Agenda 05/12/2009 Item # 8A
Agenda Item No. 8A
May 12, 2009
Page 1 of 51
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners adopt an Ordinance
amending Chapter 74 of the Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances (The
Collier County Consolidated Impact Fee Ordinance) by providing for the
incorporation by reference of the impact fee study entitled the "The Collier County
Correctional Facilities Impact Fee Update Study," dated April 21, 2009; amending
Schedule Four of Appendix A to reflect the revised rates set forth in the impact fee
study and providing for a delayed effcctive date of August 11, 2009, in accordance
with the 90-day notice period required hy Section 163.31801 (3)(d), Florida Statutes
OBJECTIVE: That the Board of County Commissioners (Board) adopt an Ordinance
amending Chapter 74 of the Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances (Code), which
is the Collier County Consolidated Impact Fee Ordinance, providing for the incorporation
by reference of the impact fee study cntitled "The Collier County Correctional Facilities
Impact Fee Update Study," dated April 21, 2009; amending Schedule Four to reflect the
revised rates set forth in the impact fee study and providing for a delayed effective date of
August II, 2009, in accordance with the 90-day notice period required by Section
163.31801 (3)(d), Florida Statutes. This full study was performed in accordance with
Section 74-502 of the Code which requires that impact fees be updated at least every
three years.
CONSIDERATIONS: Impact fees are collected in order to provide a source ofrevenue
to fund the construction or improvement of public facilities necessitated by growth.
Impact fees require development to contribute its fair share to the cost of improvements
and additions to infrastructure, but may not be in excess of the amount anticipated to
offset the demand on the respective facility. As such, Collier County has used impact
fees as a funding source for growth-related capital improvements related to Correctional
Facilities since June of 1999.
On September 27, 2005, the Board of County Commissioners (Board) adopted Ordinance
No. 2005-47, thereby updating the Con'ectional Facilities Impact Fee for the first time
since its inception.
On May 9, 2006, the Board adopted Resolution No. 2006-121, through which the
Correctional Facilities Impact Fee rates were indexed. Based on Board direction, 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. This ordinance established the current Correctional Facilities Impact
Fee rate schedule.
As stated above, the requirement for the update of impact fees "at least every three years"
is set forth by Section 74-502 of the Code. In keeping with the formal update
requirement, on January 15,2008, the County directed its impact fee consultant, Tindale-
Oliver and Associates, Inc.. to proceed with the update to the Con'ectional Facilities
Agenda Item No. SA
May 12, 2009
Page 2 of 51
Impact Fee. The attached report describes the technical and legal framework and
methodology used to complete this update study.
The following is a brief summary of the significant changes embodied in the update
study:
. Since the previous study the Naples Jail has been completed, and the total
inventory of square footage has increased by 63%.
. Cost and interest components have been updated to retlect cun'ent figures.
. Equipment costs have been updated, and increased, to retlect the full inventory of
equipment related to the Jail expansion, that was not included in the last study.
. Land value was added to this update due to the future requirement to purchase
land.
. A credit component was included to recognize a small amount of non-impact fee
revenue used to purchase equipment.
. The previous study was based on call volume per land use. It has been
determined that a population driven approach is more accurate for measuring
demand for con'ectional facilities. This is the same methodology approach used
for Law Enforcement and EMS.
· The Correctional Facilities Impact Fee rate schedule has been modified and
expanded to include additional land uses. This is the same fee schedule structure
utilized by TranspOliation, Law Enforcement and Government Buildings.
On April 15, 2009, the proposed "Collier County Con-ectional Facilities Impact Fee
Update Study" was presented to the Collier County Productivity Committee for review
and consideration. The Productivity Committee voted unanimously to accept the study.
The proposed study will also be presented to the Development Services Advisory
Committee (DSAC) on May 6, 2009, for the committee's review and recommendations.
However, due to the DSAC meeting occurring only one week before this item is
scheduled to be considered by the Board, the findings and recommendations of the DSAC
will be presented, for the record. at the public hearing for this item.
FISCAL IMPACT: The following chart provides a comparison between the current
Correctional Facilities Impact Fee rates and the proposed Conectional Facilities Impact
Fee rates for some ofthe most common land uses:
Agenda Item No. SA
May 12, 2009
Page 3 of 51
Impact Fee Current Fee Proposed Fee $ Differencc % of Increase
Land Use or (Decrease)
Single-Family $230 $491.75 $261.75 114%
2.000 square feet
Multifamily $94.50 $254.15 $159.65 169%
1,500 square feet
Retail $6,110 $6,289.60 $179.60 3%
10,000 square feet
Office $2,400 $3,645.40 $1,245.00 52%
10,000 square feet
Phannacy $1,833 $1,486.41 ($346.59) (19'X,)
3,000 square feet
The chart below provides the current total estimated impact fees, and percentage of
increase or decrease, for the same land uses as above. The amounts reflected in the chart
include the adopted changes to the Road Impact Fees which are effective June 8, 2009.
Land Use Current Total Total Impact Fees with Overall %
Impact Fees* Proposed Correctional IncreasenDecrease
Facilities Impact Fees*
Single-Family $34, I 46.50 $34,408.3 I 0.8%
2,000 square feet
Multifamily $19,789.88 $19,949.53 0.8%
1,500 square feet
Retail
10,000 square feet $263,819.40 $263,999.00 0.1 o/~
Offi ce $219,401.]0 $220,646.] 0 0.6%
] 0,000 square feet
Phannacy $64,990.82 $64,644.23 (0.5%)
3,000 square feet
* Includes estimated Water and Sewer Impact Fees. Actual \Vater and Sewer Impact Fees are calculated
on information tl1at is specific to the proposed construction.
Agenda Item No. SA
May 12, 2009
Page 4 of 51
Revenue projections related to the indexing of the individual impact fees depend heavily
on the permitting trends during the time period of the impact fee increase. Any changes
in permitting activity and trends associated with the size of new homes and/or
commercial and other non-residential buildings being constructed in Collier COlmty will
directly affect this impact fee revenue stream. In accordance with Section 163.3] 801,
Florida Statutes, a minimum 90-day notice is given after the final adoption of an impact
fee or impact fee increase and the implementation of the fee. This allows permits that are
"in process" via a complete building permit application to remain at the then-current rates
and are therefore not subject to imposition of increased impact fees. Based on the 90-day
notice requirement the effective date of the amended rate schedules will be August II,
2009.
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 projected increase generated by this impact fee study and
associated revisions to the impact .fee rate schedule is 7%, which equates to
approximately $36,948, assuming that' development activity remains constant. Any
further decline in activity will also directly affect the impact fees collections.
Additionally, any increases to the impact fee revenue generated by this proposed change
will not be recognized in Fiscal Year 2009 due to the timetrame for public hearing and
adoption and the reqnired 90-day notice period.
GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: Impact Fees generate funds to be expended
for capital improvements to public facilities necessitated by growth. The adoption of the
proposed COlTectional Facilities Impact Fee is 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 of facility
improvements necessitated by growth."
Additionally, this update study complies with the proVISIOns of 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: This proposed Ordinance was reviewed by the County
Attorney and is legally sufficient for Board action. This is a regular agenda item
requiring simple majority vote. -JAK
RECOMMENDATION: That the Board of County Commissioners adopt an Ordinance
amending Chapter 74 of the Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances, which is the
Collier County Consolidated Impact Fee Ordinance, providing for the incorporation by
reference of the impact fee study entitled 'The Collier County Correctional Facilities
Impact Fee Update Study," dated April 21, 2009; amending Schedule Four to reflect the
revised rates set forth in the impact fee study: and providing for a delayed effective date
of August II, 2009, in accordance with the 90-day notice period required by Section
163.31801 (3)(d), Florida Stalutes.
Prepared by: Amy Patterson, Impact Fee and Economic Development Manager, CDES
"-
Item Number:
Item Summary:
Meeting Date:
Page ] of 1
Agenda Item No. SA
May 12, 2009
Page 5 of 51
COLLIER COUNTY
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
SA
This Item to be heard at 10:30 a.m Recommendation that the Board of County
Commissioners 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 The Collier County
Correctional Facilities Impact Fee Update Study, dated April 21,2009; amending Schedule
Four to reflect the revised rates set forth in the impact fee study and providing for a delayed
effective date of August 11, 2009, in accordance with the 90-day notice period required by
Section 163.31801 (3)(d), Florida Statutes.
5112/2009900:00 AM
Prepared By
Amy Patterson
Community Development &
Environmental Services
Impact Fee Manager
Date
Financial Admin. & Housing
4/29/200910:03:47 AM
Approved By
Judy Puig
Community Development &
Environmenta! Services
Operations Analyst
Community Development &
Environmental Services Admin.
Date
4/29/200911 :34 AM
Approved By
Jeff Klatzkow
County Attorney
County Attorney
County Attorney Office
Date
4/30/2009 2:59 PM
Approved By
Joseph K. Schmitt
Community Development &
Environmental Services
Community Development &
Environmental Services Adminstrator
Date
Community Development &
Environmental Services Admin.
4/30/20094:52 PM
Approved By
Mark Isackson
County Manager's Office
Budget Analyst
Office of Management & Budget
Date
5/1/20099:20 AM
Approved By
Leo E. Ochs, Jr.
Board of County
Commissioners
Deputy County Manager
Date
County Manager's Office
5/21200911 :59 AM
fi le://C :IAgenda T estlExportl 129-May%20 12. %202009108.%20AD VER T1 SED%20PUBLl C...
5/6/2009
Agenda Item No. SA
May 12, 2009
Page 6 of 51
ORDINANCE NO. 2009-
AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING CHAPTER 74 OF THE
COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES, THAT
ORDINANCE BEING THE COLLIER COUNTY CONSOLIDATED
IMPACT FEE ORDINANCE, NO. 2001-13, AS AMENDED; PROVIDING
FOR THE INCORPORATION, BY REFERENCE, OF THE IMPACT FEE
STUDY ENTITLED "COLLIER COUNTY CORRECTIONAL
FACILITIES IMPACT FEE UPDATE STUDY"; AMENDING THE
CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES IMPACT FEE RATE SCHEDULE,
WHICH IS SCHEDULE FOUR OF APPENDIX A, AS SET FORTH IN
THE IMPACT FEE UPDATE STUDY; PROVIDING FOR CONFLICT
AND SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION IN THE CODE
OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES; AND PROVIDING FOR A DELAYED
EFFECTIVE DATE OF AUGUST 11,2009.
WHEREAS, Collier County has used impact fees as a funding source for growth-related
capital improvements for correctional facilities since 1999; and
WHEREAS, on March 13,2001, the Board of County Commissioners (Board) adopted
Ordinance No. 2001-13, the Collier County Consolidated hnpact 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
WHEREAS, on September 27, 2005, the Board of County Commissioners adopted
Ordinance No. 2005-47, thereby amending Schedule Four of Appendix A of Chapter 74 of the
Code, and establishing the County's then current Correctional Facilities hnpact Fee rates; and
WHEREAS, on June 26, 2007, the Board adopted Ordinance No. 2007-57 incorporating
the "Collier County hnpact Fee Indexing Study" through which the Correctional Facilities
Impact Fees were indexed in accordance with the prescribed methodology, thereby establishing
the rates that are currently in effect; and
WHEREAS, as Section 74-502 of the Code states that impact fee studies should be
reviewed at least every three years, the County retained Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. (the
"Consultant"), to review the existing Correctional Facilities hnpact Fees and recommend
changes to the fees where appropriate; and
WHEREAS, the Consultant has prepared an impact fee study entitled "Collier County
Correctional Facilities Impact Fee Update Study," dated April 21, 2009 (the "Study"); and
Underlined text is added; ElfUelE mrsllgl!. text is deleted
Agenda Item No. SA
May 12. 2009
Page 7 of 51
/"-
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, the Study recommends changes to the Correctional Facilities Impact Fee
rate schedule, as set forth in Schedule Four of Appendix "A" of Chapter 74 of the Collier County
Code of Laws and Ordinances; and
WHEREAS, the Study also recommends establishing the proposed impact fee rates in
order to equitably distribute the costs of acquiring and constructing public facilities based upon a
rational nexus relating com incurred by fee payers to infras1ructure impacts created by
commercial and residential land uses; and
WHEREAS, the Consultant has reviewed and updated the fee calculation methodologies
that will be imposed in an equitable and non-discriminatory manner; lmd
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; and
WHEREAS, the study methodology has been reviewed and approved by Collier
County's outside legal counsel, Nabors, Giblin and Nickerson, P.A.; and
WHEREAS, staff has thoroughly reviewed the calculations and findings, concurs with
the recommended changes to the Road Impact Fee rate schedule, and recommends that the Board
of County Commissioners adopt this Ordinance to implement the recommended changes.
NOW, mEREFORE, 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 of impact fee studies.
***
(7) Correctional facilities: "CaffoeaaBill l..mjJaet StuEly, Callier Ca1mty, FleFiEiIl,
prl3flareE! ily DlffieSll. }\BsBoiates (1"pEil 18, 2(95), as _eadeE! ''Collier Countv
Correctional Facilities Impact Fee Update Studv," prepared bv Tindale-Oliver &
Associates, Inc. (A,priI2 I. 2009); and
***
.,--"
Underlined text is added; EtfH.elE 'tftrellgft text is deleted
Page 2 00
Agenda Item No. SA
May 12, 2009
Page S of 51
SECTION TWO. Schedule Four, Correctional Facilities (Jail) Impact Fee Rate Schedule, of
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 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; however, the
effective date of the rate schedules shall be delayed to August 11,2009.
PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED by the Board of County Commissioners of Collier
County, Florida this _ day of , 2009.
