The URL can be used to link to this page

Agenda 09/28/2010 Item # 8B Agenda Item No. 88 September 28.2010 Page 1 of 157 ~ EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Recommendation to adopt an Ordinance amending Chapter 74 of the Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances (The Collier County Consolidated Impact Fee Ordinance) providing for the incorporation by reference of the impact fee study entitled the "Collier County Transportation Impact Fee Cost and Credit Update Study," dated September 8, 2010, which is an amendment to the adopted "Collier County Transportation Impact Fee Update Study;" amending the Road Impact Fee rate schedule, which is Schedule One of Appendix A, as set forth in the Cost and Credit Update, which provides for a reduction in rates; amending the Parks and Recreation Impact Fee schedule, which is Schedule Three of Appendix A, in accordance with the adopted indexing methodology, utilizing a two-year average, which provides for a reduction in rates; accepting the calculation of the indexing percentage for the Correctional Facilities Impact Fee in accordance with the adopted indexing methodology, utilizing a two-year average, but providing that the current Correctional Facilities Impact Fee rates remain in effect rather than increasing the fees as calculated; providing for a delayed effective date of October 8, 2010, in order to provide time for fIling with the Florida Department of State and notification to the local municipalities of the new rates. ~ OBJECTIVE: That the Board of County Commissioners (Board) adopts an Ordinance implementing downward adjustments to the Community Parks and Regional Parks Impact Fees, based on application of the adopted indexing methodology, providing that the current Correctional Facilities Impact Fees remain in place, rather than implementing a fee increase and providing for a downward adjustment to the Road Impact Fees based on the findings of the "Collier County Transportation Impact Fee Cost and Credit Update Study." CONSIDERATIONS: On April 28, 2009, the Board adopted Ordinance 2009-17, which amended the Code of Laws and Ordinances (Code) to reflect a change to the use of a two-year average model from the 10-year regression analysis model to calculate the various indices, as this method is intended to be more responsive to cost fluctuations. In 2010, Community Parks, Regional Parks and Road Impact Fees are scheduled to be indexed using the adopted (two-year avcrage) methodology. The remaining impact fees are scheduled for full studies that commenced in early 20 I O. Four measures are used (land costs, building costs, building equipment costs and transportation costs), alone or in combination, to calculate the indexing percentages for the various impact fees. Using the two-year average methodology, the most recent, available data related to the individual indices is used in the calculation. Based on the information above, the total indexing percentage is then calculated for each of the individual impact fees. Detailed information related to impact fee indexing is included as backup to this Executive Summary (Attachment A). - Agenda Item No. 8B September 28,2010 Page 2 of 157 , Imoact Fee 2010 Combined Index Community Parks -4.7% Regional Parks -11.9% Correctional Facilities 3.4% The impact fee with the largest percentage of inventory value attributed to land (Regional Parks) experienced the most significant downward adjustment in the calculated index. On the converse, the majority of inventory value in Correctional Facilities is buildings, which is an index that is declining from prior years but still remains positive. Based on the positive index, indicating an increase in fees, the County's impact fee consultant conducted further research and interviews with professionals in the field to ascertain if the cost of jail construction has changed appreciably over the past year. A memo from Tindale-Oliver and Associates, Inc. (TOA) is provided as an attachment to this item (Attachment B). In summary, architects and other professionals in the field, familiar with jail construction agree that construction cost for jails has remained stable. This likely is related to the legal and safety requirements of jail construction. There are not many "extras" or items that could be considered optional and removed to lower the cost of the project. While an increase in impact fees for Correctional Facilities is supported by the calculation using the adopted indexing methodology, staff recommends that the Correctional Facilities Impact Fee rates remain at the current, adopted level thereby forgoing the fee increase. Transportation Index: The Transportation Index was also calculated using the adopted two- year average methodology, resulting in a calculated index of -5.6%. In past years, the Producer's Price Index (PPI) was included as part of the index to moderate the steep increase in the Florida Department of Transportation cost estimates. However, in 2010 noticeable cost decreases were experienced throughout the State of Florida, including the FDOT numbers, therefore the smoothing effect of the PPl was not required to moderate the costs. Removal of the PPI component resulted in a calculated index of -12.8%. Because of the notable cost decreases recently experienced throughout Florida, staff and TOA agreed that it was appropriate to undertake a further review of the cost and credit components of the Road Impact Fee by way of a "Cost and Credit Update." The update analyzes the key components of the Road Impact Fee calculations which develop the impact fee rates. The major components of the update, including narratives provided by TOA, are included as back-up to this item (Attachnlent C). During the Cost and Credit Update, TOA provided a detailed analysis of the cost component related to utility relocations. Currently, utility relocation costs are included as part of the transportation impact fee. However, the general practice statewide is to include these costs as part of the utility impact fees and/or utility rate. Because the Utility Impact Fees are currently being updated, until the revised study is completed and adopted, the utility costs will remain as Agenda Item No. 86 September 28, 2010 Page 3 of 157 part of the Transportation Impact Fee. After the appropriate changes are made to the utility impact fees/rates, the utility relocation costs can then be removed from the transportation impact fee, which, upon Board review and approval, further reduces the fee. This is estimated to occur in the fourth calendar quarter of 20] O. A sample rate schedule displaying the further reduction to the Transportation Impact Fee, related to removal of the utility relocation costs, is included as an attachment to this Executive Summary (Attachment D). The resulting rate reductions from the Cost and Credit Update are an average decrease of 32% for both residential and commercial construction proposed with this ordinance amendment to become effective October 8,2010. An additional average reduction of approximately 10% will be reviewed and considered by the Board after the appropriate changes are made to the Utility Impact Fees/rates, as discussed above, for a total average decrease of 42%. Other Considerations Two components were evaluated as part of this Cost and Credit Update and were included in the Appendix for reference. At this time, updates of these components were not included in the calculation of the new fee schedules; however, these components, as follows, will become increasingly important as growth resumes and moves farther east. Trip Lenlrth This concept was discussed related to single-family during the 2008/2009 Transportation Impact Fee Update Study. Results of the analysis showed that the Single-Family Trip Length being utilized is extremely conservative. The actual Trip Length sampling indicates that a majority of trip lengths east of CR-951 are longer due to the lack of destinations such as retail, employment and medical. In 2009, the Board directed that the updated Trip Lengths not be used in the calculation of the updated fees. This Cost and Credit Update remains consistent with that direction. The Trip Length information has been updated and included in the Appendix for information purposes but was not used in the calculation of the new rates. Capacity Added As provided in the Cost and Credit Update, the capacity component relates to the marginal capacity added each time a lane mile is constructed in the future. The added capacity is calculated by subtracting the existing capacity from the total new capacity. The most significant variable that affects the capacity levels is the number of signals per mile. Similar to the Trip Length, the Capacity Added information was included in the Appendix for informational purposes, but was not used in the calculation of the new rates. The components above warrant further review and consideration, as they become increasingly important as the economy stabilizes and demand begins to increase. Therefore, by way of this Executive Summary, staff recommends that the Board direct the County Manager, or his designee, to work with the County's impact fee consultant to collect additional data related to the Trip Length and Capacity Added components and report back to the Board with the findings of the anal ysis. Agenda Item No. 88 September 28, 2010 Page 4 of 157 On September 1, 2010, staff presented the Annual Indexing for Community Parks, Regional Parks and Correctional Facilities and the Transportation Impact Fee Cost and Credit Update Study to the Development Services Advisory Committee (DSAC) for their review and recommendations. With respect to the Community and Regional Parks Impact Fee, the DSAC recommended that each of the fees be indexed using only the land component, as that was most representative of actual decreases being experienced. This recommendation translates to a 14.3% decrease to each category. The DSAC also concurred with the staff and recommended that the Correctional Facilities Impact Fees remain at the current adopted level rather than implementing the calculated index of 3.4%. Finally, with respect to the Transportation Impact Fee, the Committee generally supported the rate decreases, but indicated that they did not have adequate time for a full review. Therefore, the Committee was unable to make a recommendation. Staff agreed to assist with Committee members with any questions/issues that they had with the study and also agreed to return to DSAC at the October meeting to brief the Committee on the action taken by the Board, the rates to be implemented, and to address any remaining issues/concerns of the Committee members. The Annual Indexing for Community Parks, Regional Parks and Correctional Facilities and the Transportation Impact Fee Cost and Credit Update Study was presented to the Productivity Committee on September 15, 2010 for their review and recommendations. With respect to the indexing for Correctional Facilities, Community Parks and Regional Parks, the Committee concurred with staffs recommendation to maintain current Correctional Facilities Impact Fee rates rather than implementing an increase, and to implement the calculated reduction of 4.7% to the Community Parks Impact Fee rates and 11.9% to the Regional Parks Impact Fee rates. Regarding the Transportation Impact Fee Cost and Credit Update the Committee recommended that the Board direct that Tindale-Oliver and Associates evaluate an appropriate change to the current single-family average trip length component used to calculate the fee, which is currently 64% of the model trip length. The committee recommended a percentage increase from the 64% utilized up to a maximum of 80%, based on the findings of the analysis. This analysis is to be completed prior to the completion of the Utility Impact Fee/rate study and implementation of the related reductions to the Transportation Impact Fee rates. The committee further recommended that an expanded review of Trip Length and Capacity Added be completed for use in the next Transportation Impact Fee Update. On September 15, 20]0, The Greater Naples Chamber of Commerce (Chamber), via a letter to the Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners, requested the following: Agenda Item No. 88 September 28,2010 Page 5 of 157 I. A 50 % reduction in the transportation impact fee (supporting data relative to capacity and process to come). 2. Modify collection policy to collection at time of and in conjunction with issuance of a building permit for the relevant phase of the development. 3. Maintain reduced impact fee levels for a minimum period of two years. A fiscal analysis of the Chamber's recommendation has been prepared by staff and is included as back-up to this Executive Summary. FISCAL IMPACT: Revenue projections related to the individual impact fees depend heavily on the permitting trends during the corresponding time period. Changes in permitting activity will directly affect this impact fee revenue stream. The specified reductions are proposed to go into effect on October 8, 2010; therefore, any permits applied for on or after that date will receive the lower rates. The statutory minimum 90-day notice is not required for impact fee reductions. Because of the decline in construction activity impact fee revenue has also been significantly reduced. Based upon actual impact fee collections and current permitting activity and forecasts, the following is the projected change in impact fee revenue associated to the indexing/update rate revisions assuming that development activity remains constant. Any further decline in activity will also directly affect the impact fees collections. Impact Fee Potential Change in Annual Collections Based on Current Activitv Community Parks ($60,000) Regional Parks ($209,212) Road (assuming full 42% reduction) ($4,200,000) Examples of the rate reductions applicable to common land uses are included as attachments to this Executive Summary (Attachment E). GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: The concepts of annual indexing and impact fee updates are consistent with Objective 1.2 of the Capital Improvement Element (CIE) of the Collier County Growth Management Plan (GMP). which states: "Future development will bear a proportionate cost offacility improvements necessitated by growth." Additionally, this approach is consistent with Section 163.31801, Florida Statutes, which is the Florida Impact Fee Act 2006, requiring the most recent and localized data be used in impact fee calculations. LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS: The proposed Transportation Impact Fee and Parks and Recreation Impact fee are the maximum rates which the Board may lawfully impose, irrespective of the Fiscal Impact, which reflects decreased demand and decreased costs. The Ordinance is legally sufficient for Board action. -JAK .,_.... Agenda Item No. 88 September 28.2010 Page 6 of 157 RECOMMENDATION: That the Board of County Commissioners adopt an Ordinance amending Chapter 74 of the Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances providing for: 1. The incorporation by reference of the impact fee study entitled the "Collier County Transportation Impact Fee Cost and Credit Update Study;" 2. Amending the Road Impact Fee rate schedule which provides for a reduction in rates (an average of 32%); An additional average reduction of approximately 10% will be reviewed and considered by the Board after the appropriate changes are made to the Utility Impact Fees/rates; 3. Amending the Parks and Recreation Impact Fee schedule, providing for an 11.9% reduction to the Regional Parks Impact Fee rates and a 4.7% reduction to the Community Parks Impact Fee rates; 4. Accepting the calculation of the indexing percentage for the Correctional Facilities Impact Fee but providing that the current Correctional Facilities Impact Fee rates remain in effect rather than increasing the fees as calculated; 5. Providing for a delayed effective date of October 8,2010, in order to provide time for filing with the Florida Department of State and notification to the local municipalities of the new rates. Additionally, that the Board of County Commissioners: 6. Direct the County Manager, or his designee, to work with the County's impact fee consultant to collect additional data related to the Trip Length and Capacity Added components and report back to the Board with the findings of the analysis. Prepared by: Amy Patterson, Impact Fee and Economic Development Manager Growth Management Division - Planning and Regulation Attachments: 1) Proposed Ordinance Amendment; 2) Cost and Credit Study; 3) Attachment A - Indexing 4) Attachment B - Jail Memo; 5) Attachment C.... Cost and Credit Major Components; 6) Attachment D - Draft Fee Schedule; 7) Attachment E - Impact Fee Comparisons; 8) Greater Naples Chamber of Commerce Letter; 9) Analysis Related to Chamber Recommendation ,- Agenda Item No. 8B September 28.2010 Page 7 of 157 COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Item Number: Item Summary: 88 Recommendation to adopt an Ordinance amending Chapter 74 of the Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances (The Collier County Consolidated Impact Fee Ordinance) providing for the inccrporation by reference of the impact fee study entitied the Coliier County Transportation Impact Fee Cost and Credit Update Study, dated March 11.2009, which is an amendment to the adopted Collier County Transportation Impact Fee Update Study; amending the Road Impact Fee rate schedule as set forth in the Cost and Credit Update, which provides for a reduction in rates; amending the Parks and Recreation Impact Fee scheduie in accordance with the adopted indexing methodology, utilizing a two-year average, which provides for a reduction in rates; accepting the calculation of the indexing percentage for the Correctional Facilities impact Fee in accordance with the adopted indexing methodology, utilizing a two-year average, but providing that the current Correctional Facilities Impact Fee rates remain in effect rather than increasing the fees as calculated; and providing for a delayed effective date of October 8. 2010, in order to provide time for filing with the Florida Department of State and notification to the local municipalities of the new rates. Meeting Date: 9/28/20109:00:00 AM Prepared By Amy Patterson Community Development & Environmental Services Manager ~ Impact Fees & EDe Date Business Management & Budget Office 9/20/2010 2:21:5B PM Approved By Community Development & Environmental Services Operations Analyst Community Development & Environmental Services Date Judy Puig 9/20/20103:56 PM Approved By Nick Casalanguida Director - Transportation Planning Date Transportation Division Transportation Planning 9/20/20104:03 PM Approved By Thomas Wides Director M Operations Support - PUD Date Public Utilities Division Utilities Finance Operations 9/21/201011:19 AM Approved By James W. Delany Public Utilities Division Administrator Date Public Utilities Division Public Utilities Division 9/21/2010 11:3B AM Approved By Marla Ramsey Administrator. Public Services Date Public Services Division Public Services Division 9/21/20102:22 PM Agenda Item No. 88 September 28, 2010 Page 8 of 157 Approved By OMS Coordinator Date County Manager's Office Office of Management & Budget 9/21/20103:16 PM Approved By Randy Greenwald Office of Management & Budget Management/Budget Analyst Date Office of Management & Budget 9/21/20104:32 PM Approved By Jeff Klatzkow County Attorney Date 9/22/20108:11 AM Approved By Norm E. Feder, AICP Administrator ~ Transportation Date Transportation Division Transpor;tation Administration 9/22/20102:39 PM Approved By Mark Isackson Management/Budget Analyst. Senior Date Office of Management & Budget Office of Management & Budget 9/22/20103:06 PM Agenda Item No. 88 September 28, 2010 Page 9 of 157 ORDINANCE NO. 2010- AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING CHAPTER 74 OF THE COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES (THE COLLIER COUNTY CONSOLIDATED IMPACT FEE ORDINANCE) BY INCORPORATING BY REFERENCE THE "COLLIER COUNTY TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE COST AND CREDIT UPDATE STUDY" WHICH IS AN AMENDMENT TO THE ADOPTED "COLLIER COUNTY TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE UPDATE STUDY;" AMENDING THE ROAD IMPACT FEE RATE SCHEDULE, wmCH IS SCHEDULE ONE OF APPENDIX A, AS SET FORTH IN THE COST AND CREDIT UPDATE, WHICH PROVIDES FOR A REDUCTION IN RATES; AMENDING THE PARKS AND RECREATION IMPACT FEE RATE SCHEDULE, WHICH IS SCHEDULE THREE OF APPENDIX A, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ADOPTED INDEXING METHODOLOGY, UTILIZING A TWO- YEAR AVERAGE, WHICH PROVIDES FOR A REDUCTION IN RATES; ACCEPTING THE CALCULATION OF THE INDEXING PERCENTAGE FOR THE CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES IMPACT FEE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ADOPTED INDEXING METHODOLOGY, UTILIZING A TWO-YEAR AVERAGE, BUT PROVIDING THAT THE CURRENT CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES IMPACT FEE RATES REMAIN IN EFFECT RATHER THAN INCREASING THE FEES AS CALCULATED; PROVIDING FOR CONFLICT AND SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION IN THE COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES; AND PROVIDING FOR A DELAYED EFFECTIVE DATE OF OCTOBER 8, 2010. WHEREAS, Collier 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, Collier County has used impact fees as a funding source for growth-related capital improvements for various facilities since 1978; and WHEREAS, on March 13, 2001, the Board of County Commissioners 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 Laws and Ordinances (the "Code"); and I lnderlincd text is added; 8tfUelr through text is deleted Agenda Item No. 88 September 28,2010 Page 10 of 157 WHEREAS, in October of 2002 the Board of County Commissioners directed that during the upcoming required three-year updates of the individual impact fees that methodology also be developed to provide for the annual indexing of the fees in the years between the formal updates; and WHEREAS, on February 28, 2006, the Board of County Commissioners directed that the indexing methodology for each of the impact fees be reviewed and revised, as appropriate, to reflect localized information; and WHEREAS, Collier County retained Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. to complete the study to localize the indexing methodologies; and WHEREAS, on June 26, 2007 the Board of County Commissioners adopted Ordinance 2007-57, thereby adopting the "Collier County Impact Fee Indexing Study," and amending the Code to reflect the new indexing provisions and amended rates; and . WHEREAS, on October 28, 2008 the Board of County Commissioners directed that the Productivity Committee be afforded the opportunity to review the indexing methodology based on the Committee's request to consider the appropriateness of an indexing model that is more sensitive to the current economic conditions; and WHEREAS, Tindale-Oliver and Associates, Inc. completed the report entitled the "Collier County Indexing Methodology Study, " which amended portions of the adopted "Collier County Impact Fee Indexing Study" and recommended that a two-year average be utilized to calculate the various indices; and WHEREAS, on April 28, 2009, the Board of County Commissioners adopted Ordinance No. 2009-17, amending the Code by implementing the revised indexing methodology; and WHEREAS, in 2010; Community Parks, Regional Parks, Correctional Facilities, and Road Impact Fees are scheduled to be indexed, using the adopted methodology; and WHEREAS, the indexing calculations have been completed resulting in a decrease in rates of 4.7% for Community Parks, a decrease in rates of 11.9% for Regional Parks and an increase in rates of 3.4% for Correctional Facilities; and WHEREAS, with respect to this annual indexing, staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners only implement the decreases to Community Parks, Regional Parks, and that the increase to Correctional Facilities not be implemented, but rather the current impact fee rates remain in place; and Underlined text is added; !:lAie!, Ulrsl::Igh text is deleted Page 2 of9 Agenda Item No. 88 September 28, 2010 Page 110f 157 WHEREAS, due to the significant changes in transportation related construction costs throughout the State, staff and the impact fee consultant, Tindale-Oliver and Associates, Inc. agreed that a "Cost and Credit Update" should be performed in place of the annual indexing; and WHEREAS, the results of the "Cost and Credit Update" is an average decrease of 32% in the residential Road Impact Fee rates and commercial Road Impact Fee rates; and WHEREAS, staff has thoroughly reviewed the calculations and findings and concurs with the results of the calculations and the study; and WHEREAS, staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners adopt this Ordinance to implement the recommended changes; and WHEREAS, Section 163.31801, Florida Statutes, which is the Florida Impact Fee Act, requires the most recent and localized data be used in impact fee calculations and this study complies with that requirement. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that: SECTION ONE. Article I, General, Section 74-106, Adoption of impact fee studies, of the Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances is hereby amended to read as follows: Section 74-106. Adoption ofimpact fee studies. The board hereby adopts and incorporates by reference the following studies with regard to the respective public facilities: (l)Transportation facilities: "Collier County Transportation Impact Fee Update Study," prepared by Tindale-Oliver and Associates, Incorporated (February 19, 2009) and Collier County Trip Characteristics Study - Mine Land Use (September 3, 2009) ~ amended bv the "Collier County Transportation Impact Fee Cost and Credit Update Studv" (September 8. 2010); *** Underlined text is added; 811 ",ell tlU8\:1gR text is deleted Page 3 of9 Agenda Item No. 88 September 28, 2010 Page 12 of 157 SECTION TWO. Appendix A of Chapter 74 of the Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances is hereby amended as set forth in the attachment to this Ordinance. SECTION THREE. CONFLICT AND SEVERABILITY. In the event this Ordinance conflicts with any other Ordinance of Collier County or other applicable law, the more restrictive shall apply. If any phrase or portion of this Ordinance is held invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct, and independent provision and such holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions. SECTION FOUR. INCLUSION IN THE CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES. The provisions of this Ordinance shall be made a part of the Code of Laws and Ordinances of Collier County, Florida. The sections of the Ordinance may be renumbered or re- lettered and internal cross-references amended throughout to accomplish such, and the word "ordinance" may be changed to "section," "article," or any other appropriate word. SECTION FIVE. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance shall be considered adopted upon the date written below and subject to filing with the Florida Department of State; however, for administrative purposes the effective date of the Road Impact Fee Rate Schedule and the Parks and Recreation Impact Fee Rate Schedule shall be delayed to October 8, 20 I O. PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED by the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida this _ day of ,2010. Underlined text is added; SinIsi: thrsktgJ:l text is deleted Page 4 of9 Agenda Item No. 88 September 28,2010 Page 13 of 157 ATIEST Dwight E. Brock, Clerk BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA By: By: FRED COYLE, Chairman , Deputy Clerk -- and legal sufficiency: Underlined text is added; Slmsk tRffll:lgA text is deleted Page 5 of9 ._."._.-"--"'~----,-_._.,.,-~-_.,--_._.,-----"'_.__.~~---..-., Impact Fee Land Use Category Residential Assisted Living Facility (ALF) CondolTownhouse (1-2 Stories) High-Rise Condominium (3+ Stories) Mobile Home Multi-Family (Apartments) 1-10 Stories Multi-Family (Apartments) > I 0 Stories Retirement Community Single Family Detached House Less than 1,500 sq. ft. 1,500 to 2,499 sq. ft. 2,500 sq. ft. or larger Non-Residential Auto Sales - Luxury Auto Sales - New/Used Bank/Savings: Drive-In Bank/Savings: Walk-In Business Park Car Wash - Automatic Car Wash - Self-Service Church Agenda Item No. 88 September 28, 2010 Page 14 of 157 APPENDIX A - SCHEDULE ONE ROAD IMPACT FEE RATE SCHEDULE Effective JIIRe 8, 1909 October 8. 