n n c E° g3 14 - a n a a« r F g LL b ° E u t N EE ' c >,'E ° a E °c/ d ; « t o 0 ° u O c ' ' 9 c w v N p tS N ° t C o t9 E o A ~ ~ .o c C W n v u v v u a f f tm ' •°xy ° M E w 0 -X u 3 3 3 3 3 � .7 . 0 p $ >.« .Q '- m • E o r ir M .y r y p y o N N c ° ° ` ° ° E a Gl ° 3 g uv _ E o o a D _ ° L c°n c LE a «r. L E N o C ? 9 u ,, N o .m +° m a ° iii ° m Kt2 ` c . b =-.., .- o ' s ° o s 5 C r m F = E E n v a v a pp £ 3 a b Z o ° a u o a E V t 2 ° w i b « nuu8uuu b _ e ° nE o >°10 o- ub aE a% .. w ? oR rq o a 'a i 06 .E 1E r C► W m Em nr ° „7n 8rnob , �' o z u 3 rc a �. V ' v . G. 6_ ^r z s v, .. m c V v C •• p = j j N u p v n -512 E o cu i = a O 1= Z Collier County I Correctional Facilities IF Update Study Table 9 Functional Population—Year 2014 Collier County Functional Resident Functional Population Category , Baseline Data"' Coefficient Population- 2014 Peak Season Population 410,297 0.683 280,233 Emplo ment Category Natural Resources 7,749 0.379 2,937 Construction 12,840 0.271 3,480 Manufacturi n; 3,084 0.270 833 Transportation,Communication,and Utilities 5,193 0.271 1,407 Wholesale Trade 4 314 0.271 1,169 Retail Trade 21,894 1.173 25,682 Finance,Insurance,and Real Estate 30,440 0.292 8,888 Services 90,828 0.568 51,590 Government Services ;, 13,948 0.497 6,932 Total Em.lo ment by Category Population143 102,918 2013 Total Functional Populationis) 383,151 (1) Source:Table 4 for population and 2014 Woods&Poole for employment data (2) Source:Table 8 (3) The functional population is Collier ,baseline data (Item'; 1) multiplied by the functional resident coefficient(Item 2) (4) The total employment population by category'is'the sum of the employment figures from the nine employment categories(e.g.,natural resources,construction,etc.) (5) The total functional population is the sum of the residential functional population (280,233) and employment functional population(102,918) Table 10 'presents the County's annual functional,,population figures from 2000 through 2034, based on the 2014 functional population figure from Table 9 and the annual population growth rates'from the population figures previously presented in Table 4. Tindale Oliver Collier County November 2014 15 Correctional Facilities Impact Fee Study Collier County I Correctional Facilities IF Update Study Table 10 Collier County Functional Population(2000-2034) Collier County Year Functional Population Projections 2000 289,133 2001 303,879 2002 319,681 2003 335,665 2004 349,763 2005 361,305 2006 370,338 2007 373,671 2008 373,297 2009 373,670 2010 361,713 2011 366,415 2012 371,911 2013 376,746. 2014 383,151 2015 390,431 2016 397,849 2017 405,408 2018 413,111 2019 420,960 2020 428,537 2021 435,394 2022 442,360 2023 449,438 2024 456,629 2025 463,478 2026 469,967 2027 476,547 2028 483,219 2029 489,984 2030 496,844 2031 503,303 2032 509,846 2033 516,474 2034 523,188 Source: Table 9 for 2014 functional population figure and Table 4 for annual growth rates Tindale Oliver Collier County November 2014 16 Correctional Facilities Impact Fee Study Collier County I Correctional Facilities IF Update Study Functional Residents by Specific Land Use Category When a wide range of land uses impact services, an estimate of that impact is needed for each land use. This section presents functional population estimates by residential and non-residential land uses. Residential and Transient Land Uses As previously mentioned, the average number of persons,per housing unit in Collier County was calculated for the single family, multi-family, and mobile home/RV land uses, based on information obtained from the American Community Survey (ACS). Besides the residential land uses, the table also includes transient land uses, such as hotels, motels, nursing homes, and adult living facilities (ALF). Secondary sources, such as the local Convention and Visitors Bureau (CVB) and the Florida Department of Iderly Affairs, are used';to determine the occupancy rate for hotels, motels, and nursing homes,land uses. As mentioned before, different functional population coefficients must be developed for each of the impact fee areas to be analyzed. For residential and, transient land uses, these coefficients are displayed in Table 11. Non-Residential Land Uses A similar approach is used to estimate,functional residents for non-residential land uses. Table 12 reports basic assumptions and calculations, such as trips per unit, trips per employee, employees per impact unit, one-way trips per impact unit, worker hours, occupants per vehicle trip, visitors (patrons, etc.) per impact unit, visitor hours per trip, and days per week for non-residential land uses. The final column in the tables shows the estimated functional resident coefficients by land use These coefficients by land use create the demand component for the correctional facility impact fee program and will be used in the calculation of the cost per unit for each land use category in the correctional facilities impact fee schedule. Tindale Oliver Collier County November 2014 17 Correctional Facilities Impact Fee Study Y y ::-p CO O W V W o co LL C) , LS CU d m p .