ATIEST
Dwight E. Brock, Clerk
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
By:
By:
, Deputy Clerk
DONNA FIALA, Chairman
ow
tlorney
Underlined text is added; 8tfllek "SRgS text is deleted
Page 3 013
l
APPENDIX A - SCHEDULE FOUR
CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES (JAIL) IMPACT FEE RATE SCHEDULE
Effective AIl.i1lli,1908 AUl!ust 11. 2009
Impact Fee Land Use Category
Resideatial
Single F....i1y Deloehed
Other ResiaeRtial
Mobile Home/R V tie-down
Multi-Fami/v
SimIle Familv
Lcss than 1.500 sq. ft.
1 500 to 2.499 sa. ft.
2.500 sa. ft. or lare:er
Non-Residential
~
as, eFRMeRt/Ptlalie Buildings
HesfliteI
Iletet~ tetsl
lREllistfiaW.f.ar.1:IfaetHriRg
bei9HI'e.'Ol:ltElSSF
} hlfsiag IlslRe
Gl'liee
RestaarBJTt.~art.B1ftl.ge
Retail.'CemmeFeial'Resreatien
Sehe.liCeUege (P,i'.'ate)
Assisted Liviml Facilitv
Auto Sales rNewlUsed\
BanklSavimzs: Drive-In
Rate
~.
~
illtil
$254.15
$446.36
$491.75
$539.67
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
nl.!Ul
$438.99
$608.43
Per 'q. ft. (mal< 1,900 Sq. Ft. ~.r .nit)
Per sq. ft. (m"" 1,Q9Q Sq. PI. ~.FUnit)
Per Dwellin. Unit/Site
Per DwellinlZ Unit
Per Dwellim! Unit
Per DwellinlZ Unit
Per DwellinlZ Unit
Per sq.ll.
Per sq.ll.
Per sq. ft.
Pe..q. ft.
Per sl.l. ft.
Per sq. ft.
Per sq. ft.
Per sq. II.
Per Set. it.
Per sq. ft.
Persq. II.
Per DwellinQ: Unit
Per 1.000 SQ. ft.
Per 1.000 SQ. ft.
Underlined text is added; 8tRJel: 1:hFS\igh text is deleted
Agenda Item No. 8A
May 12, 2009
Page 9 of 51
Agenda Item No. 8/\
May 12, 2009
Page 10 of 51
BanklSavinl!S: Walk-In
Business Park
$659.77 Per 1.000 sa. ft.
$254.1 5 Per 1.000 sa. ft.
$156.60 Per Service Bav
$413.32 Per 1.000 sa. ft.
$146.33 Per 1.000 sa. ft.
$25.67 Per Student
$]7.97 Per Student
$1.404.26 Per 1.000 sa. ft.
$1 496.68 Per Fuel Position
$12.84 Per Student
$61.61 Per l.000 sa. ft.
$508.31 Per Fuel Position
$4.990.64 Per] 8 Hales
$456.96 Per 1.000 sa. ft. '
$423.59 Per 1.000 sa. ft.
$202.81 Per Room
$177.14 Per LOOn sa, ft.
$284.96 Per I.nnn sa. ft.
$48.78 Per Berth
i!L2l Per LnOn sa. ft.
$192.54 Per Room
$1.535,19 Per Screen
$184.84 Per Bed
$364.54 Per I.onn sa. !t
lliLl1 Per LOOn sa. ft.
$282.39 Per LnOn sa. ft.
$241.32 Per LOOn sa. fl.
$2n5,38 Per 1.0nn sa. ft.
$441.56 Per 1.0nn sq. ft.
$495,47 Per 1.000 sa, ft.
$297.8n Per Service Bav
$138.63 Per Site
$2.313.05 Per 1.000 sa, ft.
$69.31 Per 1.0nO sq. ft.
$56.48 Per 1.0nn sa, ft.
Car Wash ~ Self-Service
Car Wash - Automated
Church
Col1elZelUniversitv (Private)
<7501
>75nn
Convenience Store (24 hours)
Convenience Store w/Gas PUffins
Dav Care
Furniture Store
Gasoline/Service Station
Golf Course
Home Imorovement Store
Hosoital
Hotel
Industrial. General LilZht
Luxury Auto Sales
Marina
Mini.Warehouse
Motel
Movie Theater
NursinG!. Home
Office 50.00n SQ. ft. or less
Office 50.001-!On.nOo sa. ft.
Office 100.001-200.000 sa. ft.
Office 200.001-400.000 sa. ft.
Office Greater than 400.000 sa. ft.
Office - Medical
PharmacvlDnuz Store
Ouick Lube
RV Park
Restaurant - Fast Food w/Drive.ln
Restaurant - Hieh Turnover
Restaurant ~ Oualitv
Underlined text is added; Stlllsl: tI-':Sl::Igh text is deleted
Agenda Item No. SA
May 12, 2009
Page 11 of 51
Retail 50 000 Sa. Ft. or Less $628.96 Per 1,000 so. ft.
Retail 50 001-100.000 Sa. Ft. IDill Per 1,000 so. ft.
Retail 100.001-150.000 So. Ft. $600.72 Per 1.000 sa. ft.
Retail 150.001-200 000 So. Ft. $731.65 Per 1,000 sa. ft.
Retail 200.001-400.000 So. Ft. $641.80 Per 1.000 sa. ft.
Retail 400 001-600.000 Sa. Ft. $654.64 Per I 000 sa. ft.
Retail 600.001-1,000.000 Sa. Ft. $654.64 Per 1,000 sa. ft.
Retail > 1,000.000 Sa. Ft. $536.54 Per 1.000 sa. ft.
Retail - Soecialtv $433.86 Per I 000 sa. ft.
School- Elementarv (Private) $15.40 Per Student
School - Middle (Private) $17.97 Per Student
School - Hi .h School (Private) ~ Per Student
SUDermarket ~ Per 1,000 sa. ft.
Tire Store $344.00 Per Service Bav
Underlined text is added; 81fllol, through text is deleted
Agenda Item No. SA
May 12, 2009
Page 12 of 51
COLLIER COUNTY
CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES IMPACT FEE UPDATE STUDY
FINAL REPORT
Co~r County
~~- -
April 21,2009
Prepared for:
Collier County
3301 E. Tamiami Trail
Naples, Florida 34112
Ph (239) 252-8999
Prepared by:
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Ine.
]()OO N. Ashley Dr, #100
Tampa, Florida. 33602
ph (813) 224-8862..(ax (813) 226-2106
073037-02.08
rn Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc.
~ Planning and Engineering
Agenda Item No. SA
May 12, 2009
Page 13 of 51
April 21, 2009
Ms. Amy Patterson
Impact Fee Manager
Collier County Financial Administration and Housing Department
2800 North Horseshoe Drive
Naples, Florida 34104
RE: Correctional Facilities Impact Fee Update Study
Dear Ms. Patterson:
Enclosed is the Final Technical Report for the Collier County Correctional Facilities Impact Fee Update
Study. If you should have any questions concerning this report, please do not hesitate to contact me or
Nilgiin Kamp.
It has been our pleasure to have worked with County staff on this important project.
Sincerely,
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc.
~11~~
Steven A. Tindale, P.E., AICP
President
1000 North Ashley Drive, Suite 100, Tampa, Florida 33602 . Phone: (813) 224-8862 . Fax: (813) 226-2106
1595 South Semoran Boulevard, Building 7, Suite 1540, Winter Park, Florida 32792 . Phone: (407) 657-9210 . Fax: (407) 657-9106
195 South Central Avenue, Bartow, Florida 33830 . Phone: (863) 533-8454 . Fax: (863) 533-8481
Agenda Item No. SA
May 12, 2009
Page 14 of 51
Table of Contents
Introd u ction ........ oo..oo...oo.oo.......oo...oooooooooo......oo..oooo.....ooOO'OOoooo oo.....oo.....oooooo....oo...... 1
Facility Inventory oo...oooo......oooooooooooo.oo....oo..oooooo............oo...........oooo........oooo...oooooo...oo 1
Service Area
..........................................................................................................
6
Population ....oo.......oo oo........................oo....oooooooooo..oo..................OO OO.......OO'...oooo.oo... 6
Apportionment of Demand by Residential Unit Type and Size.................... 8
Functional Population.............................. oo................. ....... ............. ... ........... 9
Residential Functional Population .......................oo....................................... 10
Nonresidential Functional Population........................................................... II
Functional Residents by Specific Land Use Category.................................. 16
Residential and Transient Land Uses................................................ 16
Non-Residential Land Uses ............................................... .............. 16
Level of Service oo....oooo.oo.oooooo........oooooo.oo......oooooo..oooooo..oo.oooooooooooo..oo...oo...oooo......oooo... 21
Cost Component oooo...........oo.....oooo.....oo...oooo.oooooo...oo....oooo........oooooooo.oooo.....oo......oooooo. 23
Credit Component oo....oo...oo....oooooooo..oo....oo.oooooo...oooooooo...oooo............oooooo.....oo...........oo 2S
Capital Expansion Expenditnre Credit.......................................................... 25
Debt Service Credit....................................................................................... 27
Net Correctional Facilities Impact Cost ...oooooo...oo.oo......oooooo...oo...oo.....oo.oooooooooo..oooo 29
Calculated Correctional Facilities Impact Fee Schedule..................................... 31
Impact Fee Schedule Comparison......................................................................... 34
List of Appendices:
Appendix A - Vacant Land Analysis - Supplementallnfon11ation
Collier County
Correctional Facilities Impact Fee Study
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc.
April 2009
Agenda Item No. 8A
May 12, 2009
Page 15 of 51
Introduction
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. (TOA) was retained by Collier County to prepare the
technical study updating the County's correctional facility impact fee. The original
correctional facility fee was adopted in 1999 and the impact fee was subsequently
updated in 2005. To ensure that the impact fee reflects the most current costs for
providing correctional facilities, the County retained TOA to conduct an update of the
County's correctional facility impact fee program.
Correctional facility impact fees are used to fund the capital construction and expansion
of related services related to land, facilities and capital equipment required to support the
additional correctional facility demand created by new growth. This report presents the
results of the correctional facility impact fee update study for the County and will serve
as the technical support document for the updated correctional facilities impact fee
schedule.
There are several major elements associated with the development of the correctional
facilities impact fee. These include:
. Facility Inventory
. Population
. Service Area
. Level of Service
. Cost Component
. Credit Component
. Net Correctional Facilities Impact Cost
. Calculated Correctional Facilities Impact Fee Schedule
. Correctional Facilities Impact Fee Comparison
Facility Inventory
The correctional facilities inventory includes the County's jails and other related facilities
that are primarily for the provision of corrections and does not include any of the
buildings or portions thereof included in the calculation of other impact fees.
According to information provided by the County, Collier County has a total of 422,000
square feet of correctional facility-related space. This includes the square footage of the
Naples Jail (old and new), the square footage of the accompanying parking garage
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc.
April 2009
Collier County
COlTectional Facilities Impact Fee Study
Agenda Item No. SA
May 12, 2009
Page 16 of 51
associated with the Naples J ail, the Immokalee J ail, and sprung units associated with the
Immokalee Jail. Table 1 presents a summary of the correctional facilities land and
building inventory, including a total land replacement cost of $638,000 and a total
building replacement cost of $69 million, net of debt service that will be paid back with
impact fees. As previously mentioned, these replacement costs do not include huilding
space or land associated with other County departments.
It should be noted that the County currently has two debt service issues for correctional
facilities; one for improvements to the Immokalee Jail and one for the addition to the
Naples Jail. The majority of improvements to the lmmokalee Jail funded through the
debt service were renovation-type improvements; however, a small portion of the cost for
the Immokalee Jail improvements was for capital expansion. This portion was paid in
cash using impact fee revenue and is not included in the remaining debt amount.
The majority of the improvements to the Naples Jail and parking garage, approximately
81 percent of the total cost, were for expansion-related improvements, whicb is being
repaid with ilnpact fee revenue. Therefore, to ensure that Dew development is not being
overcbarged for these future payments, the portion oftbe remaining principal for the
Naples Jail addition that is to be repaid with impact fee revenue ($29.6 million) is
subtracted from tbe total replacement value of the Naples Jail addition and parking
garage in Table I. To clearly reflect the exclusion of the expanded portion oftbe Naples
Jail, this facility is sbown as two phases in tbe inventory table, including the expanded
portion of the Naples Jail, from which the debt is excluded and the original Naples Jail
(also known as Building ''J"").
The land replacement value for both the Naples and Immokalee Jails is estimated at
$50,000 per acre based on an analysis of vacant land parcels sold in the Immokalee/Big
Corkscrew Area since 2002 (see Appendix A). Vacant sales within the Immokalee/Big
Corkscrew area was used as a basis for the land replacement value since discussions with
County staff indicate that this is the area where land for future jail sites are likely to be
purchased. This replacement value is conservative, as the replacement value per acre for
the parcel on which the Naples Jail is located is valued much higher, due to the area in
which the Naples Jail is located.
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc.
April 2009
2
Collier County
Correctional Facilities Impact Fee Study
<{(J)~
roO"'
,0_
....QN 0
'r--
~..-
'" >>"
~CI:lg'
ro2D..
-0
c
"
!;f
s
o
.. .s <b.
ii g ~
~ .
: .~ i
] E ~
;::l <8:>
~ oS .~.~
I ~ ; j
..c: 'O...J <l': <::
~ <2 ~ ~ ~ <l2
; II !: i
:; ~~ ~ .-
CD ~:;; ~ ~ ~
~ B ~l ~ ]
~ ~ <2 ~:: ";3
.. 8 ~ e ~::z::
:~!:~ i~,~
i - <::" -""...