2010 Rate ~1,31:.99 $1.035.00 Per Dwelling Unit 0,725.00 $5.168.00 Per Dwelling Unit $5,526.00 $3,750.00 Per Dwelling Unit $ 1,311.00 $2.910.00 Per Dwelling Unit $7,161.00 $5.239.00 Per Dwelling Unit $1,;81.99 $3.330.00 Per Dwelling Unit $3,751.00 $2.582.00 Per Dwelling Unit $7,652.00 $5.137.00 Per Dwelling Unit $ I 0,3 72.00 $6.985.00 Per Dwelling Unit $11,559.00 $7.897.00 Per Dwelling Unit $11,996.00 $]0,113.00 Per 1,000 sq. ft. $27,131.00 $16.471.00 Per 1,000 sq. ft. $10,158.00 $26.762.00 Per 1,000 sq. ft. $39,129.00 $26.281.00 Per 1,000 sq. ft. $11,021.00 $9.474.00 Per 1,000 sq. ft. $39,066.00 $25 957.00 Per 1,000 sq. ft. $36,367.00 $24.082.00 Per Service Bay $8,619.00 $5.724.00 Per 1,000 sq. ft. Underlined text is added; gtfWel: thral:lgh text is deleted Page 6 of 9 Impact Fee Land Use Category College/Univen;ity (Private) <7.501 Students >7,500 Students Convenience Store (24 hours) Convenience Store w/Gas Pumps Dance Studios/Gyninastics Day Care Furniture Store Gasoline/Service Station General Light Industrial Golf Course Home Improvcment Store Hospital Hotel Hotel - All Suites Marina Mine/Commercial Excavation Mini-Warehouse Motel Movie Theater Nursing Home Office 50,000 sq, ft. or less Office 50,001-100,000 sq, ft. Office 100,001-200,000 sq. ft. Office 200,001-400,000 sq. ft. Office Greater than 400,000 sq. ft. Office - Medical PharmacylDrug Store Quick Lube Restaurant ~ Drive.In Restaurant. High Turnover Rate Agenda Item No. 88 September 28, 2010 Page 15 of 157 8:2,J71.QQ $1.610.00 Per Student $1.7~~.QQ $1.215.00 Per Student $97,63fi.Q0 $64.473.00 Per 1,000 sq. ft. $31,652.00 $24.845,00 Per Fuel Position $11,339.99 $7.665.00 Per 1,000 sq. ft. $1,11..00 $979.00 Per Student $3,51>.00 $2.497.00 Per 1,000 sq. ft. $8,22100 $5.395.00 Per Fuel Position $7,722.00 $5.261.00 Per 1,000 sq. ft. $749,891.00 $519.916.00 Per 18 Holes $9S01.00 $6.692.00 Per 1,000 sq. ft. S U,031.00 $11.406.00 Per 1,000 sq. ft. $6,578.00 $4.459.00 Per Room $3,891.00 $2.677.00 Per Room tJ,517.00 $2.389.00 Per Berth (DrylWet) ~ $8.00 Per 1,000 cubic yards $1,436.00 $1.074.00 Per 1,000 sq. ft. $1,222.00 $2.854.00 Per Room $46,217.00 $30.747.00 Per Screen $1,261.00 $844.00 Per Bed $16,763.00 $11.286.00 Per 1,000 sq. ft. $ 11,257.00 $9.620.00 Per 1,000 sq. ft. $12,115.00 $8.208.00 Per 1,000 sq. ft. $10,296.00 $6.998.00 Per 1,000 sq. ft. $9,318.00 $6.375.00 Per 1,000 sq. ft. $49,517.00 $27.083.00 Per 1,000 sq. ft. $13,958.00 $9.373.00 Per 1,000 sq. ft. $11 ,522.90 $9.660.00 Per Servuce Bay $137,111.90 $91.307.00 Per 1,000 sq. ft. $2,110.00 $1.638.00 Per Seat Underlined text is added; Etf1:tel: threugh text is deleted Page 7 of 9 ---,_.....' Agenda Item No. 88 September 28, 2010 Page 16 of 157 Impact Fee Land Use Cateeory Rate Restaurant - Quality ~1,5B.OO $1.032.00 Per Seat Retail 50,000 Sq. FI. or Less $1~.gJ3.99 $13243.00 Per 1,000 sq. ft. Retail 50,001-100,000 Sq. Ft. $29,911.99 $13.399.00 Per 1,000 sq. ft. Retail 100,001-150,000 Sq. FI. $]8,661.00 $12.500.00 Per ],000 sq. ft. Retail 150,001-200,000 Sq. FI. $17,883.00 $11.974.00 Per 1,000 sq. ft. Retail 200,00]-400,000 Sq. FI. $16,893.00 $1 1.330.00 Per 1,000 sq. ft. Retail 400,001-600,000 Sq. FI. $16,817.00 $] 1.307.00 Per 1,000 sq. ft. Retail 600,001-1,000,000 Sq. Ft. $18,255.00 $12.259.00 Per] ,000 sq. ft. Retail> 1,000,000 Sq. FI. ~19,187.00 $12.887.00 Per 1,000 sq. ft. Retail - Specialty $26,877.00 $17.962.00 Per 1,000 sq. ft. RV Park $2,299.00 $1.553.00 Per Site School - Elementary (Private) $],005.00 $709.00 Per Student School - Middle (Private) $],139.00 $992.00 Per Student School - High School (Private) $1,526.00 $1.049.00 Per Student Supermarket $26,570.00 $17.708.00 Per 1,000 sq. ft. Tire Store $10,930.00 $7.385.00 Per Service Bay Underlined text is added; ~truel: tkrs\:l.gk text is deleted Page 8 of9 Agenda Item No. 88 September 28, 2010 Page 17 of 157 APPENDIX A - SCHEDULE THREE PARKS AND RECREATION IMPACT FEE RATE SCHEDULE Effective October 8, 2010 Community Parks Effees"';e! Fellru8FY 1, J910 Impact Fee Land Use Category Rate HotellMotel $593.22 $479.57 Per Room Mobile HomefRV Park $915.7\ $901.26 Per Unit/Site Multi-Family $71 J.15 $678.01 Per Dwelling Unit Single Family Detached House Less than 1,500 sq. ft. $1,199.92 $1.142.67 Per Dwelling Unit 1,500 to 2,499 sq. ft. $1,315.89 $1.254.04 Per Dwelling Unit 2,500 sq. ft. or larger $1,115.75 $1.377.80 Per Dwelling Unit Regional Parks Erreeti.'e, NovemBer 1, 2099 Impact Fee Land Use Category Rate HotellMotel Mobile HomefRV Park Multi-Family Single Family Detached House Less than 1,500 sq. ft. 1,500 to 2,499 sq. ft. 2,500 sq. ft. or larger $1,938.61 $1,916.95 $1,298.26 $915.02 $1.688.04 $1.143.77 Per Room Per Unit/Site Per Dwelling Unit $2,199.69 $2,129.51 $2,666.89 $1.937.93 $2,132.47 $2.349.45 Per Dwelling Unit Per Dwelling Unit Per Dwelling Unit Note: Community Parks Impact Fees do not apply to the City of Naples, City of Marco Island or Everglades City. Underlined text is added; BInI.1< thr.Hgh text is deleted Page 9 of9 .. ..,--. ...._~._.__."~~._--_.,---".._,.",,._...^'._~.~--<-......,'" Collier County Transportation Impact Fee Cost and Credit Update Study Draft Report Co1B:r County .. ~- Prepared for: Collier County Transportation Planning Department 2885 North Horseshoe Drive Naple~ FL 34104 ph (239) 252-8192 September 8, 2010 Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. 1000 Ashley Drive, Suite 100 Tampa, FL 33602 ph (813) 224-8862, fax (813) 226-2106 Agenda Item No. 88 September 28, 2010 Page 18 of 157 _ ~ TindaJe-Oliver & Associates, Inc. ~ Planning and F.Jli,rineering Agenda Item No. 88 September 28, 2010 Page 19 of 157 September 8, 2010 Mr. Nick Casalanguida Deputy Administrator Collier County Growth Management Division, Planning and Regulation 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, Florida 34104 RE: Transportation Impact Fee Update Study Dear Mr. Casalanguida: Enclosed is the Draft Technical Report for the Collier County Transportation Impact Fee Update Study. Once you get a chance to review the report, we will be available to present study findings and respond to questions. Meanwhile, we look forward to your comments on this draft report. If you should have any questions concerning this report, please do not hesitate to contact me or Nilgtin Kamp. Sincerely, Tindale-Oliver & Associates, lnc. ~rI~~ Steven A. Tindale, P.E., AICP President 1000 North Ashley Drive, Suite 100, Tampa, Florida 33602 . Phone: (813) 224-8862 . Fax: (813) 226-2106 159S South Semoran Boulevard, Building 7, Suite 1540, Winter Park. Florida 32792 . Phone: (407) 657-9210 . Fax: (407) 657-9106 195 South Central Avenue, Bartow, Florida 33830 . Phone: (863) 533-8454 . Fax: (863) 533-8481 __~_"___,,'_"~__'>'h"_"~~__""',,,",~__"'_'''~~___"''________ DRAFT Collier County I TIF Cost and Credit Update Study Agenda Item No. 88 September 28,2010 ~~ ~ Page 20 of 157 ~ Collier County Transportation Impact Fee Cost and Credit Update Study Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ..................................................................... ES-l INTRODUCTION ............................................................................. 1 DEMAND COMPONENT ..................................................................... 4 Travel Demand .""........".".""...........""".......""..""".""...""."... 4 Interstate and Toll Facility Discount Factor ".....""".."""..."........." 5 COST COMPONENT ........................................................................... 6 Recent Cost Trends .""...."...""....."....".....".".."....".".."......."... 6 County Costs ...,..... ,...,.......,........., ,...,.........,.... ..,........................, 8 State Costs ...."."....."."....."."."......"."."...."."........"""........".. 13 Summary of Costs (Blended Cost Analysis) .."".......""".......""....... 17 Capacity Added per Lane Mile...................."............".......""......... 21 Cost per Vehicle Mile of Capacity..".".......""".........".........."......... 21 CREDIT COMPONENT ....................................................................... 23 Gasoline Tax Equivalent Credit........."."."......"......."""........"....... 23 Present Worth Variables ..."".....""..,,,....,,,,,,......,,,,,,.........,,........,, 26 Fuel Efficiency ..""......"""...."".",.......".........."........................... 26 Effective Days per Year .."............................................................. 27 CALCULATED TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE SCHEDULE.............. 28 Transportation Impact Fee Comparison ."......."..........".................. 31 Tlndale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. September 2010 Collier County TIF Cost and Credit Update Study DRAFT Collier County I TIF Cost and Credit Update Study Agenda Item No. 88 September 28,2010 ~ Page 21 of157 er Cm<>tty ~- - APPENDICES APPENDIX A: Trip Length Analysis APPENDIX B: Cost Component Calculation APPENDIX C: Alternative Capacity Calculation APPENDIX D: Credit Component Calculation APPENDIX E: Calculated Transportation Impact Fee Schedule Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. September 2010 ii Collier County TlF Cost and Credit Update Study ,---,,-'~'-'--'-'-'~-'~'-""-'--- . DRAFT Collier County I TIF Cost and Credit Update Study Agenda Item No. 88 September 28,2010 ~ Page 22 of 157 CO er County --- - Executive Summary 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 2009 Collier County Transportation Impact Fee Update Study (February 2009) conducted by Tindale- Oliver & Associates, Inc. (TOA) , Given the fluctuations in roadway costs, the County decided to conduct an update of the cost and credit components of the transportation impact fee to ensure that the recent cost decrease is fully reflected on the fee. This Executive Summary provides a summary of key findings. Cost Component The cost component was updated based on construction bids, estimates, and other cost information obtained both for projects in Collier County and other Florida counties. The components updated included construction, ROW, design, CEI, mitigation, interchange and carrying costs. Currently, utility relocation costs Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. September 2010 ES-1 Collier County TIF Cost and Credit Update Study DRAFT Collier County I TIF Cost and Credit Update study Agenda Item No. 88 September 28,2010 ~,Qo~23 of 157 are included as part of the transportation impact fee. However, the general practice statewide is to include these costs as part of the utility rates. As such, the County decided to remove the relocation cost out of the transportation impact fee and include as part of the utility rates, Because the utility rates are currently being updated, until the revised utility rate study is completed and adopted, the utility relocation cost will remain as part of the transportation impact fee, which is shown as the Phase I fee schedule in this report. After that, it will be taken out, which will reduce the fee further (Phase II schedule). Construction Cost Roadway costs in the current fee schedule were estimated during the 2008 and early 2009 period based on 2007 and 2008 data. As part of this update study, an extensive analysis of state and local bids and estimates over the past 24 to 36 months was conducted, and concluded that costs decreased significantly for both county and state road construction. This report provides information on the observed trends and reasons for this decrease. The overall decrease in county and state construction costs was estimated at approximately 40 percent. Right-of-Wav (ROW) Cost Historically, Collier County has experienced steady appreciation in land values, which has resulted in increasing right-of-way (ROW) costs. Between 2003 and 2007, the total just value of the properties in the county increased by an annual average of 17 percent, placing upward pressure on land acquisition costs. In early 2008, costs started to stabilize, and since then, land values decreased significantly by an annual average of approximately 14 percent during the 2009/2010 period. Interviews with other communities and FDOT indicated that other jurisdictions are experiencing decreases in ROW costs, primarily due to lower land values resulting from slowdown of the real estate market. Based on a review of most recent ROW acquisitions as well as future estimates, the ROW cost was estimated to decrease by approximately 30 percent since the last update study. Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. September 2010 ES-2 Collier County l1F Cost and Credit Update Study DRAFT Collier County I TIF Cost and Credit Update Study Agenda Item No. 88 September 28,2010 ~ Page 24 of 157 eo e~ eo....ty Total Roadwav Cost Total roadway cost also includes design/CEI, mitigation, interchange and carrying costs. In addition, utility cost was included in the calculations for the Phase I fee schedule as explained previously. The following table provides a summary of the final roadway cost figures along with a comparison to the figures included in the 2009 study. The only cost component that shows an increase since the last study is the mitigation cost. This is because the previous study included only the wetland mitigation costs, and not the panther mitigation costs. Given that the County is building more roads in the eastern parts of the county where a large area is designated as the Panther Consultation Area by the U.s. Fish and Wildlife Service Bureau (presented in Appendix B, Map B-7), the County is experiencing higher mitigation costs. As presented in Table ES-l, the overall cost is expected to decrease by approximately 38 percent when the utility cost is removed from the transportation impact fee (Phase II). During Phase I, when the utility cost is included in the cost, the overall decrease is about 30 percent (presented in Table 6a of the report). Table ES-l Cost per Lane Mile Comparison (Phase II) 2009 2010 Update Phase Reportll) (Phase 11)12) % Change Design $228,330 $134,229 -41% Right-of-Way $1,300,000 $901,000 -31% Construction $3,111,000 $1,793,200 -42% CEI $200,740 $134,229 -33% Uti Iitles $404,950 nla -100% Mitigation $99,000 $156,000 58% Interchange $652,000 $576,000 -12% Carrying $259 550 $175,760 -32% Total $6,255,570 $3,870,418 -38% (1) Source: Collier County Transportation Impact Fee Update Study Rnal Report, February 2009, Table 6 (2) 50urce: Table 6b Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. September 2010 ES-3 Collier County llF Cost and Credit Update Study DRAFT Collier County I TlF Cost and Credit Update Study Agenda Item No. 88 September 28,2010 ~ Page 25 of 157 er <;Amnty - - Capacity The capacity component of the impact fee equation refers to the marginal capacity added each time a lane mile is constructed in the future. The added capacity is calculated by subtracting the existing capacity from the total new capacity of a roadway project. The most significant variable that affects the capacity levels is the number of signals per mile. As explained in Appendix C, an analysis to update the capacity added is conducted for informational purposes. The basis of this analysis was the fact that all of the projects built by the County over the past five years involved . roadways with a significant number of signals. All of the projects that will be built in the next five years also involve signals. In addition, the projects in the LRTP were reviewed to make sure that this trend is likely to continue over the next 20 to 30 years. More specifically, TOA reviewed the number of signals for each individual roadway corridor in the plan to verify the existing and projected roadway classification. For existing roadways, a review of design plans, bid tabulations, and aerial images confirmed current signal density, County staff also provided input on existing and future signal density that was taken into account during the review. For new road construction projects in the 2030 plan, signal density was projected based on discussions with County staff, design plans, and aerial images. The resulting capacity was approximately 10 percent lower than that used in the previous study, which results in a higher impact fee. To use a conservative approach, the average capacity of 10,217 per lane mile from the Collier County Transportation Impact Fee Update Study (February 2009) was used in the impact fee calculation. However, given the anaiysis presented in Appendix C and given that a greater number of roadway projects are being built in the eastern part of the county, it is important to evaluate roadway capacity carefully as this area becomes more urbanized. It is recommended that the future technical studies reflect updated capacity figures to measure the full impact of new growth. Tlndale-Ollver & Associates, Inc. September 2010 ES-4 Collier County TIF Cost and Credit Update Study _._______.~__'.-.H_.'_." DRAFT Collier County I TIF Cost and Credit Update Study Agenda Item No. 88 Sep1ember 28, 2010 ~ Page260f157 er eou..."" - - Credit Component With the economic downturn, resources available for roadway construction have been decreasing. The updated credit component reflects the decrease in the availability of non-impact fee funding sources for roads. The credit for funding received from the County was based on the 2011-2015 Annual Update and Inventory Report (AUIR), and the credit for state funding was based on a review of historical projects funded by the State in Collier County over the past 14 years as well as future programmed projects in the 5-year Work Program. Overall, the credit decreased by approximately 18 percent. Demand Component A detailed evaluation of the demand component for each land use was not conducted as part of the update study. However, a detailed review of the trip length for single family land use was conducted to confirm that the trip length used in the study is very conservative. This analysis is included in Appendix A. Similar to the capacity component, it is recommended that future update studies review the demand component to reflect the full impact of new growth. Updated Fee Schedule Results of the study indicate a decrease of 30 to 35 percent in the calculated fees when utility relocation costs were included in the fee calculations (Phase I), and 35 to 45 percent decrease when utility relocations costs were excluded (Phase II). Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. September 2010 ES-S Collier County l1F Cost and Credit Update Study DRAFT Collier County I TIF Cost and Credit Update Study Agenda Item No. 88 September 28, 2010 ;:K:o. Page 27 of 157 Collier Cmtnty ----........- 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 2009 Collier County Transportation Impact Fee Update Study conducted by Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. (TOA). Collier County has retained TOA to prepare an update study to reflect the recent cost decreases seen throughout Florida and across the nation, More specifically, this report updates the cost and credit components. In addition, trip generation figures of the demand component have been updated to reflect the most recent data from the Institute of Transportation Engineers Handbook (ITE 81:11 Edition). Although not incorporated in the calculations, for informational purposes, Appendix A provides results of the previously conducted trip characteristics studies for the single family land use and additional trip length analysis conducted during this update using the transportation network model. In addition, Appendix C includes an analysis to update capacity added figures, 1 Collier County Code of Ordinances, Chapter 74, Section 74-201, "Imposition of Impact Fees." Tlndale-Ollver & Associates, Inc. September 2010 1 Collier County TIF Cost and Credit Update Study DRAFT Collier County I TIF Cost and Credit Update Study Agenda Item No. 88 September 28,2010 ~ Page 28 of 157 Co 6T Count.')' - - - which are also provided for informational purposes and not included in the calculations. Following the introduction, this report consists of the following sections: · Demand Component · Cost Component · Credit Component · Transportation Impact Fee Schedule The methodology used for the transportation impact fee study follows a standards-driven approach. In the standards-driven approach, also known as a consumption-based impact fee, 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 fees. 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 times the trip length times the percent new trips [of total trips]) for each land use contained in the impact fee schedule. It should be noted that the trip generation is 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 roadway 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 the development. Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Ine. September 2010 2 Collier County TIF Cost and Credit Update Study DRAFT Collier County I TIF Cost and Credit Update Study Agenda Item No. 88 September 28, 2010 ~ Page 29 of 157 Co "" C01...t.y - - 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. There are 10 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 In addition, this update contains two fee schedules that will be implemented in phases. Phase I reflects cost figures that include utility relocation costs, while Phase II costs do not account for utility costs. Currently, utility relocation costs are included as part of the transportation impact fee. However, the general practice statewide is to include these costs as part of the utility rates. As such, the County decided to remove the relocation cost out of the transportation impact fee and include it as part of the utility rates. Because the utility rates are currently being updated, until the revised study is completed and adopted, the utility relocation cost will remain as part of the transportation impact fee (Phase I schedule). After that, it will be taken out, which will reduce the fee further as shown under the Phase II fee schedule. A review of impact fee variables and corresponding recommendations are presented in the following sections. Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. September 2010 3 Collier County TIF Cost and Credit Update Study _o_,,~,~_,._._,...~_'"_..__._.~,___,~_.______""'_._.~O~"A_' DRAFT Collier County I TIF Cost and Credit Update Study Agenda Item No. 88 September 28, 2010 ....._~u..... Page 30 of 157 ~ Demand Component Travel Demand The amount of road system consumed by a unit of new land development is calculated using the following variables and is a measure of the vehicle miles of new travel a unit of development places on the existing road system: · Number of daily trips generated; . 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 two sources: (1) similar studies previously conducted throughout Florida and in Collier County (Florida Studies Database) and (2) the Institute of Transportation Engineers' (ITE) Trip Generation report (8th edition). Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. September 2010 4 Collier County TTF Cost and Credit Update Study DRAFT Collier County I T1F Cost and Credit Update Study Agenda Item No. 88 September 28,2010 ~ Page 31 of 157 Co ~ C;O"..ty -- - The Florida Studies database was used to determine VMT, which is developed from trip length, percent new trips, and trip rate for most land uses. In addition, trip generation data from the Trip Generation report were used. In all instances where trip generation was available from both the ITE report and the Florida Studies database, a blend calculation was used to increase the sample size. Although not included in the impact fee calculations, Appendix A includes results of the 2008 single family trip characteristics study and additional analysis conducted using the transportation network model regarding the trip length for the single family land use. The technical detail and resulting findings are presented in Appendix A for informational purposes. Interstate and Toll Facility Discount Factor This variable is used to recognize that Interstate highway and toll facility improvements are funded by the State using earmarked and Federal funds. Typically, impact fees are not used to pay for these improvements, and the portion of travel occurring on the interstate/toll facility system usually is eliminated from the total travel for each use. Currently, 1-75 is the only interstate running through the county. For purposes of the this update, the Interstate{TolI Facility Discount Factor of 8.4 percent from the 2009 Collier County Transportation Impact Fee Study Update was used to calculate the impact fee rate. Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. September 2010 5 Collier County TIF Cost and Credit Update Study DRAFT Collier County I TIF Cost and Credit Update Study Agenda Item No. 88 September 28, 2010 ~ Page 32 of 157 Co 8r eo....ty ~- - Cost Component Recent Cost Trends This section provides a framework for evaluating the recent changes in right-of- way (ROW) and construction costs for county and State roads in Collier County, as well the entire state of Florida. The cost trends will show the need for updating these costs in the transportation impact fee equation to ensure that new development is being charged at a rate that reflects current market costs for the consumption of roadway assets, Riaht-of-Wav Collier County historically has seen steady appreciation in land values, which has resulted in high right-Of-way (ROW) costs. During 2003 and 2007, the total just value of the properties in the county increased by an annual average of 17 percent, placing upward pressure on land acquisition costs. In early 2008, costs started to stabilize, and since then, land costs decreased significantly by an Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. September 2010 6 Collier County TIF Cost and Credit Update Study DRAFT Collier County I T1F Cost and Credit Update Study Agenda Item No. 88 September 28, 2010 ~ Page 33 of 157 Cd "" CmtJtI;Y ~ "-- annual average of approximately 14 percent during the 2009/2010 period. As part of this cost component update, TOA conducted interviews of several communities in Florida and FDOT District 1 to gain perspective on whether ROW cost estimates have been adjusted to reflect existing market conditions and if such cost decreases can be attributed to the land acquisition component or the administrative components (including litigation, "cost to cure," expert witness costs), The results of this review indicate that communities are experiencing reduction in ROW estimates, primarily due to lower land values resulting from slowdown of the real estate market and end to a period of extensive "speculation" purchases. In addition, new acquisition methods and other innovative strategies are being used to reduce project costs. For example, FDOT District 1 has implemented an "incentive program," which is an acquisition method that pays the property owner a higher up-front amount for their property in place of the costly negotiations, mitigations and litigations. Construction Construction costs in Collier County and throughout Florida have been volatile in recent years. Costs increased significantly between 2005 and 2007 due to additional construction demand caused by hurricanes, housing market growth, and other factors. In early 2008, costs started to stabilize, and more recently, costs decreased significantly. Construction costs have decreased due to economic conditions and increased competition for projects as contractors and suppliers have worked to retain market share. From 2006/07 to 2009/10, the average number of bidders per FDOT contract has increased from 3.4 to 6.0 while the number of contracts below estimate has increased steadily.2 Despite material price pressure, subcontractors continue to reduce quotes. As seen in Appendix B, Figures B-3 through B-8, the unit costs for earthwork, base, steel, asphalt, and concrete components are at low levels compared to previous years. , FDOT Office of Specifications and Estimates, Contract Letting Report. See Appendix B, Table B-S. Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. September 2010 7 Collier County TIF Cost and Credit Update Study DRAFT Collier County I TIF Cost and Credit Update Study Agenda Item No. 88 September 28,2010 ~_~ ~ Page 34 of 157 ~ County 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 for each roadway capacity project was separated into eight phases: ROW, construction, design, construction engineering/inspection (CEI), utilities, mitigation, interchange, and carrying costs. The following sections provide a summary of county costs related to (1) right-of- way, (2) construction, and (3) other general components of the total roadway cost. Riqht-of-Wav The ROW cost reflects the total cost of the acquisitions along the 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. ROW cost estimates were developed based on cost data received for four local projects along Santa Barbara Blvd (extension from Rattlesnake Hammock Road to Davis Blvd), Oil Well Road (Phase I), Vanderbilt Beach Road (extension from Collier Blvd to Wilson Blvd), and Golden Gate Blvd (from Wilson Blvd to Desoto Blvd). A review of the local projects suggested that the two different average ROW cost can be calculated: a "low" cost, which represents cases when the ROW acquisition involves mostly vacant parcels (such as the Santa Barbara Blvd Extension and Oil Well Road), and a "high" cost when the acquired parcels are in more developed areas and have structures on them (such as the Vanderbilt Beach Rd Extension and Golden Gate Blvd). The final ROW cost per lane mile was determined by weighting "low" and "high" ROW cost estimates by the distribution of lane miles in the 2030 LRTP Financially Feasible Constrained Plan based on the land use characteristics. Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. September 2010 8 Collier County TIF Cost and Credit Update Study DRAFT Collier County I TIF Cost and Credit Update Study Agenda Item No. 88 September 28, 2010 ~ Page 35 of 157 eT eo.....ty "'-~ - Using existing and future land use maps, along with observing existing structures and developments surrounding the potential roadway improvements, each project from the 2030 LRTP was estimated as having either "low" or "high" ROW costs. Based on this analysis, a ROW cost of approximately $901,000 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. Construction A review of recent construction cost data for Collier County showed that the County had two urban design lane addition projects bid in 2010 along Oil Well Rd (a total of 21.82 lane miles) and one urban design new construction project along the Santa Barbara Blvd Extension (12.00 lane miles). These three projects have a weighted average cost per lane mile of approximately $1.7 million. A review of recent projects let between 2008 and 2010 in other Florida counties identified 13 urban design bid projects ranging from approximately $1.1 million to $2.9 million per lane mile (64.94 lane miles), with an average cost per lane mile of approximately $1.7 million. Based on the local and statewide project data (98.76 lane miles), a construction cost per lane mile of approximately $1.7 million was used for urban design roadway projects. Appendix B, Table B-3 provides a detailed description of the projects analyzed. 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. Other Comoonent Costs The unit cost per lane mile for County roads in Collier County also includes updated design/CEl, mitigation, interchange, and carrying costs associated with roadway capacity expansion projects. Tindale-Oliver & Associates, 1nc. September 2010 9 Collier County TIF Cost and Credit Update Study DRAFT Collier County I TIF Cost and Credit Update Study Agenda Item No. 88 September 28, 2010 ,..._~,... Page 36 of 157 ~ Design / CEl Based on recent trends for completed projects in Collier County, design and CEI costs were estimated at seven percent of construction costs. In the previous study, design cost was estimated at seven percent of the construction cost, and CEI cost was estimated at six percent. Appendix B, Table B-6 presents the projects reviewed for determining the percentages. Utilities The utility cost of approximately $455,000 per lane mile from the 2009 Collier County Transportation Impact Fee Update Studywas used for County roads for Phase I of the transportation impact fee. This figure has not been updated since the 2009 study. The Phase II fee .calculation does not include utility costs in the unit cost per lane mile calculation. The cost breakdown for Phase II is presented in Table 5b. Mitigation Mitigation cost estimates were developed based on cost data received for six recent projects in the County: · Randall Blvd (from Desoto Road to Oil Well Road); · Santa Barbara Blvd Extension (from Rattlesnake Hammock Road to Davis Blvd); · Golden Gate Blvd (from Wilson Blvd to Desoto Blvd); · Oil Well Road (from Immokalee Road to west of Camp Keais); · Collier Blvd (from Green Road to Golden Gate Blvd); and · Vanderbilt Beach Road Extension (from CR 951 to Desoto Blvd). The Randall Blvd, Golden Gate Blvd, Oil Well Road, and Vanderbilt Beach Road Extension mitigation projects are located in the Panther Consultation Area (PCA), which, on average, tend to have higher costs than non-PCA mitigation. Therefore, the cost per lane mile was weighted by the distribution of lane miles from all projects in the LRTP that are located in the PCA or in the non-PCA. As shown in Appendix B, Table B-8, a mitigation cost of approximately $156,000 per lane mile was calculated for County roads. This figure represents an increase since the last study because the previous study included only the wetland Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. September 2010 10 Collier County TIF Cost and Credit Update Study DRAFT Collier County I TIF Cost and Credit Update Study Agenda Item No. 88 September 28, 2010 ~ Page370f157 Cd er Coul1ty - - mitigation costs, and not the panther mitigation costs. Given that the County is building more roads in the eastern parts of the county where a large area is designated as the Panther Consultation Area by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Bureau (presented in Appendix B, Map B-7), the County is experiencing higher mitigation costs. Interchange The interchange cost estimate was developed based on two planned interchange/grade separation projects in Collier County at the intersection of Tamiami Trail and CR 951 and at the intersection of 1-75, CR 951 and Davis Blvd. The total interchange cost provided by the Collier County Transportation Planning Department was approximately $248.9 million. This total was then divided by the total lane miles being built in the 2030 LRTP Financially Feasible Constrained Plan (431.80 lane miles) to develop an interchange cost per lane mile. As shown in Appendix B, Table B-9, the interchange cost per lane mile is approximately $576,000. This figure is lower than that included in the 2009 study due to the reduced cost estimate for the interchange project at the intersection of the Tamiami Trail and CR 951. It should be noted that County staff are in the process of confirming the schedule for the I-75/CR 951/Davis Blvd interchange project. If this project does not occur, the overall cost, and therefore the calculated impact fee, will decrease. Carrying The lane mile cost includes an update to the carrying cost that tends to occur while a roadway is being built (approximately a six-year process for County projects). As shown in Appendix B, Table B-10, the carrying cost per lane mile is estimated at $187,000 for Phase I and $170,000 for Phase II, based on the timetable provided by the County for each phase. This figure takes into consideration the fact that the County receives some of the impact fees up front. Table 1 shows the updated cost per lane mile for County roadway projects in Collier County. Table 2 compares the updated cost per lane mile for County roadway projects with the cost per lane mile from the 2009 TIF Update Study. Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. September 2010 11 Collier County l1F Cost and Credit Update Study _____..___~__._,_.~-'_>,......,._._..__ _n _"__,._._.'~4~_""'~'_______""_~"_'__~_'_"'_ DRAFT Collier County I TIF Cost and Credit Update Study Table 1 Estimated Total Cost per Lane Mile (County Roads) Cost Phase Cost Per lane Mile Design (11 $119,560 Right-of-Way!') $901,000 Construction(3) $1,708,000 CEI(4) $119,560 Utilities(5) $455,000 Mitigation!61 $156,000 Interchangel71 $576,000 Carrying(8) $187,000 Total Cost $4,222,120 (1) Design is estimated at 7% of the construction cost per lane mile (Appendix B, Table B-6). (2) Source: Appendix B, Table B-2 (3) Source: Appendix B, Table B-3 (4) CEI is estimated at 7% of the construction cost per lane mile (Appendix B, Table 8-6). (5) Source: Collier County Transportation Impact Fee Update Study Final Report, February 2009, Table 6 (6) Source: Appendix B, Table B-8 (7) Source: Appendix B, Table B-9 (8) Source: Appendix B, Table B-lO Agenda Item No. 88 September 28, 2010 ~. Page 38 of 157 Collier eo...Kty ------..-- ~ Tindale-Oliver & Associates, lnc. September 2010 12 Collier County TIF Cost and Credit Update Study DRAFT Collier County I TlF Cost and Credit Update Study Agenda Item No. 88 September 28, 2010 ~ Page 39 of 157 er County - - Table 2 County Total Roadway Cost Comparison Cost Per lane Cost Per lane % Cost Phase Mile (2009}ll) Mile (2010)12) Change Design $217,000 $119,560 -45% Right-of-Way $1,300,000 $901,000 -31% Construction $3,100,000 $1,708,000 -45% CEI $186,000 $119,560 -36% Utilities $455,000 $455,000 0% Mitigation $99,000 $156,000 58% Interchange $652,000 $576,000 -12% Carrying $259,000 $187.000 -28% T ota I Cost $6,268,000 $4,222,120 -33% (1) Source: Collier County Transportation Impact Fee Update Study Final Report, February 2009, Table 4 (2) Source: Table 1 State Costs This section examines the ROWand construction costs associated with State roads with respect to transportation capacity improvements in Collier County. For this purpose, the FDOT District 1 Work Programs provided local ROWand acquisition and cost estimates. In addition, recent construction bid and ROW acquisition data from State roadway projects throughout Florida were used to identify and provide additional cost data for roadway improvements. It is our understanding that the FDOT did not bid any lane addition projects in 2010 (through July). As such, projects bids during the previous two years were used in the calculations. The cost for each roadway capacity project was separated into eight phases: design, ROW, construction, CEI, utilities, mitigation, interchange, and carrying costs, Riqht-of-Wav FDOT has not recently acquired ROW for any lane widening projects in Collier County. Based on discussions with FDOT and Collier County, it was determined Tindale-Oliver & Associates, lnc. September 2010 13 Collier County l1F Cost and Credit Update Study ...--....-'.0 ...____"___._"...~.~._~___,.._.. DRAFT Collier County I TIF Cost and Credit Update Study Agenda Item No. 88 September 28, 2010 ,..._~_ ,... _Pa~e 40 of 157 ~ that the ROW acquisition cost for State roads is equivalent to that of County roads. Therefore, a ROW acquisition cost of approximately $901,000 was used to calculate the unit cost per lane mile for an urban design State road. Construction A review of recent construction cost data for State roads showed that the State has not bid any new road construction or lane widening projects in Collier County during the previous two years, Because there were no recent local bids available to reflect more accurate cost estimates, a review of recent bid projects in other Florida counties was conducted, Based on this review, a total of 21 recently-bid urban design roadway projects were identified, with an average cost of approximately $2.4 million per lane mile. This is a conservative figure compared to the cost estimate for SR 84 (from Radio Rd to Collier Blvd), listed at approximately $6.0 million per lane mile. Appendix B, Table B-4 provides a detailed description of the projects analyzed. Based on discussions with FDOT, it is anticipated that all of the lane miles that the State will build in the future within Collier County will have urban design characteristics, Other Cost Comoonents The unit cost per lane mile for State roads in Collier County also includes updated design/CEI, mitigation, interchange, and carrying costs associated with capacity expansion projects. Design / eEl Based on a review of the design and CEI costs for State roads, it was determine that the relationships between design, CEI, and construction costs have not changed since the 2009 update study. Therefore, design and CEI costs were estimated at 10 percent of construction costs for State roads. Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. September 2010 14 Collier County TIF Cost and Credit Update Study DRAFT Collier County I TIF Cost and Credit Update Study Agenda Item No. 88 September 28,2010 ~ Page 41 of157 C<l er CmtJtty -- Utilities Utility costs are applied only to County roads and, therefore, were not include in the calculation of the state cost per lane mile. As such, the cost-per-Iane-mile for state roads in Phases I and II was the same. Mitigation and Interchange Both mitigation and interchange costs were calculated based on all related projects for which cost information was available and total lane miles included in the County's LRTP, Therefore, these costs are the same for both county and state roads. As previously mentioned, the mitigation cost was estimated at $156,000 per lane mile and the interchange cost was estimated at $576,000 per lane mile, Carrying The lane mile cost includes an update to the carrying cost that tends to occur while a roadway is being built (approximately a 7- or 8-year process for State projects). As shown in Appendix B, Table B-11, the carrying cost per lane mile is estimated at $218,000 based on the cost components associated with constructing a State roadway, This figure takes into consideration the fact that the County receives some of the impact fee revenues (that charge for travel on all roads) up front. Table 3 shows the updated cost per lane mile for State roadway projects in Collier County, Table 4 compares the updated cost per lane mile for State roadway projects with the cost per lane mile from the 2009 Update Study, Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. September 2010 15 Collier County TIF Cost and Credit Update Study DRAFT Collier County I TIF Cost and Credit Update Study Table 3 Estimated Cost per Lane Mile (State Roads) Cost Phase Cost Per lane Mile Designll) $241,800 Right-of-Way!') $901,000 Construction(3) $2,418,000 CEI!') $241,800 Utilities!51 nfa Mitigation(6) $156,000 Interchange(7) $576,000 Carrying(8) $218,000 Total Cost $4,752,600 (1) Design is estimated at 10% of the construction cost per lane mile. (2) Appendix 8, Tabie B-2 (3) Appendix B, Table B-4 (4) CEI is estimated at 10% of the construction cost per lane mile. (5) Appendix B, Table B-8 (6) Appendix B, Table B-9 (7) Appendix B, Table B-11 Agenda Item No. 88 September 28, 2010 ,-.~ ,-.Pa~e 42 of 157 ~ Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Septem ber 2010 16 Collier County TIF Cost and Credit Update Study DRAFT Collier County I TIF Cost and Credit Update Study Agenda Item No. 88 September 28, 2010 ~ Page 43 of157 Co ..... CoK..~ ~ - - Table 4 State Roadway Cost Comparison Cost Per Lane Cost Per Lane % Cost Phase Mile (2009)111 Mile (2010)121 Change Design $320,000 $241,800 -24% Right-of-Way $1,300,000 $901,000 -31% Construction $3,200,000 $2,418,000 -24% CEI $320,000 $241,800 -24% Utilities(3) n/a n/a n/a Mitigation $99,000 $156,000 58% Interchange $652,000 $576,000 -12% Carrying $264,000 $218,000 -17% Total Cost $6,155,000 $4,752,600 -23% (1) Source: Collier County Transportation Impact Fee Update Study Final Report, February 2009, Table 5 (2) Source: Table 3 (3) Consistent with the methodology from the 2009 report, utility costs were not included in the state roadway cost for the 2010 report. Summary of Costs (Blended Cost Analysis) The weighted average cost per lane mile for County and State roads was calculated and presented in Table Sa for the Phase I schedule, and in Table Sb for the Phase II schedule. The resulting weighted average cost of approximately $4.29 million per lane mile was used in the calculation of the Phase I impact fee schedule and $3.87 million per lane mile was used for the Phase II schedule. This weighted average cost per lane mile includes County and State projects and is based on weighting the lane miles of programmed future roadway improvements included in the 2030 LRTP Financially Feasible Constrained Plan. Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. September 2010 17 Collier County l1F Cost and Credit Update Study DRAFT Collier County I TIF Cost and Credit Update Study Agenda Item No. 88 September 28, 2010 ~ Page 44 of 157 Co er Cm<Hty ~ - ~ Table Sa Estimated Cost per Lane Mile for County and State Roadway Projects in Collier County (Phase 1)(1) County State County and Cost Type Roadsl}[ Roadsl11 State Roadsl4) Design $119,560 $241,800 $134,229 Right-of-Way $901,000 $901,000 $901,000 Construction $1,708,000 $2,418,000 $1,793,200 CEI $119,560 $241,800 $134,229 Utilities $455,000 n/a $400,400 Mitigation $156,000 $156,000 $156,000 Inter-change $576,000 $576,000 $576,000 Carrying $187,000 $218,000 $190,720 Total $4,222,120 $4,752,600 $4,285,778 Lane Mile Distribution!S) I 88% 12% 100% (1) For Phase !, utility costs were included as part of the unit cost per lane mile. (2) Source: Table 2 (3) Source: Table 4 (4) Lane mile distribution (Item 4), multiplied by each cost component by jurisdiction to deveiop a weighted average cost per lane mile (5) Source: Appendix 6, Table 6-12, Items (a) and (b) As previously mentioned, an additional cost calculation (Phase II) was developed, which does not include utility costs in the total unit cost per lane mile, as shown in Table Sb, It is important to note that due to the exclusion of utility costs, the carrying cost for County roads decreased to approximately $170,000, For the Phase II impact fee schedule calculated a weighted average cost of approximately $3.87 million per lane mile was calculated. Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. September 2010 18 Collier County TIF Cost and Credit Update Study DRAFT Collier County I TIF Cost and Credit Update Study Agenda Item No. 88 September 28, 2010 ~ Page 45 of 157 ~ <;dn<nty - Table Sb Estimated Cost per Lane Mile for County and State Roadway Projects in Collier County (Phase 11)(1) County State County and Cost Type Roadsl1) Roads!31 State Roads(4) Design $119,560 $241,800 $134,229 Right-of-Way $901,000 $901,000 $901,000 Construction $1,708,000 $2,418,000 $1,793,200 CEI $119,560 $241,800 $134,229 Mitigation $156,000 $156,000 $156,000 Interchange $576,000 $576,000 $576,000 Carryingl5) $170 000 <;218 000 $175,760 Total $3,750,120 $4,752,600 $3,870,418 Lane Mile DistrlbutionlG) 88%1 12% 100% (1) For Phase II, utility costs were not included as part of the unit cost per lane mile. (2) Source: Table 2 (3) Source: Table 4 (4) Lane mile distribution (Item 4), multiplied by each cost component by jurisdiction to develop a weighted average cost per lane mile. (5) The calculation of carrying costs takes into account utility relocation costs, so the carrying cost for Phase II has decreased due to the exclusion of utility costs, (6) Source: Appendix B, Table B-12, Items (a) and (b) Table 6a compares the updated weighted average cost per lane mile for Phase I with the weighted average cost per lane mile from the 2009 TIF Update Study. This unit cost per lane mile corresponds with the fee schedule in Appendix E, Table E-l. Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. September 2010 19 Collier County TIF Cost and Credit Update Study DRAFT Collier County I TIF Cost and Credit Update Study Agenda Item No. 88 September 28,2010 ~ Page 46 of 157 Co .,.,. Cm<my - - - Table 6a Cost per Lane Mile Comparison (Phase I) 2009 2010 Update Phase Report,l (Phase 1)121 % Change Design $228,330 $134,229 -41% Right-of-Way $1,300,000 $901,000 -31% Construction $3,111,000 $1,793,200 -42% CEI $200,740 $134,229 -33% Utilities $404,950 $400,400 -1% Mitigation $99,000 $156,000 58% Interchange $652,000 $576,000 -12% Carrying ~259 550 $190,720 -27% Total $6,255,570 $4,285,778 -31% (1) Source: Collier County Transportation Impact Fee Update Study Final Report, February 2009, Table 6 (2) Source: Table 5a Table 6b compares the updated weighted average cost per lane mile for Phase II with the weighted average cost per lane mile from the 2009 TIF Update Study. This unit cost per lane mile corresponds with the fee schedule in Appendix E, Table E-2. Table 6b Cost per Lane Mile Comparison (Phase II) 2009 2010 Update Phase Reportl]) (Phase 11)12) % Change Design $228,330 $134,229 -41% Right-of-Way $1,300,000 $901,000 -31% Construction $3,111,000 $1,793,200 -42% CEI $200,740 $134,229 -33% Utilities $404,950 n/a -100% Mitigation $99,000 $156,000 58% Interchange $652,000 $576,000 -12% Carrying $259,550 $175,760 -32% Total $6,255,570 $3,870,418 -38% (1) Source: Collier County Transportation Impact Fee Update Study Anal Report, February 2009, Table 6 (2) Source: Table 5b Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. September 2010 20 Collier County TlF Cost and Credit Update Study DRAFT Collier County I TIF Cost and Credit Update Study Agenda Item No. 88 September 28,2010 ~ Page470f157 "!c;:.m.ntJ' - - Capacity Added per Lane Mile An additional component of the impact fee equation is the capacity added per lane mile (also known as the maximum service volume added per mile) of roadway constructed. The capacity added per lane mile was not updated as part of this study. Therefore the average capacity per lane mile of 10,217 from the 2009 Collier County TIF Study was used to calculate the impact fee. This capacity was based on a review of the 2030 LRTP Financially Feasible Constrained Plan. It should be noted that Appendix C provides updated capacity added figures for informational purposes. To provide a conservative approach in the calculation of impact fees, the County decided not to use updated capacity added figures. However, in the future, as more roadways are built in the eastern part of the county that is becoming more urbanized in character, it will become more important to conduct a detailed review of capacity figures to reflect the full impact of new growth. 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 (VMC). As shown in Tables Sa and Sb, the updated cost per lane mile for County and State roads (Phases I and II) has been calculated based on typical roadway improvements. The weighted average cost per VMC was calculated by weighting the cost per VMC for County and State roads by the lane mile distribution of projects in the 2030 LRTP Financially Feasible Constrained Plan. As shown in Table 7, the cost per VMC for travel on all roads within Collier County is approximately $379 for Phase II. This figure is $419 per VMC in the case of Phase I. This weighted 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, $419 of roadway capacity is consumed under Phase I and $379 of roadway capacity is consumed under Phase II. Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. September 2010 21 Collier County llF Cost and Credit Update Study DRAFT Collier County I TIF Cost and Credit Update Study Agenda Item No. 88 September 28,2010 ~ Page 48 of 157 Co ..... eo....1:Y - Table 7 Weighted Average Cost per Vehicle Mile of Capacity Added for County and State Roadways in Collier County (Phase II) Cost per lane Mile Average Capacity Cost per Source (Phase 11)111 Added Per lane VMci3) Milel2) County Roads $3,750,120 9,693 $386.89 State Roads $4,752,600 14,592 $325.70 Weighted Average $3,870,418 10,217 $378.82 (1) Source: Table Sb (2) Source: Collier County Transportation Impact Fee Update Study Final Report, February 2009, Table 7 (3) Cost per lane mile (Item 1) divided by average capacity per lane mile (Item 2) for county and State roads, respectively. Table 8 compares the calculated cost per VMC added to the VMC calculated in the 2009 TIF update study. As shown in the table, the cost per VMC has decreased by approximately 38 percent due to the decrease in the total cost per lane mile. Table 8 Cost per Vehicle Mile of Capacity Added Comparison Cost per Source VMC 2009 Collier County Reportl1) $612.27 2010 Collier County Report (Ph. 11)12) $378.82 (1) Source: Collier County Transportation Impact Fee Update Study Final Report, February 2009, Table 8 (2) Source: Table 8 Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. September 2010 22 Collier County TIF Cost and Credit Update Study DRAFT Collier County I T1F Cost and Credit Update Study Agenda Item No. 88 September 28, 2010 ~ Page 49 of 157 Cd 6T Cm<n1;Y - - - Credit Component Gasoline Tax Equivalent Credit The present value of the portion of gasoline taxes generated by a new development over a 25-year period that is to be expended on capacity expansion projects is credited against the cost of the system consumed by travel associated with new development. Countv In the current adopted impact fee calculation, the credit calculation shows that 17.3 pennies from the County-managed gas tax revenues were estimated to be used for future roadway capacity expansion projects. For purposes of this update study, a review of the County's FY 2011-2015 Annual Update and Inventory Report (AUIR) Transportation Work Program was conducted, which indicated that a combination of gas tax revenues, impact fees, and grants are used to fund roadway capacity expansion. Tlndale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. September 2010 23 Collier County TIF Cost and Credit Update Study DRAFT Collier County I TIF Cost and Credit Update Study Agenda Item No. 88 September 28, 2010 .....~n..... _Pa~e 50 of 157 ~ Based on a review of the Five-Year Capital Improvements Plan, Collier County received a credit of 2.6 pennies for the portion of grant funds dedicated to capacity expansion projects. The review of the AUIR also showed that 10.9 pennies will be used toward debt service payments on the 2005 gas tax revenue bond. No additional funds were found to be budgeted for roadway capacity expansion. Thus, a credit of 13.5 equivalent pennies will be given for the allocation of funds that the County collects in gas tax revenues and grants. The County credit is given for approximately $90.6 million of capacity expansion improvements and debt service repayments that will be funded by gas taxes and grant funds over the 5-year period. See Appendix 0, Table 0-2 for further detail. Additionally, recent ad valorem revenue use toward roadway projects was reviewed. Based on this review and discussions with County staff, it is our understanding that all ad valorem revenues will be spent on capitalized maintenance projects and will not be available for capacity expansion projects. Therefore, no ad valorem credit was included in the transportation impact fee calculation, 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 19-year period (1997-2015). This period represents past FOOT Work Program expenditures from 1997 to 2010. The time span also includes the current Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP) from 2011 to 2015. 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 0, Table 0-3) indicates that FOOT spending generates an equivalent gas tax credit of 11.8 pennies of gas tax revenue annually. The use of a 19-year period for purposes of developing a State credit for roadway capacity-adding projects results in a reasonably stable credit for Collier County, since it accounts for the volatility in FOOT spending in the county over DRAFT Collier County I TIF Cost and Credit Update Study Agenda Item No. 88 September 28, 2010 ~ Page 51 of 157 Co err Cmmty -~- "- In summary, the County contributes approximately 13.5 pennies toward roadway capacity expansion projects, while State spending is equivalent to an average of 11.8 pennies for State roadway projects in Collier County. Therefore, a total of 25.3 pennies of credit are included in the impact fee equation 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 10. All grant revenues have been converted to equivalent gas tax pennies for purposes of estimating the revenue credit per unit of development. Table 10 Equivalent Pennies of Gas Tax Revenue Credit Equivalent Pennies per Gallon County Revenues11} $0.135 State RevenueslZ) $0.118 Total $0.253 (1) Source: Appendix 0, Table 0-2 (2) Source: Appendix 0, Table 0-3 Table 11 compares the equivalent pennies per gallon from the 2009 Collier TIF Update Study and the current (2010) gas tax credit. The updated credit component reflects the decrease in the availability of non-impact fee funding sources for roads due to the economic conditions, resulting in more limited funding sources. Table 11 Equivalent Pennies of Gas Tax Revenue Comparison Credit Equivalent Pennies per Gallon 2009(1) 2010(2) % Change County Revenues $0.173 0.135 -22% State Revenues $0.135 0.118 -13% Total $0.308 $0.253 -18% (1) Source: Collier County Transportation Impact Fee Update Study Final Report, February 2009, Table 10 (2) Source: Table 10 Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. September 2010 25 Collier County l1F Cost and Credit Update Study DRAFT Collier County I TIF Cost and Credit Update Study Agenda Item No. 88 September 28, 2010 ~~~520f157 - Present Worth Variables Facility Ufe The roadway facility life used in the impact fee analysis is 25 years, which represents the reasonable life of a roadway. 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 5.0 percent was determined based on recent bond funds used to fund capacity expansion projects. Fuel Efficiency The fuel efficiency (Le., 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. Appendix D, Table D-8 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. ( VMT. J F I E"''ficienc ' = '" VMT.. -;- '" V,;',,!<>T,'P' ue:l./ :) ~ Roudwav lvpe L...J MPG Vehn:le TFpe Rnadway TyP<' The methodology uses non-interstate VMT and average fuel efficiency data for passenger vehicles (Le., passenger cars and other 2-axle, 4-tire vehicles, such as vans, pickups, and SUVs) and large trucks (Le., 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. Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. September 2010 26 Collier County l1F Cost and Credit Update Study DRAFT Collier County I TIF Cost and Credit Update Study Agenda Item No. 88 September 28, 2010 ~"n ~ _pa~~ 53 of 157 ~ 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 appropriately accounts for the existing fleet mix of traffic on non- interstate roadways. The VMT and average fuel efficiency data were obtained from the most recent Highway Statistics 2008 (Federal Highway Administration). Based on the calculation completed in Appendix D, Table D-8, the fuel efficiency rate to be used in the updated impact fee equation is 17.92 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. As a result, no changes to the effective days per year are proposed in this update. Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. September 2010 27 Collier County TIF Cost and Credit Update Study DRAFT Collier County I TIF Cost and Credit Update Study Agenda Item No. 88 September 28, 2010 ~ Page 54 of 157 Co "! CoMn"" - Calculated Transportation Impact Fee Schedule The impact fee calculations for each land use (by impact fee district) are included in Appendix E, 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 E illustrates the impact fee demand component variables (trip rate, trip length, and percent of new trips), the total impact fee cost, the annual gas tax credit and present value of the gas tax credit, the net impact fee, the current Collier County impact fee, and the percent difference between the calculated impact fee and the current impact fee. It should be noted that the net impact fee illustrated in Appendix E is not necessarily a recommended fee, but instead represents the most reasonable and legally defensible impact fee per unit of land use that could be charged in Collier County. As discussed throughout the report, the impact fee analysis has been completed using a conservative approach to develop the impact fee per unit of land use. For clarification purposes, it may be useful to walk through the calculation of an impact fee for one of the land use categories. In the following example, the net Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. September 2010 28 Collier County TIF Cost and Credit Update Study DRAFT Collier County I TIF Cost and Credit Update Study Agenda Item No. 88 September 28, 2010 ~ Page 55 of 157 COlller Cmntty ~-- - impact fee is calculated for the single-family residential detached (1,501 - 2,499 sf) land use category (ITE LUC 210) using information from the proposed impact fee schedule included in Appendix E, Table E-2. 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/TolI Facility Adj. Factor) x (Cost per Lane Mile / Avg. Capacity Added per Lane Mile) Gas Tax Credit = Present Value (Annual Gas Tax), given 5.0% 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 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 (1,501 - 2,499 sf) residential land use category: . Trip Rate = the average daily trip generation rate, in vehicle-trips/day (7.78). . Assessable Trip Length = the actual average trip length for the category, in vehicle-miles (5.88). . Total Trip Length = the recommended 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%). Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. September 2010 29 Collier County TIF Cost and Credit Update Study DRAFT Collier County I TIF Cost and Credit Update Study Agenda Item No. 88 September 28, 2010 ~ Page 56 of 157 e:r 9m<n1;Y - · 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 among 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 (8.4%). . Cost per Lane Mile (Phase II) = unit cost to construct one lane mile of roadway, in $/Iane-mile ($3,870,418), · 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 (10,217). . Present Value = calculation of the present value of a uniform series of cash fiows, gas tax payments in this case, given an interest rate, "i," and a number of periods, "n;" for 5.0% interest and a 25-year facility life, the uniform series present worth factor is 14,0939. . Effective Days per Year = 365 days, · $/Ga//on to Capital = the amount of gas tax revenue per gallon of fuel that is used for capital improvements, in $/gallon ($0.253). . Fuel Efficiency = average fuel efficiency of vehicles, in vehicle-miles/gallon (17.92). Using these inputs, a net impact fee can be calculated for the single-family residential detached (1,501 - 2,499 sf) land use category as follows: Total Impact Cost = ([7.78 * 5.88 * 1.0] /2) * (1 - 0.084) * ($3,870,418 /10,217) = $7,937 Annual Gas Tax = ([7.78 * 6.38 * 1.0] /2) * 365 * ($0.253/17.92) = $128 Gas Tax Credit = $128 * 14.0939 = $1,804 Net Impact Fee (Phase II) = $7,937 - $1,804 = $6,133 The complete fee schedule for Phase I, by land use, is included in Appendix E, Table E-1. The Phase II fee schedule is presented in Appendix E, Table E-2. Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. September 2010 30 Collier County T1F Cost and Credit Update Study DRAFT Collier County I TIF Cost and Credit Update Study Agenda Item No. 88 September 28,2010 ~. ~ _Pa\!,e. 57 of 157 ~ 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 12 presents the comparison of transportation impact fees in the surrounding and other jurisdictions in Florida. Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. September 2010 31 Collier County l1F Cost and Credit Update Study <!lor- oo~LI) o~ ON_ Z ,0 00 EN~ $Q;Q) -.00> "'E'" -g$a.. QJCl, O>QJ <{en l; . , o ...u ~~ "'0 cu ~ > ." , ~ III . ~ o ." 0. " ~ '5 . Q ." . o ~ . 8 u. i: . ~ ." o 0. E o u . :; " . .c N~ ... . . . :;;u. otj ... 0 0. E ... . o '" l!! o 0. . C . ,: m" ~~ m" ~ ~ ~ " 88 N M M" 0" ~~ ~ " 88 N M m" 8 0 N :"i s ~ ;:;: ;:: m" 00 ;:;: ;:: . g:, n; 2 ." c 0. . => u " 5~ 'OE ~ g- o." 0<< M'J'. 88 N M ~'J'. 80 N :"i " " o o o o! ." . ~ u . 0_ Cl .g 2'0 ~ .~ ~ E .... ~ ~~~ ~ ~ ;g m ~ m "' ~ <(00....0.... ........ In en,..... ~ Z 0 r-- N ,., ui ui vi f'f'l~ iJl. m iJ). N ~ ~ ~~ ~] O~ u. ~i 8~ 'Ii co " . 15 u i" oj o N c o ~ ~ ~ 'B ~ ] 8 . " m m o ~' ~ "'I',..,VIID NN\DlDl' ....OCl'lLl'lm ..,; N' vi ..i ". iJl.iJl........,.1I'l- ~ .2i E ~ " . m '" " .; ~ ..,.00.......,0 OC'lOOl.ON ..,.r--,........o ....;I't';~,..,;m ......."^....iJl..... ~ ~ 8 ~ ~ c -'i c . l .11 1; :!i 0. 0. . . E 11 m o N "' ~ 5 0; ~ ~ ~ ....01..,...,.<.0 001...."1" 1.00000..,(1'1 ,...;,....j'...;..,..Vl. -u'I--<.J'I.....<J"I.-VI- ~ ~ ~ m ",' ~ il ~ . c . . ;; is ~ E E o u ~ " o o u 'B TI " S c c o o u ~ .5 ~ ~ o " .!l1 " ~ ~ :E "" o o TI . " . ~ lI'ILl)r--m'<t 010moom ....""'/'1"10'\.... ~~:fg~f ~~~ ~ o '2 E m ~ N' ~ r-.mo.or-. U'looor--.. ....00,...... N' ,.,; r--',..,; iJl.'\I).....;./'). ~ ~ o ;; M ~ , " " ~ . .11 '" N ~ '" ~ \ONooooN U100l.!'lNL1'l Ol'OtNmr-- N' '<to"'; oc:i..,." U}tJ)-LI'lV'fm ~ ~ . :5g .21 ~~ o .0 ~ ~ n, <ll ,:= ~~ ~ . -~ '2 ftl~ o ='.-< c: ~ -g 91~~ 6 .!5!;.~2 0' ~ -g:~--: ~ o..uo.... 1:! ~ ~.~~ 2 tl c: 2 t a. ~.gcr ~ Oil -"'---0 E ~ 2:i C Cl ~ ~ ~,~ ~ ...; aJ t' c: ~ 2: ~:~~~ E"',::'...... ~ ID ~ Qi Cj;! t (ij c: ~ E i:: t: E 8.~~ ~tE.~t Q) ffi t 0 :!i.o..!!! is. 00-,& .2 E 2'3 ~~i!:( ~8<llE ..3!...... 5 c iIi uC! C ::> ~:D"',::' 0 <\l "0 .....~~ SE;:-~E ~ ~ ~ ~ 8 &,'E 5 & u ~'''-~E::J8~ <ll ~ 0> ~ 0 ro <ll c1: ;:::EI'tl c::O:500 ~Nro<ll::;:O<ll":::U'C"'O a J., !2' ,:!! E ..... E j ~ ~ ~ E~:2 g~2t:' e 5ct:-' - 1'tl'5w ,-",,'&<.;1 0 >-.2=" .2="1-(l:l~(!l..c:~~uc: 5 ,=,5UJ'~5%~~5~88 '" 58-658 6::;: 58~ ~1? 0":: 01....~uouc8cc.9~ 8 ~.~j!~-"'b:1'~<llt':6li3~ ~;5~~~~~~1!~~~:~ 0-1 ........ "'0 <ll OJ el el <ll tJ Q.i <ll G! u u =-~ II ~~""5~&1:~5~5 !j ~ 6S1S1~SlSi.dSlSl"'.5i OJ III ---- a: a1 2~8~0:~ Ee€~2 ~ . ~ . -'! ~ ~ .s ~ m 00 .; ~ lI'l 0 I,l) '<t f'- f'-0-I0'IU"\f'-.- <D,..,O,...."" Vl-.n"';<D."; Vl-1,l)Vl-0-I ~ ~ ~ Q )i! ~ m M M ~' ~ m ~ MO ~ m ..;~ ~~ ~ " ~ mNO ~ m " 0'1' 0"'" ~ M N ~~~ N ~ m 0' M ~ 1"1,..,..,.....00 ~)e ~ $ ~ ,....'<.ri,.....etio Vl-....,..,......,. <1'1-....<1'1-<1'1- ~ 't;';:;;'t;'t;'t; , ~ 00000: g g g g 81 ,..t,..to-l',..t,..t o "' ,.. w > ;5 ~ .. , .~ c .g 1;; ~ :: g ~ .~6a;: ~ ~." ~ ~ g . . ~ o u ~\5~ , ~ " ~ ~ ~ "''' "0 ~N oll " E " . "li ;::rJl DRAFT Collier County I TIF Cost and Credit Update Study Agenda Item No. 88 September 28, 2010 ;:Ho. Page 59 of 157 courer County ~-i>"..- _ Appendix A Trip Length Analysis Tindale-Ollver & Associates, Inc. September 2010 A-I Collier County TIF Cost and Credit Update Study DRAFT Collier County I TIF Cost and Credit Update Study THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTEN110NALL Y Agenda Item No. 88 September 28, 2010 ~ Page 60 of 157 COmeT em.,,~y - ~- - - Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. September 2010 A-2 Collier County TIF Cost and Credit Update Study DRAFT Collier County I TIF Cost and Credit Update Study Agenda Item No. 88 September 28, 2010 ~ Page 61 of 157 er CoMnty - - ~ Trip Length Analysis As part of the 2010 Update, TOA was asked to confirm whether the demand component for the single family land use is reasonable and conservative. 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, TOA conducted additional trip characteristics studies to evaluate the demand component for the single family land use. Results of the study indicated a longer trip length. During this update study, TOA used the 2030 Collier County LRTP Florida Standard Urban Transportation Model (FSUTMS) model to evaluate the results of the 2008 trip characteristics studies. As part of this analysis, the following information was reviewed: . 2008 local (Collier County) trip characteristics study data for the single family land use category. . Model trip length results in Collier County and a comparison of similar analysis for other peer communities. Results of this analysis suggests 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. The following paragraphs provide further information on the analysis conducted. 2008 Single Family Trip Characteristics Studies In 1999, TOA studied trip characteristics of three single family residential developments in Collier County. These studies established a trip length of 5.88 miles for Collier County, which was used to calculate the transportation impact fee rate. As a part of the 2008 Collier County Transportation Impact Fee Study, TOA conducted trip characteristics studies for the single family land use category at four locations. Map A-1 illustrates the locations of these 2008 study sites. These four sites represent the local single family residential land use data set that was the basis for the model analysis. Table A-1 presents the results of the Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Jne. September 2010 A-3 Coli ier Cou nty TIF Cost and Credit Update Study DRAFT Collier County I TIF Cost and Credit Update Study Agenda Item No. 88 September 28, 2010 ~ Page 62 of 157 CO er Cou,.~ - 2008 studies, including the trip generation rate (TGR), trip length (TL), and percent new trips (PNT) of the four sites. This information was used to calculate the VMT for existing and future single family residential subdivisions in Collier County. As shown in Table A-1, the VMT ranged from 39.07 to 104.86 for the studied sites, with a weighted average value of 60.64. It should be noted that Site 1, located in the Immokalee area, was considered to be atypical since upon review of the subdivision survey, the following was noted: . Homes in this subdivision were below the County average both in terms of size and value; and . The site was located in a unique area and most trips were within the Immokalee area, with very few trips of regional nature. Given these characteristics, data from this site were not considered to be useful in predicting future trips from more typical developments. Table A-I Collier County Single Family Residential VMT Summary(l) Trip Percent Impact Site Net Size Tnp VMTI21 Generation New Fee Reference Length Trips VMTI3) Rate Site 1 74 du 12.81 3.0S 100% 39.07 19.54 Site 2 42 du 9.55 10.98 100% 104.86 52.43 Site 3 97 du 8.78 11.29 100% 99.13 49.56 Site 4 315 du 6.97 6.55 100% 45.65 22.83 Weighted Average (4 sites) 8.33 7.28 100% 60.64 30.32 (1) Source; Collier County Single Family Trip Characteristics Studies, May 23, 2008, Table 1 (2) VMT is calculated by multiplying the trip generation rate by the trip length and by the percent new trips variables for each respective land use studied. (3) To allocate the assessment for a trip evenly between origin-end development and destination-end development, the VMT (Item 2) is divided in half. Tindale-Oliver & ASSOCIates, Inc. September 2010 A-4 Collier County TIF Cost and Credit Update Study <Dot-- c:o~'" o~ """"- o '" CD 2Q3~ -.0 v' "'E'" 'COla. c_ Olo. ClOl <J:,Ul III l.l ~~:;: C ,_oi: ....~ESIll <8:~s Cl."CIl=~^ 1Il CIl- .vW ..,.- Cl.c c-CO '0.- o en Cl. ";: I- , I ! . ... . 00 ii s 8 CSl Ui 1il ~ ~... ~"" ; 1ll o ~ "'. OJ'; :=:0) CfJ c ,~ "'0. ~ ~ ~ "".,.,. ~.c :'.:0, CfJ C , " ",-' 00. 0.;:: "'I- ~ . . N " I ! I i I I ! . ! ! , , ~ z ....c. . ';., ,~-' 'P' '~"':'~l J"._g.. . N DRAFT Collier County I TIF Cost and Credit Update Study Agenda Item No. 88 September 28, 2010 ;H;. Page 64 of 1 57 GoUleT eou..t:y ~ - 2010 Trip Length Model Analysis The model analysis task involved a review of the existing land use map in Collier County, the location of the previous study sites, and background information on the location of future development. As part of the analysis, Collier County was separated into three geographic areas (West, Central, and East) as depicted in Map A-2. Three representative traffic zones (TAl) from each geographic area of the County (West, Central, and East) were selected as "probe TAls" for the purpose of the model analysis. These TAls contained 100 dwelling units (placed in the model) and were placed in areas within each geographic area with high concentrations of residential dwelling units, To estimate the average trip length for each geographic area, a method of using geographic information systems (GIS) to select only TAZs in that respective area was used. This method, known as "select zone assignment," was then used to estimate the average trip length in these specific zones for residential trips. The trip lengths estimated in each zone are considered representative of all residential trip lengths in each respective geographic area. On successive model runs, this process was repeated for industrial and office land uses; the results of this analysis are presented in Table A-2. Map A-2 presents the areas of influence (West, Central, and East) used in the analysis, and Map A-3 presents the geographic study areas along with the "probe TAZs." Map A-4 compares model trip length to trip length from the 2008 trip characteristics study sites for the single family residential land use for each geographic area, As shown in the table and illustrated in the maps, the location of a single family home within the county has a distinct impact on the trip length of the single family home. The sites in the West area are in the Naples area (east of 1-75 to the coast) and reflect an "urban" character with a mixture of land uses (commercial, residential, industrial), thus facilitating shorter trips into and out of the subdivisions in that area. The trip length in the Central Area (8.96 miles) is approximately 31 percent higher than the West area (6.82 miles) and the East Area's trip lengths (11,75 miles) were 72 percent higher than West. The results also indicate a differential trip length for office and industrial land uses although Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. September 2010 A-6 Collier County TIF Cost and Credit Update Study DRAFT Collier County I TIF Cost and Credit Update Study Agenda Item No. 88 September 28, 2010 ;;Ko,. Page 65 of 157 courer Om>tty ~_-<li_- the differential from the base is significantly less than the residential land use developments. Table A-2 FSUTMS Trip Length Model Analysis Summary (1) Residential District Trip Trip Length Variance Std. Dev. Length Factor!>) West 6.82 1.00 33.76 5.81 Centra I 8.96 1.31 39.22 6.26 East 11.75 1.72 55.68 7.46 Averal!e 9.18 1.34 42.89 6.51 Office District Trip Trip Length Variance Std. Dev. Length Factor(2) West 8.64 1.00 55.69 7.46 Centra I 10.23 1.18 56.69 7.53 East 11.30 1.31 58.16 7.63 Average 10.06 1.16 56.85 7.54 Industrial District Trip Trip Length Variance Std. Dev. Length Factorl>) West 10.26 1.00 76.05 8.72 Central 11.12 1.08 66.81 8.17 East 12.21 1.19 71.08 8.43 Average 11.20 1.09 71.31 8.44 (1) 2030 Collier County LRTP Cost Feasible Plan FSUTMS Model (2) The trip length factor uses the shortest trip length for the geographiC areas (West, Central, and East) and establishes that area as a base. The factor then represents the trip length of each respective district as a ratio to the base. For all categories (residential, office, and industrial), the West area is the base. Tlndale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. September 2010 A-7 Coil ier Cou nty TIF Cost and Credit Update Study roo..... <Xl~'" .o~ ON_ Z .0 <Xl EN CD ~CD 2mQ.l -.oOl "'E'" 'O",D- "- "'0. 0>'" <(CIJ Ul III cp b>- .. 1:=.1:<( l'l::lE"'Ul I Cl.- <(0 III I: Ul Ou.cp>- 2-..cp.J'i "Cp- I: "" .- Cl 0.<( ""= 1:'':; o .- I- - OCl) Cp "C o :E 1ii ~ u; . . . u S" u w UJD "'utl - () 'C - .!!1 o i! .~ l' - rJ) ro w ."'._.... ,,,' , / ^". "t~_: ~$~i:~~ jJ' .', )- . J ! . . . " z ..... ! I I I I I ! i [!lor-- ro~LO .o~ .-...,(\,1 4- o r-- "'~<.O ::::.Q)Q) co.o '" -oEco c"'o.. ",- ","- <>:cJl .i:' :>. III III 1::,c"iijN r'! ::s E 1::. :>. ~ c( 0 I'll ....- .- OU-I:I'lICll C. Clll:,g 1'lIG;j!..Jc(0 ::i= ",c.-'" _ 1:'- Cllll.. o ._ ~ "C "C Om 01: ::ii'll , I I 1ij ~ ~ _ ~ ~ "i i I Q w e c DU: .,'" ! '~:" f'" i I .. """ UJ= ,j'JE _LO :51'--: O>~ c~ ~ II .e-]! ~c _OJ ~:Q o ::;;8! i''':'''''''' " > . .eN -'" ~cD .3 II .9-:ro ~"E - " ",'0 '0 .- o ifJ ::;;0:: " z .....c: . I I I I ! ! ! ! ~-d;f " rj~~, tOOl'- OO~cn ~ >- III .O~ ON_ ~C=.cell ZroO ,::::lE'ElCll ~ , ENOO c(8~;~ :! jj } ,,~c.o .. " =:: Q) Q) Ii ~ " . ~ . " ! ~ . ",.0 Cl g.... eIl...l > , - " w .,w " E "OE'" ~ ~ r-li e"o.. :IE .21 Cl Cl. c( ...Iii] .!! ,,- _ c'- III 0 ",e. 0.- ~ ell <tJ! oCl) ... c( '" " = Ul E~ ~'E o~ ~ . II ::: '" ~~ =E Ec.o tfi~ <6'" II II N'i€' $-E ~c3 .c- o-,f; c'" " C ..J" e...J "C a. f- 'C: >of- ,,- c:~ ::> 0 (1)2 '" " "Z> ~U> (I)'" _UJ .c- _ .c "'- cO> " C ..J" Q...J ";:: 0.. I- ";:: >of- ~~ ::> 0 (1)2 ., '" ~ '" .- " E= '" E NU') "'.... . J 1 ~ ~ " ~ ;;;:'11 "Z> :t= If) (I)'" _UJ .c- _ .c "'- c'" " C ..J" Q...J .;:: a. I- -;:: >of- ,,- c:~ ::> 0 (1)2 II ."'O<UO; No,,,"OIOCOO "_OUM .~ , , i . J) ~ N . . I ! , i , I I . ~ , ~ "' ;z ""'IiI( . -<e"" ,~\ ( ,0 '~ '::""-~ . N .' '~~j;l1'iY jJ , , DRAFT Collier County I TIF Cost and Credit Update Study Agenda Item No. 88 September 28, 2010 '*" Page 69 of 157 ~.! eo...H~ The analysis indicates that as new developments occur in Collier County over the next 10 to 20 years, east of County Road 951 (Collier Blvd) will exhibit longer trip lengths than the development patterns that have occurred to date west of CR 951 to the coastal area. Map A-5 provides a summary of the projected population growth from 2007 to 2035 in the three geographic areas based on 2035 socioeconomic data prepared for the County's 2035 Long Range Transportation Plan (prepared March 2010). As shown in the map, approximately 70.1 percent of the future population growth is estimated to occur in the East area, 14.2 percent in the Central area, and 15.7 percent in the West area. Summary The analysis presented indicates that the current single family land use trip length of 5.88 miles represents a conservative estimate of the average travel distance of existing and future residents in subdivisions from a countywide perspective. Table A-3 provides a comparison of the single family land use trip length model results and trip lengths used in the technical reports adopted by other jurisdictions. As shown in the table, the 2010 Collier study uses a trip length that is approximately 64 percent of the model trip length compared to an average ratio of approximately 80 percent of the modeled trip length in the case of other communities. This table should serve as a quick summary of the data and analysis that show that the current demand component of the Collier County impact fee calculation should be considered a very conservative estimate of the projected demand from new growth in Collier County. Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. September 2010 A-ll Collier County TIF Cost and Credit Update Study tOor-- oo~"' .o~ ON_ Z _0 00 ENO ~r-- ..@Q;lQ) -DC> ctl E ell -gjBQ. <lJa. C><lJ <Coo .c ~ >. i &:: =.c 0 I/)::lE-'" <i: 0 III ~C) Q.OU-Gl&:: III ~,g..J.2 :E'- CI Q. ni = &::';:- 0.- I- ::I Of/) Q. o Q. <;j ~ Ql c 1;) u ~ ~ ~ iGJD ";':....." h 1 1 I , " w!~l~:' I .J\ cfi 0 en~ ("')~ ",0 ~'" I ",;;J~~ S!~n lSa:ioee ;,;:::;CON(!)(!) ~1IJ1t5>- 5.."'" L{)"C C OOMv;::! CL 0 0,- 0 NNOU Ii' ..~1'_"'" ~ ~ ?f.cf2. "'.... en'" ~~ "<:tJ'- II II (")co..c::..c ~~'n 5(")COee ..::;...........,,{.9 ~ II II 1:5 i!;o ::! I'- L{)'C C O..O("/')....... ::! CLo 0 o.~ 0 0lNClU cf!-cft. co'" ",-i "'~ N co II II f'-o..c..c en_~_ ~ ~ g~~ee :;:;..........(9(9 J!! II 11 t5 ~ ::! r-- L{)"C C 0.0'" - => 00 a.!!! 0 Q..NNOU , } ! ; . . . , z ....c. I i I , I I DRAFT Collier County I TIF Cost and Credit Update Study Agenda Item No. 88 September 28,2010 ~ Page 71 of 157 COmer em..nty """""'--""""""'llJ:.,,- _ Table A-3 Single Family Residential Trip Length Analysis Comparison Summary(l) 5 Marion 2006 10.78 7.34 68.1% 7 Pasco 2007 8.59 7.25 84.4% 5 Lake 2007 9.01 8.40 93.2% 5 Flagler 2007 10.13 7.39 73.0% 5 Sumter 2008 9.70 7.44 76.7% 1 Polk 2009 9.11 7.61 83.5% Average 79.8% 1 Collier 2009 N/A 5.88 camer!,!"I.;!!;': ,;,;;:J2Cl1JiOYjc (1) Source: Transportation Impact Fee Report for each respective County Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. September 2010 A-13 Collier County TIF Cost and Credit Update Study DRAFT Collier County I TIF Cost and Credit Update Study Agenda Item No. 88 September 28, 2010 ,.._~.,.. Page 72 of 157 ~ Appendix B Cost Component Calculation Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. September 2010 6-1 Collier County l1F Cost and Credit Update Study DRAFT Collier County I TIF Cost and Credit Update Study THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY Agenda Item No. 88 September 28, 2010 ~~.. ~Pa~e 73 of 157 ~ Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. September 2010 B-2 Collier County l1F Cost and Credit Update Study DRAFT Collier County I TIF Cost and Credit Update Study Agenda Item No. 88 September 28,2010 ~ Page740f157 Co <rr County ..... - - Cost Component 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 . Utiliti es . Mitigation . Interchanges . Carrying costs . Roadway capacity Right-ot-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. To determine a ROW acquisition cost per lane mile for County roads, TOA conducted a review of recent (2008- 2010) ROW acquisitions and current ROW estimates along capacity expansion projects and also reviewed the ROW characteristics (existing land use, future land use, cross section width, and aerial images) of improvements in the Collier County 2030 LRTP Financially Feasible Constrained Plan (with Minor Update). The Collier County Transportation Engineering Department provided recent ROW cost figures for three local projects along Santa Barbara Blvd (extension from Rattlesnake Hammock Road to Davis Blvd), Oil Well Road (Phase I), Vanderbilt Beach Road (extension from Collier Blvd to Wilson Blvd), and Golden Gate Blvd (from Wilson Blvd to Desoto Blvd). The Santa Barbara Blvd Extension (SBBX) and the Oil Well Road ROW acquisition costs averaged $0.8 million per lane mile, while the ROW estimates for the Vanderbilt Beach Road Extension and Golden Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Ine. September 2010 B-3 Collier County TIF Cost and Credit Update Study DRAFT Collier County I TIF Cost and Credit Update Study Agenda Item No. 88 September 28, 2010 ~. ~Pa~~750f157 ~ Gate Blvd averaged approximately $1.1 million per lane mile, as shown in Table B-1. Using the local data from the SBBX and Oil Well Road acquisitions and the two estimates, a weighted average ROW cost per lane was calculated for use in the impact fee calculation. The ROW costs were weighted based on the project being designated as a "low" or "high" ROW cost. The acquisition projects were designated as "low" in cases when the majority of the corridor reflected vacant property and minimal residential parcels at the time of acquisition. For example, in the case of the SBBX, the County staff confirmed that there were only 16 different property owners to negotiate, which reduced the administrative costs (litigation, expert witness, etc.) associated with the acquisition. However, in the. case of the Vanderbilt Beach Road and Golden Gate Blvd projects, the ROW cost estimates were higher because of the urban location, the number of parcels needed and the fact that much of the ROW needed to be acquired from residents' front yards, greatly increasing the cost to the County. Using these designations, the "low" cost (approximately $0.8 million per lane mile) and the "high" cost (approximately $1.1 million per lane mile) were weighted by the distribution of low and high cost ROW acquisition from the Collier County 2030 LRTP Financially Feasible Constrained Plan. Using existing and future land use maps (Maps B-1 through B-4), along with observing existing structures and developments surrounding the potential roadway improvements, each project from the 2030 Financially Feasible Constrained Plan was estimated as having either "low" or "high" ROW costs. Factors including urban sprawl, existing developments, available cross-section widths, and project location were considered when designating each future improvement. Based on this review, it was determined that approximately 62 percent of future roadway improvements will incur "low" ROW costs, while the remaining 38 percent will have "high" acquisition costs. Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. September 2010 8-4 Coilier County TIF Cost and Credit Update Study alO"- OO~lO .O~ ON~ Z .0 00 EN~ .$Q3(]) '" N "- c>- -..0 Q)~ c:'O N '" ... ",a coEro~ '" "'''' 'OQlo.~ 00' NfItt'" OUl c:_ d u '" Qlo. 00'" ~ - OJQl "- Cl '" '" <l:CJ) '" ..; .:.="'tJ '" - 0. ... 8=> " - d '6 '" ~ ---r 8 "" U O"lomMN N '0 ~f'.,n"lNU"l '" '" c: ot:t'" "oj".,...;....-t 0 r-.: N- '" ,.....,\.OCOLl)""" "" "" - . l/"l....-t\.O,.........-t "- .... V> ...; ai'vi' N ai' 6 0 00 U ....-t i/'). N....-t U"l N "" LL ..". ..". ..". <J> <J> i= ~ ... ~ III 0 0 010 0 0 CII '" "- ~~ '" .-< ... > v; :I 05 05 , ~C" 0 00 c: J:lV 0 - - III < .!!! 0 c: ~ 1->> ~ '" '" >- 0 E III - 't:l ~ ~ :J '" ~ 0. ... I - '" UI ... c: 0 0 '" .& I E OJ ... Oll c: III .c '" 'C 't:l CI Vl '" Co ~ '" ::l ii " c: 0 '0 -0 '0. ... ~ '" > > c: '6 c: 05 05 w .!!! l!! c ~ c: c: :I Q) ~ 0 0 U u "" 0 .!!l .!!! '" 't:l U :2: 0 ~ 1:: Vl c u 0", III 0...= Vl E ... - c: <.3 III ..: '" '" .s 0 ~ c: "- - f- U ~ '" V>- 0 - c- '" u.. ...; u ~ - 0 c: >- .... x " U ".0 '" w 'u I- 0 ..c 0 '0 0 -0 -' OllU'" Vl 0:: .- '0 V> ~ =..c -0 I ~.- <( ~ '" > ..: u > <:: ;"'=:0 <2S0 C '" 05 - :J "- '" 0 c8tn ~o - co Q) ~ g:N 0 - 0 .. 0 -0 <:: ",U U 0:: '" '" 0 ~ - ~ \!J "5 -", I- .0 .;:; Q) 0.0 LL ... Q; ~ <:: :~ - 50 i!E Cll '" '" ro <= 5 -0 -0 n; ::J E UlO:: roE ~- <:: 0 - c- .- 2'0. 08 is ro 0 u - -- > \!J .... <( ~ :=.~ .- '" f-Ul DRAFT Collier County I TIF Cost and Credit Update Study Agenda Item No. 88 September 28, 2010 . Page 77 of 157 CaUter .CmlltliY ...............""""'--- - As shown in Table B-2, based on the costs for the two acquisitions (SBBX and Oil Well Road) and the two estimates (Vanderbilt Beach Road Extension and Golden Gate Blvd), as well ROW designation from the 2030 Financially Feasible Constrained Plan, a County ROW cost of approximately $901,000 per lane mile was calculated and used in the impact fee calculation. Table B-2 County Right-of-Way Calculation LRTP ROW ROW Cost per Weighted ROW Cost Rates Designation Distribution1i) Lane Mile(2) Avg. ROW(3) Low Cost ROW T 62% $782,562 $485,188 High Cost ROW I 38% $1,094,947 $416,080 Weighted Average Cost per Lane Mile 'i"i$9Oit"268 .- '~",,'--'- _ , ",- - ' ',~::'-:_'''-:'' - - - - ", (1) Source: Table 6-12, Items (a) and (b) (2) Source: Table 6-1 (3) ROW Cost per Lane Mile (Item 2) multiplied by the LRTP ROW Designation Distribution (Item 1) to develop a weighted average cost per lane mile. Additionally, Figure B-1 illustrates the trend in recent ROW cost per lane mile values used in the impact fee calculations for Collier County along with the proposed value calculated in this update study. Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. September 2010 6-6 Collier County TIF Cost and Credit Update Study 0 ~ 0 <Xl ,gJ " CO :;! " on ~ 0 '" '0 z....c: c: " Cl <0: 0 " 0 ro ~ dl 0 "1' ~ . ;; D W , "1' if> ~ 0; .. ~ ~ ~ ~ )l 0 " " 0 <r " . " .. :e . E :0 0 '5 " . \! 0 0 .. Q "1' .. 0 ]i . 0 .Q 0 8- E ~ .. E ~ . . ;;: ~ 0 > ro 0 E <r !o '" "" .. III ::> 'tl l' " ID " .. u ..J "' '5 u Qj Q 0 .. 0 " ~ " " ~ 1 .. E ~ . i I>- ID j;; :0 . '" . E , ID 0 " .S: <r <.) E 1;; ~, .;( " " ", W . 0 " c:: 0; 0 y . rII ! c:: 'tl " CI) 0:: c - ~ >< ~ ~ W (,) u 0 '" 'tl " E -;.; ~ j m E ii "' "' <J ... J: 'tl " "' CI) ~ , ..0 u ~ m " ... "' c ..... "' . I m c:: rII a:l rII > C. "' CI) "' - ;; lU c:: - c :E "' "' 0 CIJ 0:: - _.'- / ..-/ .~/ #,. ""~ ...~~- / / / /....-- ilN~_BHLot aNj.BHU~ ",..011(' ~ c ."I al ~ "E ;;; ~ E ~ w , -g c ;;; ~ .~ ~ ~ ! , :> 15 ~ " ?; 0 0: " . ~ " :2 . E c Z :0 . '3 C 0 u " 0 "E il c ii . c .. t: E .Q ;; 8. c :l ~ ~ ~ il ~ ~ 0 E 0: CO "" '/!: " "' ::> " 'C m 5 " .. u '5 ..J "' u Q c Qj ~ " " <: e 'u ~ ~ ~ m .. . ;; 11. " . E , m ~ Ol m 0 E " 0: U :;::: "' " 'x w - (I) I/) III ..c: tl. - "C 0:: N I ma; 0.3: I'G- :Eo 0 '" ~ " >: ~ ~ N o '! ~ ~I C ~. o ", , . u > f o . C ~ .i o u ~ a '2 f , 1i " , u " C o o ~ " " 0 0 m . N ~ CD j1 " ci :E ~ z E ~ '" ... '" " '0 "- '" Z..... 0> '" <( " '" OJ " 0 u 0 ~ a: e- 1" ~ . X .0 UJ 0 1" <J> t; " " . j .. ~ ~ ;!! 0 " ;; 0 0- -. " ~ u , . 5 0 = . 0 " 0 \2 " Q 1" " 0 ;; . 0 0 " E 0 :g 8- ~ 0 . . " t; 0 > . . . 0 E 0: eo " "" ~ .. .. ::> 'C " c: .~ ;; '" " ...J '" 0 Qj 0 ~ ~ " " . N1SJ.SHJ.;l - 'E 0 1 '" ~ . . c I II. u " . . E , Cl . 0 u . MSUIHJ.ll .E 0- " E ~I 1;) " . .;( w .' MNJ.SHJ.IIIZ MBJ.SH.!.llt 0 c: " .2 0 0 III . MN.l.S.LIHt MS.l.S.1S~t c: 't:l 3- , III > ~ - >< lJJ Q W N c: , " 't:l 0 0 . { 0:: ..!!! " . . ~ z z 3. . . . . . .c 3: ~ ~ ~ . ~ , -" . t.l 'i z ~ . ~ z III . " . 0 0 . III - " lJJ 't:l 0 - 2: c NO^'SlIOIaiM M "Q lJJ . I I m .. III .. Q.'t:l .!!! C'Cl c: 0 :E~ () 0 0 N 0 ~ ,g, :!i! ~ '" ... 0 z....c. '" 0 '" N 0 0 '0 0 m ~ a: ~ " ~ . x '" UJ 0 " "' ~ 0; " ~ J!l ~ J; ~ 0 " ~ 0 0: " . '0 ~ ;:g . 0 ~ 0 ~ . 0 0 0 Ii .. .0 " .. 0 .. . 0 .0 " E .". B " 8. 0 ;3 . . 0; ~ ~ 0 > 0 m 0 E 0: >= <.9 "" .. .. :::> ::,' 'C .. c: . .. .. u ..J "' .. 0 U a; '0 ~ ~ " .. m " ~ 'E 0 ~ .. 0; .~ D. . E '0 ;; '" 'm E 0 . 