-i N O �+ 0 0 0 0 a3 Q j 3 Y 7 c N Y a, C = C ? U a .- ;a O o n a1= ° v LL N o E o ° y ,-T z v u N N N N ° "' z C) c Q O O C d Y ci Q E o O d E > a t v 04 a a o 1 m oN :J ` oN = ', rn 0 c rn os (p E. N . LL d 10 Z N ._ t' � U � 07-, C O 1 U a) U N v. c 6 cri N N .Y 0 0 0 0 `a O o. !^ u• o _ ' D E O N U N u v O Y j i a, O C O 7 � ,. j —�, ac EoN " 0 0 C ° Q N N LO ci N E O v (C ' Y .... N N Y J N (5 a, a) ,a a, ,a C Y 3 ,4 -O L m d C ? d L m p .• m • S o Q Cl)) a v � ` o 7 R C O O c' co co as oo g E o C A r o a .O w a c o - i. C 3 o` v a E • Q • l a (0 d w ;' Z v. a ai a ' • +" s` m o a a o \ - 'v o t o a o•o - , s E 2 = ._Z Do-0 ia m ` c c ca � u ..0 E a, V 'a 0- h 91 U C c ` m U o tY . 0 ti o i a c O O N ti T T pp ',' O O_ O E N O -C ••I— CO N m .-i N —I - N N Q E, j a) U M1• y `> +' a °' l a = C , - 0 C = o o o c . ) ♦. a, w- U`^ l7 c N - f c 0 4 ` a N -0 c E o _ > J C (9 U .--I .- N d' ---4 N N S E O > A c c .,_, c ?, CL C = N N N N m m ..O N 5- 0L., ,_ .7 .1 O C ' O _ . ...) .c ' • - 0) ~ E !' `v, LL 'r C d � 7 O a) a+ 0 c- cc_ C .a m � ° o E .c LLm t .4.4 w o u U - c o n m. .^p p 0 E c v u U w N O 0.'1' C 7 > > > o a'LL £ O 'a -O -O -0 O O -0 V p U H v .. f L o oo c . G 2 v o -_ m 2 c o a o $ Y E RI LL w 2 a) z y _ aC Q - D a) a: - u a, = E, v c n (p _ o a Y o c D 2 G a >. c, c • _ a E n a) c_ Z CU C a ° X v u v 3 � o a M m 0 Zr " E y r n c u v 'a c V i C O C 0 o , G Q v N a 0 C j a,t, CIJ U C v " { c .,, r > �' v E a■ „1. C +`a- `^ N > a • o a, a c a -, 'E w w c b. :(•■ a) a) O N s L, LL �`- h a " w Q J h _ 'O `-i C Z7 Q 8 v b0 O o v p v ° m i O tip N N C o w V ti t E a .E o •C z j N O - c p — E Q E � a, o a s w w a) • _tt, LL C N = t v ,9 a la b 7 O al c a) o a ✓ a)L a) a E a o u a- °- '- J N E v . c d Q1 a O c -4 V o O O o o j N m N o . cc -7. < LL L -0 > C y N ti S Z 4 - v o x m o a _. m 0 c 0 H Z fs - o °' 3 2 rn • 8 0 8 9 8 0 0 nh 8 M 3 6 S1 S rnl 4' 13 'a i - v a . z u 6 0 of ui vi ry o d d o d d d .+ .-1 .J ri o o .+1 .- o O• N a N 4l tL h h h h h N in u' u' 0., .n h In h v' v' in N in in v' N 0 U i V Q. C H IIII R8 � 9S .- N O O -1 N 88888i8 -'-18 N rV N N N O + 8888888 - .., •+ 4 .' O j V f °'_ra LL.o ... h° °a a HMV, a ° `aS m n N e n o n ° 8 N n Z8 I. C as a; o m vn3' ry d 0 0 0 0 0 ry ry rri v ni in N n o in [!@ i n r'NV .-i U U 7 6..Y m al O' at p r-1 N W CO co 00 CO N CO L' a� M M M rt1 rl'1 N H .� a1 N C N N N N .7 ii M O d hi n! N N r i ni ,'■ .4 N .. .■ ,,■ e-1 ri r-1 N .i ,i .. .1 , .-i U 0. V p a `: al al Cl al Cl 01 01 Cl Cl Ql 01 Cl 01 01 a' Cl al Cl Cl Cl 01 01 V) • o = C > m '4 m • ,o `D 8 i � i � N rn m in h N m Q F O N .- M O O O O .� O O ri ,n ..i 1D ✓i h Chto J' 8 N .i i a, v,• •f p 47. • C y —« O N .a. m c O O .1 al V rJ H - H o O .y O . Ol 0 0 U O U 0 0 M T T W In a M r•'1 r1Y 1' N N N rri M O> M E N n j . 4J E a y N 1 m.in N�.in h m h N N n m m m m M m m g ! C ., :y c o 0 o ri C vi .d ■•1 o •ri a ...i rri M .i rel. of od 4 O 6 N,N H N m N N i 41 Q� XII L o 1_' •O H W N la N O M al p O N N M N',.d N n o ,D al M O 0 M N ,O h. O , ,O'M N O .ti N'd A CO hh .iD Q = .-i nl el'1 74 ,D N .+ O K 10 .�-I .M+ ..iii ai e0 N rr' ! C y� -� O i QJ is'd. ? 1 10 T L _ `J - J 13 07 3 b O yn O N O O O O 0 0 0 O O O w U d ryry O \ ` N n ,N M rj 07 N 1 b ,O r � C g ,.. O c, - of m I to t6 = v LL y t0 a`, g C 3 ' G vi ..9 2 Q 4 o E, v B i E `O Y...._. 0 i N U u LL V' ^ S $ y _ L y OD 0 0 v ' O O G v N § § u u D N .:1-)0., N V a • « U U H S 1 T'I = S •_ C v c c a• n a L C N L. c o S Z' v § 8 8- g v o 6 a N E 11,t 1 t `m c u m u N m rn C1 a v U ' u u a, u N u u h Oa (li a q c 'o c w i i O }, n' �++ .- w w 9 i3 7 }P; . v - U ?c. 1 0 $ c, 2• 'x > j u o = 0 4.- 0 0 0 0 2 2 m' F- Z $ a v v o N n rAi 4 v Pi' a A b a m n° Kl m n LT, ro' 'Ai `v N N `d d ad 1 +T. -a is .:.1'- A n N N N n fV fV N N �l N .ti N uj V 'A ni N n N .r .1 O N n1 O O 00 C 13. i { U N l v s n n n n n n n n n .o to n n n . O u n K U N N N O N N O M u g.1 S N I' x 0 0 0 0 0 .+ x 0 0 0 .+ o o ‘ 0 r- illiliiiiiiliiiili , ra s m N = pQ% ac SSSI apS 1 pap pa IR $ S m ° g B g ill "" R N t~V N N f� P'l 00 ~ N R .ti O ' a) ry L ' 11H u1 51 1111 INf1 VN1 N Di N N 2 m 2 1- ' .-4 .