~~ (, ~ u ~ ~
~~~~ "",,~("
:~ 8 ~ i." ~ ~~
'" ~!. ;: 0:: ::: '"
.. ~ - u ~" <<l
<8 ~"3 E ~ ~~
'" '" ~.Q 1l '" u;::l
:2 ~ II ~ ;;:9 ~~
~..@-;; B~'~~_~
'<8 ~ € ~ 'T "" c;:;
-0 E g '0 Cil ~
~~.5u Eg.9~g
~ ~ ~.. ] ~ ~,~ ~
1l:l8 "'C;3 .s...2""~
~~~E' c.~;t~~~
]: I ~ 0 l~~ ~!
"~ ""_<;; a i 5:;:rg~~
"'... '" <Ll 8 ""-,f ;;_-==
C":J ::: '" f": "~'1:> E~
'"~ :,~"c 5';:~~1l
12 _g :: :I ",,;, u - ~-
.s 8. i3 0 g ~ -~ ~ t2 ~ .~ ~
;; :e:.:: is. 8~ '-' l:l '5,l!2 0. a
t ~~]~ ji~~ liij~
.. ~~~~ 8~~'" ~~"'~"'"
M ~;~~ i~~,i ~~~~~
(", 31:..:1 ~ 1 E"" -;:1 0.. .
~ .0 _.. ~~'~o~=_.,~o~ - c t II>
~ iiii i:~- ii,i.ii
::l "E~i~ .s'~g~ w ~-
] "'.~ '" u - "" OJ """ .8 1] ~.5 ~
o g 6. ~.E:1: g ~ ~ :] -g g ~~ ~
~ 'J)" 0 IU'; ~~ t:i p. '" Q, OIl
"'" ::::. ~ ~~g f;"a", 0 ;::l "'...."" '"
~ ~ ~ goo:;:; a~8~ og:<8g:.:ot
~ i ~ ii'l !~f~ ~i]li
]! " e-fr '58 ~~ ~}i~Ulz
_ ~ ~ ~ ct: .; <2 ('~ ~ ,~ ~ :.;; ~ rt ~
-rm: ~; :s~'~ r~,~~ ~f~~~
~= ~$~.E :l"'..o.:c ~g..fi,::;~
"'" ~-g~ i:i t~"O tc5_~~ o.t;:.o::::
..5 ~~~ ~~]~ ~.s:g.~ ,,0"0"
~ 0 '".B Ii fr~' ~ ~ ~ 1]] -5 ~ i~ ~ ~
l: is f - Z a:: 6.g E '" .':: ~..:.;: "," 03 ;:: ...
; ll~ 11, Ifllmlllll!llIl1!
~jJj~_ _ ~ ~~ _ ~~ ~~~~~
~ ~ ~
~~
,,'1-.
~ ;;0
~%
c, ~
to'""
~
~o
,< ",,'
~~
1l ~.'::
U."8
.s.~:cg
~,~>-~,
{Q" "
~~
~~
I:::,
H'"
~ ;!I '0
~fr'Y
=' '
~ e 8
g g 0
....;"';- 0
:; ~ a
>-
5
1:
~
>
E
'"
c
:E
'5
III
"0
C
~
"0
C
~
..J
~ ~
~ ~
:is:;:
ftl::
... U
~
"-
..
c
.g
"
~
5
u
'5
<='
~
E
E
~
'"
~
.
ti,-='~'
,.Cl$",'"
~-~'~
z --,
~ ~ "
<''--' ;;:;
'-;j"'-
. ..-~'
."...
~;i':J!
~:: g
0;: ,,; ::Nf
~~
~;:;,.:\
n
~'~
.~ ~ 8
....; ~i
",.0, "
::iti~
1::1' - '.-
"'-Ig. "'-I
~
,
"~ ,,0;:; -0 .,
-< -< f- ...l
~~.~.~
::~~
"1'1\0.
~:lt:i
~~
3 ~
~
~ %
~ "
O~
~ co
~ ~
~
~ .
~~
",3
~';;
,
.
~
:1: 0 '" N t'l ~
':l.:jj.8. 12. ;:::~ ;
;:: ~ C'1:g: : <;;
"l. -. o. - <fl...
ti a ~... rt ~
1l
or, or, 0
NN~
N, ~
~~
Hi
8';[
tl;;;;
"
.
~
3
~
i
,
u:
.'"
~ ~ .,
"
~
,
.
~ '" o'~
~NN
>r, '" N
~1rrJ~
.......:"'.-.t.
NO.
N
is ~ 5!
-to', '"
o
~
i2
.
.
g
.
c,
~
.
;;
~
~~~~~~
,
~
j
,
,
~
w
~
"
8
~ 13
~ ,
~ 5
.~
,
.
~
o
I ~ ,
~]
.~
y~
'eJ",-
I~ ill
u~
]
.
"
8
.
,
.5
.
'"
.
o
'€
.
~
"
oS
:1.\
~
2
~
"
..
l
.
~
~
,
~
~
~
,
o
W
]
B
!
u
:f;
,
~
13
]
..
~
o
,
~
.
~
.
~
.
]
o
~
~
E
,
~
Il
. C'
; ,
":1j
~
"
"-
~
~
~ ;;
g~
::i
.
"
~
~
~
.
o
"
~
"
~
"
t--;';;
:l '-'
:g
,
'" 0
~~
z~
.
~
!
u
,
~
'" .
z~
.
r
'0
u
~
~
13
~
",'
~ 0
z -
~
o
~
o
]
~
"
.
o
,
:;:
o
I~g
'0
I~c:
=0.
c~
Agenda Item No. SA
May 12, 2009
Page 18 of 51
The building replacement value for the jail facilities is estimated at $325 per square foot,
based on discussions with the architectural firm that completed the County's Jail Master
Plan in 2006 and recent construction figures for other jails. The Master Plan provided a
cost of $375 per square foot for future jail facilities in Collier County. However, while
discussions with the architectural firm that completed the County's Master Plan indicated
that a figure of $350 to $375 per square foot is still representative of the current cost to
construct a building similar to the County's existing jail facilities, in order to be
conservative, a replacement cost of $325 per square foot is used in the impact fee
analysis. This figure also is consistent with the construction cost per square foot of the
Naples Jail expansion inflated to 2008 dollars using Collier County's localized building
index.
The nature of correctional facilities often requires that larger buildings be constructed to
accommodate the need for additional beds, rather than as with other services, where
smaller additions to the inventory are added over time. As with the Naples and
Immokalee jail improvements, this requires Collier County to issue bonds to pay for the.
construction of new or replacement jail facilities. It is the County's policy to repay the
expansion portion of debt service for correctional facilities with impact fee revenues.
Since the County must repay interest costs on the bonds issued for new con'ectional
facilities, it is appropriate to include the present value of the interest costs in the
replacement value of the jail facilities. To determine tllis figure, the interest costs for the
expansion-portion of the Naples Jail debt schedule is brought back to present value and
divided by the square footage of the jail expansion. This results in an interest cost of
$130 per square foot. As presented in Table 1, this replacement value is then applied to
the square footage of both the Naples and Immokalee jail facilities. It should be noted
that the cost of the parking garage is included in the Naples Jail debt service schedule.
Therefore, by dividing the interest cost of the expansion portion of the loan by the square
footage of the expanded jail facility only, the interest costs associated with the parking
garage are included in the resulting interest cost per square foot. As a result, a separate
interest replacement cost for the Naples Jail parking garage is not provided in Table 1 as
to not double-count the interest costs associated with this support structure.
ln addition to land, buildings, and interest costs, the correctional facility inventory also
includes the necessary equipment and vehicles to provide correctional services. As
presented in Table 2, the total vehicle and equipment cost is $4.5 million. The majority
of the costs included in Table 2 reflects the original purchase costs, rather than current
replacement costs for similar equipment~ and therefore represents a conservative
replacement value.
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc.
April 2009
4
Collier County
Correctional Facilities Impact Fee Study
Agenda Item No. 8A
May 12, 2009
Page 19 of 51
Table 2
Correctional Facilities Equipment and Vehicle Inventory
Class .. Descriotion . . Units . Cost
1000 Furniture 3 $14.340.35
2000 Office Equipment 14 $27,871.81
20801 Minor Recording Eauioment 4 $48,971.63
20900 Minor Comouter Eouioment 116 $230.579.07
20921 Major Comouter Eauipment 19 $438,0] 6.67
20923 Com outer Software 1 $20.283.20
20939 Laptoo Computers 24 $98,400.00
21000 Kitchen Eauioment 36 $384,961.45
22000 Jail Eauioment ] 5 $]33.886.11
22300 Security 15 $46.070.47
22600 Medical Eauipment 48 $77,522.45
23100 Less Lethal Delivery Systems 8 $5,577.59
23105 T asers 55 $12.802.08
23400 Shotguns 8 $1.109,71
25000 Storage and Sheds 3 $27.122.11
26100 Trailers 2 $8,515.68
27106 Camera 1 $2,] 97 .59
2712] Projector 1 $3,231.03
27124 Digital Camcorder 1 $1,633.55
28000 Building Fixtures 1 $56.524.62
28200 Utilities 2 $29,695.10
30005 Minor Communication Equipment 27 $430.043.34
31000 Maintenance EquiDment 2 $7,132.01
32000 Communications Equipment 1 $4.50L23
321 I3 Mobile Radios 11 $46,200.00
321 ]4 Portable Radios 361 $1.407,900.00
33001 Night Vision 2 $8.367.27
33004 Other Detection 2 $16.424.33
33100 Evidence Gathering 3 $39.292.71
34200 Protection 3 $5.735,10
35000 Vehicles 32 $738,240.00
350]0 Soecialtv Vehicles 1 $18,435.15
35100 Auto Accessories 2 $4,519.28
36200 Soecialty Eauipment 3 $11,]40.56
37000 Miscellaneous Equipment 4 $30.894.84
37003 Used Eauipment (3 Years) 2 $10,593.92
38000 K-9 Dog 1 $8,892.86
38100 K-9 Dog Eauioment 1 $1,252.50
40100 Shop Machinery 3 $15,224.60
40200 Minor Shop Equipment 2 $9,517.60
Total 840 $4,483,619.57
Source: Collier County Sheriffs Office
TindaJe-Oliver & Associates, Inc.
April 2009
5
Collier County
Correctional Facilities Impact Fee Study
Agenda Item No. SA
May 12. 2009
Page 20 of 51
Service Area
Correctional facilities and related services are provided by CoJlier County in all areas of
the county. Therefore, the proper benefit district for the correctional facilities impact fee
is countywide.
Population
The correctional facilities impact fee program requires the use of population data in
calculating current levels of service and perfonnance standards. To accurately determine
demand for correctional facility services and to be consistent with the population utilized
in the County's comprehensive planning and Annual Update and Inventory Repon
(AUIR) process, this impact fee study considers not only the resident or permanent
population of the County, but also the number of seasonal residents and visitors as well.
Therefore, for purposes of this technical analysis, the peak seasonal population will be
used in all population estimates and projections. Peak seasonal population projections
used in the impact fee analysis reflect figures provided by Collier County's
Comprehensive Planning Department and are calculated by increasing the County's
annual permanent population by 20 percent.
Table 3 presents the population trends for Collier County. The projections indicate that
the population of Collier County is projected to increase by 48 percent between 2008 and
2025.
Tindale.Oliver & Associates, Inc.
April 2009
6
Collier County
Correctional Facilities Impact Fee Study
Agenda Item No. 8A
May 12, 2009
Page 21 of 51
Table 3
Collier County Peak Seasonal Population
Estimates & Projections
.opu a n:.lgu.
2000 309,511
2001 325,159
2002 341,954
2003 359,191
2004 374,384
2005 386,668
2006 396,310
2007 404,560
2008 412,499
2009 420,593
2010 430.626
2011 442.683
2012 455,078
2013 467,820
2014 480,920
2015 493.175
2016 507,473
2017 5]6,]56
2018 528,046
2019 540,209
2020 551,891
2021 563,066
2022 574,467
2023 586,099
2024 597,967
2025 609,244
Source: Collier County Comprehensive
Planning Department
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc.
April 2009
7
Collier County
Correctional Facilities Impact Fee Study
Agenda Item No. SA
May 12, 2009
Page 22 of 51
Apportionment of Demand bv Residential Unit Tvpe and Size
The residential land uses to be used for the correctional facilities impact fee calculations
include the following:
. Single Family Detached
. Multi-Family
. Mobile Home/RV (Tied Down)
Table 4 presents the number of residents per housing unit for the residential categories
identified above in Collier County. This analysis includes all housing units, both
occupied and vacant.
To address fairness and equity issues between land uses, as well as to address affordable
housing issues, the single family land use is tiered based on three categories of square
footage: less than 1,500 square feet, 1,500 to 2,499 square feel. and greater than 2,500
square feet. To accommodate the tiering of impact fee assessments for the single family
residential land use category, an analysis was completed based on housing unit size and
persons per housing unit, comparing nationwide averages to those of Collier County.
This analysis utilized national data from the 2005 American Housing Survey (AHS) and
data from the 2000 Census data for Collier County to examine this relationship.
To calculate the tiering for the three different categories, national residents per unit ratios
for each housing unit category were applied to the total residents per housing unit ratio
for single family detached land use.
Table 4
Residents per Housing Unit
..:::..'.,.:..:.,.....:'
Resid~ntsj,
jI~'iiSing':bri'l't!i
Single Family Detached 162,266 56,869 2.85
- Less than 1,500 sf 9\ % 2.59
~1,500to2,499sf 100% 2.85
_ 2,500 SfOT greater 110% 3.14
Multi Famil 110,142 75,775 1.45
Mobile Home/RV (Tied Down) 23.052 10.772 2.14
(t) Source: 2000 Census, Table H-33, adjusted for by 20 percent for peak seasonal population,
based on the ratio of permanent to peak seasonal population (20%)
(2) Source: 2000 Census. Table H-30
(3) Ratios developed based on national persons per household data derived from the 2005
American Housing Survey
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc.