0 '0 .!: 0: " E 1ii " .;( W "1' . I ~lnU.i^O(J '~,: '~~ A}l}/,3~~...tJnS : "-"J . . . ~ ;< " . J J.S)l~d~ .\'\ lS!'tIElOJ. SO^'SNOS,IM -0 ~ al o - o I/) -0 ell ~C alO - ,Sl-o l'lI > 'o:t' C)- I al mee Q,~O lIS-I/) ::E & :e '1 . , o . " ~, <; ~, o . "' , . u " ! " c " j o u . ~ i o . is o ., u " C . " u e ~ 0: 0)0"- oo~"' o~ ON4- Z .0 CO EN~ $Q;O> -.0 cn~ C'ClE(tJ,j,J '0"'0.0:1: c~ "'0. "'''' <{(f) ~ u 'tJ C l!! ., I- 2: >- ., III c ~ m --' ~ ~ 0 ., . c. ... ~ .s::. vo .-lCl 0 . .- u lQl:l:: >- m GI'tJ S ... GI , :I... ..... ClQ. 0 , .- 0 ~ > L1.'tJ J::: < tJ.O 'tl a:: ::I ~ ... >- III C ~ c CII :I ::J ... 0 0 III 'tl U U Co ... ~ ::l .~ ., ... '0 0 '5 u CII U .. U 'tl r:: III ... III 0 U 1.1. ... I- ~ r:: ::I 0 I-U - LI. ~ , <= 0::'0 Cu (<:lI!UJ aue! lad) l50) MO~ ~ I~ I~ is. 0. m ~ ., .<= ;: '" c 'x ., '0 .!: ro c o "" '6 , '0 'm I., , '0 ::J U c i.~ ,., '::J ; ro '> '0 2 0. o '0 ire !W .<= 'I- , ~-i"; c ~ ::J.a OVl U<1> ~ ~ ~~ - c. 8=> ~ '6 <1> ~ U '0 C <0 ~ vo o U u.. r= " < vi t:: o 0. <1> '" <1> <1> u.. ~ - r:O I I . I I I I i , I I ~ I I ",' <1> ~ <0 '0 0 '" '" <{ i oil 0 , ~ I ~o g;N I .- ~ -<1> 0.0 I A! E , <0 <1> I 'O~ C 0. I ._ <1> f-Vl ~ ~, t 'm 0. oS C '0 "" <0 t:: o 0. ,'" C <0 ~ it- ~ c ::J o U o '"', ~ ~ o u '" ::J o S ~ 0- il! u ~ ::J o Vl DRAFT Collier County I TIF Cost and Credit Update S~dy Agenda Item No. 88 September 28, 2010 ~ Page 83 of157 eT C.,.......t;Y ~ Construction County As shown in Table B-3, a statewide review of construction cost data for recent County roadway capacity expansion projects identified 16 improvements. Of these 16 projects, two were local lane addition projects along Oil Well Road in Collier County (from Immokalee Road to east of Everglades Blvd and from east of Oil Well Grade Road to west of Camp Keais Road) and one was local new road construction of the Santa Barbara Blvd Extension (from Rattlesnake Hammock Road to Davis Blvd). These three segments (33.82 lane miles) had a weighted average construction cost of approximately $1.7 million per lane mile. When combined with the other 13 bids (64.94 lane miles) identified in the statewide review, which included only projects bid between 2008 and 2010, the resulting construction cost was approximately $1.7 million per lane mile. State As shown in Table B-4, a statewide review of construction cost data for recent State roadway capacity expansion projects identified 21 improvements. Of these 21 projects, none was located in Collier County. However, the sample set of projects included six projects located in FDOT District 1, including projects in Sarasota, Polk and Manatee counties. Based on the review of the recent State bids (all bids in 2008 and 2009), a weighted average cost of approximately $2.4 million per lane mile was used in the impact fee calculation. Figure B-2 illustrates the recent trend in County and State road construction costs. As previously mentioned, construction costs have decreased due to the economic conditions and increased competition for projects, as contractors and suppliers have worked to retain market share. From 2006/07 to 2009/10, the average number of bidders per contract has increased from 3.4 to 6.0 while the percentage of the number of contracts below estimate has increased (Table B-5). Despite material price pressure, subcontractors continue to reduce quotes. As seen in Figures B-3 through B-8, the unit costs for earthwork, base, steel, Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. September 2010 B-12 Collier County TIF Cost and Credit Update Study DRAFT Collier County I TIF Cost and Credit Update Study Agenda Item No. 88 September 28, 2010 ~ Page840f157 Co er CO>tJrty - asphalt and concrete components indicate a decrease compared to previous years, Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. September 2010 6-13 Collier County TIF Cost and Credit Update Study alor- "'~'" .o~ -'" - o '" '" .$Q')Q) -.DOl "'E'" ~2o... <l>.Q. Ol<l> <[,(f) ~ ~ '0 E u ." C . 1> . u ~ ;: l: c , . ....u ~~ ~8 >- ." , ~ Ul .'!I . ." .. ::> II ~ '0' ~ .. .. . ~ ." . ~ ~ role ':0 IDo ~u :ON' .- ....~ ." 'i s . ill ." e . 0000"""''''' 0 tI'lOO...... Ll'\O.....,......... ~~~~~~~~~;~=~~~a, ..,c,............. . ~~~S~g~!~!l~~~~~~ ~N~NNNNN~~~~~~N~ .~~~~~~~~~~~~~0~~ '~ ~~N..,LI'\~N...M~LI'\N........,LI'\I ~:;i::;::::J~~O:::J~~:;;8~S~~ ~g~~sN~~~~~~~g~t8 ~~~,~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~a~~*~~~~~~aa! ~ ;:::~;;:8~8~~?a::g:1:8~~ ,...:;,...:;....;....0...,...:;0,,0........,...;...; ~ c C C C c c C C C C C c c C C ...... .."'""," III III III III III III III III .e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~"Q"'O"Q"I:I"o"Q'O'tI""o"'O"Q"'CI"Q iiiiiiiiiiiiii5iiiiiiiiiiiiiiimiiiiiiii5iiiiii ss~~ ;;;~~:=;: ~~ . > " 'l;I ~ "g dI"'C iO.~ ]iti _~ot'~~~_~~ llJ "'.:{ ell U ~ _... III Co "C~)! .....c~~~::>Gl;~E a:: ~ 0 ...::> Q; ::> a:l e ::: '" OJ III 00 C ~ ~ a>..c III .....f. IIJ co::> Jj U '~~i~~~g~~~~~t~c~ Cl::>o..o..zu:r:::::;m.Qo..:r:::?::II\u.i3: m i8 ~g t:f- a. 8" E'E -j; E" ~. " ~ !l'g i" m,li .~ f- a ~E 0'- 8~ jg~ -E .t,g H .~~ ~~ mu ~ e 5~ ~ g Eu ~ ~ i.~ ~o ~" 0.(5 il '0 u(i! f.,-i,..c..:: ~ ::> ::> OJ ill ~ ~ ClI 1:' ........ !! ~ ~ ~ III ~~ ~ ~~~o~~8o ~~~. .........Q.c....ouo~~~ ~~OO~~O.i:i u..... Ii: 'i::r: - ;;; u .9 . > < E: ~ !" ; ~ "- > ,,'" 0.'5 c. ",ii a:"-'C_ <t "t:> 1:< '" ~ a: 0:; li1~~~i~~<tl1~ c "'.... '" 8 ~ ",.- ::;~.!;!~"f!"".!;!'I-~~2 ~.~~8"'CE~C::3:EC:: :)a:oy:B~ozzE~ ~ > ~ ~ . . ~ U <llii'iiii ; ~.~ ll~ ~_ ~]2 2& N~ ~ _ <II"' ~ ~ - C 'C "C <t iQ U 'l:l "';;: <II <II >... ..c.,':l ~ ~.... E ~ ii~ "-~a:~!::.~ <II~ <II~E ~~]~~~ :;~ ~ ~~... ~e]~ ~8~~~ '" ........ ~€ '\2: vll-:Q:> <II l- 'tl <II <II 'C ~ gZ~"It-5 ~Lnt ':: ~ ~::=~~ JlBi8~vi5~~5~~~~:o6 ......,..."'V1............V1..,. ~~ "] il~ u. !ii1il ~g ~ ] u " . ~ i'; .n '" ~ . >: 3i '" <; 13 ~ i < ~ . ]; I 0 .Ii E' .,. . < .~ J .S < .- . " ~ E '" '" . " =.~ u .5 m' * .~ < "''' ~o ~N BE .kE ." ~g "'~ <DO'- -~"' ~O~ ON__ Z .0 ro", ENro Q)~Q) ==~ 0'1~ CllECll~ 'OQ)o.d to. OJQ) <((f) ~ ~ d >- 'tl :l .... III ! l'Il "&. :::l .... '6 ~ U 'tl c l'Il .... lS u Lt.. .... I- l: c :l o U I- .. ll.. CIl <C:: CC'O Cu ~ ..... e ~ > ra := " ra o a: ~ c :l o U .. .e III " a:i c o ',ij u :l ... t: c o U ra " 'i: o u: .... c CII u CII a: ;;; ~ 'E Q/ c fa..!!! Co " ... ~ . 0::: ;;; ~ 'E Q/ " C .- " '" - ..25: o . >.... .. 11'I I a::l C. ra ::E - '" ~ 'E Q/ c .....!!! '0", <l.~ ", ",' " :0 ~ '" ~ 'E Q/ C Q/ " ~o -'~ N .,; :0 -:. ;;; ~ 'E .J:: Q/ "c S..!!! ~ CO o '" -a 1.0 =", ~ VI"" " :0 ~ ;;; ~ 'E Q/ c ~ " ~N -CO o . U", ", ",' " :0 !:::!. G" ... - Ul 'tl 1.0 jig ~ C CO C '" ti ~ :l CIl .. 1;; ~ C CIl o C U l'Il >-.... C rv :l .... o .:! u II . ~ '" a:, Q) :0 (3. ~ OJ o V> C€ c:: ::l ::l.... Ov> UQ) ffi~ .- '0 =0. 8=> .... ~ ~ U '0 c:: <1l .... '" o U u.. r: If> .... a:, u oS i .n' f2 <1l ~ 'g I :::: , <( ~ci68 I W ~ I .2: ~ lo~ l cU E rojB . '0 0. ' C (l) iFv> IDOr-.. co~"' O~ "'-"'- .0 r-.. CO 2a>ID -.a Cll ctiEcti 'COla. C_ Ole. CllOl <(CO ~ ~ c . o ...U ~i ~8 .. " . ill .!I . " Q. ~ ~ '6 E u " c . ~ o u ~ ~ ... ~$ O~ ~.2! ~i 8:: 1i u -g . . 8 ~ i= ~NSiv~~~~~~~N~~~N~~~~~ ~ ~ ~ 1Il~ ~ $. ~ ~ ~;rt <<t ~ ~::l, irl!. ~ ~ a. ~ ~ cst:. 2~~~~~~M~~IIl~~.~OIll~i.1Il ~;:;;. ~ ~ ~;;';!l. ~~.~.~. "!. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ "t ~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~N~.o~~~m22~~~MO~M~~~ M~~~~~~og~~~~~~~g~~~m~ ms~g~mt~~mdg~8~~~~~~~ . ~~m.moMM~~gIllM~~~.~~MIIl ~~.~~~~~Nd~~~illl~NMm.~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~0~ ~~~~~~~~ o ~:::lSf:~~g::n;:f8~~ ..;..r"';";r'<.Qullliviu>..:; N N il8::l~~~g~::J::;::1lZ NI"i".;.....;a6m,..;...;N. ~ N.NNNNNNN~NNNNNNNNNNN ~~R~~~~g~~S~~~~~~~~~~ ,..jul"';N..;,.;,..;NNN";"';"';"';O"';";"';"';O"< ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ C C c c c C C C C C C C c C C C ~ III III III III III III III III III .. III .. III III III III III III III III ~~~€~€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ .~~~~.~~.~~.......... SSBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB NN..VNVVNOVNNNNNNNNNN t! " .- f Q. .. .. .. ~ a:.i o ,,'" :;;" ..~ foJ! III " " 'j; " ~ .. ~ III ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~m~mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm 888888888888888888888 NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN ~ Q?:;; > > gii . ~ . 0 . ~. < ~ 6 e.; ...=>-- - ...-", ...0-00000"'''' ..,..."'1.0"'..."'......." ei!Seieie:;e;ffi~~e:; <N' ~ c: O? .-.~. ~ ~ - ] :!: ~ E . . '" " ~ . :E ji . II . ~~ ~o ~"C"O :=~~ ~:;:~8~~"Q o a:O:lNg!fj<CE ";: ~ ~ :> e.;~~~~~ I ~ , .. " ~ . . :.S :E! ro: l;'Q);O 'l: c E 1.0 a: ..,. ~ 5 ~;1; ~ 0 "'C U<<t""X ~~g~a:; 2l~;:~~~:;~E~ E:s: 0 0 == Cl,. 0..... .z .0 azzz0:Lii~8 :tf ti ;; c g . t ~ c J; 1; . .. ~ .. .. > . ~ N. ~ .~ o. "'g ~ ~ ~ ii5ii tt ~~gg~~:;; ~sli~~~ ...._Gl ...... _ == g*.s;:::;~~R::::~.€;.~ ~ei~~eieieie:;e:;.E~ 8 . . . ~~ .~ e ~ ~ t ~ . ~c:~ ~B.g:..g~", f- iii.Qc~a:a:g.";!!'51~]8 lij :;;.E~Z.l!!~ E:c ~:!! Ol.l- "" ~ '" C l: ... 5l .'" '" .. l- . "" ~ i1:"lLll ~V>V> e ~ u .s ,,; ~ . ~ ~ ",0 "0 ON ~ " 5~ o E ~a ~~ ...'^"'..."'........LIl........... coo"' co~"' o~ ON_ Z .0 E~~ 2cvQ)-::... -~ en;:'l "'E"'t '0 Ol O-J "- Ola. "'Ol <((I) ~ a >- 'tl :I ... Ul .2J /II "8- :;:) ... '6 1!! u 'tl C /II 'l;; o U ~ ... ~ .z:- c :I o ~~ LLQI <= 0::'0 Cu J!I u GI ..... e A. >- III ~ 'tl /II o IX .el 19 Ul ... .e Ul 'tl iii c o t :::l ... .... Ul C o U /II "0 .;: o u:: .... C GI U GI IX ~ oS! 'E ~ oS! 'E .. ~:i c:- to", ~N 0,..; ,; :a =. ~ oS! c: 'E o .. t;'oc: c:.!l! .- .. -li;.. to ' 3:'" ,; :a =. .. \D I a:l Co III ::E .. c: c: o to - - -", ~~ .. ",' :a ... '" .. ~ c: ~.!S! '" N - U'> ; l1i U'> .;; '" :a !:!. ~ oS! 'E .. c: ....!l! ON "'... '" .. ~ c: .. '" EN " ~ "'''' ~- '" :a ... .. o c: u.!l! ~ 00 to '" '" . U'> ",- :a ... ~ oS! 'E ~ .. ~ c: .- to 0<- c: .. to "! :ern c: ... ~ oS! 'E J: .. .. c: " '" 0_ (; ~ ~oe; :':N :>: . '" :c ... -.; oS! 'E .~ ~ u '" ,,- .....N .... I': "'00 .. .. .. :Ii - - '" 0 ; ~ :2:00 ~. '" :c ... -.; oS! 'E .. '" .. to c: o to ...!. '0 Eo to ' ~'" to .. _ c: o.!l! ~ '" :!! ... ~ai ~. '" :a (!!. .. c: .!l! N '" ..; ... '" :c ... ;:j N I.l) CO ~ -r:i ~ ~ !: I o '" ",i:j Q.I u 2 ~ t; OJ !: C o III U ..... OJ III ... ... ~ ~ Vl II . c>- ,,'0 ".3 Oll) U Ol ~ ... Ol '" =="8- 8::> ... '0 (lJ ~ U '0 " '" ... V> o U LL. i= "' - r:b .,. r:b (lJ 15 '" f-- Qj u ~ " o lI) , I ~ ", '2 f '" f 'u [ ~ 1< f~::: f Cv F3 > ~ io15 f, cV E -Ol i ~ D. l C OJ FV1 tOOl'- co~'" O~ """'- o '" CO <D - :::15 ~~ ctIEctl~ '0 <DO-a= "_ <Do. OJ<D <too .. " , - u J:: o o u ~ ~ '" c 0 .~ ~ W N o :I: o U Z e< >- _"e< '" :;; " " ~ :;; ~..t:~ l= - => w "' '" ~ 0 "- ;:: 01l >- ~ ~ '" => '" :':i u .... 0 :; ii .~ ~ iii ~ 0: , N - 0 u ~ 0. ~ <; E 0 C -.2 OVl U<D ~ ~ OJ '" ;,.='"0 - 0. 8=> ~ '5 OJ ~ U '0 " '" ~ '" o U "- - I- II ;J:1;~ ~ ~ "' , '" u w J:: 0 0 0 0 u ~OO'" -5 .~ , , 'C - iii u J:: 0 0 z 0 u '0 ~ ~ w - .0 0. u E ~ J:: ~ w Z 'C ~ 'C 0 '" iii u > " w > '0 0 .0 ~ " w ;:: ~ .0 E u , w ~ E ~ 0 <Xl"'''' Cl. Gl a: c:n c: In .- I~ 00 illS - "! '" 0 '" .!!... '" u; u; ,cu III III I-Jj >- c: 'tl 0 ::s U .... In l- N "'''' .l!l 0 '" "'''' III 0 'tl lI.. fj Co "" ::l - 0 ~ '" 'tl 2 ~ <Xl ~ 0 '" "- 0 "- E U '" '" '" ~ 'tl w c: '0 U III " .s 1;; '" '" ",- 0 " U 0 OJ ~ <Xl "'N '" '" ... '" "'N ~ '0 .... '" "'''' I- "" 0 '0 en en OJ , <t ~ 0. I <i\~ Vl c: l- I ~o ::s 0 g;N 0 .- ~ 0 I o~ I-U "- OJ ~E lI..~ ~ "'2 <C= => I 1'0. a:- 0 ~ ._ OJ 08 Vl I-Vl iDOl'- CO~L() ~> .O~ ~ c" ON_ 0_ O~ Z .0 u. CO ~l EN~ 2wQ.) 3D ~ - -" el . ~ "'E'" l! -g2Q.. - u i'l S l' <llCl. g . el<ll <.U? 8 ~ 0 ~ 0 2 ~ ~ l; o , o .-u ~~ 0:'0 ou iJ) ~ <lJ c: ro -' " .... C ~, iJ) -, .- 0.. 1;; .... 0 '" u 0 C U 0 ~:e c: .. = 0 ~ ~! .... = CI U en 0: ::J U::U, .... ~ .... '" c, c: = 0 0 u U - ~ >- '0, .... c: u' ::J 0 U .... iJ) 0 u > '0 , Vi ~ . '0 .. " ~ '6 . Q '0 o . ~ . o u ~ i= . '0 . -<1 . 0 '0 ~ ~ . ~ . . . 0 > 0 0 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ 2 C . ;; E , 0: . 0 ~ 3 Ql '" '" 0 '" . . . '" w w '0 ~ 0. if S S 0; 0; 0 ~ ~ - . . . '" 0; '0 ~ ~ ~ ~ u , 3' 3' w . . "5 "5 - ;; ;: 0: u u => ~ ~ ~ + + c + " 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5\ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 c 0 0 o. 0 0 0 0, 0 0 0 " ci ~ ci 00 g ~. 0' g o. 5\. 0 0 ~ 0 " " 0 0, o. ::: , ~ ~- ;;; ;;; v, v. v. if. (alIW auE') Jad) }SO) UDI1JnJlSUO) ~ 8 c N ~ 1i ~ . c ~ , ~ 0 " '" ~ '~ " ~ . c . 8 , c ~ ,^ '0 ~ ~ II ~ . Q . 0 u " '" <p6 " " . . ~g " " . . " ~ . . w " 5 ~ Q . 0 u " ~ is . " 0 ;; . ci ~ ~ 0: u g a ~ c 0 ~ ~ c il , 0: "' ~ ::: f; ~ 5 0 u 11 '0 u ~ 0 > . ~ ~ ~ :'; do ~ .; . " .~ ~ ~s '0 ~N o~ . E -,; . '00. ~~ Agenda Item No. 88 September 28, 2010 ~ Page 91 of157 Cd er Cmt...r.Y ~~ - DRAFT Collier County I TIF Cost and Credit Update Study Figure B-3 - Earthwork Cost Trend Earthwork (District 1) - FOOT Weighted Average Price $14.00 .......Oistrict 1 $12.00 ;;: \,J $10.00 ~ .. ~ .~ $8.00 ;;:. $6.00 i .. $4.00 ~ $2.00 $0.00 I , , \. / Source: Cost Trends by Fiscal Year for Major Pay Item Groups, July 2000-May 2010; State Specifications & Estimates Office, htto:llwww.dot.state.fJ.us/soecificationsofficel EstimatesfTrends/Defa ult.shtm 2001 2003 200S 2006 2008 2010 2007 2009 2002 2004 Letting Date Figure B-4 - Base Cost Trend ~ I I I " Source: Cost Trends by Fiscal Year for Major Pay Item Groups, July 2000-May 2010; State Specifications & Estimates Office. htto: Ilwww.dot.state.fl.us/soecificationsoffice/ EstimatesfTrends/Default.shtm r I $25.00 I $20.00 I~ .. ~ $15.00 .. u 'E: "" ~ $10.00 .. ~ .. > 00: $5.00 Base (District 1) - FOOT Weighted Average Price $0.00 ....- District 1 2001 2002 2004 2006 2007 2009 2010 2008 2003 2005 Letting Date i J Collier County TIF Cost and Credit Update Study Tindale-Oliver & Associates, 1nc. September 2010 B-20 DRAFT Collier County I TIF Cost and Credit Update Study Agenda Item No. 88 September 28, 2010 ~ Page 92 of 157 Co er Cou.nty -- - Figure 8-5 - Asphalt Cost Trend Asphalt (District 1) - FOOT Weighted Average Price $140.00 $80.00 ....- District 1 $120.00 . z .... $100.00 Q; ... .~ ~ " $60.00 .. ~ " ~ $40.00 $20.00 $0.00 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Letting Date Source: Cost Trends by Fiscal Year for Major Pay Item Groups, July 2000-May 2010; State Specifications & Estimates Office. httD:llwww.dot.state.fi.us/soecificationsofficel Estimatesrrrends/Defa ult.shtm Figure 8-6 - Structural Concrete Cost Trend Structural Concrete (District 1) - FOOT Weighted Average Price $1,400.00 $1,200.00 ~Districtl >" u $1,000.00 ~ " Eo $800.00 " .~ ~ $600.00 " ~ $400.00 " > '" $200.00 $0.00 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 letting Date Source: Cost Trends by Ascal Year for Major Pay Item Groups, July 2000-May 2010; State Specifications & Estimates Office. httD:llwww.dot.state.fl.us/soeclflcationsofficel Estimatesrrrends/Defau It.shtm Tindaie-Oliver & Associates, Inc. September 2010 B-21 Coli ier Cau nty TIF Cost and Credit Update Study Agenda Item No. 88 September 28,2010 ~ Page 93 of 157 CO er CoMn1;)l --- DRAFT Collier County I TIF Cost and Credit Update Study $50.00 ". $45.00 _ $40.00 S ~ $35.00 ~ .!:!: $30.00 ~ $25.00 "- ill. $20.00 .. :;; $15.00 > < $10.00 $5.00 $0.00 Fi ure B-7 - Structural Steel Cost Trend Structural Steel (District 1) - FOOT Weighted Average Price -+-Districtl 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Letting Date Source: Cost Trends by Fiscal Year for Major Pay Item Groups, July 2000-May 2010; State Specifications & Estimates Office. htlo://www.dot.state.fl.u5/soecificationsofficei EstimatesiTrends/Default.shtm (~- I I I i S :;; $0.80 .!:!: !l ;l: $0.60 ~ .. l! $0.40 ~ Figure B-8 - Reinforcing Steel Cost Trend '1 I Reinforcing Steel (District 1) - FOOT Weighted Average Price $1.20 .......District 1 $1.00 $0.20 $0.00 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Letting Date , / Source: Cost Trends by Fiscal Year for Major Pay Item Groups, July 2000-May 2010; State Specifications & Estimates Office. htlo:iiwww.dot.state.fI.usisoecificationsofficel EstimatesiT rends/Defa ult.shtm Coliier County TIF Cost and Credit Update Study Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. September 2010 6-22 DRAFT Collier County I TIF Cost and Credit Update Study Agenda Item No. 88 September 28,2010 ~ Page 94 of 157 CO eT Cou.n"" - - Design/eEl The design/CEl cost factors for County roads were determined based on a review of recent roadway capacity expansion projects in Collier County. A total of five projects (along lmmokalee Blvd, Rattlesnake Hammock Road, Collier Blvd, Santa Barbara Blvd, and the Santa Barbara Blvd Extension) were evaluated. The design and CEl 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 CEl percentage-of-construction factor. As shown in Table B-6, both design and CEl are assessed at approximately seven percent of construction costs. For State roads, based on discussions with FDOT, design and CEl were assessed at approximately 10 percent of construction costs. Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. September 2010 B-23 Collier County TIF Cost and Credit Update Study - -;J . N '" J! ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ m . '" ~ , m "a. . .!!;: N do 'i", ..." ~ ~ ~ '" 'W " " " m . . . Q ~ ~ ~ . ~ . " . '" ~ " " 0 . 0 ~ > . 3 . " g . ~ " > 0 . 0 .. :3 E .~ .~ " .. 0 c . ~ <II J!l " ~ . a. 1 I " . ~ 0 I '6 , x E !i i I u . ] I " 0 c 0 ~ 0 ~ u U 1;; i oS 0 , ] u I ~ ~ . ... ~ ~ . . '1 ~ u ",0 c I "0 . ON 0 ' " ...u I 6.11 ... Z I " E <= I ~~ ~8 I F~ coor-- CO~en .o~ ","",- .0 en 0'> ~a;(l) -.00> roE'" -0",11. c_ "'0. 0>'" <:((/) ~ ~> 5~ c'^ u. ~! 8" ~ u " . . c u ~ ~ ~ ; 5 ::l .t ..; ~ ~ ~ " m ~ ~ .tori", ;:;i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ %k, ~ g ... ~ I!!: ~O ; "l"~ .~ 15 .~ ~~ ri :g ;t ::f d;;2i . ~ . ~. ~ ~. r" S. i ~aa ~ S ....'ffi ~ ::t a! N ~. DRAFT Collier County I TIF Cost and Credit Update Study Agenda Item No. 88 September 28,2010 ,...~_,..._Pa~e 96 of 157 ~ Utilities County The utility cost per lane mile of $455,000 from the 2009 Collier County Transportation Impact Fee Update Study was used in the calculation of the impact fee rate for Phase 1. State The unit cost per lane mile for State roads did not include utility costs due to the fact that the Collier County Water-Sewer District pays for utility relocation costs associated with state facilities, For the Phase II transportation impact fee calculation, utility costs were removed from the unit cost per lane mile. Mitigation Mitigation cost estimates were developed based on cost data received for six recent projects in the county: . Randall Blvd (from Desoto Road to Oil Well Road); · Santa Barbara Blvd Extension (from Rattlesnake Hammock Road to Davis Blvd); . Golden Gate Blvd (from Wilson Blvd to Desoto Blvd); · Oil Well Road (from Immokalee Road to west of Camp Keais); · Collier Blvd (from Green Road to Golden Gate Blvd); and · Vanderbilt Beach Road Extension (from CR 951 to Desoto Blvd). The Randall Blvd, Golden Gate Blvd, Oil Well Road, and Vanderbilt Beach Road Extension mitigation projects are located in the Panther Consultation Area (PCA), which has 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 six mitigation projects. To develop a weighted average Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. September 20 IO 6-25 Collier County TIF Cost and Credit Update Study DRAFT Collier County I TIF Cost and Credit Update Study Agenda Item No. 88 September 28, 2010 ., Page 97 of 157 COtl1er Cmmty ------'"""'-- ~ costs for all County roads, regardless of location, the PCA and non-PCA costs were weighted by the distribution of lane miles from projects in the LRTP that are located in the PCA or in the non-PCA, as shown in Table B-8. Based on the six mitigation projects and the weighting analysis mentioned previously, a mitigation cost of approximately $156,000 per lane mile for County roads was used in the impact fee calculation. Map B-7 illustrates the PCA boundaries in Collier County. Based on discussion with County and FDOT Staff, the mitigation cost per lane mile determined for County roads reflects the same costs expected for State roads. Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. September 2010 8-26 Collier County TIF Cost and Credit Update Study (DOl'- co~'" O~ ON_ Z _0 CO ENg;; .$Q)Q) -.00) "'E'" '0",0- c:~ "'0. 0>'" <!.el) ~ ~ ." , ~ III !l m ." .. => ~ '6 ~ U ." c m 1;: o U ~ ~ ... ~ c , o ...u "'~ <(:: 0:'0 ou <liil888 ,...icci..ro. .-;..., \OM ~ R;:888 ~"';NciM ~ ~ m .. "'N~ N :l ~ o U c: o :c ":'.~ 1Il:t:: ~:E i::- ,..c: , o u ~ j '0 u ~ '<t B l.O ~ BSBB N .9 '<t 0 N .- ~ . > ~iD -g c..&-c ~ ~ ~ ~ o U c 0 ~Q~~ ~:s:~~ ~ ~ ~ . ~ OlI"'O t: ] ~ ...... ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ E 15 5 ~ > ;;; . 'iii-O"O ~Cl:aS:O C -a; ~ ~:s:~-gii g68~~ z> ~ " w ~ ~ ~ u . . m .!! .!! iiii II a.r &I III c: C c: c: ~~~~ ilil 3~~ . . . . ~.:( < > c c < Q .2 'eEl! ~"3'S . . "iij c: C ~~~ . . oS '5 c c . . ~~ o o z ~ . o u . o . ~ ~ u)~ .. '", ~ N ~ '" c: :c .c: '" .~ ~ :l~ ~1) ClOU~ , c: c: CICI,$! 0 ~-:az -g.2'1Ii ~.'~ > :E1) ~.. c~ , o u ~ ~ '0 u . E ~ a . o g C . a: ~ ~ ~ " ~ ~ 5 o u ~ :3 . u ~ >> ~~ O~ u. H I)" .~ ~ ~ u l' . . o u i" "' 8 ~ ~ .. 1: ]; !! " 'S.gj E "E N:g E-" . " 5~ "' a m ..~ E 8 . . " ~ ~~ . . ~~ ~] u~ "'.~ n ~ to z.~ j3' 1'E- roCi;-g :;~~ __.___ E 0 ~ .ee2::::'E ~c EE~vQ) .g ~~~~~, .2l r-;- r-;- ~~";"' E :~.!P_~~ is ~ ~ ~B ~ Q.ll-.....-......EI- ~~~8:5~ ~~~~i] .'l "' a ~ ~ N "' :::::'..:::::!,!::: ~ u 5 . " ~ ~ ",0 '0 ~N 0] .. E . . 1!o. f=~ IDa..... ~~LO ~o~ ~.o '" '" ~a;Q)O -;;; 'E g'd= "COla. c_ Olo. enOl <OJ) > "Cl ::I ~ III J!l III "8- :::) ~ :a \!! U "Cl C III t: o U .... .... ~ ~ C ::I o U ~.. ll..Ql <:: 0::'0 QU ~ < C Q .- .... ~ = III C Q U ... GI .c .... c RI Q. r:.: I = Q. RI ~ ~. c ::s o (.) ... CI) .- - - o (.) c .- co CI) ... <t s::: o .- ..... S - ::s U) s::: o (.) ... CI) .c:: ..... c res a.. ',co.. r.":f - c '" E ~ co 0. '" o en c 'c c co 0:: c o ., ~ :S ~ .~ VI C ~ I- ~ c " o U 1il " c ~ ~ ~ ~ '" " ~ ~ z<s '" ::t ~ " fI" ."..'''' ,-: ... < " o .. ~ GJ '" 0 C ::!: "tel ~ ~ ~ ; Iii ~ ~ fa iU c ..c<: ~ ~ e , 01:a<<lg~" ()lU,-Eg!a ~n.roltU)b ~"~-~i - .8, ~ : .. _ . c..-occ~ Dcr~~'i Ul (II c. '" :2 n ~ "2 8 ~ '" C 5> ;; '5 ~ o [j ~ ~ 0. ~ '0 " " 0 Vl , ~ ~ o u ~€ " " ,,- OVl u'" ~- .~~ =0. 8::l - '0 '" ~ U "C " co tl o u u.. f= ro N cO u c ~ v> 1i co 'u o :Ii <( o1S;:: ~o "'N > ~ o~ '" E co2 "Co. c '" i=lf) DRAFT Collier County I TIF Cost and Credit Update Study Agenda Item No. 88 September 28, 2010 ~ Page 100 of 157 rrr CcmJ1ty - Interchange The interchange cost estimate was developed based on two planned interchange/grade separation project in Collier County at the intersection of Tamiami Trail and CR 951 and at the intersection of 1-75, CR 951 and Davis Blvd. The total interchange cost provided by the Collier County Transportation Planning Department was approximately $248.9 million. This total was then divided by the total lane miles being built in the 2030 LRTP Financially Feasible Constrained Plan (431.80 lane miles) to develop an interchange cost per lane mile. As shown in Table B-9, the interchange cost is approximately $576,000 per lane mile. It should be noted that County Staff is in the process of confirming the schedule for the I-75/CR 951/Davis Blvd interchange project. If this project does not occur, the overall cost, and therefore the calculated impact fee, will decrease, Based on discussion with County and FDOT Staff, the interchange cost per lane mile determined for County roads reflects the same costs expected for State roads. Table 8-9 Collier County Interchange Costs(l) Grade SeparatIons Status Time Frame Estimated Cost 1-75/CR 951/Davis FOOT approved, FOOT is doing Design in 2009 $195,000,000 Boulevard design next year. Project is at 30% design phase. The Tamiami Trail East (US GSO component (separated Let for 41) /CR 951 overpass) has not been construction in $53,920,725 programmed but is included in the 2012 estimated cost. Total Interchange Cost $248,920,725 Total 2030 LRTP Constrained Plan Lane Miles Addedl2) 431.80 Total Interchange Cost Per Lane Mile .. ...j'>$S1&;4"12 (1) Source: Collier County Transportation Planning Department (2) Source: Table 8-12, Total Lane Miles for All Roads (3) Total interchange cost divided by LRTP lane miles added (Item 2) Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. September 2010 8-29 Collier County TIF Cost and Credit Update Study DRAFT Collier County I TIF Cost and Credit Update Study Agenda Item No. 88 September 28, 2010 ~ Page 101 of 157 r CoKmy ~.., - Carrying County The lane mile cost includes an update to the carrying cost that tends to occur while a roadway is being built (approximately a six-year process for County projects). As presented in Table 8-10, the carrying cost per lane mile is estimated at approximately $187,000 based on the time table provided by the county for each phase. This figure takes into consideration the fact that the County receives some of the impact fees up front. For Phase II, which excludes utility relocation costs for county roads, the carrying cost for County roads is estimated at $170,000 per lane mile, Table 8-10 Collier County Carrying Costs (County Roads)(l) Timinglll Amount Total Amount Interest Paidl4} Phase Borrowedl21 Carried(3) Design Year 1 $59,780 $59,780 $2,989 Design Year2 $59,780 $119,560 $5,978 ROW Year 3 $450,500 $570,060 $28,503 ROW Year 4 $450,500 $1,020,560 $51,028 Constr./CEI/Util./Mit, Year 5 $1,219,280 $2,239,840 $111,992 Constr '/CEI/Util'/Mit. Year 6 $1,219,280 $3,459,120 $172.956 Total Carrying Cost Per Lane Mile(S) $373,446 Percent of Impact Fees Paid in Advancel6J 50% Net Carrying Cost per Lane Mile(7) I ':i .i;{$i1.li~,T723 (1) Source: Collier County Transportation Planning Department (2) Source: 8ased on per lane mile cost estimates provided in Table 1 (3) Total amount borrowed annually, carried, based on phase cost assumption (4) An interest rate of 5.0% was used. (5) Total interest paid for all project phases (6) To provide a conservative estimate, based on discussion with County staff, it is estimated that 50% of the Impact fees are collected in advance. (7) Total carrying cost per lane mile (Item 5) multiplied by percent of Impact fees paid in advance (Item 6) Tindale-Ollver & Associates, Inc. September 2010 8-30 Collier County llF Cost and Credit Update Study DRAFT Collier County I TIF Cost and Credit Update Study Agenda Item No. 88 September 28,2010 ~ Page 102 of 157 ~ C<m>tty - - State The lane mile cost includes an update to the carrying cost that tends to occur while a roadway is being built (approximately a 7- or 8-year process for State projects). As presented in Table 8-11, the carrying cost per lane mile is estimated at $218,000 based on the cost components associated with constructing a State roadway. This figure takes into consideration the fact that the County receives some of the impact fee revenues (that charge for travel on all roads) up front. For Phase II, which does not include county utility costs, the carrying cost for State roads remains at $218,000 per lane mile. Table 8-11 Collier County Carrying Costs (State Roads)(l) r (1I Amount Total Amount Interest Paidl4) Phase Imlng BorrowedfJ) Carried(1) Design Year 1 $120,900 $120,900 $6,045 Design Year 2 $120,900 $241,800 $12,090 ROW Year 3 $450,500 $692,300 $34,615 ROW Year 4 $450,500 $1,142,800 $57,140 Constr./CEI/Mit. Year 5 $1,407,900 $2,550,700 $127,535 Constr./CEI/Mit. Year 6 $1,407,900 $3,958,600 $197,930 Total Carrying Cost Per Lane Mile!S) $435,355 Percent of Impact Fees Paid in Advancel") 50% Net Carrying Cost per Lane Milel7l $23.7;678 (1) Source: Collier County Transportation Planning Department (2) Source: 8ased on per lane mile cost estimates provided in Table 3 (3) Total amount borrowed annually, carried, based on phase cost assumption. (4) An interest rate of 5.0% was used, which is the rate at which the County is currently borrowing. (5) Total interest paid for all project phases. (6) To provide a conservative estimate, based on discussion with County staff, it Is estimated that 50% of the impact fees are collected in advance. (7) Total carrying cost per lane mile (Item 5) multiplied by percent of impact fees paid in advance (Item 6). Tindaie-Oliver & Associates, ]nc. September 2010 B-3] Collier County T1F Cost and Credit Update Study DRAFT Collier County I TIF Cost and Credit Update Study Agenda Item No. 88 September 28, 2010 ~ Page 1030f157 C<l COH:nty ...-/ Roadway Capacity Tables 8-12 through 8-14 present the Collier County 2030 LRTP Financially Feasible Constrained Plan and accompanying summaries used in the cost component calculations. Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. September 2010 6-32 Collier County TIF Cost and Credit Update Study <!lO..... "'~Lll O~ ON_ Z .0 '" ENC\ Ol~~ -Ol -.oOl "'E'" 'OOl'" "'_0- OlCl. "'Ol <!.(/) ~ . , o ....u "-~ <:: 0::0 ou ~ ,. '0 , ~ III .!I . '0 " " ~ '6 .. (; '0 . . ~ . o u "- >- .... = . li: " .. = .~ 1;1 = o u .. :Q .~ . .. .. N>o ...= ED .~ .. = :s~ {!it ~ -' o '" o N ~ = , o u - ~ '0 u i >- -0 &! ~ ~ ~ -0 -g-5 ..,~ ~~..,,,,, ~ -0 i3';;& ~i ~~~~~ B~~~~~~ ~~;i ~~B;~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~j5!J~E~8~ ~~~~~~~s~~~~;a~~=~5~~~~5~~~~~~~~~a5~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~t~~~~~;~g2t~~tg~~~~~~~t~$~~t=~~~$st~~~~mi~~ .... ... N N ... ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~s~~~~~~~::~~~~:~~~~~~~am~~a~~~:~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~:~:~~::~~~t:::~~~~~~~~~~t~~~~ttt~ ~5~~rn:ffirnE~:~~~:::~~:~~:~:~::~~~ii~~Eaffi:~~~~~::: - ,.. 'N"" .~ -~ ... ... ..~.. . ."'l..."l. 14"'N NN....lIll..... ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ =OOO~O~~~~~~~~~~~OO~~OOOO~~~O~8888~~OOOOOOOOOO~ "'l. "l."'l."l.~~~~~~~~ ~~ ~~~ lIll.~~~~"l."'l. ~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~ ~~~ ~~~~~~~ ~ 8S~~~~gS~SR~~SSR~R~88~88~~gR8g~g~~~~~~g~~~~8~~~ _N~N~~NN~~_N_N~~~~~_~~~N~~~~=~O~~O~N~~~~~~~=_~N N NN NN", ....NNNN N....NN NNN NN NN......... NN N'" N N NN N NN'" <c... <c "'N................ ~~~~~~~g~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~8;~~~~~~~~~~~~~8~~~ ~~ci~~~~~O~N~N~~~~N~NN~~ci~~~~N~ci~cicici~~~~ciNciNN~N~ i I'i , N'" '" '" '" ... '" '" '" ... ... ... ... ... ...i... ... '" N ... ... '" ... ... ... ... ...1... ... '" ... '" '" '" '" '" '" <c ... <c '" '" ... ... ... ... ... f ,g ,g ,g E ,g E E E fEE .B ,g .B E E E f E f f f .s B, f to B f ,g E E ,g f S E B E B ,g .e E E ESE B 0000.. 0.... ...... '" '" '" N '" "'IN'" 0 Oi'" N 0 0 0 0'''' "'I'" 0.. N'" ... ... ... ... 0000000000 N , ' I' , ,000000010..... .!. .1"0.1. 0.0 '.0 '1" .10 0 0 0 0 0 0'" 0 0 O' .', 0 0 >- ~,~::>'; Z Z Z Z Z:;:;:::::;:;:;:;:;:: Z:::; zz:;z:;:;:; z z z z Z Z Z:;:;:; z Z Z:;:; >- Z Z Ii, i , : , ' , I . 1 I' ii' 'I: J; ~ J;I"'~.J::..J::. ~ ~ J; J; J; J;iJ; ~ J; ~:.J::.~~ti,I' 'I" 'I" '1'..J::.ti,.J::.~.J::..J::..J::.f..J::. J;).J::..J::. ~ J; J; ;r;1J; !!!!~!~~~!!!3!!3!3S~~3~33r333~~~~~~~~'3'~rS3S!I! I ' : I i ,,' i i 0:""""0: """1"""<: <:,,<:0: <:<:C,,, C <:"''''''lool'''''''c:o:co:co: "c" "" """CO: CO:" .................... .........."'.. .."'I"'''''''''''...'''''''....'....'''.... .......................... -e -e -e -e -e -e ..e -e -e f -e -e of -e -e -e f f -e -e -e of of -e -e -e -elf -e -e -e -e -e -e -e -e -e -e -e f of f -e -e -e -e -e ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~i~~.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ , i li,1 'I I , i" I ~ _ -" ~ ~ I"C,"C., gl i. " '>< ",...""'- "'.. ...:> I ,"' ::E ,c:> I '" !'; '" ~ ~ i! 3: .!'; &... "':01i '-0 01i' I ..'_ 'e:; 01i ; ... .. "'.2: .. ~ '" '" ...:.2: -0 "'I"' -0 :> .. -" '" .. -0-01 "C.2:-o~~"'~-~..~~"''''~i'''01i~ .." "~",,,, ~~~~~c~~~~~~~~~_Ec~~ ~~ 6~B~~ 1i g:....:!2 E$:!2 g: "''5:!2'g-g3: EI~:;.2 ~",g:g:E ~;;;'i ~:;3:", :~~&E~&~~~&~:6E~~~~5~~~3:~~~~65 , I 1 , !-o: 1.",1 i !, i ! : " ! '" : I' i '~ :K.' ~ -0 ~ i I' ~ ",i-o I : : :~:-> ~ .. ;;1 , i... . I:;: ,..!. -" .2: " : -0 01i .... ~ I '.",;:;; ~ '" t t "C -o~' .2: w ",'" "'- '" ~ "C .2: ! .. ~ ii ~ "C "C.2:.. ~ .2:.. .2: '" Jj co ~ ~ : ~~"C ~;:1~1:3:1j~.~J~ ~:"Cjl!;;1! ~ ~'" !3:1 ~~ ~~~~~ ~~~ ~~~~~~]~01i~E~~~~ ~~~~~~fu~ ~~! ~~~~~~ ~~<"'~~_"'~ <~"'~"'~_"'c~~ -o~u~~-_..o ~~~_~c_~~~"'~~< ~c.J::.~-g...~-o~"'.J::.~~~~~~~~-EE""'~~E~:;~~~"..!....~~~ .....~"C:;~~~ ~~~~~~~&~~~&~~O~]~~~~~~5~~E]~~i~i~~~5~]~5g~~~~& , , 'I 1 ' I - 1< .' , ^ - - 1 I '" t , "I I' I ,. "" I' ,i I~ ~I . ~ '," " " " " .. .. , ~ ~ ~ "C ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~I E ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~ ~ ~ ] ] ] ~ ~ 01i ~ ~ ~ ;;:;] ii ~I ~ ~ ;;:: ;;:: ;;:: z z ~ Zl Z E":5 I -= '" '" co '" '" '" ~ ~ w w '" "" '" '" ~ ~ '" .", '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" t "c"c.", "'I ~~~3:3~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~g:g:~.,f~~~.2:~~~]i~~~~~~~~~~~~] ~~~~~~~~~~~i]~~~~~~~~~~~~~~;;~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "C-o...-o.,~~~~~~ ~ ~"C~~'" O"'",~~ .",~_~"'~"'~"C"C"C"C~;~:;:;:;~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ e- c:: = = '" ~ ~ ~ '" ~ l:; '0 0 ~ 1:' gj E E ~E"'" -g C ,,:: ~ ~ ~ ~ c ~ c c C _ _ "'.",.", -= -=." ~~~~<~888~ww~~~~~~~~S]~~S5~~::~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~3:3: I 1 I I I ~~~~_ttttt ~ tt___t_ttt_tttttt~~"'~t_tttt_t ttt_ '" <: c <:: " C. ceo: C " ~ C C " " C " C 0: C. <: ~ C cl <:: ~ C C C _ _ _ _ C C <: <: c:: <: 0: <: <:: c:: c ",I C ., " ., " '" " " " " " " " " " " " ., " ., " " " " " " " " " " " .'9 ~ .'9 .. ., " " " " " " " " " :. ",., o 0 ., 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ., 0 0 0 ., 0 0 ., ., ., 0 0 0 0", '" '" ~ 08" 0 ., ., ., 0 0 C ., 018 uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu u uuuuuuuuuu , I ,: I I I ! ' ~~ ,- O~ ';'~ JiR 8:: ~ u '0 . ^ o u ~ e: ~ ~ ~ o " ~ . ~ !I oe:~ '0 ~N oE . E .. . -go. i=~ coo.... oo~'" .o~ n.l'.I ....... .0 '" o "'-~ -0> -.00> "'E'" -g;g8: o>e. "'0> <(UJ ! , ~ c . o ....u u.. <C::: :38 o ~ A: ... ~ o .; ti o o u ~ ~:;; "CI'iji ~ ~ . ~ 0" ~~ o ~ ~'U NO ~.5 "'.. .!if!: "'", ~... o '" o N ~ o => o u - ~ '0 u .. '0 . ~ III $ . '0 0. => ~ '6 ~ .::; '0 C . ~ . .3 .. ;: . o . QJ'~ 15 e R~ =d5 g&l :.E~ r-.: J:::J d:l jog g. ';.!2 :r H!5 <:.2 ~ .." 0 "0 ~ h ~ ,~~ ~ . ~~ rg' :E ~ ~.~ ~.~ '- ~ ro l!: ~~ '~.i ~ ~ u:: ~ ls g 1=' < ~ c:~ lr 8 ~'ii 1':G ~-[ r! CIlJ ~.~ ~ 5 c...- "" ::] c: 0 HH 8'2 "@:J <lJC: ...,l!: -E"E g~ "2.81 -;;;.10 !\J Q) III ~ li$i ]~ c~ ~ ~ 52 ~ (II 0'" Ql '- , u c: ~J!:! ~>,.. ! io;=*'@~~ [~~g~~~g~~gg~g~~~~~~il~80 .~~ B8B88888~~8888~M~MM~~~~~~I~~ = C 1I !to:: uc... Qj II ~ 1! il!;:;- NO . .u~~~ ~Z ~.~~_~~~o_~~_~~.~~~~ 0 M.~ ~.N~M~~O~~~~N~O~O~~ ~~~-~~ ;;d~Sgi~~2~~m~g~~~~~~~~~~~~ NM~ MN N_ N ~~ N~=~.~~~ ., ~~!!~~~~~~~~~~~!!~~~~~~ ~~~~~ti~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~g ~rnrnrnrnrn~rnrnrnm~~~$rnm~~i~~~ "t...NNNN",..rNN"';";O'''i N ",' '",'ur",,' ~",,,,,,,"''''''''''''''''''''''''''~~''''''NM~'''MM ~~~~~~~~==~~~~$~~~~~ ~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~NN~N~~~~ON~=~~5~~ NN~~NN~NNNN~~NN~~NNN~NN 8~~~~~~~~~~~~!~~~ ~~~~~~C~~~~C~~NNN ~~~~~~~~~~~v~~v~~~vv EBEEEEEEEEEBESESEES.s NVVV~~V~NNNNN~NNN~NN ~~~~~~~~~~~~s~~~~~s~ ~~~~~~~~]~]~~~~~~ ]]~]]]~~~~~~~~]~~]~] ~~~~5~~55~5~55555555 " ~ 0 ~ '"' ~ ~ i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~.s:: EO:'" '" - ~~!~~ ~ ~ 5] ~ ~ i~~i~~;~i ~ 1 ~]iwl ~~ !~~]~~~~~~~~~ i~~~~ ~E ~~~~~.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~:~;~ ~~>E,",o~Su,",o,",u~wouzz~~~u ~ o , , " . ~~...~ ~~~~ ~>::>'" < o ~ 11 ~ ~ ~ lie ie ... 1:0] ~ ~ OJ 0: <>: <::~~i~E~;~~~~ ~~~~~~~iEW~f~~~~; o'~~<>:~o:uswozzzu~~ " . < . . . - "g Z : ~ -::;-";l- ! ;:::;;:;;~';;'';;' ]1] . . i" ';;;1 -:;; -:;; w "".' ~~~::E~ ~~~ ~~~~~~~~ll~~~~~~ ]~t~~l~~~~~lli~~~ ~~]::~~~~~~ggiEii ~ ~ ~ ~ ! ~ 1il ;t ~ ~ ~ ~ * * ~ ~ .~ 8ss~~~~~o66~~~~~~ "ti'i" ~~ 5~ u. ~l 8~ ] u l' o . o u .. "' ..!.d. g .. , ~ :;; ~ ~ 1) " . ~ '" 'l; ~ :is .. .~ . ] o E " . ,1; " ~ 11 " " , ~ .!> f' " ) . o ;: 11 ~ ~ ;1; ob ~ .- . 15 ~ 'I' ,,0 "0 ~N 52 " E ~~ ~~ DRAFT Collier County I TIF Cost and Credit Update Study Agenda Item No. 88 September 28,2010 ~~:,~1060f157 Table 8-13 Collier County 2030 LRTP Financially Feasible Constrained Plan - ROW Summary Jurisdiction ROW Lane Miles Percentage Designation Added of Total Low 229.20 60% County High 151.30 40% Total 380.50 100% Low 38.90 76% State High 12.40 24% Total 51.30 100% 1P,lK1j."",,,:'iJ~~'~;'!,~~ iIir.~:<*f '-, fj~r\M'~i~'i:: ,;,p'~"':i'::~ Total Low 268.10 62% High 163.70 38% Total (All Roads) 431.80 100% (a) (b) Source: Summary of Table 6-12, Item 1 Note: Letter references (i.e., "a") are used to assist with footnotes and sourcing. Table 8-14 Collier County 2030 LRTP Financially Feasible Constrained Plan - Mitigation Summary Jurisdiction PCA / Non- Lane Miles Percentage PCA Added of Total PCA 269.50 71% County Non-PCA 111.00 29% Total 380.50 100% PCA 31.80 62% State Non-PCA 19.50 38% Total 51.30 100% ;'-'(",,",,"- "!~)(~' ~;3t' Total PCA 301.30 70% Non-PCA 130.50 30% Total (All Roads) 431.80 100% (a) (b) Source: Summary of Table 6-12, Item 2 Note: Letter references (i.e., "a") are used to assist with footnotes and sourcing. Tindale-Oliver & Associates, 1nc. September 2010 6-35 Collier County TIF Cost and Credit Update Study DRAFT Collier County I TIF Cost and Credit Update Study Appendix C Alternative Capacity Calculation Agenda Item No. 8B September 28, 2010 ~ Page 107 of 157 Co lIT County --- Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. September 2010 C-1 Collier County TIF Cost and Credit Update Study DRAFT Collier County I TIF Cost and Credit Update Study Agenda Item No. 8B September 28, 2010 ~ Page108of157 lIT eo.....ty - - THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Septem ber 2010 C-2 Collier County TIF Cost and Credit Update Study DRAFT Collier County I TIF Cost and Credit Update Study Agenda Item No. 8B September 28, 2010 ~ ~ . ~Pag:._1 09 of 157 ~ Alternative Capacity Calculation This appendix presents the calculation of an alternative roadway capacity added value for informational purposes. In the 2009 Collier County TIF Study, a review of the 2030 LRTP Financially Feasible Constrained Plan resulted in a weighted average capacity per lane mile of 10,217. As part this alternate analysis for the 2010 Update Study, roadway classifications were updated based on the existing and future planned signals on roadways, Using the updated classifications and using the 2009 FDOT Generalized Tables3, a revised capacity added figure was calculated. The number of signals per mile of'roadway is the primary factor that determines the capacity. For existing roadways, a review of design plans, bid tabulations, and aerial images confirmed current signal density. County staff also provided input on existing and future signal density that was taken into account during the review. For new road construction projects in the 2030 plan, signal density was projected based on discussions with County staff, design plans, and aerial images. Future signals were assumed at intersections of two roadways that were either currently part of or are expected to be included in the functionally classified roadway system. Roadway classification was determined based on the high probability of a signal at these intersections by the year 2030. Based on this review, the majority of roadways in the 2030 plan were classified as "State Two-Way Arterials - Class I," as illustrated in Map C-1. However, one segment of roadway along SR 29 (from New Market Rd to SR 82) was classified as "uninterrupted-flow." Aerial imaging and existing/future land use maps did not provide enough information to support a "Class I" classification since there was no indication of the potential for future signal additions. The county and state roadway capacities were weighted by the lane miles added to determine the weighted average capacity added. As shown in Table C-l, the weighted average capacity added is 9,151. , 2009 Quality/Level of Service Handbook, Table 1. Florida Department ofTransportation Tlndale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. September 2010 C-3 Collier County TIF Cost and Credit Update Study DRAFT Collier County I TIF Cost and Credit Update Study Agenda Item No. 8B September 28, 2010 ~ Page 1100f157 Co II!: c;;m.nty Table C-l Weighted Average Capacity per Lane Mile Lane Miles Vehicle Miles of VMC Added per Source Added!lI CapaCity Added!21 Lane Mile!31 County 380.50 3,387,9S4 8,904 State 51.30 563.359 10,982 Total 431.80 3,951,313 Weighted Average Capacity Added!') 9,151 (1) Source: Appendix B, Table B-12, Items (a) and (b) for the "Lane Miles Added" column (2) Source: Appendix B, Table B-12, Items (c) and (d) (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 total lane miles added (Item 1) Cost per Vehicle Mile of Capacity Added The weighted average cost per VMC was calculated by weighting the cost per VMC for County and State roads by the lane mile distribution of projects in the 2030 LRTP Financially Feasible Constrained Plan, As shown in Table C-2, using the alternate capacity added per lane mile, the cost per VMC for travel on all roads within Collier County is approximately $423 for Phase II. This figure is $468 per VMC in the case of Phase I. Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. September 2010 C-4 Collier County TIF Cost and Credit Update Study OOO!'- co~'" .o~ """'- .0 ~ ~ '"-~ -Ol -.oOl "'EO> 'OOl'" <=_0.. Olo. O>Ol <(U) ~ ell. ....::11-1/) , 0 0:: .... ()()..J~ Q. ... I:) '0' l'll CD _ ... :E=oll. ON () j ~ 11 i 13 u 0 lS. JlI .1lI ,; 'tI~I~~uU ~ c:t:l!~I)ig ~~!~;~~~~ 8 ~ m til ~ til B ;3 111111 ~7 I ; l I .-.....,....... .-- ~ . I l ; --..r.r.J I !..,.... I I I l i . . i . j .......,.. I i j . I i .. Iii' . . . o z ......c DRAFT Collier County I TIF Cost and Credit Update Study Agenda Item No. 8B September 28. 2010 ~ Page 112 of 157 Coll,.,.,. COU..l;Y ----- '-"~ - Table C-2 Weighted Average Cost per Vehicle Mile of Capacity Added for County and State Roadways in Collier County (Phase II) Cost per Lane Mile Average Capacity Cost per Source (Phase 1I)!11 Added Per Lane VMC(31 Mile(2) County Roads $3,750,120 8,904 $421.17 State Roads $4,752,600 10,982 $432.76 Weighted Average $3,870,418 9,151 $422.95 (1) Source: Table 5b (2) Source: Table 7 (3) Cost per lane mile (Item 1) divided by average capacity per lane mile (Item 2) for county and State roads, respectively. If the alternative capacity added per lane mile calculated in this appendix was used in the transportation impact fee calculation, the new single family residential impact fee rate would be $8,009 per dwelling unit during Phase I and $7,058 per dwelling unit during Phase II. Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. September 2010 C-6 Collier County TIF Cost and Credit Update Study DRAFT Collier County I TIF Cost and Credit Update Study Agenda Item No. 8B September 28, 2010 ~ Page 1130f157 Co II!: <.;?m<Hf.Y - - Appendix D Credit Component Calculation Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. September 2010 D-1 Collier County TIF Cost and Credit Update Study DRAFT Collier County I TIF Cost and Credit Update Study THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY Agenda Item No. 8B September 28, 2010 ~ Page 1140f157 Co er Cou>d;Y ~ - Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. September 2010 D-2 Collier County TIF Cost and Credit Update Study DRAFT Collier County I TIF Cost and Credit Update Study Agenda Item No. 8B September 28, 2010 ~ ~n ~F'8:g_o::_115 of 157 ~ Credit Component 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 are listed below, along with a few pertinent characteristics of each. 1. Constitutional Fuel Tax (24/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. 2. County Fuel Tax (14/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. 3. 1st Local Option Tax (64/gallon) . Tax applies to every net gallon of motor and diesel fuel sold within a county. . Proceeds may be used to fund transportation expenditures. Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. September 2010 D-3 Collier County TIF Cost and Credit Update Study .. _..,_~,,~,_,,_,,__~""_"_'_'H"_. ~...,,_.- ..,..,<-._.._~~.___ DRAFT Collier County I TIF Cost and Credit Update Study Agenda Item No. 8B September 28, 2010 ~_'Iliit ~Page116of157 ~ · 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 scheme, or by using a formula contained in the Florida Statutes, 4. 2nd Local Option Tax (Sei/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 the 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, S. Ninth-Cent Fuel Tax (lei/gallon) · Tax is 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. . Counties are not required to share the proceeds of this tax with their municipaiities. Each year, the Florida Legislative Committee on Intergovernmental Relations (LCIR) 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 2009-10 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 D-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 Tindale-Olrver & Associates, Inc. September 2010 D-4 Collier County TIF Cost and Credit Update Study DRAFT Collier County I TIF Cost and Credit Update Study Agenda Item No. 8B September 28,2010 ~ Page 1170f157 Cd II!:~Y - 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 $1.3 million estimates the annual revenue that one penny of gas tax generates in Collier County. Table D-l Estimated Fuel Tax Distribution Allocated to Capital Programs for Collier County & Municipalities, FY 2009-10(1) Amount of Levy Total Distribution Per Tax per Gallon Distribution Penny Constitutional Fuel Tax $0.02 $3,807,174 $1,903,587 County Fuel Tax $0.01 $1,678,902 $1,678,902 1st Local Option (1-6 cents) $0.06 $7,572,895 $1,262,149 2nd Local Option (1-5 cents) $0.05 $5,744,712 $1,148,942 Ninth Cent Fuel Tax $0.01 $1.337,038 $1,337,038 Total $0.15 $20,140,721 Weie:hted Averae:e(2) ';/-::~;:jT $~f~42;71:S (1) Source: Florida Legislative Committee on Intergovernmental relations, www.florldacir.oov/revenue estimates. elm (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 Eauivalent Pennies A review of the County's FY 2011-2015 AUIR Transportation Work Program indicates that a combination of gas tax revenues, impact fees, and grants are used to fund roadway capacity expansion projects. Collier County receives a Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. September 2010 D-5 Collier County TIF Cost and Credit Update Study DRAFT Collier County I TIF Cost and Credit Update Study Agenda Item No. 8B September 28, 2010 ~~ ~Page 118 of 157 ~ credit of 10.9 pennies for the portion of gas tax revenues dedicated to debt service payments on the 2005 Gas Tax Revenue Bond. Based on discussion with County staff, all bond proceeds were expended on roadway capacity expansion projects, In addition to the gas tax for debt service, approximately $17.4 million of grant revenues (totaling 2.6 equivalent pennies) are being used to fund roadway capacity expansion projects. Thus, a credit of 13.5 equivalent pennies will be given for the allocation of funds the County collects in gas tax revenues, Table D-2 County Gas Tax Equivalent Pennies Revenup EqUivalent Number of from 1 Source Cost of Projects Pennlcsl41 Years penny!'!' 2005 Gas Tax Revenue Bond Debt Servicel1) $73,197,000 5 $1.342,715 $0.109 Grant Revenues121 <;17 383 000 5 $1,342,715 <;0.026 Total $90,580,000 $1,342,715 $0.135 (1) Source: Table D-4, Item (a) (2) Source: Table D-4, Item (b) (3) Source: Table D-1 (4) Cost of projects divided by number of years divided by revenue from 1 penny (Item 4) divided by 100 State Gas Tax EXDenditures In the calculation of the equivalent pennies of gas tax from the State, expenditures on roadway capacity expansion spanning a 19-year period (from FY 1997 to FY 2015) were reviewed. For calculation purposes, the 19-year period was broken into three increments; two historical (FY1997-2003 and FY2004- 2010) and one future (FY 2011-2015), Information on historical projects' funding was obtained from the FOOT Work Programs, and the future year estimates were listed in the current FY 2011-2015 Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP). The use of a 19-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. The five years of "future" roadway projects from FY 2011-2015 indicate a total State expenditure of approximately $80.3 million for capacity-adding projects in Tindale-Oliver & ASSOCiates, Inc. September 2010 D-6 Collier County TIF Cost and Credit Update Study DRAFT Collier County I TIF Cost and Credit Update Study Agenda Item No. 8B September 28, 2010 ~ Page1190f157 Cd e.. CouKI;Y - - - the county. On an annual basis, this level of expenditure is equivalent to 12.0 pennies of gas tax revenue. Comparatively, the total cost of the capacity-adding projects for the seven-year "historical" periods are as follows: . FY 2004-2010 work plan equates to 8.9 pennies . FY 1997-2003 work plan equates to 14.5 pennies The combined weighted average over the 19-year period of state expenditure for capacity-adding roadway projects results in a total of 11.8 equivalent pennies. Table 0-3 documents this calculation. The specific projects that were used in the equivalent penny calculations are summarized in Tables 0-5 through 0-7. Table D-3 Equivalent Penny Calculation for State Portion Revenue EqUIvalent Source Cost of Projects Number of from 1 Years pennyl41 Pennies(S) Projected Work PrOEram (FY 2011-2015)111 $80.299.977 5 $1,342,715 $0.120 Historical Work PrOEram (FY 2004.2010)12) $83,913.244 7 $1.342,715 $0.089 Historical Work Program (FY 1997-2003)1'1 5135904 786 7 $1,342,715 $0.145 Total $300,118,007 19 $1,342,715 $0.118 (1) Source: Table D-7, total cost of expansion projects (2) Source: Table D-6, total cost of expansion projects (3) Source: Table D-5, total cost of expansion projects (4) Source: Table D-1 (5) Cost of projects divided by number of years divided by revenue from 1 penny (Item 4) divided by 100 Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. September 2010 D-7 Collier County TIF Cost and Credit Update Study DRAFT Collier County I TIF Cost and Credit Update Study Agenda Item No. 8B September 28, 2010 ~~~200f157 Table D-4 FY 2011 - FY 2015 Collier County Gas Tax Equivalent Expenditures - Roadway Capacity Expansion Projects FY 2011-2015 Work Program Expenditures and Revenue Expenditures and Sources Revenues Work Program Expenditures - Capacity Expansion Projects $87,830,000 - Debt Service Repayment $ 73 197 000 Total $161,027,000 Revenues available to fund capacity expansion (new projects) - Impact Fees (including interest) $70,447,000 - Gas Tax (including interest) $89,100,000 - Grant Funds $37,923,000 Total $197,470,000 Revenues used to fund capacity expansion (new projects) - Impact Fees (including interest) $70,447,000 - Gas Tax (used to fund debt service) $73,197,000 - Grant Funds (used to fund capacity expansion projects) $17,383,000 Total $161,027,000 Remaining revenues available to fund capitalized maintenance - Impact Fees $0 - Gas Tax $1S,903,000 - Grant Funds $20,540.000 Total $36,443,000 (a) (b) Source: Collier County Transportation Planning Department Note: Letter references (Le., "a" or "b") are used to assist with footnotes and sourcing. Additional Notes: Based on discussion with County staff, Collier spends all of the impact fee revenues and a portion of gas tax revenues and grants on capacity expansion. As shown above, debt service repayment is exclusively funded by gas tax revenues, and since all of the impact fees and approximately $17 million of the grant funds are used to fund the capacity expenditures, approximately $16 million of remaining gas tax revenues are available to fund capitalized maintenance. Likewise, the remaining grant funds ($37.9 million - $17.4 million = $20.5 million) are also available to fund capitalized maintenance. Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. September 2010 D-8 Collier County TIF Cost and Credit Update Study OOO!'- co~'" o~ ~- o ~ N Ol~~ ~Ol -.04> "'EO> 'OOl'" c:_o.. 4>0. O>Ol <(U) ~ >- ." , ;l; J!I . ." C. :> ~ 'ij E U ." o . 1;; o U ~ i= 1:' o , o ...u ...~ <= ~8 - ~ ~ 0' - .. c o .;; c [ ~ ... ~ c , o U - ~ an: , 0 QU ~ I :lie ~\! .. e .. .. - o ~ '" o o N I .... .. '" ... ~~~~~~~~~~~$mi~~~~~~~~~~;! ~~~N~d~~~~~~~~S~~~~N~~~~~X ~~~~~!~~~~~~~~~~~~~m.;. ~. ~= ~=: g~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~ ~ "''''' "'''''''' '" :it a~~~~~a~~~~m~i~aBa~g~ . ~'" ~ ~~~~; ~ ~ M ~ ~ ~~~~'" ~ ~ ~ .... "''''~.;;i ~ '" ~ ~ 5.::1 o"""':} . ., . . ~ a ~~ ,2 0", ::2 j{g o~ u= 'Ii i3 ~ c . ij u ~ ~ ~ 6 c c , 0 u .!! " u !2 i 0 .'Ii E " :? . " E '0 il ~ b ::' " "''" ~ "0 ~ ~N 02 ~ .. E ~-a .f;Ql - >-'" -_.~._-----"-,_..."".."",,,. ._~..-,~".._-..,.~--------~--,_.,~- _~~a&~ma8aa~~~a~a~aaaa~aga~ - .. .... ..~.. . ~~ ~~~ ~ *~'" ~ ~ ~ = :dd "";~ ~ ~'" '" i a ; ~ _~~g;~=a~ma~o~a~~a -~~ ~t~ ~g ~ ~ ~~ ....'" ",,,,,::::I "'''' <l> ... ... ~ ... '" N"'''; '" '" '" ~..... "'''' '" '" 8.8.,aaaaliD ~- ~ .,; a m~O~"''''2~~ORo'''a22a0020ooao~ :~~"'~~~~~~"'~"'~ ~~ "'''''~''''''''' "'~ ~~ ~~~~s~ m ~ ~~ a ~ ~'" ..."'''' ...'" '" ~ '" <I\- '" '" ~~a~&~&~~a~a~aa~a~aagaaaa: ..~~ ~~~ffi!~ ~ m ~ ~ $ 2~ m~~~~~ ~ ~ d ~ ~~a~~~~&~~aaaaa~a~aaaaaag~ ~~ ~~~~5~~ ~ * g ~ ~~~ ~~~ ~ a ~~~~~;g;~~ggaaa~ggaaaagaa5 .o~~~~ ~=~ ~ ~ ~.~;;.~~~ a3a;;. 5 ~ ~ ~ ~ 1;: 5 Q ... . " " ~ "3 ~ ~ ~ ~ E ~ ~~ ~~ ccc .~1~ "E ~::i'"," ~j E'B~~ c- ~~~~~ "'....""O' ~ ~i~ 5~=~ ~~~~~~ ~ ~~B i~l~,~~;i~o~~~~ !~ ~ ~~!.. o i!>. ~ ~ .. ~ ~ ~ - '" ; -BE ~ ~,I ~~I~i~!ii~~~ J~ ~ ~ ~ .~~~S~~~:~111~~~ s il:li BBB:~"'Z~~ooo:~s 1 ~"'<~E l~~~~~"'~B~~~~~~ '" ~~oE~ "'~~-~~;E~~~"O E'"g ~~~~.j ~:~l~i~~~~~l~!g~~ ~=; 1111~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~..~~~~ ~~~~'" g~~~~B~~ ~~O'c~~!_ EE~~~ ~@~~~~1~~EgE8~~~~ ~ ~g~f~ o"o~E~i=o8u8~~5C~ ~.~~c~1 ~~z~~5~:~f? ~!:I~ro~:~~~~~ E~5EEE~EE"5sE~:~E~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~888~"OH~~~"OO-~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~i~~~~~~~~~] ~~~~~~~~~888~~~~~~~~~~5~z ~ ! '<:I i ~ a ~ ~~ ~~ ,~ ~~EEE~~ E~ ~~!!~:~ ~k uuuu!u !!~~~!- ~! u ~~~~~~ ~~',"~ ~I B~j~ .~~~~~~ ~~~t~~~ I~ ~~ui~ ~~~~~~2~~~~~~~,,~1 ~~~~~ "''''''''''''''''~''''''eee''' _~",~~~cc",~~ ~~~~~~~~~tte~~~t~l ~88~11 ~~~~~~E~~888~~~8~~~~11~~~ 5~~555~55~~~51~~5~u","''''5~~ !!iii!!!J~~~!~~$!~~!~~!~~ ~~~--~-----~----~-------- ~ON~~o~~gNm~~o"'O~"'N~m.~"'~~ ~~~~~~~m~~~~~i~~~~8~~8~~~o "''''''''''''''''''''''''''''~'''''''''''''''''''''~~-----~ _______________:___N~..... COOl'- "'~'" .O~ ON_ Z .0 CO ENgj Ol ~~ -Ol -.oOl "'EO> 'OOl'" <=_0.. Olo. O>Ol <(U) ~ ,. .. , ill J!l . .. Q. " ~ '6 ~ u .. c . t: o u ... ~ l: c , o ....u ...~ <= ~8 t! .!!!. e Q. c o 'w c ~ Q. ~ ... l: c = o u ~ m ~~ QU ml IE E ~ l! 0> o ~ .. '" ~ o ;t o .... o N I ~ o o N t b Q ... ~~~i~Ga~~~~ga~~~~$~~i~;~~~ ~~~E~~~R ! ~~ ~~~~;=~~~~~~~~~~~~~~i g~~~~~g~8~ ~~ ~~~~~.~.~~M~ _~~~~N~NN~=~~~~MN_~ ~ ~~~d ~~5 ~ ~ ~~~~~~~ ~~ ~g~~di ~~ ~2 0", ". lil<Ti =15. 8::> ~ ~ . iJ ~ e . " o U ... >= -~~~~~~~~g~~ggg~~~a~aa~aaaa~aaaaa~aR~~ - m ~ ~ . ~8~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ :a~aaaaaaaaaa~~aa~a~aaaaaa~a~g~~aa~aa! ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~ 8 . : ~ ~~ ~ ~ a ~d~~ ~ 2 ~aaaaaa~~~a~a~aaa~a~aaaaaaffia~a=~aaaaa= - ~~~ t ~ t ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ - ~ - ~ ~ ~ _ _N Q : ~ j ~ ~~ ~ _aaaaaaa~~a~~~aaa~a~aaaaga~aaa:~~aaaa; - a~m~~ * & ~ a ~~~ a : ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~aaaaaaa;~a~~~aa~~a~aaaaa~ffiaaga~gaaaa; . gg re~~ ~~ ~ ~~ d ~ "'.... .......... C!i N'" '" '" I'" III "'''' ..... '" '''' ~ _~aaaa~aR~~~~~a~a2~a~aaa~a~aaaaaaaaaam -", ~ ~~~I~~~ ~ ~~~~ ~ ~ ~ - ~ ~3 ~~~ ~ ~~~~ a ~ ~ - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ , I II,o~~~~~~~'P~~cm~~~~~~~~c~~cccoccocc~~ ~~~~;~g~~~i~~~~~~~~~ .~;~ ~~~~~~~~~ ~ - ~- <II ~ l& ~ l:S~'I":::1 :: ~ ~ ~ !; d ~ ~:e;;: !! ~ _.",m", <II~ "''''~ '" ~~~ ~ . I v>",,- <II "" I"''''''' , ".; - ~ m ," i i ~ i ~ I I " " }I L~ II ~li~;1 I g io: :~ii~: 1 " ~ ..~t:~Jg88:g~.....~e loll S "'C~t ~ g (5 S ] ~ ~,~:~ ~ '8 E tl ~ e ~ ~ g S :: ''0 <r-"'",,,, ~-e~~ eS'" E "'~ '" .,.5: 0 w B] ~ ."" ~ ~ !J, ~ B ~ ~ E ~" ~ 'a ~ c, , "* ~ ~ ..; ~ ~ 11 ~ ~ ~ ~ E '6 ~ ~ ~ ~ I> t E ~ ~;; ~ t: ~l i 1.; -0 ~ ~ ~~EB~~~~;~ g~~j&gi~~ ~::: f 5~ E~ 5~ "'~~o~i~Z~~~~~i"'~t~~c~~ "'~N5 e~~B~~E~ i~~~~~~es~~~~~;B~~~~~""'~!~~ ~B"'!~f~i 12: u . - li - - ?: s.." ~ 3:.. 0.. U .9 _ '" .1< c 5 ~ .. :::l U ~ E." '" ~ 1io co." o~~e"~~", .~~-o..~E~~"'~~~u~~~ee o"'ec~<r~~ ~~~~j~~~~J~j~jg!~~~~~~~~~:~ ~~~~~~t~ 'O-~~~uU",lg-~~~12:~8~~."ii_8~~~ 13:1~E~~~ 3:~a5=?:?:!~mj!J,i~~?:~;~~~~~"'~~~~~~'~Ee~~~ E :;; E E E 5 !5 E ii .~ E E ~ =: '" ; ~ ~ i 0 ~ ~ '" '" > E E '" -~ E Eo:; ~ E ~ ~~eee83~~a22~813'B~~~-I~I!e2=~22~:S~~ .... ..... - - ~ ~ - "'1- - - ~ - ~ - 0 '" ?: .. 0'" - - .. - - - ...... ....- ~....................-",~.-.... ",~u.~cC~U~"""'N~~N"'J"''''''' ~~~~~38~;i~~~~~~8~~Ij88~~~~~~ffiffi;56~5~ " " I I ,,~I I i li~1 :~, I I .. I' ' i! i.i I " di" I I I I~ I~II i , t . t J ! ~ :: tl! 10;, ~ 1= I~: II ~_~~ 2, , ,. :::: ,. 0: E,: ~I: ' " 0 .~'~t;;t:;;:.~.~'='~, :;;'=--;:- BE I~E~~1<7 ""ra; cc 8.~ e 8i&~i~'~82-~~E ~ li~;.~~-~-l;'~j 5-E;~8 8 ~i &c~&&o~&~E&&~E~~",~~~~~~~~E~E~EE&&~o~ .~.~.EE.~~.~i~8~~~~~~~g~i~~~~~~..~Ea ~~~~~83~~!~~~~1!~~!~11B8B~~i~!~~~~8~ ~1~33~~3~~33~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~1~~33~~~ "'C~~.".,,~~~~~~"'C~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~"'C~~~ ~~~~~~~<~~<~c~~~~~~~~_E~C~~<~~~<~~~~ ~ e 11 u 2 '0 u ..Q ~ u . E ~ "' "" . E " 0 <3 ~ >- :;> 0 ~" i2 -0 oJ ~N " 01: Ji . . ~*- ::; , . >-~ _N................~...__~......."'....... m"""'O~~m~O~~"'NM.~ ::::J::::::l':;:;:~ii~ii-.............:::;;::s~ ",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,:1;:t;;:t;;:t;C~ON ~~~~~~~~~~~~2e;; ............................... N ...1.. ...I~.................... ~ '" ~ ~ . .. m ... .. NI'" 0 0 .... "" ;::l; '" ~- ;5~5i!;i~~~~I~~~~~i~ .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... ~,.... _,_ ~ N N N '" t- . . . ~ . . . ~ . .1. .1. . . v . . 0001'- co~'" o~ ~- o (") 'N Ol~~ -Ol -.oOl "'EO> 'OOl'" <=_0.. Olo. O>Ol <(U) Jl 4 ~ c c o ...u u." <~ "'- ,,8 II u .i!!, e .. c o 'w c ~ .. ~ .. ~ c c o U ~ r-;-:g QU ~ I :<is ~ ~ 01 o - .. ... - o ;: '" ... o N I ... ... o N ~ S Q u. >- ." C Gi J!! ~ ." 0. " ~ '5 E u ." C ~ 1>: 8 u. ~ ... ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 8. ~I~ 5. ~8"'ooo8"'oONO"'OCrl 0\ cnlDOU'l lDLl'IONU'\lDU'lCII .,. tI'l......'" ..........,.................. ~~.,.'^~~~~~tf<h<h~.,.! 00220!ii!oooooooog """.,.15l5.......15V'>"".."...............iI>...,....".~ ~ .n"; 0' m .. . ~~ , i :f. 0088008~080000Cl'l ......<1\. .......,....<1> "'<fl..,..,.... N N - ............ ~u) 8" N ~~ lS~..,. Ii oD",' N on ................... ... ~ ~~~~~gg~~ggg~g~ - 8-00""; ",' ",' III oti .....", .......... \,0 N <l>1.fl. .......'" ... '" o <Ii M (Ii N "'.,. N ~ ~ '088000000"'008~ 011'1- VI...,............<.n-.,.Lt1<1>'I.fl. In , 0' .... LIi.... N 00 .., .....", N "'... \D ............ N NN -;ti" ..". .,.~ ~ ~ ~g~~8gggggg~gg~ - [;;' ~.?S s" ~. 5f ...... _DO .......<1).... 00 ..... lJ <II- ",. '" '" ..; - ~ ~ 15 ~ . ~o ,~ ~ ~ - ~ :E :g '" ~ ~ 8 ==", 'ii5 Cia .e a. v; ~ 0.... ~ . ~:3 c.B ,';; i i5 '" ell ~ '"' 'E ~ .eB Ea:tc ~;~- ~ ~ ~ ~ '" i ~ ~ ~ = ~ :!!.2!-E~"Eg ~ ~; ~~5;~~B ~~ ~~ EE8&~:;5! "'_....01 oOo..