■ A A .i .4 A .4 ,4 .i .4 A .i V Vi O' 01 of 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 h 111111111111111111 pp op pp p po 13. :icl N H.cu c• cg j ill c c c- c ,m c ro.m y 1aY2.i m c c i O f. 71 .0 cV ivy � ° m $ n 2 N ° n o 2 g y p �• .n N sr 4J N .0 C ,,.7,,;_„, ,,,„,, tp T 01.' a•1 r 9 711' 111111111111111111111 1�/1 in W V n'> 1T� T VM1nS lNlpp pp O N�;. �N�..11 11:11111111:11:1111131 r qJ C ED 00 OQ'm co a0 Oa d'co T O1 OTf Q5 01 Q O. 3 V 0111111011111:: o C C 0 0 C' u M § § § -2 ai O a a a a a a. • u , co u. 2 , C G a u 0 - a ya. & _ro E 3 O a a ro o U 9 _ w N Pm Q o' C m 2 _ ro a Y L o ° ? 0 a _ 2 4 o o ° o $ o a o o _ — E 1n ° z 3 > N O d7 a • c• g 1� 0 8 2 8 RS > > ro 1 c m > > ' ..?. E E E 5 ,° 2 0 o O G pp v :°. « « 'O « .% « « 3 € c c `0 10 m ° ,y m E `ro E c c t LL , 'a 4>1 0 U Y m W o C) a) al 01 0 01 al d 7 0 0 a J1 N d1 .•1 N 0 L o A ro . O° LL C O tc .n z K 2' z a K K z z z Z .- 1n u u x 0. u. m m U 'x F— Z . _ o - - dd d ƒ � , - � _ � ) j . \ ` J & ± Grp r k � , , 3 E / ) III { ` § § \ \ ) \ / IN 1 \ £ ; ) \ o 2 : . . . % : / t i }a ) \ \ [\/ , of Fol } \ 11111 , , , � ! ƒ fhIII „ � — y ; TS / \ ( ~ . al 7r1 . : c } r ` { \ 6IL' - w � j / m ; ° k } _ ` ° { q N ƒ \; / k ru 2\ V) fail § ) j - { � © � � � I-- ! e > ( . \ { . - 2 w » § 7 § 2 / o c .` 2 _ / i } — - - ® n \ } ) . . \ \ } } i � � � / / / \ . . \ \ } ' JIlL a▪i \ } \ \ ( \ o ` - - Q ( / . \ ) ( f \ r _ # 0 \ \ } ' ® \ � tj ; \ \ ( \ \ \ } \ \ ( ( \ \ a) � = . . { / j \ ) — zL' 72E # / ! 2 .222 .22 ® ~ U - a3a \ ) ! � [ [ a = n # } « , lzl " ""," 6 \ � � § & 92l = 13 / § ., § - & i ~ } E ! < ! ! ! ! ! ! ! « ! 7 E ` � « ° ! { t - a ) { § ) § { faf ! ƒ i / fffff / / } / } 2 $ = ! J \ , < = 1f233 : ! ! m ! # f ! � ® ® ® ® co ar U . �/ � � � � & � ` « , , , e , q , aG = q : m = ; = ; ew 222 Collier County ( Correctional Facilities IF Update Study Level-of-Service Because there is an increased need for correctional facility beds as the County's population increases, it is important to establish a relationship between the daily jail population and the increase in the County's population. Table 13 presents the average daily jail population between 2003 and 2012, along with the corresponding population. The relation between the population and jail population is used to establish a general trend in the need for correctional facility beds, and to account for random fluctuations, the three-year average number of bookings and population also is shown. Table 13;, Service Area Population and Jail Bookings Average Daily Jail 3-Year Average Change in 3-Year Average Year Population'— (ar Jail Jail Population Population Population Population Population 2003 359,191 998 n/a n/a n/a n/a 2004 374,384 1,011 n/a n/a n/a n/a 2005 386,668 1,179 373,414 1,063 n/a n/a 2006 396,310 1,186 385,787'; 1,125.. , , 3.3% 5.8% 2007 400,027 1,224 394,335 1,197 2.2% 6.4% 2008 399,532 1,138 398,623 1,183 1.1% -1.2% 2009 399,979 961 399,846 1,108 0.3% -6.3% 2010 387,183 882 395,565 994 -1.1% -10.3% 2011 , 391,218 899 392,793. 914 -0.7% -8.0% 2012 396,608 981 391,670 921 -0.3% 0.8% (1) Source:Table 4 (2) Source:Collier County Sheriff's Office The level-of-service (LOS) for correctional facility services is expressed in terms of correctional facility beds per 1,000 residents. Using this method, Collier County's current LOS is 1 bed per 315 residents or 3.18 beds per 1,000 residents. As mentioned previously, for impact fee calculations, the LOS should be measured using functional population to capture workers, visitors, and residents to calculate the correctional facilities impact fee. In terms of functional population, the current LOS is 3.40 beds per 1,000 functional residents. Table 14 summarizes the calculation of the county's current LOS using both peak seasonal population and functional population. Tindale Oliver Collier County November 2014 22 Correctional Facilities Impact Fee Study Collier County I Correctional Facilities IF Update Study It should be noted that the reduction of the value or unpaid principal from the total asset value (as shown in Table 3) results in an effective owned LOS of 2.58 beds per 1,000 peak residents (as opposed to 3.18). This is because the impact fee calculations are based on only 81 percent of the total value (net of unpaid portion of the facilities). Table 14 also presents the adopted LOS standard, which is 2.79 per 1,000 peak residents or 2.99 per 1,000 functional residents. Given that the effective achieved LOS is lower than the LOS standard, achieved LOS is used in the impact fee calculations. Table 14 Current Level-of-Service Year 2014 Component Peak Seasonal Functional Population Population Populationll) , '; ,! 