April 2009
8
Collier County
Correctional Facilities Impact Fee Study
Agenda Item No. SA
May 12, 2009
Page 23 of 51
Functional Population
The technical study for which the County's current correctional facilities impact fee
schedule is based on uses the distribution of annual bookings per land use as the demand
component for the impact fee. However, this approach does not provide the most
accurate demand specific to each land use for several reasons. First, the benefit from
booking a criminal is not limited to one specific land use, but to the whole community.
In addition, bookings do not necessarily reflect incarceration rateslIength or the demand
for jail beds. Therefore, this study uses functional population as the demand component,
which distributes the cost associated with the availability of correctional facilities among
various land uses based on the presence of people at each land use throughout the day.
Functional population, as used in the impact fee analysis, is a generally accepted
methodology for several impact fee areas and is based on the assumption that demand for
certain facilities is generally proportional to the presence of people at a land use,
including residents, employees, and visitors. It is not enough to simply add resident
population to the number of employees, since the service-demand characteristics of
employees can vary considerably by type of industry.
Functional population is the equivalent number of people occupying space within a
community on a 24-hours-per-day, 7 -days-per-week basis. A person living and working
in the community will have a functional population coefficient of 1.0. A person living in
the community but working elsewhere may spend only 16 hours per day in the
community on weekdays and 24 hours per day on weekends for a functional population
coefficient of 0.76 (128-hour presence divided by 168 hours in one week). A person
commuting into the community to work five days per week would have a functional
population coefficient of 0.30 (50-hour presence divided by 168 hours in one week).
Similarly, a person traveling into the community to shop at stores, perhaps averaging 8
hours per week, would have a functional population coefficient of 0.05.
Functional population thus tries to capture the presence of all people within the
community, whether residents, workers, or visitors, to arrive at a total estimate of
effective population needing to be served.
This form of adjusting population to help measure real facility needs replaces the popular
approach of merely weighting residents two-thirds and workers one-third (Nelson and
Nicholas 1992). By estimating the functional and weighted population per unit ofland
use across all major land uses in a community, an estimate of the demand for certain
facilities and services in the present and in a future year can be calculated. The following
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc.
April 2009
9
Collier County
COlTectional Facilities Impact Fee Study
Agenda Item No. SA
May 12, 2009
Page 24 of 51
paragraphs explain how functional population is calculated for residential and
nonresidential land uses.
Residential Functianal Population
Developing the residential component of functional population is simpler than developing
the nonresidential component. It is generally estimated that people spend one-half to
three-fourths of their time at home and the rest of each 24-hour day away from their place
of residence. In developing the residential component of Collier County functional
population, an analysis of the County's population and employment characteristics was
conducted. Based on this analysis, it was estimated that people, on average, spend] 6.4
hours, or approximately 68 percent, of each 24-hour day at their place ofresidence and
the other 32 percent away from home, This analysis is presented in Tables 5 and 6,
Table 5
Collier County Population and Employment Characteristics
Item/Calculation SteD Filmre
Workers who live and work in Collier County(l) 95.020
Workers who live in Collier County but work elsewhere'" 8.048
Total workers living in Collier County'l) ] 03.068
Collier County Census 2000 Population") "5],377
Total workers as a percent of population (5) 41.0%
School age population (5-] 7 years)'h) 36,507
School age population as a percent ofpopulation(7) 14.5~/o
Population net of workers and school age population (8) 111.802
Other population as a percent of total population(9) 44.5%
(1), (2) Source: Bureau of Transportation Statistics, Census Transportation Planning
Package (CTPP) 2000 Part 3 (figures for Year 2000)
(3) Sum of the workers who live and work in Collier County (Item I) and workers who
live in Collier County hut \vork elsewhere (Item 2)
(4). (6) Source: US Census Bureau. 2000 Census
(5) Total workers living in Collier County (Item 3) divided by total population (Item 4)
(7) School age population (Item 6) divided by total population (Item 4)
(8) Total population (Item 4) less total workers living in Collier County (Item 3) and
school age population (Item 6)
(9) Population net of workers and school age population (Item 8) divided by total
population (Item 4)
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc.
April 2009
10
Collier County
Correctional Facilities Impact Fee Study
Agenda Item No. 8A
May 12, 2009
Page 25 of 51
Table 6
Residential Coefficient for Functional Population
I'OP@lt@l;'
" '>Ottiiij);;"
Workers 13
Students 15
Other 20
Total Hours at Residence(4)
Residential Fnnctional Population Coefficient(5)
(1) Assumed
(2) Source, Table 5
(3) Hours at residence (Item t) multiplied by percent of population (Item 2)
(4) Sum of the effective hours
(5) Sum of effective hours (Item 4) divided by 24
!1{~!1~r~':!(l);' "
iY?~!~t1~i~~1;R '
41.0%
14.5%
44.5%
5.3
2.2
8.9
16.4
68.3%
The resulting percentage from Table 6 is used in the calculation of residential coefficient
for the 24-hour functional population. These calculations are presented in Table 7.
Nonresidential Functional Pavulation
Given the varying characteristics of nonresidential land uses, developing estimates of
functional residents for nonresidential land uses is more complicated than developing
estimates of functional residents for residential land uses. Nelson and Nicholas originally
introduced a method for estimating functional resident population, now used
internationally. I This method uses trip generation data from the Institute of
Transportation Engineers' (ITE) Trip Generation Manual and TOA's Trip Characteristics
Database, information on passengers per vehicle, workers per vehicle, length of time
spent at the land use, and other variables. Specific calculations include:
. Total one-way trips per employee (ITE trips multiplied by 50 percent to avoid
double counting entering and exiting trips as two trips).
. Visitors per impact unit based on occupants per vehicle (trips multiplied by
occupants per vehicle less employees).
. Worker hours per week per impact unit (such as nine worker hours per day
multiplied by five days in a work week).
] Arthur C. Nelson and James C. Nicholas, "Estimating Functional Population for Facility Planning,"
Journal of Urban Planning and Development 118(2): 45-58 (1992).
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc.
April 2009
11
Collier County
Correctional Facilities Impact Fee Study
Agenda Item No. SA
May 12, 2009
Page 26 of 51
. Visitor hours per week per impact unit (visitors multiplied by number of hours per
day times relevant days in week such as five for offices and seven for retail
shopping).
. Functional population coefficients per employee developed by estimating time
spent by employees and visitors at each land use.
Table 7 also shows the functional population coefficients for nonresidential
uses/categories in Collier County. The functional population coefficients in Table 7 were
used to estimate the County's functional population in Table 8.
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc.
April 2009
12
Collier County
COlTectionaJ Facilities Impact Fee Study
<(O)~
00 ">en
.0_
,,-Q N 0
-to-
~N
0>' C)
:::::ro~
ro2(L
"0
C
'"
OJ
<(
f/l
...
t:
III
'(3
E:
III
o
(.)
t:
o
..
ra
1'-3
III Co
- 0
.ga..
I-(ij
t:
o
..
C)
t:
::I
u..
(ij
"-
III
t:
III
C>
,:.,::!>;i'~,~;:1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ! ~
,!;".~:,'~.f,~2'!:';
.~e;)
. p, ~"
;',~:'~';,:uJ,;
Ii L
b:.e::l~CIO
co-;.~
;;;:"t~
~', ,g':
:~'~:g~:,
~"=-"...
t~a
0,": ,;j
c
o 000
r-C-"'''l",,,,r-v-.
c 8 8 8 8 0 8 8 8
- - - - - - -
0 g ~ 0 00 . g -
0 0
0 c 0 0 " " " ~ N
"- ~ ~ -, ~ ~ " -,
-, ,
- - - - - - -
N N -, N " . - ~ .
-, 00 co c,
- - - - - - -
_ _ r- _.,.., 'r. '-C ""
",..,., ~ '" 0-, '-C "'! :;'. ~
qfj~8g;~~ ....,
"'\ ff1 N......,.; ~..; ~
~~~~~~~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ :=: ~ w ;: ~ ;31
I
j
~ ..
e ~
.~ fl
~ OI:
~ w.g ~
~ "" c:"' e;
ij _ ~ ,g ~.J! 51
.S: I'c: n il .g ~ ~ ~ €
~Eg'3 i:l=g~
~ i ~ ~ ~] ~ ,5 ~
I'-. Z v o<!;......:3: r:>:: (l.. Vl
~ 0
.
o d
o
o
,
]
~
,
~
i
~
"
~
E
&
.
"
-
.
i'!
~
o
o
~
~
1
o
o
,
,
o
~
o
e
o
:9 i
~ [5
" ]
] ]
~ -;
~ ]
!
~ .~
o 0'
] .....; o':;;?' ~
E5:~::::=:.:
~~~~!fr~
;,~~~~~iu
:::; ~~'~G'.[,~~
-~g.}~}e~ !t
oB""" 11.>;; 0-;,.
a b i; !; II is- ~, b
'S ~ ~ ~ ~ ,:1 ~ ]
'@'EE-S-S~, ,,~
z; ~ ~ ~.g.a ~ :=
i:i~....];l....iiEo
~ ~ ~ II t ~ :<5 c<::
fr ~ ::: i< ::< 'r, 5' It.
"8~~~::~~
t...., N ". ff) - ~ "
00;""..<1.0 il
}S~;J,~~~~
'- ,-----~,
ij1l R.g -g.g -g -g -g ~
E ~ ",'...>wwuuu '"
t '" _e-"-I "-I .,,; UJ i..U :.; ,9-
:;.-<t=!::!::!::::!=!::::=;:
c ~-
o co
~~ t
E is ~
" ,-
..... >-
-~~ ~
..c:~tI)
~ ~ ~ ,~
'~ E ~ ~ ""
~ H i:l '>,co 0-
~ ~ t~ j
~ b 1:: ~
] 5 ~ ~
0.. ~J e 5
'E.;~,!: B~g
K~ 45"" ~ S, ';:;
r~ 'ij "" t'" ~ Jj
0.... :: ~ Iii;>, S; ~ ~
~~ g~ ~~d;~,~
" .. p ~ t ~ '" a
-:32 i:l;;:; ~ ~ <:J ~ ~
;.., 3;: E;; i 11 t-.. v
13, ~ 0 " ~ >< ~ -6 .~ ~ ~ .,g
. 'E-',~~l:l&"'~~~':
~ ~ ,,~~.2 ,W:8~~
S ::' ~g,-6a~6.Er'8co
(;' ~ .:..~]L1J;:~~~.3~
!; -< ;;:(;"l!!~'~~~]~
Vi ~ t l:! ..2 08'" ~ i5
" E e]!6 ~ u ~ -B '2 ~ ~
<': 9- G' 0.. li i1 5:'" =",!(l ~ ~ ,,.
:;5 r:E ~'_O!~+~%~;:;1ii;
~ ~_" 1 -M ]- ~ ell gl:C ~ iii. '~ E :~
:tl ~~ .,~~~;';;tleE=a
i~ r=~ &.~,~ 3~ R~..g ~~
.,.. ::9'::: ~e"" '~-.'-;.~,~,Q.~
:'0' --0 0 ~ E 0.. ~:i: _ ~'--' ~
~ ~ o.ii 13 0.. ,>,_i'l 0 '" e''E (j ~ @
o~5:g~'E~iiu" ~aill.fl.:.:
~~ ~~i::: g~] g.2 ~$'~~.5
0; .s' 'S ~ gl-~ l,~ ~ ~ -: ~ g '" ~
o. "''> 'J: ., 0.. ,::-,g ~ J:1 ~
6nz~gE~l1TIg:.>< c 1l~
~.;...,g~~ 1ii'~~ a~'g <<IHj' g,g ~'''"~
"-' ;z:::> - 0 ~ ~ ii ~ ii:-:S,
1l ,~ a ~ _ Iii ~ 1 j .~ t; -.. -. ~
i.~:Ei:g~i:=-- ~ ~~~~..g
'" ~Jo:L~"','~'..!i~~::: .=:E~"tl
=;1 a~fi~o~~~~~Q 'i--oS'
...: _ ;l~";; ~$g~~E!:~~" :;,g j 0..><
., &c:: T~ ~ [ t ~ ~'~ E ~'~.~~, _,5 -: ~ ~ ~ 5
""", ..v, ~ -~~~ .~., 43 ..'2 =a 'g,,:::::a
&"0 ". <5.~ '3 2 ~ 2) u ~ ~ u ~ 1-, ~ ~ , "" 0 U -
'" - f-"' a: il & R ~ 2. R 0. "-' ;., 's b. <<I ~
~~~~~]~"':~'2'~~~~~~~i~ -B.iar~
1:lV5'5~o.2."'5.E,a1iig-aag-E.,. ~,g~~ii
~-g~~S:::o;li 5,,-,~g-g-ljg..g.:::g", ~~lSl1"-'
's.,g ..f'..... ~~ "" ~ ... 11 t'::: ::: 0::: ::: '" <<I 8- K ~,,,,, -g ~
~.8 g] to: '0 ".2 ~ ,;;: E r~ :;,g;},;:' ~-a. & tl l:l -c ;;l
~.O/J 6 ':?o l-: ~ [,I'I..F,: ~ :: ::! 8 :::: :; ~~' ~ ~ "-' 0 ~ :f>
8 ~,~ ~ ~;j~.~
~8~~:f>~Wf-~~ ~ ~S~ ~~~__
pi~~~~
.
a
g
<
"
"
"
i
~~~g~
'::0000
"l"""'-' r,_
~;;" ~;e ~
,.! 0"; r;....;
... - 'f)""'"
.s.-
"
... .,''-' 0 ''-' 0
.. N"" 'rl t- 'rl
l;'-'i _...,t-
~ t
. .