-"'E>ii5 ~'ii5"'l;l"'a: .... .. Ql '" 0 a:> c. __c ,0 ~ u :=.::::.=-;;~-:~ ,,_'l::7;E ]]8';;'['2~ o6:~@;,g ~ ~ ~ i .~l~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 25 ~ ~ 0 ili ~ ~~ ~ ~ eo:::a: e.=~a:~ oe.v;~s.w~"'V'I::;~@Je~ :;:;i-5.;~~~~~;:;;g;~;; e;;~~~~:;:5""''''''55Bi~~ ~ ~ ~ u .~ - . 2 ~~2 t: ~~ ~ ~].::~~ . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a ~ 5 8 ~ ~ g ~ ~ 5 "~ :rl Q) ";;0.3 :rl g "- :rl 0 a: or: ~ ~ c '" or: a: .:: a: 15 ~~~~~O~&b"'~t Q) Q),_,!!!,,,,:i: Q) c" Q)" ~~~~"~~~-5"~~~ :g:g~~&::g:g~~:g~ <41-1-0..0..< 0..<1- ~ .~ ~ u . ~ 1- > '. ~ ~~ .~ ~ ~ tJ E", . '- <"W . ~ ~ 'i:'~~ .,."'........................N........ IOIOI,Q"'...NO....."'.,.-.l" .......I,QNNN.,..,............. .,..,. i,O i,Ol,Q 00 00 0000 ""'''' "'U'lN"''''.....''''''''''''.... "'a.............NNNNNN ..........,..,...,..,...,..,........,. ::;;:~I,Q-~ ..... .,. .... tll ~ ~~E~~ ... >> 5~ ou> " . Qiro ~R 8" ~ u ~ c . " o " ~ ;:: " ~ N " " ~ ~ B ~ ~ ~ :!: i< o N :3: o N ~ E . ? ~ " ~ ~ ~ .s ~ ~ ~ c . " ~ c , 8 ji '0 u U E .; . 'ii o ~ . < ~o "0 ~N i']2 Q., E :g% " . "U> :0 0001'- CO~'" o~ QN_ Z .0 CO EN~ .?;> 2Q)....~ -.0 Q.)~ c'O Cll E 0>1:: ",0 OVl -0 Q.) rod u., <=_0.. Olo. ~ ~ O>Ol *' *' *' ., Cll <(U) = -0 .. co ltl '" - 0. ~ I- 8=> :E '=' U > .. '0 ~ a. ., c E ~ .. u u .. N '0 ~ .. c en <= Qj "- en ...: Cll *' *' *' ~ ... ~ > N '" l!! N ltl .. ... 0 en '" '" u I- u.. - ~ f0- B ~ l!! ~ > ~ .,. '" " ~ '" N ~ ~ '" "' N ... 0 :c e . 0 co ... 0 '" '" f- ... N' ",' .,.' '" N' 0' '" :> en 0 '" .,. ... '" ltl ... N 1'-- 0 e:> co ... ... c .5 ltl' ...' e:>' ",' ",' 0> 0 '" " '1:l '" ltl '" ~ 0 ... e:> u ~ ~ co ... " '" ... '" V) ::I 0' ",' co' 0> ~ ~ .. i:i " '" '" ~ N co '" gs >C '" '" .,. ... a ...- ",' N 11.I " I i': CO ." I >- " '" ... ... 0 0 '" l5 0 V ltl ... " ~ ltl " ... ;:; C '" "'l .,. ltl N '" >. N 41 41 co' ltl 0' .. N' .,.' ,,' 0 ~ :is 'u .,. N ... .. ltl N R ~ 6 '" "':. '" '" ltl '" '" 0- ra IE ...' co ",' ",' ltl' ",' e:>' J: I- " '" '" '" N co ... c' > 11.I 0 N ... '" " .,. '" a;- ",' ...' 0\ .,.' ...' '" 0 '1:l Qj " '" N " '" ... '" .~ ::I ... :I: ... ::I III II. c .0 .l!l 41 E '" '0 0 .!:! ." 0 III " '" '" '" '" N (g N "C > ~ '" ltl ltl ... '" '" . 2 Q, .,. 0 "' ... .,. 0 ... ~ ::l 41 ",' .,.' ",' ...' ",' ",' ..' '" . > " 0 ... ltl .,. '" m 0 N ~ 'E '0 co '" .,. '" co :c ... ",- ltl' .,.' '" co' ltl' ,,' " ~ 0 " . l!! '" ltl '" '" " '" '" " ... " co ltl ... ltl '" '" " "' U 0 ...' ",' ,,' ",' ",' a;- ",' ~ ~ ~ '0 "C '" '" N '" ... '" e:> c' c '" '" .,. e:> ... . C 41 ,..; '" .g " III en 2 g :;: u ... ra 0 oS III ... 5?; .< 0 41 c '0 ",' U > . ~ ,:: " (l) ... <( > <0 .... '0 . '0 I- ,:: '" n; c 6 0 ~ '" 0 u ~ e c '" ~ " 2 ., <C a: . " :0 060 C n; "- a ~ - ~ ~o ::I 'i: n; c n; c 0 ~ g;N 0 Ol ro ro u ., ~ ~ ..Q ~ ..Q vi :c ., .- ~ u ~ " ~ " ~ - ., I- <C a: ::l a: ::l " ~ Vl 0.0 ... > , ~ E u.. Ql ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ " ~ <(= .. .. .. n; .. .. n; u " Cll ., .c .c .c ~ .c .c ~ ;; c ~ 'O~ 0::- ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ 0 " <= 0. 08 0 0 0 0 0 0 c 0 l- I- V) ." .- ., Vl fo-Vl 0001'- co~'" o~ ~- o '" . N 2a;......~ -.0 Ol~ '" E O>d 'OOl'" "_0.. Olo. O>Ol <(U) ... > "C ::::I ..... III ! III "C Q. ::l ~ "C ~ U "C C III ..... III o U u.. ... I- ~ C ::::I o I-U LL ~ <(= 0::- 08 .B la Q "CI S .!~ ~~ "CI!- C Gl l'll_ Ill.!:! Gl.c =Gl ::E:> _e"CI ~".- c Q"CIla Gl.!~ ':::: >Gl 0 - Cl ~I!!Gl !-'Iii GlU \,I> C la ~~ .- .c QCl Gl:i; .!:! > .cl:ll Gl > iii ::I e C <( ~~~~~~;gS~~~g~~~$~~~;Eg~$~ ~~~~S~~~~~~~~~g8g~~=g~~~ ~ ~~~~N~~. ..d~ "'..., ........ ",N ~... ~~a~~~~~~~~~~:~~~~~~~~~&~~~~ ~~~~~~~~i;~~a~EE~~~~EE~;.. all>" ~~. ~~~~~g~;~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ m~5~m~i~6;g;~~~~~~==~~$~ ..;....... ~ N N cO..... <<!"<<!'- NI/:' :::::::::: ::::::: ~~~~~S~~E~~~8ffi~*~~~~~~~:s~~~ g~~~~~~~g~~~~~~~~~~~;~~~~~ ~ ... N '" ... ... .., '" NN ~~ ~;i~~~5E~~~s~~~E~~~~~E~~~~~~ ~~titi~~*~~~~~~~~~g~~ct~~~~~~ ......, ..,0 ~~. a>~' ia~~E~~~~~9~~~~Si~~~ ~~g~;~~~$R~~~~~~~$S~ ............~~......"''''..............'''~ ......~... ~~ Oa-.o:tl.P ~....~... "''''0'1.... ... cO oo'~' "'NO'I'" <"0'1"'00 ............'... . . ",<,,"'0 00 00 00 .. ~ :::.18~~~~~:::::::::~~~'G::;;~ o 0'10 o........oo....OO"'NN"'... .... ...'...'...'...",,' ",...'...,..; N ",' "'....' 0.. .OM OM' <D..; .' ~~ <D"'...."'<D...<DNo:t..... ::n~:;;::;::::01:5 '" ",,,,;.,; 00'00' g~ 3!...'....... ~~;~~~$~~E~;~~;a~~~~~~~~~~ ......NN.......~"'NN~"'~OO~:::~~......~~~~ .......... "'00<:t.... g~~~ "," N.........' "'~C1.... "'<D<:t'" ",' N;::::'~' ~~~~ "''''....'''.''''''.......0'1.... "'OO"'Nt(lOO...."'N"'... "'...00...<D<:t......."''''. ~'~cf ig:::a ~ :i:;;'~' ................"'''''''''''''00 ~~~~~~~~~ ~ct;;t~'~~~=..~. 00:1::: ~.:::3~. o . . '5 . ~ . :. i . '5 , o . '5 " i , " . , . . . "' ~ ~ g ~"C :E ~ OJ t.] ~ ~ ~ ~ -- ~~~ ij .s ::: - .... g e v: l! g !;.~~~ l~~~;j (l~~~E,,:g~~~~o ~..~~~g~~SW]llOg ~~~~~I~~~~~~ ~ . ~ " . ~ 5 o . . " ~ 5 ~ , ~ 5 ] , ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~ ON :::::::: . . ciei NN . " ~ 'i . -g&. l~ i ~ ;.;' '" i ~ ~ ~ -a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ -g-'5. .....c . . "." ~ ~ ~.. - ~~ 1 ~~ ~~ .~6~ ~g ...:: ~ ~ 1 ~ E ~ a'S 1!~ 8] ~ ~ ~ ] ~ ~ ] ~] ~ ~~ ~li ~~ ~'i .: 2 ,,~ E ... i j JO, ~ ~ "._ ". .. ~ 1!];, - ~; ~]~ ~~ ~l ~~].6 ~! "" ~~~~ ~~.~;; _~,~i1 -~~~:}ui~~~l E ~ " <= !! ] il ~ 1:' " o:~~.e~~"V\.!'- ~ E - ~ ~ 1:. 1 ~ :'i ~ .g ~ ] ,; ~ ,. 15 co,.. .. Q. .. ~ ~]; '; ~ .. -g ~ .; ~ .Q "0 <; " ~t;2~~~~~_~ r~~ ~~~-~r_g.p.~_~ t'i "' -;:! u !l ::; <: >-" .. ~ to OJ !l .. 0 0 i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1-s~~;::~~~~1 ];]; => -'6 ui .. '" 8 '0 ~ ~]~~~~~~.:~ gj~a~:t~~:.. i ~ I i ~ i ; ! : ~ ~~~~e~~~~:; j!~~~~~~j~ ~g.~!~~5];~~ ~'iil~~~~'::]~1! HHUHU "E ~ ~ 1;-;:: .!' <) r ~ '5. "~al"~:~~~~ !ii!~i~~i~ ~;~~5~~~~" ^ N ~~ ------.....-..--.. "'''''...'''<D.... ~.;?; <= ~ ",.il 0'" UOl ~ ~ ~~ - 0. 8=> - '6 OJ ~ U '0 <= '" ~ '" o U W- ;:: M ~ 6 u oS "," 2J co 'u 0 '" '" <! 0; 0 ~ ~ 0 OJ N 2: 0:3 (5 .0 '" E "iO 2J '0 0. <= OJ i= '" DRAFT Collier County I TIF Cost and Credit Update Study Agenda Item No. 8B September 28,2010 ~ Page 126 of 157 Co II!: Cmtl1!iY - Appendix E Calculated Transportation Impact Fee Schedule Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. September 2010 E-l Collier County TIF Cost and Credit Update Study DRAFT Collier County I TIF Cost and Credit Update Study THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY Agenda Item No. 8B September 28, 2010 ~ Page 127 of 157 e.,.CoHl'lt;y - ~ ~ Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. September 2010 E-2 Collier County TIF Cost and Credit Update Study mol'- co~'" o~ ON__ Z _0 co EN~ Ol ~~ -Ol -.oOl "'EO> 'OOl'" ,,_0.. Olo. O>Ol <(U) l:; o , o ....u ~! "'. cu J ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ., ~ ~ 'S " ~ ., ell ~ ~ ... ...tl ai.r[ .!! E ...~ ~ S '" .B " o 0. ~ o ~ ,:: " ~ ... ~ 'S u ;;; u ~ '0 , ~ III .!! ~ X " ~ '6 ~ U '0 o ~ ~ o u .. >:: ,~ . . .~ ~~ ~i ni gu " . , ~ ;; J . , !e~~:a ~g~~ ~g~ ~ ~ & to. ~2i ! ~ - " gs. ~ ~ ~ ~ .. o. gEt u o"~ R . ~i o. o' .=11; ~iO &~ ~ 1 ' I .. I . i 1'1 i ! 1 " " e ~ ~ . , ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . c; . ~ . c; c; ;; :i. . :i. . ~ " . ~ Ii c; " Q ~ Q " " ~ ~ ;1 ~ , " * ~ ~I :i. ~I i Q ~I : ; I .1 .1 1 ~ , . . " ~ 2 ~ , . Q . " " , . ~ i I ., .1 ~ , , 1 ~ ~I ~z ZI I 1 ! ~ ~ ~ ~I ~I ~I ~ ~ "I "! u :1 :1 ; ~ 1 1 1 , 51 ;1 :1 ~I 5 _ I ; : -j' ,I .I ,! .1.1 . _'I ~ ~I . . .1 .. 'I' - ; ]. 'I' , ' II:~!~ ll~I' ,I ;i~. 'I 0 Inl~ ~ ~I'~ ~ ~'I ~I~ ~ ~ itA ~, ~ ~.;8~!;; 05;1;;, 05 ~;!;;~~t] 05; ~,~ ~,~ i ~I ~ ~ ~ ~I ! 1 i' 1 ! I =; : ~ ;1 ;, ; 21 ~I ~ ! !~ j , I j! 1 1 'I .1 · "I 'I ., .1 ' II 1 I' I H II; I" I : ~ "i I 1 H 11 jl i ~ ~ L :.!.-,I ~z~_'I~ ~ if ~~... -I ; ~-, ~ ~ ~ . ~I ~ ~ ~ - ~; .. c 0 i "'.:< 0 ... N.... N "'.:. "' ~I -I flll[ j :[ :1 I : j ~ .1 . -I ~ 0; :i. :i. :i. a ~ e ~I ~ .' " ~ 1 , . : _ 3 ; ~ " " . :i. . " U Q j 1 " ~ ~ . - ;; Q , ;B ~ z 0, i j :;1', , ~ ~ > , ~ ~ ~ " :i. ~ ~I ~ . ] . " ~ " U Q 1 , I ~I . i . . . z . ~ . ~ o . I ~ o u 3 1 , 1 J!:i i ;1 " ~ o if ~ , ~[ ~ ] 8 s ~ . ~ . a , a " . ~ ~ f , , ~ ~I ~ ! . "'I N , , , , , . ; ~ '5. ~ . c; . " ~ " " j . u 3 j 8 fi.:i ~ ~ Q ~ ~ " t Q , " " , .. 1 i , - . ~ a = , 1 ~ ~ fl ; ~ ~ , , 8 I I ~ ~ ~ Q ~ , z " o " I J ;; . ~ " ~~ ~2 0", ::.2! . . =15. 8:: " . i3 ~ c . 0; o U ~ " ~ . ~ ~ ~ ~ :i. 8 . o " ] ., ~ I ~ ~ z !i . " " " ~ M cO 8 8 Q ;; l j r o ~ . . " o ~ :;> ~" ~~ all " E ". ~~ ~"' ~ 0001'- co~'" o~ -'<>J _ o Ol N Q)~~ -Ol -.oOl "'EO> 'OOl'" ,,_0.. Qlo. Jf~ ~ .. ... = til !! ~ ~ ::> ~ 'C E u ... = ~ 1;1 o U .. 1= ~ = = o ...u ~~ "'- 08 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .c 0. - ~ ;; i: .c ~,)i ...~ ~ ~ Ell. "tl c: ~ 00. ~e ...~ , c: w 0 GI;i H .... 0 0. ~ c: ~ ~ .... ... ~ ~ ~ ;; u ~ .... ~~~~ .... .... .... t .... .... .... .... ~ ~ ~ c ~ a .. . .. .... N . ~ . it ,..: ., i![!! i :Lif j 'Ihh ~!~~ . i ~ ~ ~ j ~ j ~ ,..::3 .g; :3 ~ :::: ~ ~ ; a a c ~ " ~ . ~ ] , ~ ~ ~ w , ! , ~ " .. < j ~ ~ ; " i " ~ ~ ~ . !) !) ~ ~ a~&II~a ~ ! ! ~ c w , ! , . . . ~ < o ., J = o . a ! . ~ :i ~ ! . . i , ~ . . o ~ ~ " i' " . ~ ~ ~ i ! 2 ~ ~ a . . ~ . ! ! ] , ~ " ~ ~ 'j " ~ w , ! , M . " N ~ ~ i ~ o. ,;;.<::'" '<>&j," ~l:~ o . . c ,; o . , ~ a ^ . N 'j " !) . 'j ~ ] , ~ " o ~ . i ~ c . ~ ~ . " ;; , " ~ ~ . ~ a ~ ! . " . I ~ ~ t , 5 1 . ~ . i " ~ . .7: ! ~ 'j ~ o I " . , , ~ ~ ~ " " , . o I . ! ~ ~ 'j " o , . g ~ ~ ~ ~ 8 ~ " ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Iii " ~ . i c " ; , " ~ !) a . . iJ . ~ ~ ~ " ~ 1 " . . c " al ~ , . " M . ! I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ "I ! '1 ~ '.~ j ; 0 ., ! . ..; . I ~ ~ ~ ~:: oil.. ar~]t] IE~'" ..... , . . ~ . " . . , ~ , ~ M' ~ ~ " g , 5 '5 ~ ~ ~ t , . o ~ ~ . . ~ . ..; . ..; ~. ~ , . o , 'j . ~ 8 !; .?: . a ~ c ~ ~ " ~ e . ~ .f! t;;] ." . 8 ~ ~ a a ~ ~ ~ 8 M . . ~. . . . . . . 8 ~ ~ . i ; ! ~ ! a ~ ~ o " . ~ ~ -. ] ~ ~ . ~ c . ; ii ~ R . ~ . ~ . ! a e ~ ! . N ! ~ " " , i ~ , ~ ~ ~ ~. E ~ ~ . " a . a ~ :; ! a . . a " " " " ~ ~ " -. ~ ~ ~. & ~ ~ 8 . ~ c a . . ~ ! a " N , " " . ~ ~. , ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ c . . ; . ~ . d . ;: . ! ~ ! g o . . . ; ~ ~ -. ~ ~ g , " g I ~ ~ . . a , , ~ ~ ! a ,; ~ ~ -. ~ ~ ~ ;; ~ ~ ~ . a a ~ ~ . :; ! a 8 ;: . a d ~ ~ . !) ] " . ! ~ . . . ~ ~ , ~ ~ ~ " g ~ c . ~ . . ~ " ~ ~ & . . ! ! ~ ~ ! ~ ~ . . . o. g .., ~ ~.il 5 l: ~ ~ ] - " . . ~ ~ " ~ -. ~ ~ ~ " ~ , . ] , o < ~ .. f ~ "'~ o~ ,2 0", o. QiiS ,,~ 8:: 'C . i3 ~ o . c & ~ . o o ~ ~ a . ~ ~ " " ~ 1 , ~ . w , ! , ~ w ~ o " , - , i . .. ~ , o , . . ~ U E " . " g ~ ,," ~fj o~ cb E :(g*. < . ~"' 1i 0001'- CO~'" o~ ON__ Z _0 CO ENg Ol~~ -Ol -.oOl "'EO> 'OOl'" <=_0.. Olo. O>Ol <(U) 'C o , o ...u ~~ "'- oS ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .c ~ ~ :; '" ~ .c u ~'" -g~ ~... "tl 6[ ~E ...~ iUg Q1~ H ... 0 Q. .. o ~ ~ ... '" ~ ... ~ :; u ;; U > ." , ... III ! ~ X ::> ... '6 ~ U ." o . t: o u ... ;: " ~ . &;il j: ~~>--~ I 0; o !i ~ ~ E ~ I ~ rGl '" ~ . o R ~ . . ~ o . , " ~ ~ e " g[ . ~ - ~. ~ ; ; . ~ ;: l . if . " ~ o ;: . . I ~.9 '5=- c. ". 0 .. ~ t ~ ~ ~ ., .fl : ~ ] ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I; ~ ~ " ~i~ g ~ ~ -:: '" ., .fl : ~ g " , ::: ~ -, '" ,., " :: ~ - , , o ;; . .1 ~i o . o ~I 1 i! , E :; tE , , ~ ~ , . ~ ,$ I}~ ., ' ~ l ~ , ;; , ! ~ $: I ~ ;1 " . . " o i " II ~ . " ~ 8 ~ " ; ! ~ ~I ~ 1 I I--\' .1 ~I ] li ~ ~ . & ~ :;; ~ ~ . ~ . . ~ u , j ~ ~ ~ u , i I i .' .1 f ~i . ~i . , . , . --'i ~ 2 ;; o , ~i ~: . I ;' ~I -j ~ E ~ , $ . 1 . ~ . ~ . ~ . ~ ~ i ~ . . !I ! I , ~: 1 ,- 1....1 :'::L ~i . 1 ", "'1 i I il ! o , ~ ~ " , ;::i , ~ e " ~ ! ii ~ ." , l:i~ ! - . ~I ~I 1 !i , , . ~I l i i .; ~I "I ~ ~~ ~ ., , ~ ~ . a ~ ~ . . , " ~ ] " ~ . a o . . < a ~ ~ . ~ . . ! j o . " o ~ ~ ~ . , < o ~ < , ~ N , o ~ * " ~ ~ '. ! , i ~ ~i ~ ~ ~ :;; II ~ ~j , , ~I ~ ~ ~ ~I ~I I g; il I ! i ~ !I ; a o ~ . . :;; o. ~ ~ . < . . u 3 j ~ ~ . , " 3 ~ 8 8 ;; ~ j . - 8 o -:;:i !I 5 , j ~i ; ~ :l ~ ~II 2 a E ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I ! jl I ] ~, ~ !I ) > ~ ] 15. ~ '5 E ~ > . .~ .1;! " j " ~ .~ :t C ~ .~ ~ ~ 'g1! ~H ~ ~"!l '0 ~ ~~ .l! l' m"E III t~ o ~ ~ t! iIi '- ~~ ~ t::~ :1:~ > ~~ ~~ ~ :;~ ~::!'~.~ ~~ _ ~ nl ro :g\O ~o,s'9 ~o ;;~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ 'll nl ~ ~~ ~ ~.g ~ 5'. Q! ~E ~~ -5 Q.nl ~~ .c~>- E] ....J U E 'll :;.:" . ,gl' v-:= e Ill'll ~~~ Q. ~~ ~~'gj S ~~ ~:9 c~~~ ....- o-1!!~ 2_~ ]~QJN ~ ~ 1l ~ ~o ~, :; :: ...; c ~ E a "Ii .. ~ E 8 ~ ~!L~ ~ ~ 1j ~ ~ OJ' c ~I ~~~~-~~g ftI Q.l.-..... , .... V\ -:::1 .. ....g,Syg ~~1B r:;::: ~.8 ~ Q.l:~ III ~;:-9' ~~~~ o~-Pc",~u 5,9. ~:s. 50t UJ ~ .8 += 'E 13 ::t:.=o ~ ~ ~E?52 ~'t:. ~z~ ~~B~ ]. _ <> .... ,~ _~O".8eg~~ ~:. ~ ~'a&~ 'Vi5.g 1.5.&~~ o~:>t: ,so;> o 8,~.!;!~].",_~ 0......- (: Q! UJ V\ ~,= ~ ~.eH:~ ]20~~-~* ~~~~.s*~ ~ ~ c.B< '6' ~ "" (g _Q.lBEIQ.....-g'" !je~:gal"'~ ]~x~I'~~ bi" ~ i" ~ 0 · Q.l'~o S g -g.& .&c.S':;;~~~ '" .......E ~ .... c u :5~~~2:~ salE ~e~.~ (u ~:m Q! _9- ~ 3: V\ ~ ill:J:>....... Ol:JO :J ~.... ~ ~ _~ Q! , -g (g R,~ ~~~% ~.!!l ~'5 &:;. ilj] a.If-- v UJ c. c c r-- ~~ ~~1!~E~:E~ ~<C"'~IU<UQ!Q!~ <1e,;~~~F~;::V'i z~2 ~c::..:!'~ ~ ~ . l' m ~ ~ ~ . ~ . o " . ~ '0 ~ o o ~ ~ ] o ~ ~ o il. ~ . " ~ o , u o u 3 ! ~ ~I ~I II ; . ^ ! . il i ; , 1 ~I ~ , . ~€ .2 u'" .2 . m :~ -00 u~ ~ . i5 ~ o m . o U ~ ~ ~ w o E . ~ m o ~ ~ ,,~ ~~ oil do E :gj% " . ~'" 0001'- co~'" o~ ~- o ! ~ ~ .", Ol~~ -Ol -.oOl "'EO> 'OOl'" ,,_0.. Olo. O>Ol <(U) l:' c , Q ...U u.l; <= "'- 08 ~ ~ ~ w .. .. ... ... ~ w :; " w ... III w w u. ':It! ..... .!!~ .c~ {!c Q '" ~ Q Q. .. C .. ~ ... " w ~ .. :; u ~ ','. . . . ~ . ~ . ~ ; . ~ . . ~ ~ . ~ ~ ~ ~ 'i 'i ~ ~ 'i 'i 'i 'i 'i 'i . " ~1~1 , . . . . . . ~ . a . . ~ . ~ ~ ~ ~ ;; a a ;f. ~ ! a . .. . ;f. . . . . " . :::: ',', , 0 ',', ~ ~ 0 . . . . Ei a ~ l . . 0 . ~ ~ . . ~ ~ a a a * . , " " . :f. . . a " . ~ ! ~ .... , .... f .... . ~ ~ ii a ~ a . ~ ! 0 i " a a .... a * . . " i! 0 ~ " . . . . , ',', ~ . . . 0 0 a i .... & . " . . . ! . a . ! . . . ~ , .. . . ~ , .. " a . . il 0 ~ 0 ~ . . a ~ , il ! 0 ',', " ~ a " :f. ~ " ~ a . * ~ " .. .. . . . . . . . " ~ . 0 . . 0 ~ " . ::i 0 ;j 0 ::i .. , . 0 .. .. . , . ;j , . , H" . ....,..t...: .... ~~.. .. 0 . a i i j 0 ~ . 'l ; " i . . i u ~ , < < 'l < < < 'l < < ! , , ! j . . . . . . . , ;Ii . ~ ~ ~ .. ! ! ] . . .... .!i ~ .. . , ~i . .. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . ~ i . ~] <" I , . ~ " " ~ , ~ 0 0 0 ~ 0 0 . ~ ~ , 0_ 0 .... i ~ u u " ~ I .. u u u u 0 ! ! ! 3 3 ~ , ~ ~ 3 ! 3 3 3 l , ~ , ~ ~ . . . ! ! ! ~, ! . ! J ! " .i " 1 ~ , .... . . . . . . . ~ ~ . . . . ',', . 0 . 0 0 0 . B 8 B .. . " . . . . , , "' . . . . " , . . .. .. .. . . . . . . ~ . 0 0 . 8 0 0 0 Stst . . . , . . , . , . , . . , . . . ~ i .... , ~ ~ I " " " " j ! < < < .. g g . 0 . :g . 0 , i 0 ~ 0 . I 0 ~ , . , j ~ . .. < ~.s1 ~ ~ , i ~ ~ " 0 . . ;; ;; . ~ . ;; , ~ . . . , ~ , !& ~ B ~ " ! ~ ~~ " " , " e ! " " 5 . 0 . ~ , 0 , ~ ~ " 'I ~ " .. , , . . , .. .. '.' " ~ . 0 . . . . , . " . , . " . . . . "' , . . , N . i'l " "' N "' , " ~ ~ , ~ , , , , , , 0 , , , , , ! , 0 . ~ ~ . . . ! ! 0 . ~ .i ]?* I 0 ! Hi .. ! ,! ] ~ j o. .. 0 i "0, iii.s; 0 . ! i~ ;. ~ . < . ! .. ! i ~ ~ t < , ~ ;; .. . " i i ! ! , ~ ~ . g ~ ~ ~ . ] ! 0 I ~ ~ 3 ~ ~ ] ~ . ~ ~ , g . i ~ i ~ 0 ! ~ . l <- 1 " 0 0 ~ t . ! ~ 0 '"~ 8 ~ ~ ~ ~ " " . . ~~ . 0 , ! ! ! , :! . ~ '~ Ii ~ &~ ~ 0 . . ~ ~ 8 . . ~ " r . . , . 0 " ~ 0 0 0 ~ . ". 0 ~ .. N N , N , . . . . .. w '" ~~ c~ .il u. Qiili ~'& 8=> 1 u ~ c . " o U ~ " .. " , Iii 21 . X => ~ '6 ~ u " c . ti Q U ... ~ o E .; . " " o ~ ~o "0 ~N 02 d, E ~"*- .:=.11.1 ~~ 0001'- CO~'" .o~ 0"'_ Z _0 CO EN~ Ol~~ -Ol -.oOl "'EO> 'OOl'" <=_0.. Olo. O>Ol <(U) ~ c c o ...u ~~ "'- 08 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ "" ~ ~ '3 ... ~ "" ;-,ji ~ $ co. :c~ c ~ 0.. ~E "'~ wg .!:o:::; .c~ ~~ .. ~ c ~ != ... ~ ~ ~ '3 u ;; U .. " c il; 21 ~ " c. " ~ '6 ~ u " c . 1;: 8 .. >= . . ~ ~ ~ ~ . ~ : ;; . ;I ~ . , j . < ] o ~ < , < o ~ . ~I i II ~I . 1 ,I - !' ~ I I~ i I~ f j I 8 _ 8-1 .e ~ _2 ~ !~,!~ ~ ~ -~l f.h 0 ;I :;; ::> t::1 6 1 "' ~ ~ , a " " ~ . . ~ ~ ~ ! " o ~ ;; . . . . . 1li } ~ * a ~ , ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ " ! ~ " ~ ~ ~ J . " o , 1 , . ~ ~I . ~ I ! ~I ., ei . ~ , . . ; ~ ' J . , ~ 1 . . ~ ';f ~ ; . a E . . ~ " ~ , ~ Ell ~ R ! ~ ~ " o . . ~ g :; o o ~ ~ ~ . . . . ~ ~ . ~ ~ ~ j . " ~ . " ~ ~ . ~ a . ~ ~ ~ ~ . . ~ ! . " . ~ . :;; :;; ~ . ~ . " Ii . . ~ !I ! I !I ~ . " ~ ~ ~I ~ ! ~ I ! ~I ~I ~I ~I ~ ~I ~I ~ ~ , ~ . ~I . . , ; i ~I ~I ~I ~I . II 0 II!il~j ~i ~ ~ ] 1 -, . ;1.1 :[ L ~ ! ~ " . ^ 2 51 s , I ~ ~I 8 ~. ~i ~ 888 g ~ g 5 ~ ~ ~I ~.I 8 -, ~I - g g ~ t o J !j~l ell . o o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~! "' . . ~ . . " . :;; . ;: " ~ ] . Ii ~ q . . ~ . ~ ~ ;: ~ . a ~ ~ . ~ a ~ ~ . . " ~ , ~ ! ! ! ~I !I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ " I ~I ~ , I I J ~I ~I ' I "I , 'I ' 8 , - ~ o o . i ~I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ g g g 8 , ~ I I .' . "I. -~ ~ -tf ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ! 80880 gg~~~. ~~jj~ g g 00000 . . . . . . . a ~ . & . ~ . ~ . ~ :::: ::: ~ ::i ;;; ;:!; ~ ~ ,~ a a _ , c " . " . . ~ ~ . . ~ M ~ " o ~ } . - ;w g " ~ ~ ii a ~ ! " . ~ . ~ - ;: ;:i ! a ! I ~ ~ ~ ~I ~ 8 <;l ~ - . :1 i il j ~I , N ~ . ~ 8 8 -. !' g g 8 ~ ~ g ~ ji ~ ~ 5 ~ . ;: -~I ~ v, :{ .;: . ~ ~i . ! !j ~ I ![ ~ " . g ,; . o < , J . . ~~ ~] 0," ';::2 . . ~" Ii=> ~ u ~ c . '" o U ~ " ~ . ~ a . a " .. , 1 . o 3 ~ w 1 . . ., . ~! . ~I fi , o ~ "' . ;; o o . :1 ~o -0 ~N o~ " E " . ~g. ~'" ~ 0001'- co~'" o~ "'"""- o '" .'" ii:ll-~ -Ol -.oOl "'EO> 'OOl"' <=_0.. Olo. O>Ol <(U) ~ ,. .. :l Ul .I!I . X ::> ~ '6 ! v .. " . 1;; Q V ~ i: l: " Q Q o-V ~~ ~8 ~ .... .... ill . .r: ... ~ .. '3 .., .. ~~ .., .... Q .. .Yo ;i1j . . 0... ~E N.... lUg ..- i~ 0- 0 ... .. . . ,: .., !l . '3 u ;;; V ~ , . R ~ 11 , . ~ " . < . :g ," ~ . ~ ~ . . . a . ; ~ ~ . ;; ~ . ;J ~ . ~ " ~ I ~ , ;; ~ ~ ! ~ " " . " " E ~. i ~ ~ ~ . 8 . ~ . q ~ . s( . ~ ~ " . a ~ ~ * ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . " ~~ "0 'OJ ~ 8 &;......... ~ ~ " . ~ ~ ~ ~ o~ "0 'g3~ " . . ~ ~ . " " o ;; ] o. :;;:.<: oil., 't> ~ ~ ,...,a .a ......,'" '" ~ l . . . ~ ] ~ . ~ , , j ! , ! o , ~ i i"E o' ~ ~ i~ ~~2 E . . , .. ~ 2 ! a . . i! ~ ~ ~ " ; ! ~ ; ! ~I ~ , " o > ~ .. . q ~ :;; ~ ~ ~ . ~ " ~ ~ , , . o ;; . I j ! ~ < I ~ , ;I . q ~ . . .; ! ~ ; ~ . - m . ;B , " ~ . . . . q a . ~ o & ~ . ~ . o . ~ ,; ~ " .. . o o < ! o ~ ~ I . " ~ ~ ~. ~ ! 5 , ] ] . ~ ~ ~ '. ~ . " ~ ! ~ < . , ~ . o N o ;; < ~ ~ . i , .. , . 3 " a ;; ~ , . a e . ~ . , ~ ~ . ~ ; ~ ~ ~ ;; " ~ ~ . o " ! . " ~ ~ , ~ ~ , . ~ ~ . . ~ . ~ ii E! . ~ a ~ . ~ " . l o 3 ! ~ ~ . ! . 3 I . o ;J . N ~ ~ o ;; ~ ;; " ~ ~ o . . ~ , ~ ~ :; , , .. l' ;; . . , i < . ~ * ..... ","." ~ :;:; i} H "",'. ~;::: ~ ~::~ ...... . . .. 0::::: -g" " ~ .. ~ .. ",.'." .,.".' "0',", "'.... "'.... ]} :;:? ",.:.' ~ ;::: ~ :::. ~ " ] .... :;:::;- ~->. 8':'. ",".- n '" j~ 3~ ~::: . ~ ;, ~ ] " " Q E . < ~ . I j <J ~ . ~ " ~ <J .~ ~ ~ ~ ",E ~h ~ s~ B j....!I ,;~ ] ~~ ~ ~.!II ~ ill.... .AI.!.! &. e ~ m1 ~ ~~ j!'O '0 "2~ ~~.~.~ ~~ ~;-5 ~ ~o Hiu ~~ ~ ~~ ~:E ~ .Q.!II ~~: .s ~ ~ CON >> CLl'ij ~i ~ ~~ ~~ ~ .g~ '.B~P: i 1!!~ l:l ~ /II ~ ~ ]g'~ ~.~~ 2:~ g~~,.., ~~ j!g!ij}~ OU 1l.~~O .... ~ ....., 1ll:S 0 15.-11lffil!!01JU .... l:l~ tl u ~.s~ ~]"tl~_l!!~C mrol!o.6o~ ~ ~.!;~ ~1! ti .... -ns O~1_=' "'8~o1!!ijj....'6' ,;:::,~el~-~ "'* .J:: i':'-;2~ ~ - .-- a>~~ l3.~~.f B"J::"E a :~ = ~ ~~!l~2 '~ ~ i~~ ~~~~ S~#BW~~Vl c: * <I.l > 5..~ E -== 5 ~ g-~.s :; g~ ro-5i'~~ 8 ~ III ~-gt:::: 0\ o _ o..!:1ll:: '" ,<II.S: o~~~~lIl~~ - * ~ B tf c 1: i.l!! 0 al 0'- ':ti ~~~t:i1?~a ~. o.c.2J.:8:::~"iij ....~EEItl.eo~ we :J :a -c c ro ~~-~~~,~~ 1:~ro.!JQ1!llro: ~ E e E :J L.. Q) .g.'Q 5 E-g aJ Q) I- CLl'- P, "'...... ~:'::::=':tll!!~tl E III E:v a.> '7' a ..... Itl.!ll c itlol! E so ijj.>,1 ~.... It!.- lii ",'" -a:; 0. c 5: al ~ &:12 >"i: g o>:J- :J.Q......... ~.s: <Ii 9 c> -gG~E~~$~ E .!S!.!!'-g:.- ~~'" ~ ~ !L'l-u~c.!::~F i: E~ ~~l~Em::E::':: i ~<Q);'~!J.!Q)<l)~ .0: lIiz.o....I=~~Vi Z"~2 C!..c::!-~ . ~ < ~ " . . . ~ I .2 ~ ~ '0 . . .. Q " il Ii E Q 8 o ~ ~ G '0 ~ o . i " m o 3 i . ~ o 3 ~ . ~ ~ o o 3 I . , " J . m , :;;; . " o ;; o " ~ ~. o j ~~ g~ 0", ':$ . . =15. 8=> ~ u . i3 u c . ~ " ~ ~ "i' w u E .; . " o ~ . << "'" ~~ oil d:, E ~a .S:<\l ~"' Agenda Item No. 8B September 28, 2010 Page 134 of 157 Attachment A Collier County Impact Fee Indexing - 2010 Collier County has used impact fees as a funding source for growth-related capital improvements for various facilities since 1978. The most recently adopted impact fee is the Law Enforcement Impact Fee which was adopted by the Board in 2005. In October of 2002, the Board directed that during the upcoming required three-year updates of the individual impact fees that methodology also be developed to provide for the annual indexing of the fees in the years between the formal updates. On February 28, 2006, the Board of County Commissioners directed that the indexing methodology for each of the impact fees be reviewed and revised, as appropriate, to reflect localized information and develop a legally defensible indexing program, specific to Collier County. The "Collier County Impact Fee Indexing Study," identified four measures (land costs, building costs, building equipment costs and transportation costs) to be used, alone or in combination, to calculate the annual index for each of Collier County's impact fees. The methodology then used the calculated indexes over a 10 year period fitted with a linear regression analysis. This method had an overall smoothing effect on the index and therefore the index was slower to increase in years of escalating costs and slower to decrease in years that costs were declining. The study was presented to the Board of County Commissioners on May 22. 2007 for their review, consideration and direction. The Board accepted the findings of the report and the "Collier County Impact Fee Indexing Study" and associated rate schedules were adopted by the Board on June 26, 2007 via Ordinance No 2007-57 with a delayed effective date of January I, 2008. At the October 15, 2008 meeting, the Productivity Committee unanimously approved the following recommendation relative to the proposed impact fee indexing: "That the Board of County Commissioners defer a decision on impactfee adjustments as proposed until such time the methodology can be reassessed .. This request was due in part to the desire of the Productivity Committee to consider the appropriateness of an indexing model that is more sensitive to the current economic conditions. On October 28, 2008 at the regular meeting of the Board of County Commissioners, under the Communications Section of the Agenda. the Board directed that the Productivity Committee be afforded the opportunity to review the indexing methodology and that the County's impact fee consultants, Tindale-Oliver and Associates, Inc. (TOA) would assist with the review. Agenda Item No. 8B September 28, 2010 Page 135 of 157 On February 18, 2009, the Productivity Committee reviewed the materials prepared and presented by the impact fee consultant and unanimously recommended that the methodology for annual indexing should be revised from the use of regression analysis to the use of the average cost change over a two year period, as this method is intended to be more responsive to cost fluctuations. The Board of County Commissioners adopted Ordinance 2009-17 on April 28, 2009, which amended the Code to reflect the use of a two-year average to calculate the various indices, as recommended. In 2010 Community Parks, Regional Parks and Road Impact Fees are scheduled to be indexed using the adopted (2-year average) methodology. The remaining impact fees are scheduled for full studies that commenced in early 2010. The attached memo from Tindale-Oliver and Associates, Inc. provides the details of the indexing calculations. ffi Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. ~ Planning and En!;ineering Agenda Item No. 8B September 28, 2010 Page 136 of 157 June 9. 2010 Ms. Amy Patterson Impact Fee Manager Collier County Financial Administration and Housing Department 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, Florida 34104 RE: 2010 Indices Dear Ms. Patterson: Per your request, TOA calculated indices for three impact fee program areas by using the 2-year average methodology adopted by the Collier County Board of County Commissioners. The three program areas for which indices were calculated include the following: . Community Parks; . Regional Parks; and . Correctional Facilities. As part of the calculation, the Consultant obtained 2009 and 2010 figures as available for the following variables/indices: . Collier County Property Values; . Consumer Price Index; . Producer Price Index; . Engineering News Record Building Cost Index; . Turner Building Cost Index; and . RS Means Building Cost Index. Table I provides a summary of updated indices for each inventory component and provides a comparison to 2009 figures. 1000 North Ashley Drive, Suite 100, Tampa, Florida 33602 . Phone: (813) 224~8662 . Fax: (813) 226-2106 1595 Souttl Semoran Boulevard, Building 7, Suite 1540, Winter Park, Florida 32792 . Phone: (407) 657-9210 . Fax: (407) 657-9106 195 South Central Avenue, Bartow. Florida 33830. Phone: (863) 533-8454 . Fax: (863) 533.8481 Agenda Item No. 88 September 28, 2010 Page 137 of 157 Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Pl:uming :md Eugineering Ms. Amy Pafferaon June 9, 2010 Page 20'4 Table 1 2010 Component Indices Buildin Land E ui menWehicles 1.1% 1.3% -0.2% (1) Calculated using 2008 and 2009 data, except for the land value component, for which the average of2009 and 2010 is used. (2) Calculated using 2007 and 2008 data (3) 2009 Index (Item 2) subtracted from 2010 Index (Item I) Updated indices are used to calculate combined indices for each of the three program areas, which are shown in Table 2. 1000 North Ashley Drive, Suite 100, Tampa, Florida 33602 . Phone: (813) 224-8862 . Fax: (813) 226~2106 1595 South Semoron Bouleve.., Building 7, Su..15.\0, Winter Park, Florida 32792 . Phone: (407) 657.9210 . Fax: (407)657-9106 195 South Central Avenue, Bartow, Florida 33830 . Phone: (863) 533.8454 . Fax: (863) 533-6481 Tilldale-Oliver & Associates, rne. PlanniJlg- .uul Ell~ril)eerU1g Ms. Amy Patterson June 9, 2010 Page 30f4 Agenda Item No. 8B September 28,2010 Page 138 of 157 Table 2 2010 Combined Indices Commun' Parks: Land Site 1m rovements(') Facilities Total Cost Total Applicable Index(6) $76,028,000 $3,801,400 81 608582 $161,437.982 47.1% 2.4% 50.5% -14.3% 3.7% 3.7% -6.7% 0.1% 1.9% -4.7% Re ional Parks: Land Site Improvements(') Facilities Total Cost Total Applicable Index(6) $390,953,200 86.8% -14.3% -12.4% $35.541,200 7.9% 3.7% 0.3% $23,782,137 5.3% 3.7% 0.2% $450,276,537 -11.9% Correctional Facilities: Land Re lacement Value Building Re lacement Value E uipmem Replacement Value Total Cost Total Applicable Index!') (I) Source: Impact fee technical studies (2) Each inventory component divided by the total value of the inventory for each program area (3) Source: Table 1 (4) Percent of the inventory (Item 2) multiplied by the 2010 Index (Item 3) (5) Site improvements include improvements such as drainage, parking, utilities, grading, landscaping, etc. needed to turn raw land into buildable land. (6) Sum of indices for each component $638,000 $68,584.713 $4 483 620 $73,706,333 0.9% 93.0% 6.1% -14.3% 3.7% -0.1% 3.4% 1.1% 0.1% 3.4% 1000 North Ashley Drive, Suite 100, Tampa, Florida 33602 . Phone: (613) 224.8662 . Fax: (813) 226.2106 1595 South Semoran Boulevard, Building 7, Suite 1540, Winter Park, Florida 32792 . Phone: (407) 657-9210 . Fax: (407) 657-9106 195 South Central Avenue, Bartow, Florida 33830 . Phone: (863) 533-8454 . Fax: (863) 533.a4B1 Agenda Item No. 8B September 28, 2010 Page 139 of 157 Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. PhllllUUg ancll:J.l!:tri.neeriug' Ms. Amy Pattelson June g, 2010 Page 4 of4 If you should have any questions concerning these calculations, please do not hesitate to contact me or NilgUn Kamp. Sincerely, Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. ~ /? ?::::-4'k Steven A. Tindale, P.E., AICP President 1000 North Ashley Drive, Suite 100, Tampa, Florida 33602 . Phone: (813) 224..a862 . Fax: (813) 226.2106 1595 South Semoran Boulevard, Building 7. Suite 1540, Winter Park, Florida 3:2792 . Phone: (407) 657.0210 . Fax: (407) 657-9106 195 South Central Avenue, Bartow, Florida 33830 . Phone; (8S3) 533-8454 . Fax: (863) 533-8481 Agenda Item No. 8B September 28, 2010 Page 140 of 157 Attachment B Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Memo To: Amy Patterson, Impact Fee Manager !'rom: NilgOn Kamp, Associate Principal Date, 613012010 Re: Collier County Correctional Faciiijjes Impact Fee Index As part of the update of the indexing calculations, TOA prepared updated indices for correctional facilities and parKs impact fees. While the indices for the two parKs impact fees indicate a need to decrease these fees, the index for correctional facilities suggests a slight increase of 3.4 percent. The following paragraphs explain the reasons for this relatively fiat index, which is consistent with information obtained from architects that suggests that the construction cost for correctional facilities remained stabie over the past year. The indexing methodology adopted by the Collier County Board of County Commissioners makes use of several data sources to calculate the final fee index. While some of the data is local (such as the change in land values), others are national or regional, such as changes in building construction and equipment cost, with a slight adjustment for local costs. In the case of correctional facilities, approximately 93 percent of the inventory value consists of buildings, 6 percent comes from equipment value, and the remaining 1 percent is from land value. As such, only 1 percent of the inventory value is fully based on local data. Conversely, the inventory of parKs impact fees are dominated by the land value, and as such, calculated indices are based more heavily on local data. For buildings, the adopted methodology relies on three indices: . Engineering News Records (ENR); . Turner Construction Cost Index: and . RS Means Index. Of these, ENR and RS Means continue to show an increase in construction costs over the past two years at a reduced rate, while RS Means is showing a decrease between 2008 and 2009. As such, the combination of these three indices results in a positive change or an increase in cost. This is primarily due to a lag in capturing changes in cost as well as using national or regional figures as the basis. Agenda Item No. 8B September 28,2010 Page 141 of 157 Similarly, for equipment values, the methodology relies on the following indices: . Producer Price Index for public building fumllure (PPI); and . Consumer Price Index for the Miami - Fl Lauderdale area (CPI). Of these, while PPI continues to show an increase at a reduced rate, CPI indicates no change in cost between 2008 and 2009. As such, overall index for the equipment component is pos~ive. Land values suggest a decrease of 14 percent; however, this decrease is applied to only 1 percent of the inventory. Combination of these three Indices results in a positive index of 3.4 percent. Given that a greater percentage of the inventory is indexed based on national or regional data as opposed to local data, it may be preferable not to index correctional facilities impact fee at this time. It should be noted that discussions w~h architects involved in jail construction suggested that the construction cost for correctional facilities remained stable since last year. This is because correctional facil~ies are buill based on certain legal and safety standards and tend to have minimum amount of finishes or other optional design criteria. As such, II is difficull to reduce scope of the project to lower the cost. We hope this information is helpful. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions or need add~ional information. 2 Agenda Item No. 8B September 28, 2010 Page 142 of 157 Attachment C Transportation Impact Fee Cost and Credit Update Study - 2010 Major Components The following are the major components of the update including narratives provided by Tindale- Oliver and Associates, Inc.: Cost Component Land Cost: Historically, Collier County has experienced steady appreciation in land values, which resulted in high right-of-way (ROW) costs. Between 2003 and 2007, the total just value of the properties in the County increased by an annual average of 17 %, placing upward pressure on land acquisition costs. In early 2008, costs started to stabilize, and more recently, land values decreased significantly by an annual average of approximately 14% during the 2009/2010 period. Interviews with other communities indicated that other jurisdictions are experiencing decreases in ROW costs, primarily due to lower land values resulting from the slowdown of the real estate market. Construction Cost: Similarly, construction costs in Collier County and throughout Florida have been volatile in recent years. Costs increased significantly between 2005 and 2007 due to additional construction demand caused by hurricanes, housing market growth and other factors. In early 2008, costs started to stabilize, and more recently, costs decreased significantly due to the economic conditions and increase competition for projects. From 2006/07 to 200911 0, the average number of bidders per FDOT contract has increased from 3.4 to 6.0, while the number of contracts below estimate has increased steadily. Despite material price pressure, subcontractors continue to reduce quotes. Related to State roads. trends, which include present bids and estimates obtained from FDOT, indicate reductions in State road construction costs in 2008 and 2009. It should be noted that, so far, FDOT has not bid any lane addition projects in 2010. The cost component was updated based on construction bids, estimates and other coat information obtained both for projects in Collier County and other Florida counties. The components updated included construction, ROW, design, CEI, mitigation, interchange and carrying costs. Currently, utility relocation costs are included as part of the transportation impact fee. However, the general practice statewide is to include these costs as part of the utility impact fees and/or utility rate. Because the utility impact fees are currently being updated, until the revised study is completed and adopted, the utility costs will remain as part of the transportation impact fee. After the appropriate changes are made to the utility impact fees/rates, the utility relocation costs will be removed from the transportation impact fee, which upon Board review and approval, further reduces the fee. This is estimated to occur by early 2011. Agenda Item No. 8B September 28,2010 Page 143 of 157 Credit Component With the economic downturn, resources available for roadway construction have been decreasing. The updated credit component reflects the decrease in the availability of non-impact fee funding sources for roads. Overall, the credit decreased by approximately 18%. Conclusion The resulting rate reductions from the Cost and Credit Update are an average decrease of 32% for both residential and commercial construction, proposed to become effective October 8, 2010. An additional average reduction of approximately 10% will be reviewed and considered by the Board of County Commissioners after the appropriate changes are made to the utility impact fees/rates, for a total average decrease of 42%. Agenda Item No. 88 September 28, 2010 Page 144 of 157 Attachment D - DRAFT SAMPLE ROAD IMPACT FEE RATE SCHEDULE with Utility Relocates Removed Impact Fee Land Use Category Rate Residential Assisted Living Facility (ALF) CondofTownhouse (1-2 Stories) High-Rise Condominium (3+ Stories) Mobile Horne Multi-Family (Apartments) 1-10 Stories Multi-Family (Apartments) > I 0 Stories Retirement Community Single Family Detached House Less than 1.500 sq. ft. 1,500 to 2,499 sq. ft. 2,500 sq. ft. or larger $],915.99 $906.00 Per Dwelling Unit $5,168.99 $4.537.00 Per Dwelling Unit $3,759.90 $3.292.00 Per Dwelling Unit $2,919.90 $2.553.00 Per Dwelling Unit $5,329.90 $4.599.00 Per Dwelling Unit $3.330.09 $2.923.00 Per Dwelling Unit $2,582.00 $2.266.00 Per Dwelling Unit $5,137.90 $4.510.00 Per Dwelling Unit $6. 985 .00 $6.133.00 Per Dwelling Unit $7,897.00 $6.934.00 Per Dwelling Unit Non-Residential Auto Sales - Luxury Auto Sales - NewlUsed Bank/Savings: Drive~In Bank/Savings; Walk-In Business Park Car Wash - Automatic $19,113.99 $8.874.00 Per 1,000 sq. ft. $16,17I.90 $]4.451.00 Per 1,000 sq. ft. $26.76290 $23.405.00 Per 1,000 sq. ft. $26,281.00 $22.984.00 Per 1,000 sq. ft. $9.171.00 $8.317.00 Per 1.000 sq. ft. $25,957.90 $22.663.00 Per 1.000 sq. ft. $21,082.00 $21.026.00 Per Service Bay $5.721.00 $5.022.00 Per 1,000 sq. ft. Car Wash - Self-Service Church Underlined text is added; gtfuelc tkrsYgfl text is deleted Agenda Item No. 8B September 28, 2010 Page 145 of 157 Impact Fee Land Use Category Rate College/University (Private) <7,501 Students $I,~IO.OO $1.413_00 Per Student >7,500 Students SI,21S.00 $1.067.00 Per Student Convenience Store (24 hours) $~1,173.00 $56.128.00 Per 1.000 sq. ft. Convenience Store w/Gas Pumps $21,815.00 $21.534.00 Per Fuel Position Dance Studios/Gymnastics S7,~~>.OO $6,712.00 Per 1,000 sq. ft. Day Care $9+9-,00 $856.00 Per Student Furniture Store $2, 197.00 $2.189_00 Per 1,000 sq. ft. Gasoline/Service Station U,395.00 $4.666.00 Per Fuel Position General Light Industrial $>,2~ 1.00 $4.6J9.00 Per 1,000 sq. ft. Golf Course $> 19,91 ~.OO $456.527.00 Per 18 Holes Home Improvement Store $~,~92.00 $5.849.00 Per 1,000 sq. ft. Hospital $11.100.00 $10,015.00 Per 1,000 sq. ft. Hotel $1, 159.00 $3.915.00 Per Room Hotel - All Suites $2,~77.00 $2.350.00 Per Room Marina $2,3&9.00 $2.098.00 Per Berth (DrylWet) Mine/Commercial Excavation $&,00 $6.00 Per 1,000 cubic yards Mini~Warehouse $1,071.00 $941.00 Per 1,000 sq_ ft. Motel $2,&51.00 $2.503.00 Per Room Movie Theater $30,717.00 $26.868.00 Per Screen Nursing Home $&11.00 $738.00 Per Bed Office 50,000 sq. ft. or less $11,2&6.00 $9.905.00 Per 1,000 sq. ft. Office 50,001-100,000 sq. ft. $9,620.00 $8.443.00 Per 1,000 sq. ft. Office 100,001-200,000 sq. ft. S8,208.00 $7,205.00 Per 1,000 sq. ft. Office 200,001-400,000 sq. ft. $6,998.00 $6.142.00 Per 1,000 sq. ft. Office Greater than 400,000 sq. ft. $6,375.00 $5.596.00 Per 1,000 sq. ft. Office - Medical $27,083.00 $23.776.00 Per 1,000 sq. ft. Pharmacy/Drug Store $9,373.00 $8.186.00 Per 1,000 sq. ft. Quick Lube $9,660.00 $8.444.00 Per Servuce Bay Restaurant - Drive-In $91,307.00 $79.737.00 Per 1,000 sq. ft. Restaurant - High Turnover $1,638.00 $1.435.00 Per Seat Underlined text is added; Stroel: thrBl:lgB text is deleted DRAFT ._ ._ __.,._._____.___",_~__"_,,._._"".._..._,.,_ ,_...."_,._.",.__~..,._..~~_.._"""..'"'_....._~_.,h __. Agenda Item No. 8B September 28,2010 Page 146 of 157 Impact Fee Land Use Category Rate Restaurant - Quality $1,032.00 $904.00 Per Seat Retail 50,000 Sq. Ft. or Less $13.213.00 $11.555.00 Per 1,000 sq. ft. Retail 50,001-100,000 Sq. Ft. $13,399.00 $11.706.00 Per 1,000 sq. ft. Retail 100.001-150,000 Sq. Ft. $12..00.00 $10.924.00 Per 1,000 sq. ft. Retail 150,001-200,000 Sq. Ft. $11,971.00 $10.465.00 Per 1.000 sq. ft. Retail 200,001-400,000 Sq. Ft. $11.nO.OO $9.909.00 Per 1.000 sq. ft. Retail 400,001-600.000 Sq. Ft. $11 ,307.00 $9.896.00 Per 1,000 sq. ft. Retail 600,001-1.000,000 Sq. Ft. $12.25~.00 $10.740.00 Per 1,000 sq. ft. Retail> I ,000,000 Sq. Ft. $12.887.00 $11.296.00 Per 1,000 sq. ft. Retail - Specialty $17,962.00 $15.728.00 Per 1,000 sq. ft. R V Park $1,553.00 $1.363.00 Per Site School - Elementaty (Private) ~ $623.00 Per Student School - Middle (Private) ~ $870.00 Per Student School - High School (Private) $1.019.00 $920.00 Per Student Supermarket $17,708.00 $15.466.00 Per 1.000 sq. ft. Tire Store $7.385.00 $6457.00 Per Service Bay Underlined text is added; ~tRJ6l;; tfirstl.gR text is deleted DRAFT Agenda Item No. 8B September 28,2010 Page 147 of 157 Attachment E Impact Fee Comparisons Single-Family Office Retail General Industrial COLLIER COUNTY IMPACT FEES September 28,2010 Page 148 of 157 2010 CURRENT vs. PROPOSED INDEXING/ROAD STUDY 2,000 SQUARE FOOT SINGLE FAMILY HOME "Note: Transportation Impact Fees will become effective in two phases. Phase 1 proposed effective 10/8/2010 with a decrease of 33%. Phase 2 effective early 2011. The full decrease is reflected below. r IMPACT FEE I I I I DIFFERENCE I % CURRENT I PROPOSED CHANGE I I I COM. PARKS i ;J I I i I $1,254.04 I ($61.85) (4.7%) $1,315.89 , I i : I REG. PARKS I 2,420.51 2,132.47 ] I (288.04) II (11.9%) I I I I I I I I I II I LIBRARY I 583.19 583.19 I 0 0 I 1 '- ~ , , I I~ , I I SCHOOL I 10,755.41 10,755.41 I 0 L L I I I I I I II ROAD * i 10,372 , 6,133 I (4,239) (41%) L I r ~ 129.27 I I 0 II 0 EMS I 129.27 . I ~_____~J , I I I I , II I , I GOV. BLDG. 949.89 949.89 I 0 Ii 0 I 1 I LAW ENF. I 358.67 358.67 I I 0 II 0 I I i I I I ! II I JAIL 491.75 I 491.75 0 0 I I FIRE 600 I 600 I 0 I~ (GG) 1 l ,-_---------! WATER 3,575 I I 3,575 I 0 II 0 I I I I SEWER 3,495 I i 3,495 I I 0 II 0 I I' I TOTAL $35,046.58 I $30,457.69 I I ($4,588.89) ! I (13.1%) I , , "Note: Transportation Impact Fees will become effective in two phases. Phase 1 proposed effective 10/812010 with a decrease of 33%. Phase 2 effective early 2011. The full decrease is reflected below. I IMPACT FEE I I CURRENT I l PROPOSED I I DIFFERENCE I % CHANGE i ROAD * I I $167,630 I I $99,050 II $68,580 I~ I EMS I I 1,575.80 I I 1,575.80 II 0 II 0 I I GOV. BLDG. I I 8,486.60 I I 8,486.60 I I 0 I~ J. LAW ENF. I I 2,282.50 l I 2,282.50 I I 0 II 0 l I JAIL i I 3,645.40 I I 3,645.40 I I 0 l~ I I I I I I , I I~ FIRE 9,900 9,900 I 0 (GG) I I I I i I i I I~ I WATER 13,743 I 13,743 I 0 I , I SEWER I I 14,092 I i 14,092 I I 0 I~ I I i TOTAL [ I $221,355.30 I I $152,775.30 ! I ($68,580) II (31%) J I COLLIER COUNTY IMPACT FEES 2010 CURRENT VB. PROPOSED INDEXING/ROAD STUDY 10,000 SQUARE FOOT OFFICE BUILDING September 28, 2010 Page 149 of 157 . .._.^.,,__._.....,,_.'~..,,~__,~~_,_,____,..'~.~,' _,.~..,,~_.~.,__~.____"_.~__n'. COLLIER COUNTY IMPACT FEES 2010 CURRENT va. PROPOSED INDEXING/ROAD STUDY 10,000 SQUARE FOOT RETAIL BUILDING ge September 28,2010 Page 150 of 157 "Note: Transportation Impact Fees will become effective in two phases. Phase 1 proposed effective 10/8/2010 with a decrease of 33%. Phase 2 effective early 2011. The full decrease is refiected below. gen a em o. September 28, 2010 Page 151 of 157 COLLIER COUNTY IMPACT FEES 2010 CURRENT VB. PROPOSED INDEXING/ROAD STUDY 10,000 SQUARE FOOT GENERAL INDUSTRIAL BUILDING "Note: Transportation Impact Fees will become effective in two phases. Phase 1 proposed effective 10/8/2010 with a decrease of 33%. Phase 2 effective early 2011. The full decrease is reflected below. [IMPACT FEE I I CURRENT I I $77,320 I I 651.10 I I 3,507.60 I I 1,123.10 I I 1,771.40 i I 9,900 i I 13,743 I I 14,092 l I $122,108.20 I PROPOSED II DIFFERENCE I CH:~GE $46,190 II $31,130 I ~ 651.10 II 3,507.60 I I 1,123.10 I I 1,771.40 I I 9,900 \ I 13,743 I I 14,092 J I $152,775.30 I I o II 0 I o I~ o I~ o I~ o l~ o I~ o I~ $31,130 I (25.4%) I Agenda Item No. 8B September 28,2010 Page 152 of 157 \... Sorving .11 of Collirr Connty September 15, 20lO Board of County Commissioners Hon Fred Coyle, Chairman 3301 E. Tamiami Trail Naples, FL 341] 2 RE: Impact fees Dear Commissioner Coyle: The Chamber's public policy leadership would like to share it.o;; point of view with you as you consider transportation impact fees at the next commission meeting on September 28, 2010, It is our hope these views lend perspective, spur action, and impart support to your next steps in this arena. OUT leadership respectfully requests your consideration of the following vital changes. We are confident these recommendations can have significant impact on economic recovery and will help to ease the burden so many are currently experiencing in our community. Additionally. they allow positioning cfeallier County fOT the future. Prevalent is the understanding that we are maturing as a community and as such are shifting from a population service sector based economy. which provided the infrastructure we currently enjoy, to a knowledge driven economy that will benefit from existing infrastructure to thrive and grow. To that end, new impact fee policies reflective of this change must be forthcoming, but require steady and strategic development. We understand this initiative requires longer tenn planning. Short term and immediately. we beseech your consideration of the following specific modifications to encourage economic recovery and future opportunity: 1. A 50 percent reduction in the transportation impact fee (supponing data relative to capacity and process to come). 2. Modify collection policy to collection at time of and in conjunction with issuance of a building permit for the relevant phase of the development Maintain reduced impact fee levels for a minimum period of two years If of the Chamber's public policy leadership, Michael V. Rea en, Ph. President & CEO The Greater Naples Chamber of Commerce & Leadership Collier Foundation Agenda Item No. 8B September 28,2010 Page 153 of 157 Memorandum To: Leo E. Ochs, Jr., County Manager From: Nick Casalanguida, Deputy Administrator, Growth Management Division Amy Patterson, Impact Fee and Economic Development Manager cc: Mark Isackson, Director - Corporate Financial and Management Services Norman Feder, Administrator, Growth Management Division Date: September 19, 2010 Subject: Analysis of the Proposed Transportation Impact Fee Cost and Credit Update Scheduled for September 28, 2010 BCC compared to Greater Naples Chamber of Commerce (GNCC) proposal. The Transportation Index was calculated using the adopted two-year average methodology, resulting in a calculated index of -5.6%. In past years, the Producer's Price Index (PPI) was included as part of the index to moderate the steep increase in the Florida Department of Transportation cost estimates. However, in 2010 noticeable cost decreases were experienced throughout the State of Florida, including the FDOT numbers, therefore the smoothing effect of the PPI was not required to moderate the costs. Removal of the PPI component resulted in a calculated index of -12.8%. Because of the notable cost decreases recently experience throughout Florida, staff proposed a more detailed analysis. Tindale-Oliver and Associates, Inc. (TOA) agreed with staff that it was appropriate to undertake a further review of the cost and credit components of the Road Impact Fee, by way of a "Cost and Credit Update." The update analyzes the key components of the Road Impact Fee calculations which develop the impact fee rates and would provide an immediate true up of the rate. A detailed review of that effort along with the corresponding impact was explained in a memorandum to the CCPC dated September 9ili,201O. On September I5ili, 2010, the GNCC presented a position letter requesting that the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) consider an alternative proposal to the transportation impact fee cost and credit update. Their proposal contains the following key components: . A 50% decrease in the Transportation Impact Fee . A two year Rate Lock . A policy change to collect fees at Building Permit Collier County Government Agenda Item No, 8B September 28,2010 Page 154 of 157 The staff recommended Cost and Credit Update proposes an average decrease of 32% for both residential and commercial construction to be effective October 8, 2010. An additional reduction of aPDroximatelv 10% will be reviewed and considered by the Board of County Commissioners after the appropriate changes are made to the utility impact fees/rates, for a total decrease of 42%. Fiscal AnaIvsis: I. Project Impact: Impact fee revenues for the five year period are currently projected at $67,500,000. A 42% decrease in anticipated collections will require a reduction of $28.350.000 in revenue projections. The GNCC proposal would require a reduction of -$30.050.000 in revenue projections. This would result in an additional reduction of -$1.700.000.The reduction in revenues will require an equal reduction in expenditures. . There are two capital projects, several Right of Way acquisition (ROW) projects and one new bridge project identified in the five year work program: o US-41/SR-CR951 Intersection Improvements, Value ~ $15,390,000 . Primarily funded by FDOT-DCA-CIGP dollars. o Collier Blvd. 6 lane & ROW (Golden Gate Blvd. to Green Blvd.), Value ~ $33,200,000 . TRIP Grant, Value ~ $7.000,000 o Golden Gate Blvd ROW. Value ~ $8.900,000 o Collier Blvd. ROW (N GG Canal to Green Blvd), Value ~ $2,500,000 . TRIP Grant. V alue ~ 52,400,000 o Vanderbilt Beach Road Ext. ROW, Value ~ $10,300.000 o Oil Well Road ROW, Value ~ $1,500,000 o 23,d Street SW Bridge and Roadway Improvements, Value ~ -$3,000,000 . In order to balance the CIE with revenue projections from the anticipated Cost and Credit update, the following changes are being proposed by staff: o Collier Boulevard (GGB to Green) will be removed from the program. . Savings ~ -$20.200.000 . Loss of $7.000.000 TRIP Grant o The remaining reduction of -$8.150.000 would be eliminated from the proposed ROW program varying by year and project. Collier County Government Agenda Item No. 8B September 28, 2010 . In order to balance the CIE with revenue projections from the additional reduction ~.s~ tlY157 GNCC, the following changes would be recommended: o 23'" Street SW Bridge and Roadway Improvements would be removed from the program. . Savings: -$3.000.000 o The remaining funds of -+$1.300.000 would be added back to the proposed ROW program varying by year and project. 2. Fee Impact: The GNCC proposal would cause an arbitrary 8% negative delta in fees collected compared to impacts presented from future growth. This would implicate that future existing residential and commercial property owners would be required to pay for the backlog incurred during this period. 3. Carrying Cost Impact: The GNCC proposal of paying Impact Fees at Building Permit would defer the collection of fees closer to the impact of new growth. It takes approximately five to seven years to have facilities in place. In order to have the impact of new development closely meet the timing of the corresponding facilities, the burden of financing the initial phases of design, permitting and ROW acquisition would be placed on the community. Ooerational AnaIvsis: I. The GNCC proposes to collect impact fee revenues at Building Permit compared to the existing five year payment plan of 20% each year. . The current program "banks trips" and collects fees at project approval of Plat or SOP. This is based on currently adopted requirements in the GMP, LOC and the consolidated Impact Fee Ordinance. Changes would be required to some or all of these documents in order to facilitate this request. This would also require stakeholder input, public vetting and public hearings through the OSAC, CCPC and BCe. . Fee collections at Plat or SOP and the associated banking of trips regulates development to reserving capacity for what the development community could actually afford and deliver within the 5 year period. It inhibits the over banking of trips and the ability of one developer from consuming all the capacity. Moving to a Building Permit initiated system would be problematic without a corresponding reservation system in place. 2. The existing Concurrency Management System (CMS) is a detailed accounting of reserved trips and forecasting that facilitates an accurate AUIR preparation. The system distributes trips on the affected links based on anticipated impacts of the proposed development. It is based on the existing reservation system and five year payment plan. . Analyzing concurrency at Building permit would not provide surety for the development community and would not allow staff to accurately track and forecast the impacts. . Staff would have to perform a detailed analysis of the CMS and work with the development community to develop a new system to identify a fair and equitable process for reserving capacity and maintaining real time concurrency. Existinl! Conditions Analvsis: Collier County Government Agenda Item No. 8B September 28,2010 1. The GNCC proposal suggests that an arbitrary reduction of an additional 8% percent iilaoe lifijilllft 157 fee rate for two years and deferring collections to Building Permit would spur additional growth. . Collier County has approximately 4,500 residential units and approximately 1,200,000 square feet of commercial space that have paid their impact fees in full. There are no additional road impact fees due and these properties could seek building permits today without any additional road impact fees required. Analyses from similar communities that have suspended impact fees altogether have not shown any significant increase in building activity. In 2009 the BCC reviewed a full Transportation Impact Fee study and reduced rates by an average of 6% for residential and 18% for commercial land uses. .,..-' . Collier County has two identified existing deficiencies that are unfunded based on the proposed AUIR/CIE. Collier Boulevard from Golden Gate Boulevard to Green Boulevard and Golden Gate Boulevard from Wilson Boulevard to Desoto Boulevard. These are planned and existing deficiencies respectively. The county currently risks a finding from DCA for lack of compliance with F.S. 163 and rule 9J-5 (real time concurrency). An additional reduction in fees that is not based on a technical study would provide further evidence to DCA that the county is not funding existing and planned deficiencies. This may require setting up a long range CMS for the failing links. Conclusion: The proposed 42% reduction is based on a technical cost and credit report that quantifies the actual cost new growth would pay for the corresponding capacity. The proposed reduction is in addition to the 2009 average reduction of 6% for residential and 18% for commercial construction. Additional reductions beyond that would become a burden on existing property owners at some future date and further impact the county's ability to maintain compliance with F.S. ] 63. The county has a significant amount of prepaid residential density and commercial space that is developing based on demand and is not inhibited by the impact fee. Modifying the fee collection stage to Building Permit would require public vetting, public hearings and codification. This process would take three to six months. The GNCC recommendation does not consider these impacts in their proposal. Should the BCC wish to consider the GNCC proposal, staff recommends that a more detailed analysis is conducted so the BCC can evaluate the cost to benefit before making a final decision. Collier County Government Agenda Item No, 8B September 28, 2010 Page 157 of 157 18D . Friday, September 17, 2010 · Naples Daily News _.~...." ^~__,"__~^'~"__'.'__'_n' _." W,_",_ ~,~,.,^v_,,,.~o _."_._"_'_~ ". ._.. _ ,w_. . NOTICE'OFINTENT TO CONSIDERORbINANdi' Noti~e is hereby given that on Tuesday, September 28. '2010, in the~C;)iird';.oom. 3rd Floor, Administration Building, Collier County Government Center, 330~ East Tamiami Trail, Naples,F,I.orida. th~ Board of. County Commissioners_ ,will .-consider the ena~ment,.ot,' a :::C~lun~ ,:Or,~ina!,ce. ";1~~ ,m~~lD9' wIJ'~':9ln;\.fl1fl,n'e./at '9;~A.M; The title ofthe'proposedOr'olnance IsasJol!ows: ";-'" . -,'.~', .,;. .". AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD Of COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COUIER COUN~ TY, FLORIDA. AMENOING CHAPTER 74 OF THE COlliER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES (THE. COLLIER 'COUNTY CONSOLlOATOO IMPACT FEE OROI, NANCE) BY INCORPORATING BY REFERENCE THE "COLLIER COUNTY TRANSPORTA- TION IMPACT FEE COST AND CREDIT UPDATO STUDY" WHICH IS AN AMENDMENT TO THE ADOPTED "COLLIER COUNTY TRANSPORTATlON"IMPACT FEE' UPDATE STUDY"; AMENOING THE ROAO IMPACT FEE RATE SCHEDULE, "WHICH IS SCHEDULE ONE OF AI'PENDIX A. AS SET FORTH' IN THE COST ANO CREDIT UPDA TO. WHICH PROVIOES FOR A REDUCTION IN RATES; Ar,lENDING THE PARKS AND REcREATION IMPACT FEE RATE SCHEDULE, WHICH IS SCHEDULE THREE OF APPENDIX A, ,IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ADOPTED ,INDEXING METHODOLO~Y, UTILIZING A1W1;}- YEAR AVERAGE, WHICH PROV.IDES FOR A REDUCTION tNRATES; ACCEPTING THE CALCULAll0N OF THE INDEXING PERCENTAGE FOR.THE .CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES IMPACT FEE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ADOPTED INDEXING METHODOLOGY,UT- ILlZING A TWO-YEAR AVERAGE, BUT PROVIOINGTHAT THE CURRENT CORRECTION- Al FACILITIES IMPACT FEE RATES, REMAIN IN EFFECT RATHER THAN IN-CREASING THE FEES AS CALCULATED; PROVIDING FOR CONFLICT AND SEVERABILITY; PROVID- ING FOR INCLUSION IN THE COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES; AND PROVIDING fOR A DELAYED EFFECTIVE DATE OF OCTOBER 8,2010. Copies of the proposed Ordinance are on file with the Clerk to the Board arld are available for inspection. All interested parties are invited to attend and be heard. NOTE:- All persons 'Wishing to speak on any agenda item mw.t register with the County administrator .pripr to presentation of the agenda item to be addressed. Individual speakers will be limited to 3 minutes on any item. The selection of an in. dividual to speak on behalf of an organization or group i~ encouraged. If recog~ nized by the Chairman, a spokesperson for a group or or:ganization may be allotted 10 minutes to ~peak on an item Persons wishing to have written or graphic materials included in the Board agenda packets must submit said material a minimum of 3 weeks prior to the respKtive public hearing. In. any case, written materials intended to be considered by the Board shall be submitted to the appropriate County ,staff a minimum of seven days prior to the publiC hearing. All material u~ed in presentations before the Board will become a permanent part of the record. Any person who decides to appeal'ade<:ision of the Board will need a record of the proceedings pertaining thereto and therefore, may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings i~ made, which record includes the testimony and evi. dence upon which the appeal is base~. If you are a person with a disability who needs any accommodation in order to par- tiopate in thiS proceedin.g; you are entitled, at no cost to you, to the provision of certain assistance. Please contact the Collier County Facilities Management Depart- ment, located at 3301 Tamiami Trail East, Building W, Naples, Florida 34112, (239) 252-8380. Assisted l.istening devices for the hearing impaired are available in the CountY Commissioners' Office. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COLLIER COUNTY. FLORIDA FRED COYLE, CHAIRMAN DWIGHT E. BROCK, ClERK By: Ann Jennejohn, Deputy Clerk (SEALI 'il'lntl'lmbpr 17 Jn1 0 Nn1B6R687 ~~--,~_......_-_.__....~._-~._~~..' ----"_._-~'-