410,297 -, 383,151 Number of Beds(2) ; 1,304 1,304 Population per Bed 315 294 Achieved LOS(beds per 1,000 residents) 3.40 Achieved&Owned LOS(beds per 1,000 residents):{al 2.58 2.75 Adopted LOS(beds per 1,000.'residents)(5) 2.79 299 (1) Source:Table'9 (2) Source:Table 1 (3) Number of beds(Item2)divided,by the population(Item 1)multiplied by 1,000 (4) LOS(Item 3)multiplied by percentage of asset valdde included in the calculation(Table 3, Item 5) (5) Source:2014 Annual Update and Inventory Report Table 15 provides an LOS comparison between Collier County and counties with correctional facility impact fees throughout the State of Florida. The LOS is displayed in terms of permanent population for 2012 for all entities because functional population data analysis has not been completed for these jurisdictions, as it was for Collier County. The number of beds for all jurisdictions presented in the following table is based on total available beds. As presented, Collier County's LOS is within the range of these counties. Tindale Oliver Collier County November 2014 23 Correctional Facilities Impact Fee Study Collier County I Correctional Facilities IF Update Study Table 15 Level-of-Service Comparison Total 2012 LOS(Beds per Jurisdiction Available Permanent 1,000 Beds(t) Population(2) Residents) ') Palm Beach County 2,619 1,335,415 1.96 Broward County 5,086 1,771,099 2.87 Miami-Dade County 7,750 2,551,290 3.04 Osceola County 873 280,866 3.11 Brevard County 1,709 545,625 3.13 Lee County 2,009 638,029 3.15 Lake County 960 299,677 3.20 Collier County(Existing) 1,304 329,849 3.95 Manatee County 1,360 330,302 4.12 Indian River County 679 139,446 4.87 St. Lucie County 1,370 280,355 4.89 Highlands County 504 98,955 5.09 Marion County 1,924 332,989 5.78 Escambia County 1,742 299,511 5.82 Okeechobee County 232 39,805 5.83 Charlotte County 960 163,357 5.88 Gulf County 110 15,907 6.92 Hendry County 283 38,132 7.42 Monroe County _ 695 72,897 9.53 Wakulla County 350 30,771 11.37 (1) Source: Each jurisdiction's respective Sheriff's Office or Correctional Facilities Department (2) Source: University of Florida,Bureau of Economic and Business Research (3) Total available beds(Item 1)divided by the 2012 permanent population(Item 2)divided by 1,000 for each jurisdiction Tindale Oliver Collier County November 2014 24 Correctional Facilities Impact Fee Study Collier County I Correctional Facilities IF Update Study Cost Component Table 16 provides the total asset value per resident. As shown, total asset value owned by the County amounts to $105.6 million or $81,000 per bed. The total impact cost per functional resident for correctional facilities in Collier County is calculated by multiplying the total cost per bed by the LOS (beds per 1,000 functional residents) and dividing that figure by 1,000,which is$275 per functional resident. Table 16 Total Impact Cost per Functional Resident Description "' Figure Net Asset Value111 ; +; $105,596,818 Number of Beds1�1 1,304 Net Asset Value per Bed131 $80,979 Current LOS(Beds per 1,090 Functional Residents)(4) 3,40 Asset Value •er Functional Re,sidentl51 $275.33 (1) Source:Table 3 (2) Source:Table 1 (3) Net asset value(Item 1)divided by the numberrof beds(Item 2) (4) Source:Table 14 (5) Net asset value per bed(Item 3)multiplied by the'current correctional facilities LOS(Item 4)divided'by 1,000 Tindale Oliver Collier County November 2014 25 Correctional Facilities Impact Fee Study Collier County I Correctional Facilities IF Update Study Credit Component To avoid overcharging new development for the correctional facility impact fee, a review of the capital financing program for correctional services was completed. The purpose of this review was to determine any potential revenue credits generated by new development that are being used for expansion of capital facilities, land, and equipment included in the inventory. Historically, the County's policy has been to use impact fees to fund correctional facility capital expansion projects. Although the County funds the,majority of the correctional facility capital expansion expenditures by issuing bonds that are paid back with impact fee revenues, a small portion of the correctional facilities equipment capital expansion purchases over the last five years were paid for with general revenue., Therefore, a capital improvement credit is applied based on the review of historical capital expenditures. Capital Expansion Expenditures Credit The capital expansion expenditures credit per functional resident was calculated based on the number of years for which the capital expansion projects were completed. The average annual capital expansion expenditures were divided by the average functional residents for the same period in order to calculate the average capital expansion cost per functional resident. Over the past five years, the County spent