'~
!
~
g ,
" ~
" .
~'"
c .
~ ~
[~
" .
.,g
~1l
U
.
.
o
!
,
~
~
S
~.
"
~
o
o
~
"
.
g-
o
a
~
o
:.' ~ ~
""::~
,
]
~
,
>,>,
E-g
'" -
OVJ
U"
~ "
]u",
00
U ~
.5
~
~
'u
'"
'"
"
"
.S
"
"
~
~
o
U
'"
~
oS
"
~
'"
"
;;;
'u
o
~
~
..;
'"
I,~
6~
~~
"
'"0 .~
I~~
Agenda Item No. 8A
May 12, 2009
Page 28 of 51
Table 8
Functional Population - Year 2008
2008 Peak Season Population
.': ':","::".' .',,::'.:,':,.-:;',;,,_: ::..,:~': ;.. ,,::::;t:;,<:-.~'::;h~:::;:'::;'" :;,.,.
",. ___'. __,' ".,_',_" ,.:'.:,.'_,...,.._:_,.,;.;',',...._w....':'_.:...:.'::
.'f~,~li~'r90lJ,~:tY\'FunCtionaIResident
? li~~~II'~~D~t8U)".; :crieffi~i'~~t{1i:;!.>
4] 2.499 0.683
281.737
Non-Residential Population (Employees and Visitors)
Natural Resources
Construction
Manufacturing
TmllS rtation, Communication, and Utilities
Wholesale Trade
Retail Trade
Finance. Insurance, and Real Estate
Services
Government Services
Total Non-Residential Population by CUIl.:gOly(41
]0.680
23,710
3380
5.150
5.880
35.430
75.980
76.050
14.590
0.379
0.27]
0.270
0.27]
0.27]
1.406
0.292
0.56]
0.497
4.04&
6.425
9]3
1.396
1.593
49.815
7.586
42.664
7.251
121.691
2008 Total Functional Population(S) 403,428
(I) Source: Table 3 for the 2008 population figure and 2008 Woods & Poole for employment
data
(2) Source: Table 7
(3) Functiona] populatioo is calcu]ated by multiplying Collier County 2008 baseline dala (Item 1)
by the functional resident coefficient (Item 2).
(4) The total non-residentlal population by category is the sum of the employment and visitor
figures from the nine categories (e.g., construction, manufacturing, etc.)
(5) The total functional population is the sum of the residential functional population (281,737)
and nonresidential functional population (12],691)
Table 9 presents the County's annual functional population figures from 2000 through
2025, based on the 2008 functional population figure from Table 8 and the annual
population growth rates from the population figures previously presented in Table 3.
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc.
Apri] 2009
]4
Collier Counly
Correctional Facilities Impact Fee Study
Agenda Item No. SA
May 12, 2009
Page 29 of 51
Table 9
Collier County Functional Population
(2000-2025)
..... . . Colli~r.(Jo\l~tyF\l\l~ti~lJ.aI
iY,a;'.
i. popuhitiOliProjections .
2000 302,441
2001 317,866
2002 334,395
2003 351,] 15
2004 365,862
2005 377,935
2006 387,383
2007 395,518
2008 403,428
2009 4lJ,497
20]0 421,373
201] 433,171
2012 445,300
2013 457,768
2014 470.586
2015 482,351
2016 496,339
2017 504,777
2018 516,387
20]9 528.264
2020 539,886
2021 550,684
2022 561.698
2023 572,932
2024 584,391
2025 595,494
Source: Table 8 for the 2008 population figure. Figures
for other years are based on the respective annual
growth rates peak population figures provided in
Table 3.
15
Collier County
Correctional Facilities Impact Fee Study
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc.
April 2009
Agenda Item No. 8A
May 12, 2009
Page 30 of 51
Functional Residents bv Svecific Land Use Catel!orv
When a wide range of land uses impact services, an estimate of that impact is needed for
each land use. This section presents functional population estimates by residential and
non-residential land uses.
Residential and Transient Land U<es
As previously mentioned, the average number of persons per housing unit in Collier
County was calculated for the single family, multi family, and mobile home/RV (tied
down) land uses, based on infonnation obtained from the 2000 Census. Besides the
residential land uses, the table also includes transient land uses such as hotels, motels,
nursing homes, and adult living facilities (ALF). Secondary sources, such as the local
Convention and Visitors Bureau (CVB) and the Florida Department of Elderly Affairs,
are used to detennine the occupancy rate for hotels, motels, and nursing homes land uses.
As mentioned before, different functional population coefficients must be developed for
each of the impact fee areas to be analyzed, For residential and transient land uses, these
coefficients are displayed in Table to.
Nonresidential Land Uses
A similar approach is used to estimate functional residents for nonresidential land uses.
Table 11 reports basic assumptions and calculations, such as trips per unit, trips per
employee, employees per impact unit, one-way trips per impact unit, worker hours,
occupants per vehicle trip, visitors (patrons, etc.) per impact unit, visitor hours per trip,
and days per week for nonresidential land uses. The final column in the tables shows the
estimated functional resident coefficients by land use. These coefficients by land use
create the demand component for the correctional facility impact fee program and will be
used in the calculation of the cost per unit for each land use category in the correctional
facilities impact fee schedule.
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc.
Apri] 2009
]6
Collier County
Correctional Facilities Impact Fee Study
<("'~
",,0'"
,0_
-ON 0
:--.iM
...;;'O.l
'=:=COg'
",:2:0..
1:1
c
<ll
OJ
<(
-
c:
.!!!
IJI
c:
III
...
I-
"
c:
III
ni
0._
'"'"-
c:
CIl CIl
-"
.c ._
III IJI
I- CIl
0::
',;\;:,~-:;::i-=.:;~
~~t"i~:,~~=-
:,}1:!;,~j",,;::JP!
"..'0 tl, ~
.':~:~t:~t!k~1,!5~"
IJI
CIl
IJI
::J
"
c:
III
..J
~':'
]"'
~~: '"
=<~'~a
~"Cl ~
< .~:
0:
...
.E
IJI
-
c:
CIl
"
IJI
CIl
0::
III
c:
o
:;:;
o
c:
::l
U.
"0
~
g't;,,:-;:
t: 0 ~,
Ds;:g:
>, ...,
~ai~
. - -
""':::0
~ l1J 0
~ j <r~
Vi
r--or,;!: 0\ \0
t-:o;N~'<t:
;;.; ~:::~,:!
NN,....; N
s~o~~
NNNNN
.g.g.g.g.g
"
"
"
"
lib
6 2' ~
""" 'S (3
tIl;; :r:
gi.l....:::
l,f') :.0
N'3o
::i'::i'
,2~~e
6 c S 0
o g ,g :J:l
2 '2 gf~
g,~'~ .~
c"O :::l:C r-:
ouco .0
R .5 S a ~
'I) ~ "8'~ fn
C 'G E ~ ;::l
~a~c2 l
g. ~ .5 -
~ B .~ c :g
; ~"O 0 ~ 00
'''''' ~] 1.) 0
.s E [).2 ~ ~
~::::, Q.. V ;, "'0
;:;2oCl;.lJ as
..... ~ ~ \'llCo~o
tj..c i:i '0
<'II ~ c.. tI> :J <::>
~Bv;g g~
~'c8~ -v2
]O'~t:ri g~
v:Se.~ ~~,
] lid:'::: 0 ~:::::
c::: .&~.;'J - ~
0) l:: ~ 5 ~ ~
'0 ~ ;:;."'S2 ;;l U
~ ~ -< ll3 ~ ~
'6_ .s ]! S ~ ~ gp
_ '- ,0 S ';::l ,..;?
:.a :2 - ,'.... -".
U..l tIl a ;:l.2 g,..:t
Il.> 0 ~"O 'l)
;~23~ o::~
~'~a;co~ ~~
o 'l) e-.9 \'ll d a ci:
~to.~li.g<o
~:g&~-~~g~
f--.NO.--ONU
.~ E "'0 U b R- ::l E
\'ll ,g ~ ] "s ~ ~ -
~~""'\'ll!--50
~ ~b~:-:t.....coU
"";::l3.g_ofl'~
~]8;;~5.g;B
't:: ~ '- ~ "'0 E.~ -<
1- ~ ~';:;''''' 1:: > :>,
UJ \'ll - 3 16 o:a "'0 <:
s~88~g~~
~ ~ ] .~ .~ ': ~ .3 '0
N ~ ..2 '(3 ::g <oS ~ !3 E .3
Ei~~!~~i ~
.g "Cl U .!!l '';: "B b c.. ;@
~~~~;ga30 d
8.;;:"o'Ei~8.a g
<r. S e ~ ~ '7 ~ '6 :g
"',__",~ Vl 0 ?i~]";"'"'.) t::
... _ ... .- .::: ;. -0 ..... m (':l
r-. i ~ ki 's~ :!::... ::I::
"5 '0 c..t/l .. ':: ~ - t
~.~~].~~"~i .~~
:s "0 .~ g, r= g. e a ~ ~
,.E~~'~"Clgqg o~
~S;~il] 2..~ $~ ~
'en .~ =: ~ ;:I _~ @ U.l Vl 15
<1) .:::l .9 ~ :f o'g E t: "-B "Cl
: ] ] '""' ~ ~ ~ ~ E :B'~
-8 ~ .~ ~ .2 .c ~ c..'~ P ~ ~
t? r;; '- ~ ~ t:: 11 I.Ll ~ .8,.
,,_ (j;) -8 z <1) 0 i3 ~ "B'(/j .,
u 0 ..c ""0 ~ c.. ~ ;:I
.g .~ ~ ~ 0 ~ ~.~ t=:'.a 5 ~
~. ~ j j ~ ~ .~ ~ ; ~ €
::;r,<nNN
r-r-r-oo
0600
"
.2
"
e
,
o
'"
r-r-r-r-
0\0\0'-0'\
:;;~~~
ooco
NN::::::::::
::::-o~~
'"
,O:::fef- "#.
C;-c 00 00
r-r-oooo
'<0'<00
~~~~
see
~ ~l~
. E
5 c
2 e
!l '
D"O
;;
8
'0
"
.~
-t<
;].5
$-5
D_
~,g
J:.g
~.5 8
o >- <1)
:c::.::i~
~~ -g
~.~ .!!l j
, ~
~z<
13 E
E~
>
'"
..
.~
~
'"
c
"
..
-]
e 0
f-:I:
'"
"
~
>,>,
c]
" ~
0,""
U ~
~ ~
~~
OU
U [
..s
00
~
.~
""'
<<i
"
,e
u
~
I:
o
U
.
"
-
o
0-
~
o
"
'"
.~ 0
.- "
CoX
$ .';i
6:5
"" "
o 0
00-
"it
.~ -g
.<"
" +
.~ ..::.: ..::.:
" " "
o " 0
~ ~l"i
~><r-
';; <1) ><
" 0
e oS (':l
'';:: ~ Cl
'2";j ki
OJ ~
o
:I:
X
r--
u
.5
'"
~
ro
'0
o
00
00
~
-<I
"
~
.~
6g
,,0
<<iN
"d
.S 0.
i-<~
<l:"'~
000",
o~o
ZN"N
E~""'
(j) >- (j)
-ro'"
-;;2~
"0
c
(j)
'"
<l:
t/)
Gl
t/)
::l
"C
l:
Cll
...J
(ij
:;:;
l:
Gl
~
Ul
Gl
..
.... l:
.... 0
Gl Z
:0 ..
Cll .2
l-
t/)
....
l:
Gl
"C
t/)
Gl
0:::
Cll
l:
0
:;:;
(.)
l:
::l
u..
c. . , J, ~ , ~ 2 ~ :; 0 3 0 0 N ~ 3 v ~ e,
V 0 . ~ N
';...0.- - 0 > ~ - 0 0 " 0 6 " 0 - - - 0 0 -
l:I__ij"'.Cl
.g;g .~
"lie
~,::~:,5
~ N ,- N ,- N '- S ~ " " N " <c, " " " ~ ~
;.~:~\ ~
c:,~
,.
-'----- 0 0 0 g 8 0 8 0 8 8 ~ 8 8 8 8 0 0
;&(i 0 co 0 0 0 0 0
- - 0 - - N N e' N N - 0 - "' "' "' - -
:i~ :~
~_ co '.1-<
~
---. . ~ . , ~ v < > N 0 e, N g ~
-. 0 ~
- N co > 0 0 0 0 cO " . . e c, "
. N
.. ,.,'. ~5
~ ;;., > . , co 0 N,
-::!'!; . - - - - - - co N N N V
;--~~ cO " N - - - - "' "' - - - - - "' "' -
go,.
. "
o ~
- > , > c 0 0 0 0 0 > 0 . 0 ~ 0 0 0 >
_:- ~,!:
.0 is
;::: ::I:l
..,--- - 0 0 0 0 0 , ,e, ~ ~ co
;;'@!- - . 0 c. 0 0 ,- - 0 >
~e'~ - - - " 00 C C - 0 - e, N , 0 ~ ,
N
= l;:. ~
10'l.<..",' ~ 2 c 0 ~ ~ 0 0 N 0
I e, 0 '" 0 0 - 0 0 0, 0
, - 0 co .. 0 C 0 0 C 0 0 -i . 00 .. ,
......-::: e
~:5
S' lii
tIj'll., i
I-- < co 0 . < N el co co "
to .. '" ,- ,- N N "' c, e, e, N
Il.-_.__~ Z g c, 'C, .. ~ C- o "' - , N e, .. N 00
s'i
A~
~ 0 .. > g ~, " * ~
" G 0 " 0 , "' 0 co - 0
.. N 0 - "' "' - 0 . , ~ 00
Il.'~ "' "' -
'" i 0 0
i5~
~
'~i~ 0 0 N 0 ~ 0 0 0 "I 0 0 ~ ~
. - " - < N ,
rJ ] .. ~ 1 l l B ~ ,I ,
] ~ ~ 0 g 0 g 0 0 C
.. , B 8. ] 8' 8 0 c
, " " ~ ~ 0 ~I 0
- 0 - - - "' - -
Iii , ,
" I ,
I i i ,
i
1 i ~ !