a total of$286,000 of general fund revenues for correctional facility capital expansion expenditures and there are no programmed capacity expenditures for the next five years. This amount results in an average capital expansion expenditure of $29,000 per year. Since the review of these expenditures spanned 2009 through 2017, the average annual capital expansion cost is divided by the average functional population for this same period. As shown in Table 17, the result is an average expansion cost of$0.08 per functional resident. Tindale Oliver Collier County November 2014 26 Correctional Facilities Impact Fee Study I N lD Co o Q, Co O Co m oN0 00 mm Co �' >- tD Co N Co 00 .1 8 O M Co N b D po C z O m N N O r N R ,-1 ., CD N Di' O lT O it v 1t N .N-, IA N N V1 t/) LT ONC i, Co V) L a d LL _ a O u V a a {{ IIIIII N a 1111111 0 U E4 ro C 0 1111111 O 1 u v L 0 u E C.1 i, .4.-.a s CO I I'll! 0 U a N c L I O in Z .F. U C N w C , o- CU a a , N tO C ca 0 o a N fa sa CL ' w � '$ a 3 NT •N CO .n N _ CD CO as 0. N A cn A M M fl' N v} v1 N LL an ..>. I C - .n a t a U y ✓ L LL O 0 p C 4 v, c C „5,_; a [6 a O ° c a m x 41 -6 a 7, ? C r0 L c c c c C n 0 C a , L 0 co E E E xa - , Q no U a a a a w p cO U a d U a Q Cr Cr C io ''� iv 1-..11)) w w E 'a C c .� a C �' T a m LL LL — a� r N v C G/ N ^ V rp m C i p ■ w > > E 3 Q v m u U u a N N o a a o a a w E > > a a a > 0 E E u E E E m c C • On • CO (, 6, Y O O N Cr a O C •a C C V U T. i T O _c L N U u 5 t0 ` w 7 R U 3 Q Q 7 7 a 7 a y y E o 0 0` v QJ u Q v o a w c m -6 O > 0 > E c c E Z :, — Q aQ E c_ v ,o c in Q in < et a D E � 2 2 f v v-i O Q u 2- :°. > c ,, C O Collier County I Correctional Facilities IF Update Study Debt Service Credit Any outstanding bond issues related to the correctional facilities also will result in a credit to the impact fee. As mentioned previously, Collier County funded the Naples Jail replacement and expansion expenditures with a bond issue. The capital expansion portion of the improvements to the Immokalee Jail was paid in cash using impact fee revenue, while the remaining payments of debt service on the bond issued for the capital expansion of the Naples Jail are to be repaid using impact fee revenues. Therefore, not to overcharge new development for future payments for the Naples Jail expansion, the portion of the remaining principal for the Naples Jail expansion and, parking garage is removed from the value of these facilities in Table 3. Although the expansion portion of the debt service is being paid with impact fee revenues, the remaining portion is being paid with the General Fund revenues. Because the non- expansion portion of the Naples Jail included replacing the old structures entirely, as opposed to renovating existing structures as in the case of Immokalee Jail, it is found necessary to give credit for debt service payments for the replacement portion of the Naples Jail. As presented in Table 18,the resulting credit for the correctional facility-related debt is $13 per resident. Tindale Oliver Collier County November 2014 28 Correctional Facilities Impact Fee Study . . , in LE, c) >•. >. !.._ - T., m r--- r-1 4-, -co CU c 11,• 01 rr; c 7 4-, • CL 0 C: 1.n. -V} v-I 0 V) 4, .... ID.- -11. i.n.' . "'' : L) u. .44,- -6- L'' _ • o .— , •- ta.c 101 o, ko 0 r"•:- •4 . L.o . cu :c z -= al .zr .7:t E •"- -1-• c 0 E CL3 4-• .- 0) u co ,'Ilc 7a" cc .2 -0 LL o (0 c ... •... a, .4o 7-• 0.0 U a) C E.) •- Ci C L- .- . ' ‘-I Cr • CO 0 E U 1:00'., , L, > C./1 C.'t C,I. IN . L- 01 0) al t. 44 E E _c •,15 0.0 tn. E IA- .5- ...n O.. .- c CU ..s. CU. -I.= r.-- '••• 0 CC '' 7 , 0 Co : C . LL0 N rtst. .0 'Y C .0, E, Kt rA . ..7-• .c- — c ,a,.- a> L6 . •- co -- ,- m "5 m „ '' E a , a, "' CU 1-r 44 Oi ,,, C.7 • a, — -cr). -(..r). -al cc T n. -, 1.1 - CO ..0 Ce .,, • I .;i i• ..■-.7. I 4 r u e-I cl) .1- n r,3' C • C.) •,' 4- , •• 01 > t.. . t..10 0 (N.0 1.. vl •-• N--1 (-4 7:-_ To ) ■. CO 0) ,... oa *•' '1, co --, z I— CA ›- C ''' a.) (C .0 _ • . _ cu . . . , .. 0) ''. Ts c 't. ,.,,W E ', [.? • . a) .; , a) 0) ., > 13 • "Cl . O • Co v-4 5 CD • . . ' ' •':'', . 4.. 0w- v-1 CV -, -C -, 7 ■ ! :'.',' ,,, .,. cl, CJ LII cu -o 't 4., -0 ,-.3 o = t_'■. -1-., 03 E a „, co 0. a/ '..W' .14) CO -0 40 4--, = •-. C C 0 >• D L.r it .0 CP co ) 0 i IA. . 4-, 0 • "'"' E rn . 9 I • a.) , — 0.) 'EL c 0.) CC .- • — , ___ -To- __ c n3 t.- ,z) --- • .4.3 9 g w +E. t2 ea ''‘ `- C 0 u„ u c ._ U. c .. o_ — cr, 1E5 o >•• to ' .' ,, x--1 0m 0 ll. a) 9 C ,... , -- g. vi r-, m ,... 8 a) 0_ 2.,, .. O ,,. 0 C 0 C Cl .— .—u oo 0 N 0 IJ 4, 4 • ,.., 0 0) C 0) - c) C CC C CC 5 co E ,- .. r.• C) a) a.) c _o 9 >-: . E `-' E 2 '- a, a, 0 1: . a- L.) ,... LI 0 -0 ,_ vl U -0 u -0 13 U 0.0 (1) . ...... CU CO C cal C U 1... c -C — ›t• 4,, . — 7 — C .C. '1' .