~ ,
l!!i - ~ I
0
, @ ,
0 - - - "
c c '- 1;; 1;; 0
ii~ , , 0 ~ 8 0
0
" ~ ~ ~-
i' '0 ., 0 0
U U 0 S 0 0 ,
5 " v ~: 0
0
~ j , ] 0 -
j 0 ~ g g 0 8 . ~
1 ~ ] 0
~ d " "
G ~ , ~ ~ ~ g C
.... "' 0 ~ " E ~- :;
~ U '0 ! ~ ~ ~ . .
....... i j ~ . Ii Ii Ii Ii -5
, > " 0 0 ;; , , E E !i
, . " " 0 , ;::;:j - 5 co ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
>->-
E5
" -
OVl
U ~
~ ~
~~
C;u
u 1l..
.s
~
:~
'u
"
'"
"ii
5
U
2
~
o
U
00
~
.;;
~
;;;
'u
o
~
-<
o(j
~
~
,~
oS
6~
1'"-
-0 -;-
.S 0-
I"" -<
<t:m~
roO"'
.....o~o
'M
~(")
'" >."
=ro~
ro:;; CL
-0
C
"
Ol
<t:
11l
Ql
11l
::l
"C
s::
III
..J
III
..
s::
- Ql
"C"C
Ql .-
::l 11l
s:: Ql
._ 0::
- .
s:: s::
o 0
~Z
.... ...
....,2
Ql 11l
--
.c s::
III Ql
t-3;!
11l
Ql
0::
III
s::
o
..
t.l
s::
::l
u..
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 " e, ~ ~ N ~ .. N N " - ~ ~ -
~ . ~ ~ ~ N ~ -
.t''..;::::... - N N N oi ., N - - N ~ "' - - 0; ., c, 0; 0; ~ - - 0 - -
gc:.IiV'-=
tl:SL.!
=11;16
- . .. .. .. .. 0 0 .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 0 ~ < .. 0 .. .. .. .. .. 0
~ 0 0 " < 8 0 N 0 c, 8 8 ~ ? 0 0 ~ '. <n 8 .. 0 0 0 N 0
< 0 0 e, N 0
0; " .0 0 - - - - - - - 0 0 0 - " .0 0 0 - 0 0 0 '" '" 0 -
:; .. . ~ 0 0 " ~ ~ N ~ 0 < " ~ " 0 - e, 2 " 0 < 2 "' ~,
~ 0 . ~
- ~ < " ~ ~ 0 ~ N ~ :G .. ~ ~ 0 ~ e, "' 0 N " N ~ " ~ - -
. N N < - N " N N ~
-'----- , e, 0 .. .. e, " .. " ~ ~ ~ ~ N ~ ~ 00 ~ N N ..
'<:'.~:::,; .. <n
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
01..""
"'~,H
""!J
, O~
~ > > 0 00 00 . ~ 00 . ~ . 00 . ~ ~ ~ ~ . . . > . . ~ ~ ~ ~
l!.,;
rs:!;
" e;:.: ==
~ N ., ~ . . . N 2 ~
:i'@.lig, 0 N . " ~ " " .; . < . co
~ 0 . 0 ,; . ~ < ~ 0 - .i - " .; - 00
~'S~ "' - N N <n . . ., 00 - <
= ':;:'",',~
IC~ ' " 0 ," 0 0 0 0 0 ~ ~ - ~ 0 0 0 . 00 "' . 0 0 0 0 ~ <
I m;; ~ .
N N co N " " .i - - " N N N 0 .; -, 0 0 0 - c, 0 - -
1;',:2
.~-'~
J;ol,,'ll.
~ ~ ~ < < < < < < ~ , ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . ~ ~ ~ < < < ~ <
~ .~ z z z Z 0 z . " z Z Z
;::j z z z z - ~ z z z ~ ~ r-' z z z z Z
N 00
':::S;'~
:;S,~
~ g < 2 00 N < 0 < ~ "' , 3 0 00 ~ ~ ~ 0 " N g ~ ~ 0
l] ~ . 00 N - ~ ~ < 0
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N ~ ~ 0 "' . ~ ~ ~ - N .; N ~ < N ~ ~
" 0 , .. N N N
~ " ~ 0 0 0 0 0 ~ ~ - - 0 "' ~ - . N . . . - 00 ~
~ ~ ~ " ~ 00 00 ~ ;: ~ "' "' ~ " i
. . . - ~ -
~ ~ ~ ~ " ~ , " " q ~ "
" , ~ [; ~ ~ , ,
0 . . 0 g - g 8 ~ ~ ~ ~ " ~ ~
8, 0 o 0 g 0 0 & g 8, .c g 0_ & .~ 1j
'3 '3 8 8 8 o " 0 0 ~
- 0, - - ....: cE - - - - ~ 2
- - - -
%
~{l, <: '< '< -< '< .
'< "
~ ~ ~ ~ " " g
~ 0 ~ ~ ~ I
] 0 ~ ~ < . ,
~ ~ ~ 0 ~ g a . ~
g g 8 g g ~ . 0 )
0 0 ~ 0 " 5 , " z ~ ~
<i ~ ~ ~ g ~ ~ 0 ~ , 0 ~ 8 ,
g - g c " . c ~ ;; , ,
0 , . ~ E ! . ,
..< .z ~ 2 l' 0 0 E ~ < , , ! . 0 " , ] a ~
~ S - , ~ ~ " ~ ,
~ ~ ~ 0 8 ] I " . ~ 2 0 " , , w w 0
;:-,:' ~ " g 0 0 - b ~ " " "
" 0 0 0 0 ~ g ~ ~ ~ c c ~ S S ~ ~ ] c
... .... ~ so: ~ 0 0 ~ " " ~ I;; ] ~ ~ <
] - , , , ~ , " 0 ~ e; ~ ~
.. ... ~ , , ~ ~ , ~ ] ~ , " ] 2 ~ ~ 0 ~ ~
~ 0 g ~ ~
~ . U . . . . ~ , " 0 ;0 . , ~ . , . ,
. " ~ " " " " " " " z " ~ u ~ " ~ ~ " ~ 0 < ~
>.>.
~]
0""
U"
- "
~~
OU
u2.
,g
~
~
'u
"
!.C.
-;;;
"
,,"
u
~
:;
u
'"
oS
.5
'"
"
"
'u
C
~
~
<
o(j
-
"
>
og;
,,0
-;;;'"
"0";::
.S: c..
f-<<
<(Q)~
0)0",
O~
ON 0
Z '"
N",
E;'Q.l
"'ro'"
=::..-rn
ro2n..
u
c:
Q)
'"
<(
c:
ltl
...I
ltl
:;;;
c:
Ql
"tl
'(j)
Q)
c:::
,
c:
o
z
...
..... 0
.....-
~
"tl
Q)
:l
c:
:;;;
c:
o
o
~
Q)
.Q
ltl
....
.....--
. i .
.s: -= ~
i: ~
~ e
I..
~'ll
g~
r-:-
..: ~
~~ :~
;; ~...
I/)
Ql
I/)
:J
"tl
'1
;.
~
~ :~
e ..
o &:
~
. -.
't 3
o 0
~ ::
I/)
....
c:
Ql
~
I/)
Q)
c:::
~
~~1;
:3 ~ IT,
~
".1:1
.a,=>
~ ~
~
~ ~
:s..Sl
., i
.. ~
~
=- ~-
!.-s
" ~
..
r-
~"
!:: ~
ltl
c:
o
:;;;
o
c:
:l
u..
I
I
I
~ : ~ ~I
0 g ..
0 0 '"
- -
> "
.. <
n 0 - ..
-, ,~
-, ..
- - -
~ 0 -. 0
.. .. ..
0 " "
", .. c -
-,
r' ~.,
;' ;:; ~ '"'
rJ :!.
.-, 0 '"
~ .., .,., ::'i
;;
"
.
"' '" '"
c
8:
.!i
.
~
,
.
~
----,
>,>,
-"0
" ~
~ -
oC/)
U ~
..... ,?J
.~ -
-0 g
U 0-
.5
~
~
'G
:1:
'"
<=
,,"
u
"
..
3
U
1
,
o
N
~
o
u
.5
en
~
0;
'G
o
~
~
<(
'6
..
"
,~
o~
v~
~-
"'0";:
~ 0-
~-<
Agenda Item No. SA
May 12, 2009
Page 35 of 51
Level of Service
Because there is an increased need for correctional facility beds as the County's
population increases, it is important to establish a relationship between the number of jail
bookings and the increase in the County's population. Table 12 presents the number of
jail bookings over the last five years, along with the corresponding population. To
account for random fluctuations, the three-year average number of bookings and
population also is shown. It should be noted that the relation between the population and
number of jail bookings is used to establish a general trend in the need for correctional
facility beds; however, as previously discussed, functional population is a more
appropriate measure of the actual demand by land use that new growth places on the
Count's correctional facilities.
Table 12
Service Area Population and Jail Bookings
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
359,191
374,384
386,668
396,310
404,560
Annual Number
'" . '. . (2)
of Bookin s .
19,684
21,524
24,262
75,330
22,492
3-YearAverll
ulation; B6oldiigsi'
N/A N/A
N/A N/A
373,414 21,823
385,787 23,705
395,846 24,028
(1) Source: Table 3
(2) Source: Collier County Sheriffs Office
The level of service (LOS) for correctional facility services is expressed in terms of jail
facility beds per 1,000 residents. Using this method, Collier County's current LOS is I
bed per 286 residents or 3.50 beds per 1,000 residents. As mentioned previously, for
impact fee calculations, the LOS should be measured using functional population to
capture workers, visitors, and residents to calculate the correctional facilities impact fee.
1n terms of functional population, the current LOS is 3.58 beds per 1,000 functional
residents. Table 13 summarizes the calculation of the County's current LOS using both
peak seasonal population and functional population.
It should be noted that the reduction of the value of unpaid principal from the total asset
value (as shown in Table I) results in an effective LOS of2.77 beds per 1,000 residents
(as opposed 3.50). This is because the impact fee calculations are based on only 79
perceut of the total value (due to the reduction).
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc.
April 2009
21
Collier County
Correctional Facilities Impact Fee Study
Agenda Item No. 8A
May 12, 2009
Page 36 of 51
Table 13
Current level of Service (2008)
b.P.~!l.~.~~as()~~",. ...,i......;,,:...'...'.:,;,f.'....Fp..;o.~p,euf~I'a~()tl..~oj~n.Ji...:,.'................_..s,...........
lit~.l'opqjati"ri<",i'. "-" . "
Population!!) 412,499 403,428
Number of Beds(2) 1.444 1,444
Po ulation er Bed 286 279
LOS (Beds per 1,000 Residents)!)) 3.50 3.58
(1) Source: Table 3 for the peak seasonal population figure and Table 8 for the functional
population figure
(2) Source: Table 1
(3) Number of beds (Item 2) divided by the population (Item 1). multiplied by 1.000
The technical study for which the County's current correctional facilities impact fee is
currently based on uses square footage of correctional facilities as the basis for the LOS
and subsequent impact fee calculation, rather than the number of beds. However, in
order to be consistent with the County's adopted LOS and AUIR, the LOS and resulting
impact cost for the impact fee update are calculated on a per-bed basis.
Table 14 summarizes a LOS comparison between Collier County and counties with
correctional facility impact fees throughout the State of Florida. The LOS is displayed in
tenns of pennanent population for 2007 for all entities because functional population data
analysis has not been completed for these entities, as it was for Collier County. In
addition, the number of beds for alljurisdictions presented in the following table is based
on total available beds, as opposed to rated or capacity beds. As presented, Collier
County's LOS is within the range of these counties.
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc.
April 2009
22
Collier County
Correctional Facilities Impact Fee Study
Agenda Item No. 8A
May 12, 2009
Page 37 of 51
Table 14
2007 Level of Service Comparison
~~~}'i~~~,;ii-\&,g~,j'~l~'~;:jt~;:~:):'
0'!:(lledsperf 000.',
~~':i~:;:i!i'~:~0~l;A';;,.,,'8fii~'~:~'(3 )~;i;t;r
.'Wl~. c. o"*,~~esideI1ts)",!!iti,,,
Lee County 1,267 615,741 2.1
Palm Beach County 3,307 1,295,033 2.6
Sarasota County 1,050 387,461 2.7
Miami-Dade County 7,750 2.462,292 3.1
Brevard County 1,709 552,109 3.1
Indian River County 453 139.757 3.2
Collier County (Adopted/4) N/A N/A 3.2
Charlotte County 528 164.584 3.2
Broward County 5.786 1,765,707 3.3
Lake Coun 960 286,499 3.4
Osceola County 935 266,123 3.5
Collier County (Existing) 1,486 337,134 4.4
Hendry County 196 39,651 4.9
St. Lucie County 1,370 271,961 5.0
Highlands County 510 98,727 5.2
Manatee County 1,672 315,890 5.3
Escambia County 1.829 311,775 5.9
Okeechobee County 232 39,030 5.9
Gulf County 105 16,815 6.2
Marion County 2,164 325,023 6.7
Monroe County 656 78,987 8.3
WakullaCounty 350 29,417 11.9
(1) Source: Eachjurisdiction's respective Sheriffs Office or COlTcctional Facilities Department
(2) Source: University of Florida, Bureau of Economic and Business Research, 2007 population
estimates
(3) Total available beds (Item 1) divided by the 2007 pennanent populationll ,000 for each
jurisdiction
(4) Source: 2007 AUlR (the current adopted LOS based on rated beds and weighted population)
Cost Component
Table 15 summarizes the expected capital acquisition costs for land, buildings, and
equipment for con'ectional facilities, including:
. Two jail buildings and related parking garage with a total replacement value of
$638,000 for land, $68.6 million for buildings, $4.5 million for equipment and
TindalcMOliver & Associates, Inc.
April 2009
23
Collier County
Correctional Facilities Impact Fee Study
Agenda Item No. 8A
May 12. 2009
Page 38 of 51
vehicles, and $36.1 million for interest cost, for a total replacement value of
$109.8 million; and
. an average replacement cost of $76,000 per bed.
These figures only include the portion of the inventory currently owned by Collier
County. For planning purposes, the full replacement value per bed. including both the
portions of the inventory owned and currently being repaid with debt, is approximately
$97,000 per bed.
In addition, Table 15 presents IOtal impact cost per functional resident for correctional
facilities in Collier County, which is calculated by multiplying the total cost per bed by
the LOS (beds per 1,000 functional residents) and dividing that figure by 1,000. The total
impact cost for correctioual facilities in Collier County is $272 per functional resident.
Table 15 also provides the distribution of assets, which would be used for indexing
calculations. Of the inventory components, the interest cost should not be indexed since
it represents a fixed cost detennined when the bond was issued. All other components
would be indexed according to the methodology described in the indexing reports
adopted by the County.
Table 15
Total Impact Cost per Functional Resident
Building Replacement Costll)
Land Replacement Cost(2)
Interest CastO)
Equipment Replacement Cost(4)
Total Replacement Cost
Number of Beds(5J
Total [mpact Cost per Bed (6)
Current LOS (Beds per 1,000 Functional Residents)(7)
Total Impact Cost per Functional Resident(8)
(1), (2), (3), (5) Source: Table I
(4) Source: Table 2
(6) Total replacement cost divided by the number of beds (Item 5)
(7) Source: Table 13
(8) Total impact cost per bed (Item 6) multiplied by the LOS (Item 7) and divided by 1,000
$68,584,713
$638,000
S36.089,430
$4.483.620
$109,795,763
1,444
$76,036
;':.,....,'....!...,
PHcent"of .
Total Cost
62,47%
0.58%
32.87%
3.58
$272.21
4.08%
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc.
April 2009
24
Collier County
Correctional Facilities Impact Fee Study
Agenda Item No. SA
May 12, 2009
Page 39 of 51
Credit Component
To avoid overcharging development for the correctional facility impact fee, a review of
the capital financing program for correctional services was completed. The purpose of
this review was to determine any potential revenue credits generated by new development
that are being used for expansion of capital facilities, land, and equipment included in the
inventory.
Historically, the County's policy has been to use impact fees to fund correctional facility
capital expansion projects. As previously mentioned, the County has two debt service
issues for correctional facilities; one for improvements to the Immokalee J ail and one for
improvements to the Naples Jail and parking garage. The capital expansion portion of
the improvements to the lmmokalee Jail was paid in cash using impact fee revenue, while
the remaining payments of the debt service on the bond issued for the capital expansion
of the Naples Jail are to be repaid using impact fee revenues. Therefore, as to not
overcharge new development for future payments for the Naples Jail expansion, the
portion of the remaining principal for the Naples Jail expansion and parking garage is
removed from the replacement value of these facilities in Table 1.
Although the County funds the majority of the correctional facility capital expansion
expenditures with impact fee revenues, a small portion of the correctional facilities
equipment capital expansion purchases over the last five years were paid for with general
revenue. Therefore, a capital improvement credit is applied based on the review of
historical capital expenditures.
Capital Expansion Expenditure Credit
The capital expansion expenditures credit per functional resident was calculated based on
the number of years for which the capital expansion projects were completed. The
average annual capital expansion expenditures were divided by the average functional
residents for the same period in order to calculate the average capital expansion cost per
functional resident.
Over the past five years, the County spent a total of $338,000 of general fund revenues
for correctional facility capital expansion expenditures. This amount results in an
average capital expansion expenditure of $68,000 per year. Since the review of these
expenditures spanned 2004 through 2008, the average annual capital expansion cost is
divided by the average functional population for this same period. As shown in Table 16,
the result is an average expansion cost of $0.18 per functional resident.
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc.
April 2009
25
Collier County
Correctional Facilities Impact Fee Study
~"'~
",0""'
.0_
ON 0
ZN-O
E~"
(j) >- (j)
.==rog>
ro:2'1l.
-0
c
(j)
OJ
~
-
-(/)
CIl
...
;,
~
"0
l:
CIl
0.
><
W
l:
U) .S!
.... (/)
CIl l:
_ ctJ
.co.
ctJ ><
I-W
"iii
~
0.
ctJ
U
ctJ
o
.;::
o
-
.!!!
J:
0 0 0 => "" <n 00
0 0 0 => ..,. N -
0 N 0 '" 'C 0 :;
.. N' 0 -0 "" '" -0 ""
N 00 C') C') 'C 00
- "" N "" C') "" C')
CO "" ""
,...
.....
=> 00
00 "" N
=> ",
=>
'" C')
0
:>< "
'"
0- => 00
"" -
., or,
.,
'" or,
'"
~ C')
0 0 0 => C')
'" 0 0 0 ., 00
., 0 N 0 '" C')
., N 0 -0 "" .-:
'" N 00 C') '" 00
~ "" N "" '" C')
"" ""
=> <n
l() "" C')
=> '"
=> .-:
'" t--
:>< C')
...
=> N
... "" ..0
=> 00
., <n
'" ..0
:>< C')
...
". '" ~S ;;;
--
'" =
" ~ :E
<l) ;;:;
~ -; ~
c 'Si <l)
'" ;;; '" :0:
= '3 '" -c 0
CO 0- S- .2 0.. ~
-.0 w.l "@
"" :>, "-l ;;:; c .~
.~ -;
.. CJ) ] .2 -
.. 0 '" ..
~ "8 0 u =
.. S- o.. c =
~ ..c 0 "@ ~ ...
" ..
<l) 1 c "@ ..
"" t- .2 ;oj ""
= c U c ..
= :: .2 c c ..
... ~ ;oj < ;oj
g ;;:; " "" -
.. ~ E '" 0) ~
.. .~ 0 & "@ CJ)
~ '6 .. :::: aJ
.. .. ~ " c
= :: '" '" - 3>.l C 0) 0-
.. ~ U 0:: <> ~ ;- ...
r.:J ,... '" <( ...
"
>
o
~
~
3
;;..,:..0
i: ==
5 ~
u tj
.... _ 0',
~ ..:s v
'5. :0
"0 (':;! (':;!
Uuf-<
OJ
r..; e.lJ ~
:.; e 2
::; U :::l
a<a
------
::::-:':::'':2~~
>,>,
=5
c _
0(1)
U 0)
.. 0)
~u...
OU
U 2.
.s
~
:~
u
~
"
o
"E
"-
:.
"
':'
"
>
c::
.E
:;'
E
6
c
3
;;
c
c.
o
c.
"
"
.3
U
c
c2
"
Cll
::::
OJ
>
'"
>,
-"
"
OJ
"'"
';
'is
~~
g,~
~-
",-
0) ~
>,0)
V :3
> .:::
c"Q
OJ il
..c c.
- ~
i; 0)
~ ;:;
c: ';;j
o ~
] ~
c "
"--
o '"
0...:':::
_ "-
'" '"
= u
0_
"B g
c =
<2 @
" "
CllCll
'" '"
~ ~
OJ u
:> >
<<
"
"
3
U
"
:0
u
'D
N
u
,5
or
"
I~
I~
:~
~
~
OJ
.~
l~ ~
'"
" .-
I~~
Agenda Item No. 8A
May 12, 2009
Page41 of 51
Debt Service Credit
As previously mentioned, the debt service for the Naples Jail includes the cost of both
expanding and replacing the previous facility. The non-expansion improvements to the
Naples Jail included physically replacing old structures with a new structure, as opposed
to renovating existing structure as was done with tbe Immokalee Jail. The square footage
and accompanying value of the existing facility are included in the correctional facilities
inventory in Table 1. The replacement portion of the debt service is being paid back with
general fund revenues. As such, both the new and existing residents are contributing
toward the debt service payments. Therefore, a credit for the remaining payments of the
replacement portion of the Naples Jail debt service is given not to overcharge the new
development. Table 17 presents the debt service credit of$13 per functional resident.
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc.
April 2009
27
Collier County
Correctional Facilities Impact Fee Study
<(a>~
coO'"
.0_
ON 0
ZNN
E~""
OJ >- OJ
-=ro~
",:;;;0..
u
c
OJ
Ol
<(
~
"C
ell
....
r--U
..- ell
2 C.l
.c .~
Cll ell
I-rn
....
.c
ell
C
'i':," ~:~::,;" ~
" 2:
.. '~. = 'I':L___'. ""
. .~ -:..-,
.. '" ~
= . ~
. = Q = '"
-< .~ = Q,"i::l
~ - . =. Q
" .~',:5
co " '"
f . =
.. = ..
~ '"
Co ~;"
-< . e.
.. oa,l-,
~
~ ~
. . . N
.. ;; -~ ~
;. ~ = '"
e '. 00
.. >. ';; c-:
~ = e ~
. ..
~ - ~
&: . ~
~'- ~
02Q
-a ";
e :;
~ ~
~..
'3 ~.
.
,..
""'.....
~ "
.Q .
S,llol
=,~.
z"";
- :;:.
~ii:
~''s
..
~
e
~
"
=
"is.
~
~
~
~
~
'"
00
. '"
-~
"
.~ Vi
"
~
'"
-~
.
..
.!a
..
~
Q
-
.
N M
""'"
~~
~'"
;;
00 "
M '"
'0
~
~
..
c
~
"
c
.
...
"
"
c.
11
~ w
" "
<.J .::
.2 ...
Co "
w "
"''''
"
~Q
" -
-a..!:!
0;: I;>
z,..
';;
~
~
v
C.
~
Z
u
.s
'0
>- >-
C ."
" "
0 u;
u "
" v
.~ 0..
;0- 0 u
'"
c u ""
c
~ ~
~
." :~
3
" 'u
c. '"
0..
~ ~
'c .2
.~ u
~ ~
~
~ 0
u
~J)
3
."
.2
;;;
"3
c.
0
c.
~
(3
..., 1:!
" 2
. "
~ 00
~ .
~ M
~ ;;
;; u
" ell
>- '"
'" u
>
-'" '"
~ >,
.D
- ...,
0 u
V "D
"2 >
'3
.g
" ~
&~
EO
"...,
c 00 ~
8g~V)
~ N 0 2
"O..c v
~.;: 5n-,
_ '" It):::-
.sc'::gf
~ v:)"2
:;., ~ -
cQ Q.) ";;
c.>'c
~ ~ ~
.2 C
co2 It)
E ~ ~ ~
~v6~
>,'-
c2
" v
Uo .~
>
" ~
~ .~
o
u
I~
~,
0)
.~
u
o
~
-<
"<l
v ell
u .~
3 -
o "Cd
(/', ~
M P
-::-a
NO
-;-
.5 0-
U
- "
0
v '-
.
" "
> u
~ ~
,.... CO
"
"-
u
-
o
u
.
-a
>
"
v
I.:::
198
;~N
I'.g '"
.5 '5..
!r--<r:
~~..-.,..-.,""'
....- "'T tr, '-0 r--
-----
Agenda Item No. 8A
May 12, 2009
Page 43 of 51
Net Correctional Facilities Impact Cost
The net impact fee per functional resident is the difference between the cost component
and the credit component. Table 18 summarizes the calculation of the net correctional
facilities impact cost per functional resident.
The first section of Table 18 identifies the total impact cost as $272 per functional
resident. The second section of the table identifies the revenue credits for the
correctional facilities impact fee. The credit calculation includes credits totaling $20 for
the single family detached land use and $15 for all other land uses. The difference
between the two credit figures takes into consideration that new single family homes pay
a higher level of ad valorem tax than existing homes due to the State law that caps annual
increases on property tax assessments for homestead property. A comparison of the new
home sales and the value of existing homes indicate that new home taxable values are 53
percent higher than the taxable value of an existing home. Thus, the ad valorem credit
for a new single family home is increased by 53 percent to reflect that it generates more
taxes than an existing home. Since the majority of other residential, as well as all
nonresidential land uses are not afforded tbe same type of cap on their taxable property
value, such an adjustment is not provided.
The net impact cost per functional resident is the difference between the total impact cost
and the total revenue credit. This results in a net impact cost of $252 per functional
resident for the single family land use and $257 for all other land uses.
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc.
April 2009
29
Collier County
Correctional Facilities Impact Fee Study
Agenda Item No. SA
May 12, 2009
Page 44 of 51
Table 18
Net Impact Cost per Functional Resident
.