- 4-' a) a) 0. •,. 0- 4- [ L- C L.- 7, D t i Tr C a) C.) a) cd aj -8 • = . cc cc cc cc VI U E--- > E (11 0 - -..-.z c = c .... ,. (3., _ •• , I a • ,_ u b.0 o _c ,._ .- -E,... .- a ,_ 713 vl F- .)1- ,. o_ = 17 0 co a co a! 46 C > 0 1....) Z O O Collier County 1 Correctional Facilities IF Update Study Net Correctional Facilities Impact Cost The net correctional impact fee per resident is the difference between the cost component and the credit component. Table 19 summarizes the calculation of the net correctional facility cost per resident. The first section of Table 19 identifies the total impact cost as $275 per resident for correctional facilities. The second section of the table identifies the revenue credits for the impact fee. The credit calculation includes a total of approximately$14 per resident. The net impact cost per resident is the different between the total impact cost and the total revenue credit per resident. This results in a net impact cost of$261 per resident. Table 19 Net Impact Cost per Functional Resident Calculation Step Impact Cost RCredits Impact Cost Total Impact Cost .er,Functional ,Residentlil $275.33 - Revenue Credit Capital Ex•ansion Expenditure Credit Average Annual Ca.ital Expansion Credit per Functional Resident(2) ($0.08) Capitalization Rate 4.0% Capitalization Period(in ears) 25 Capital Expansion Credit per Functional Resident(3) ($1.25) Debt Service Credit per Functional Resident(4) 13.10 Total Credit per Functional Resident151 ($14.35) Net tm.act Cost Net Impact Cost per Functional'kesident(6) $260.98 (1) Source:Table 16 (2) Source:Table 17 (3) Source:The present value of the capital improvement credit per functional resident(Item 2)at a discount rate of 4%with a capitalization period of 25 years. The discount rate is estimated based on the debt service on the most recent bond issue. (4) Source:Table 18 (5) Sum of capital expansion credit(Item 3)and debt service credit(Item 4) (6) Total impact cost per resident(Item 1)less the total revenue credit per resident(Item 5) Tindale Oliver Collier County November 2014 30 Correctional Facilities Impact Fee Study Collier County I Correctional Facilities IF Update Study Calculated Correctional Facilities Impact Fee Schedule Table 20 presents the calculated correctional facilities impact fee schedule for residential and non-residential land uses, based on the net impact fee cost per resident figures presented in Table 19. Any large fluctuations between the current adopted fee and the calculated fee for any of the land uses are due to the changes to the demand component, which was updated to reflect any additional studies added to the ITE and Florida database, and change of the tiering or land use groupings. Table 20 Calculated Correctional Facilities Impact Fee;Schedule Functional Net impact Current Fee per Percent LUC Land Use Impact Unit Population Impact Fee Functional Change Coefficient''' , Residential: Single Family Detached 210 -Less than 4,000sf du'i k ''' 1.81 $472.37 $48830 -3% -4,0005f orgreater i, i r• du 2.07 $540.23 $535.89 1% 220/222/2 Multi-Family 30/232 du ':0.83 $216.61 $252.37 -14% 222 Multi-Family(Apartment)-More than 10 stories „.i l, .du '0,83 $216.61 $252.37 -14% 230 Residential Condominium/Townhouse '' ;du'' , 0.94 $245.32 $252.37 -3% 232 High-Rise Condominium 3 or more stories du' r 0.94;,;',',$245.32 $252.37 -3% 240 Mobile Home/RV(f)eld biiv/n) _ d(,': ' ,, .,'i •. 1.44_ $375.81 $372.18 1% Transient,Assisted,Group: 31W311 Hotel ' ''.1 ; ' '• ': ", :'room ' 0.80 $208.78 $201.39 4% 320 Motel room 0.76 $198.34 $191.19 4% 251 Retirement Community/Age-Restricted Single Family it du 0.88 $229.66 $209.03 10% 251/253 Assisted Living Fadlity(Atf), 'du 0.84 $219.22 $209.03 5% 620 NtirsIng Home , bed 0.90 $234.88 $183.54 28% Recreational: i.!!416':: ' RV Park !' 1,.,site 0.50 5130.49 $137.65 -5% 420. Marna " berth 0.19 549.59 $48.43 2% 430'' Golf Course 18 holes 19.44 $5,073.45 $4,955.70 2% n/a' Bundled Golf Course 18 holes 5.83 $1,521.51 $4,955.70 -69% 444 Movie,Theaterw/Matinee '', screen 5.98 $1,560.66 $1,524.44 2% n/a DanceStudios/Gyms 1,000sf 2.22 $579.38 $624.55 -7% Institutions: 520 Elementary School(Private) student 0.06 $15.65 $15.29 2% 522 Middle School,(tsrivate) student 0.07 $18.27 $17.84 2% 530 High School(Privatel student 0 0 $20.88 520.39 2% 540 University/Junior College'With'7,500 or fewer students student 0.10 $26.10 $25.49 2% 550 University/Junior College with more than 7,500 students student 0.07 $18.27 $17.84- 2% 560 Church seat 0.03 $7.83 n/a n/a 565 Day Care student 0.05 $13.05 $12.75 2% 610 Hospital 1,000sf 1.37 $357.54 $420.62 -15% Office: Office 6,000 sf or less 1,000 sf 1.00 $260.98 $361.98 -28% Office 6,001-100,000sf 1,000sf 1.1.9 $310.57 $328.85 -6% 710 Office 100,001-200,000sf 1,000sf 1.01 $263.59 $280.41 -6% Office 200,001-400,000 sf 1,000sf 0.85 $221.83 $239.63 -7% Office greater than 400,000 sf 1,000sf 0.77 $200.95 5203.94 -1% 720 Medical Office/Clinic 10,000 sf or less 1,000sf 1.14 $297.52 $438.46 -32% Medical Office/Clinic greater than 10,000 sf 1,030sf 1.66 $433.23 $438.46 -1% 770 Business Park(Flex Space) I 1,000sf I 0.961 $250.541 $252.371 -1% Tindale Oliver Collier County November 2014 31 Correctional Facilities Impact Fee Study Collier County 1 Correctional Facilities IF Update Study Table 20(continued) Calculated Correctional Facilities Impaedmpu Net lict le Funct ctFee ions( Sch Current LUC Land Use Impact Unit Population' Fee pet impact Fee Percent in Functional Change Coefficient ,,, Rate Resident Retail: 814 Specialty Retell 1,000sf 1.69 $441.06 $430.82 2% Retail 6,000 gsf or less 1,000gsf 2.45 $639.40 $624.55 2% Retail 6,001-25,000gsf 1,000gsf 2.45 $639.40 $624.55 2% Retail 25,001-50,030gsf 1,000 gsf 2.45 $639.40 $624.55 2% Retail 50,000-100,000 gsf 1,000gsf , 2.46 $642.01 $670.44 -4% 820 Retail 100,001-150,000 gsf 1,000gsf .2.25 $587.21 $596.51 -2% Retail 150,001-200,000 gsf 1,000gsf , ' 2.75 $717.70 $726.52 -1% Retail 200,001-400,000 gsf 1,000gsf 2.34 $610.69 $637.30 -4% Retail 400,001-600,000 gsf 1,000gsf : 2.44 $636.79 $650.05 -2% Retail 600,001-1,000,O00gsf 1,000gsf 2:42 $631.57 $650.05 -3% Retail greater than 1,000,00Ogsf 1,000gsf 2.09 $545.45 $532.78 2% 841 New/Used Auto Sales 1,000sf 1.47 ,$383.64 $435.91 -12% 849 Tire Superstore 1,000sf 1.34 "$349,71 $341.59 2% 850 Supermarket 1,00nsf 2.05 $535b1 $522.59 2% 851 Convenience Market(24 hour) 1,000sf , .,5.47 $1,427.56 $1,394.43 2% Convenience Store w/Gas Pumps 4orlessfuel positions • . fuel pos.. 4.35 $1,135.26 $1,486.20 -24% 5-6 fuel positions fuel pos.', 3.70 $965.63 $1,486.20 -35% 853 7-8 fuel positions fuel pos. 3.29 $858.62 $1,486.20 -42% 9-10fuel positions fuel pos. 2.94 $767.28 $1,486.20 -48% 11-12 fuel positions fuel pos. 175 $717.70 $1,486.20 -52% 13 or more fuel positions fuel pos.. 2.59 $675-94 $1,486.20 -55% 862 Home Improvement5uperstore , 1,000sf 1.81- $472.37 $453.76 4% 881 Pharmacy/Drug Store with and wo/Drive-Thru . -1,000 sf ,1.96 $511.52 $492.00 4% 890 Furniture Store ', 1000sf 0.24 $62.64 $61.17 2% 911 Bank/Savings Walk-In 1,000sf 2.23 $581.99 $655.15 -11% 912 Bank/Savings Drive-In - . 1,000sf 2.28 $595.03 $604.17 -2% 931 Quality Restaurant seat 0.22 $57.42 $56.08 2% 932 High-Turnover Restaurant - seat 0.27 $70.46 $68.82 2% 934., fast Food Rest.w`Drii'e-Thru ,1,000sf 8.90 $2,322.72 $2,296.85 1% 941; Quick Lube service bay 1.16 $302.74 $295.71 2% 944 Gasoline/Service Station fuel pos. 1.91 $498.47 $504.75 -1% 947 Self-Service Car Wash - - service bay 0.87 $227.05 $155.50 46% 948 Automated Car Wash 1,00Dsf 1.76 $459.32 $410.42 12% n/a Luxury Auto Sales - 1,000sf 1.03 $268.81 $282.96 -5% Industrial: 110 Light Industrial 1,000sf 0.69 $180.08 $175.90 2% 140 Manufacturing 1,0005f 0.50 $130.49 $175.90 -26% 150 Warehousing 1,000sf 0.28 $73.07 $175.90 -58% 151 Mini-Warehouse 1,000sf 0-06 $15.66 $17.84 -12% (1) Source: Table 10 for residential land uses and Table 11 for non-residential land uses (2) Source: Net impact cost per functional resident from Table 19 is multiplied by the functional population coefficient for each land use Tindale Oliver Collier County November 2014 32 Correctional Facilities Impact Fee Study Collier County I Correctional Facilities IF Update Study Impact Fee Schedule Comparison As part of the work effort in updating Collier County's correctional facilities impact fee program, a comparison of correctional facilities impact fee schedules was completed for other Florida counties. Table 21 presents this comparison. As presented, Collier County's calculated fee is within the range of fees adopted by other Counties. M:1' t4 it V! 1 Oh .1' qt! W.It 41, q111 ti.o.. 4,tn V, k x f.'ii '33. .v', OP60. . OA ilt dOe 10, .d,t „IV Alp, q 1 'sl , illO 'k ' 4,• 1 . 'rni ill.,i ,tit, ■ '4 glIFF ifi' Tindale Oliver Collier County November 2014 33 Correctional Facilities Impact Fee Study 1 > p�Q $ O ; E-# c `� Q^1 ,-I O O O N U .O C 4,(N t 17 1 aU l_C > ■ a) 0 V O G ca O a' N ' M 00 .-4 r-( i-I O (1) y E C O ( I(1 N to LI I V�1 � al C d dN ,� i/} i/Y i/1- in. 'VI U? C m N 0 U Ln Lt. r ri O !6 u 4- > . NN 3 O C C O 6j in V(A in, in Oi a0/? 