Revenue
. Calculation Step [moact Cost Credits
Impact Cost
Total lmpact Cost per Functional Resident!!1 $272.21
Revenue Credit
Capital Expansioll Exoenditure Credit
Average Annual Capital Expansion Credit ner Functional Resident(21 ($0.18)
Capitalization Rate 4.5%
Capitalization Period (in years) 25
Capital Expansion Credit per Functional Rc:sident'." ($2.67)
Capital Expansion Credit per Functional Resident - Percent Funded v.'ilh General
Fund(41 !OO%
Ad Valorem Portion ofthc General Fund(<;) 55.4%
Ad Valorem Tax Credit per Functional Resident - General Fundl(>J ($1.48)
Adjusted Ad Valorem Tax Credit per Functional Resident - General Fundl7i ($2.26)
Non-Ad Valorem Tax Credit per Functional Resident - General Fllndi,~1 (51.19)
Deht Service Credit
Debt Service Credit per Fllnction<J1 Residentll ($12.!';2)
Debt Service Credit per Functional Resident - Percenl Funded with General Fundi 1(11 IOOQ,o
Ad Valorem Tax Debt Service Credit per Functional Residentl'~) ($7.](1)
Ad,iusted Ad Valorem Tax Debt Sen'ice Credil per Functional Resident'!-" ($10.86)
Non~Ad Valorem Tax Debt Service Credit per Functional Residenti131 (S5.72J
Total C/'edit pel' FUllctional Resident
Total Credit per Functional Resident u Single Family Land Usel I~I ($20.03)
Total Credit per Functional Resident n Non-Single Family Land Uses(I~1 ($15.49)
Net Impact Cost
!'iet Impact Cost per Functional Resident - Single- Famil),1I6l 1 $252.181
!'iet Impact Cost per Functional Resident - Non-Single Famil)' Land USCS(l7l I $256.721
(1) Source: Table 15
(2), (4) Source: Table 16
(3) The present value of the capital improvement credit per functional resident (Item 2) at a
discount rate of 4.5 percent with a capitalization period of 25 years. The discount rate is
determined based on the current debt service schedules and discussions with representatives
from the County's Finance Department as to the average interest rate likely to be borrowed in
the future.
(5) Source: Based on a review of the County's budgets for the last five fiscal years
(6) Capital expansion credit per functional resident (Item 3) multiplied by the percent funded with
general fund (Item 4) multiplied by the ad valorem as a percent of general fund (Item 5)
(7) The ad valorem tax credit per resident (hem 6) increased by the ratio of the value of new
home sales to the taxable value of existing homes (53010)
(8) Capital improvement credit per functional resident (Item 3) less the ad valorem tax credit per
resident (Item 6)
(9) Source: Table 17
(10) Source: Collier County Naples Jail debt service schedule
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc.
April 2009
30
Collier County
Correctional Facilities Impact Fee Study
Agenda Item No. SA
May 12, 2009
Page 45 of 51
(11) Debt service credit per functional resident (Item 9) multiplied by the percent funded with
general fund (Item 10) multiplied by the ad valorem as a percent of general fund (Item 5)
(12) The ad valorem tax debt service credit per resident (Item 11) increased by the ratio of the
value of new home sales to the taxable value of existing homes (53%)
(13) Debt service credit per functional resident (Item 9) less the ad valorem tax credit per
resident (Item 11)
(14) Summation of the adjusted ad valorem tax credit per functional resident (Item 7), non-ad
valorem tax credit per functional resident (Item 8), adjusted ad valorem tax debt service
credit per functional resident (Item ]2), non-ad valorem tax debt service credit per
functional resident (Item 13)
(15) Summation of the capital improvement credit per functional resident (Item 3) and debt
service credit per functional resident (Item 9)
(16) Total impact cost per functional resident (Item 1) less the total credit per resident for the
single family land use (Item 14)
(t 7) Total impact cost per functional resident (Item ]) less the total credit per resident for all
non-single family land uses (Item] 5)
Calculated Correctional Facilities Impact Fee Schedule
Table 19 presents the calculated correctional facilities impact fee schedule developed for
Collier County for both residential and non-residential land uses, based on the respective
net impact cost per functional resident figures presented in Table 18.
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc.
April 2009
31
Collier County
COlTectional Facilities Impact Fee Study
Agenda Item No. 8A
May 12, 2009
Page 46 of 51
Table 19
Calculated Correctional Facilities Impact Fee Schedule
"'<i,L, :i<Y" ........ .......... !?"1;0.il~i)~J~ .... '.,r'I /,....................1.>.
...f..:".",' .i, ..........,.. 1';:~li.:.!.,:,;.. - ~~~j~~actfee
ii)
......,,;~ ;1,,;;\ .t. "),) .~~r,'~~r~tiOIl~1
:t;,:;~R~~id~nt{n~,,(,:
Residential
Single Family:
Less than 1 .500 SQuare feet du 1.77 $446.36
1.500 to 2,499 square feet du 1.95 $491.75
2,500 square feet or more du 2.]4 $539.67
Multi Family du 0.99 $254.15
Mobile Home,l RV (Tied Down) du 1.46 $374.81
Transient, Assisted. Group
Hotel room 0.79 $202.81
Motel room 0.75 $192.54
Nursin2: Home hed 0.72 $184.84
Assisted Livin!! Facilitv du 0.82 $210.51
Recreational
RV Park SIte 0.54 $]]8.63
Marin:1 berth 0.19 $48.78
GolfC.,urse 18 holes 19.44 $4.990.64
Movil" Theater screen 5.98 $1.535.19
Institutions
EJementmy School student 0,06 5]5.40
Middle School student 0,07 $]7,97
Hig.h School student (J,08 520.54
University/Junior College with 7,500 or fewer students student 0]0 $25,67
University/Junior Col1ege with more than 7.500 students student 007 51797
Church l.OOO sf 0,57 $]46.33
Day Care student (l.05 $12,84
Hosnital 1,000 sf 1.65 ~423.59
Office
Office 50.000 SF or less 1.000 sf 1.42 $364.54
Office 50.00 I - ] 00.000 SF 1,000 sf 1.29 $}31.17
Office 100.001 - 200,000 SF ].000 sf 1.10 5282.39
Office 200,00 I .400,000 SF 1.000 sf 0.94 $241.32
Office greater than 400.000 SF LOOO sf 080 5205.38
Medical Office/Clinic ],000 sf 1.72 $441.56
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc.
Aprit 2009
32
Cottier County
COITectiona] Facilities Impact Fee Study
Table 19 (continued)
Calculated Correctional Facilities Impact Fee Schedule
Agenda Item No. SA
May 12, 2009
Page 47 of 51
a
Retail, Gross Snare Feet
S ecialt Retail
Retail 50,000 SFGLA or less
Retail 50,001 to 100,000 SFGLA
Retail 100,001 to 150,000 SFGLA
Retail 150.001 to 200.000 SFGLA
Retail 200,001 to 400,000 SFGLA
Retail 400,001 to 600,000 SFGLA
Retail 600,001 to 1,000,000 SFGLA
Retail over 1,000,000 SFGLA
New and Used Auto Sales \
Tire Su erstore
Su ermarket
Convenience Store
Convenience Store with Gas Purn s
Home 1m rovement Su erstore
Phannacy/Dru Store
Furniture Store
Bank/Savinus \\.Talk-in
Bank/Savin s Drive-in
Qualit Restaurant
Hi h-Tumover Restaurant
Fast Food Rest wi Drive- Thru
Quick Lube
Gas/Service Station
Self Service Car Wash
Automated Car Wash
Luxury Auto Sales
Industrial
Light Industrial
Mini-Warehouse
Business Park (Flex S ace)
SFGLA ~ Square Feet of Gross Leasable Area
(1) Source: Table IO for residential land uses and Table 11 for nomesidentialland uses
(2) The calculated impact fee is calculated by multiplying the net impact cost per functional
resident ($252.18 for the single family land use and $256.72 for all other land uses) from
Table 18) by the functional resident coefficient for each land use
LOOO sf
1,000 sf la
1,000 sf la
1,000 sf la
1,000 sf la
1,000 sf la
1,000 sf la
1,000 sf la
1,000 sf I.
1.000 sf
bay
1.000 sf
1,000 sf
fuel os.
L 000 sf
1,000 sf
1,000 sf
1.000 sf
1.000 sf
L69
2.45
2.63
2.34
2.85
2.50
2.55
2.55
2.09
1.71
1.34
2.05
5.47
5.83
1.78
1.93
seat
seat
0.24
2.57
2.37
0.22
0.27
9.01
1.16
1.98
0.61
1.61
1.11
LOOO sf
service ba
fuel os.
service bay
LOOO sf
1,000 sf
LOOO sf
1,000 sf
1,000 sf
0.69
0.07
0.99
$433.86
$628.96
$675.17
$600.72
$73 L65
$641.80
$654.64
$654.64
$536.54
$438.99
$344.00
$526.28
$1.404.26
$1.496.68
$456.96
$495.47
$6L61
$659.77
$608.43
$56.48
$69.31
$2,313.05
$297.80
$508.3 1
$156.60
$413.32
$284.96
$177.14
$17.97
$254.15
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc.
April 2009
33
Collier County
COlTectional Facilities Impact Fee Study
Agenda Item No. SA
May 12, 2009
Page 48 of 51
Impact Fee Schedule Comparison
As part of the work effort in updating the Collier Counly correctional facilities impact fee
program, a comparison of impact fee schedules from other jurisdictions was completed.
Table 20 presents the comparison of correctional facility impact fees in Collier County
and the other jurisdictions who have implemented this impact fee program throughout
Florida.
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc.
April 2009
34
Collier County
Correctional Facilities Impact Fee Study
<(O>~
OOOeD
-6~O
-0>
~"tr
Q) >- Q)
~ccg'
m20-
'0
C
Q)
OJ
<(
-c
o
~
.;:
~
0.
E
o
u
~
:;
"
~
'"
u
<n
o~
'" ~
~"-
::Co
~ ~
...0.
E
~
~
~
'u
~
"-
<i
c
.2
13
e
5
u
";,
= c
;l .
,.U
~ ~
; c
- .
J'lU
.
.
i,::.
~ c
. c
. .
,liU
o
-
h
c c
. .
o;;U
,!;
2l.e>
. c
!s
iU
~
;
.
U
~
=
"
i:'
c
.
.
U
]
>
~
=
~
~.-=-
. c
u_
- .,
. "
..
=-
U
~
~ B__
B ~
.
- ~
~ e
8 e:.
.;
"
.
;"i
~
.
.
-<
~
.
~
~~:::!~M~
_.......... <o'l
~1A""1A<;.'l
".
o
o
N
'"''''t-r-r-~
0-,-""""'''''''''
!A;:1;O~::-~
~ ~ ~
~<<z-- :<1;:;..<
"'" z z ,... z
~
o
o
N
-Tr-oo, oor-
t- 00 ,- r--
_ '""00_....
<A""............
~
o
o
N
.......<<<<<
:;;:zziiz
~
o
"
~
g
;:;:. ~ ~.< <:"C
""zzzzz
N "<l" 0 "" 0-
r- '""', '" N 00 -
<A...._""".........
~ ~
o
o
o
N
CO -~,
,.... -T - ,...,
NN"'."''''....
""....""....IA
~
o
o
N
<
z
N.,.,......,..., 00 t-
o>..or- or-
:t~~a$;"'l
t,...."-,,-
'" '" '" '" '"
.g8gggg
~ ~ 0, e: 0,
~
~
~ f=
g ~]
~9~:8~
~ '" 0 _ > <;j
.~'8 g ~;5'~
~~~g .g
.., '" - L!.. ~::
5E'~~~~
(/) 0 0:: I..;.. ~ \
"
J
.
"
i'i
,~
g]
.~
u.
~'"
8~
E
.
.
~
]
B
~
u
.
"
.,
~
"
~
2
~
.
~
.
.
.E
o
~
]
'B
1
8
.
~
,
~
.
"
.
8
.
.
~
.
l3 ~
] 0
"5l ]
t", ",
--"
"g.!<~
fti;~
..:::'-:C;
I
I~
1~
I~
.IBg
. 0
..:!.--,
.~l
if- <
..,., ~
'-'" ::>
ggO
V) V. '"
--<5
c.:z
Agenda Item No. SA
May 12, 2009
Page 50 of 51
APPENDIX A
Property Values
Supplemental Information
Agenda Item No. SA
May 12, 2009
Page 51 of 51
Vacant Land Value Analysis
As previously mentioned, a vacant land sales analysis was conducted to determine the
replacement cost per acre used in the correctional facilities impact fee analysis. To
account for the higher increases in land values that have occurred in more recent years,
this analysis included a review of vacant land sales over the past seven years, from 2002
through early part of 2008. Further, outlier parcels, such as those having a cost ofless
than $10,000 or more than $1 million per acre also were excluded, Based on discussions
with County staff, future land purchases for correctional facilities will likely be in the
lmmokalee and Big Corkscrew areas. Therefore, this analysis considers recent sales of
vacant land parcels in these two districts only.
Tables A-I and A-2 present the analysis used and resulting cost per acre figure. Based on
this analysis, a replacement cost of $50,000 per acre is used to calculate the land
replacement value for the correctional facilities impact fee, as provided in Table L
Table A-1
Vacant Land Sales (2002-2008)
(Immokalee and Big Corkscrew Areas)
AllVlicliirt Parcels"
SllleA111tiU' 'Acres
$1,100 0.08
$3,720,000 16.75
$75,000 2.00
CostlAC.
$10,000
$952,813
$43,223
$48,946
1,908
Table A-2
Vacant Land Sales (2007-2008)
(Immokalee and Big Corkscrew Areas)
,}.,.....if,.i .,.,'......)..",...i.,'..,
~,$': 'SlileA111t . Acreage CostJAC
Min $5,000 0.13 $10,335
Max $1,536,800 5.88 $784,082
Median $111,589 2.03 $63,878
Weighted Averaue $54,968
Parcel Count 159
Source: Collier County Property Appraiser
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc.
April 2009
A-I
Collier County
COITectional Facilities Impact Fee Study