111 t7 0 c s E 'O s x o u .7c• - M 7 N N• C C C C C C O. N 0) Z O ? n ar �J O aC 3 'CI c ra 0J " C i ty u 0) 0) N v m a, st E 07 (O i' Ip N A t0D co :'"'I ' i V E m CU 46 V 1 m I. . et .Q i M A Q. a1 I— E ou c 3 C VI yC C1 00 N O pr) lD r O S pppp LD h N I` 4-- e-1 — « N gj R M lD ld e-i •-4 r{ in- th tn. t/? in' 0 tU6 C un aJ N E m . c a N O u- 0 t ' O u 0:1 C m ^ Q g u al CI) 73 n C (n Q. v ra n N cn H -, m rn ai a) O C ? / UOL ff' O'N �' o d . In 0 m : O C 13, c __ 0! U 4J (7) m .? Ti > p > a p O i g g o S c▪ °t° c c IV C r r- ri E C U u c Q - E T 4' +2 O E C 01 y U▪ C U U C O Q N 2 1- O U c o u N > +^ Y E 8 , > c v m c u o VI nt _ (� d q p p N C0 O i �p a ro L. L .-i 3 O >' GOB 3 > .• 1- U c o0 2 c O (n ; O L v O U p. N O� O 13 • u u Q u u u u u Q d .0 u- p > C 7 n 0 0 n n n aJ n cu _D NO Q U '� Y - 4-+ N to (O In N (O V) 7 N I m a) s C w v coo N 00 C O t!1 O OL LL m ID y V M-- in lD Iv F— Z Collier County I Correctional Facilities IF Update Study Appendix A Building and Land Value Analysis / Supplemental Information Collier County 1 Correctional Facilities IF Update Study Appendix A This appendix provides the additional data and information on building and land value estimates. Building Values As explained in the report, several steps were undertaken to determine current building values for the impact fee calculations. Collier County has not built any new correctional facilities since the last update study. Because correctional facilities involve construction of large buildings to make it cost efficient, there are not many other new facilities built by other jurisdictions either. Given this, the following information was used to update the building cost for correctional facilities. • Tindale Oliver conducted discussions with architects, including the firm that prepared the County's Jail Master.Plan. These discussions suggested a unit cost ranging from $285 per square''foot to$445 per square foot, with an average of$350 per square foot. • Tindale Oliver also obtained construction cost estimates from Reed Construction, which ranged from $270 per square foot to $300 per square foot, depending on the design and material used.` • The current insurance value of the Naples Jail is $195 per square foot and Immokalee Jail is$247 per square foot. It is important to note insurance values are considered to provide conservative estimates and do not take into consideration certain building components, such as foundation, architectural/design cost, furniture/fixture/equipment, security features, etc. Given the above information, a unit value of$300 per square foot is used in the study. This value represents an 8 percent decrease from the unit value of$325 per square foot used in the previous study. To determine the building value of the parking garage, insurance value of the existing garage and the relation of parking garage cost to the jail building cost were evaluated. This analysis suggested a unit cost of$52 per square foot, which represents a 7 percent decrease from the unit cost of$56 per square foot used in the previous technical study. Tindale Oliver Collier County November 2014 A-1 Correctional Facilities Impact Fee Study Collier County I Correctional Facilities IF Update Study Land Values As mentioned previously, vacant land sales and value analyses were conducted to estimate the current value per acre to be used in the correctional facilities impact fee calculations. Based on the discussions with County staff, future land purchases for correctional facilities are likely to be in the Immokalee and Big Corkscrew areas. Therefore the land value analysis considered sales and values over the past three years in these areas. Table A-1 Land Value Analysis 2013 Property Appraiser Land Values Vacant Land Sales Acreage All Land Uses Residential Avg of 2010-2012 2012 Weighted Avg Median Weighted Avg Median Weighted Avg Median Weighted Avg Median -0.5-5 acres $73,591 $32,500 $15,796{ j, $14,583 $22,855 $14,747 $23,951 $13,960 -5.01 to 20 acres $41,225 $27,680 $25,045; , $25,000 $22,246 $18,253( $17,088 $17,088 -20.01 to 50 acres $20,271 $20,000 $25,000 $25,000 N/A N/A N/A N/A As shown, the 2013 land value per acre as estimated-by the Property Appraiser's Office in the Immokalee and Big Corkscrew areas'ranged from $20;000 to $74,000 for all land uses depending on the acreage. This range,,is $15,000 to $25 ,000 for the residential vacant properties. Finally, vacant land sales in this area over the last three years, suggested a range of$15,000 peracre to $24,000 per are There were a total of 42 lots sold during this period; of which, 14 were sold in 2012. Given these figures, an average figure of $25,000 per acre is found to be 'reasonable for the impact fee calculations. This represents a 50 percent decrease from the unit value of$50,000 per acre used in the 2009 technical study. Tindale Oliver Collier County November 2014 A-2 Correctional Facilities Impact Fee Study