Loading...
DSAC Agenda 11/06/2019November 6, 2019 3:00 PM 2800 N. Horseshoe Drive Growth Management Department If you have any questions or wish to meet with staff, please contact Judy Puig at 252-2370 DSAC Meeting Page 1 of 1 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE AGENDA November 6, 2019 3:00 p.m. Conference Room 610 NOTICE: Persons wishing to speak on any Agenda item will receive up to three (3) minutes unless the Chairman adjusts the time. Speakers are required to fill out a “Speaker Request Form,” list the topic they wish to address and hand it to the Staff member seated at the table before the meeting begins. Please wait to be recognized by the Chairman and speak into a microphone. State your name and affiliation before commenting. During the discussion, Committee Members may direct questions to the speaker. Please silence cell phones and digital devices. There may not be a break in this meeting. Please leave the room to conduct any personal business. All parties participating in the public meeting are to observe Roberts Rules of Order and wait to be recognized by the Chairman. Please speak one at a time and into the microphone so the Hearing Reporter can record all statements being made. I. Call to Order – Chairman II. Approval of Agenda III. Approval of Minutes from October 2, 2019 IV. DSAC Position Vacancy Review & Vote 1. Laura DeJohn Category: Land Planner 2. Blair Foley Category: Civil Engineer 3. John English Category: Civil Engineer 4. Norman Gentry Category: General Contractor 5. Mario Valle Category: Residential/Commercial Construction 6. Marco Espinar Category: Consultant/Biologist V. Public Speakers VI. Staff Announcements/Updates A. Code Enforcement Division update – [Mike Ossorio] B. Public Utilities Department update – [Eric Fey or designee] C. Growth Management Department Transportation Engineering Division & Planning Division updates – [Jay Ahmad or designee] D. Collier County Fire Review update – [Shar Beddow or Shawn Hanson] E. North Collier Fire Review update – [Capt. Sean Lintz or Daniel Zunzunegui] F. Operations & Regulatory Mgmt. Division update – [Ken Kovensky] G. Development Review Division update – [Matt McLean] VII. New Business VIII. Old Business A. Review Transportation Impact Fee Update Study [Amy Patterson] B. Residential Lighting LDC amendment update [Jeremy Frantz] IX. Committee Member Comments X. Adjourn Next Meeting Dates: December 4, 2019 GMD conference Room 610 – 3:00 pm January 1, 2020 “Cancel” County offices closed February 5, 2020 GMD conference Room 610 – 3:00 pm March 4, 2020 GMD conference Room 610 – 3:00 pm October 2, 2019 1 MINUTES OF THE COLLIER COUNTY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING Naples, Florida, October 2, 2019 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, the Collier County Development Services Advisory Committee in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 3:00 P.M. in REGULAR SESSION at the Collier County Growth Management Department Building, Conference Room #609/610, 2800 N. Horseshoe Drive, Naples, Florida, with the following members present: Chairman: William J. Varian Vice Chairman: Blair Foley David Dunnavant James E. Boughton Clay Brooker Chris Mitchell Robert Mulhere Mario Valle Norman Gentry Marco Espinar Laura Spurgeon DeJohn Jeremy Sterk Jeff Curl John English Mark McLean (Excused) ALSO PRESENT: Judy Puig, Operations Analyst, Staff Liaison Eric Fey, Sr. Project Manager, Public Utilities Jeremy Frantz, LDC Manager Colleen Davidson, Code Enforcement Division Jay Ahmad, Director, Transportation Engineering Matt McLean, Director, Development Review Ken Kovensky, Director, Operations and Regulatory Management Amy Patterson, Impact Fees and Program Management Joe Bellone, Public Utilities Finance Director October 2, 2019 2 Any persons in need of the verbatim record of the meeting may request a copy of the audio recording from the Collier County Growth Management Department. I. Call to Order - Chairman Chairman Varian called the meeting to order at 3:00 p.m. II. Approval of Agenda Mr. Curl moved to approve the Agenda. Second by Mr. Valle. Carried unanimously 14 - 0. III. Approval of Minutes from September 4, 2019 Meeting Mr. Foley moved to approve the minutes of the September 4, 2019 meeting as presented. Second by Mr. Curl. Carried unanimously 14 - 0. September 17, 2019 DSAC-LDR Subcommittee minutes Mr. Foley moved to approve the minutes of the September 17, 2019 meeting as presented. Second by Mr. Brooker. Carried unanimously 4 - 0. IV. Public Speakers None V. Staff Announcements/Updates A. Code Enforcement Division update – [Mike Ossorio] Ms. Davidson provided the report “Code Enforcement Division Monthly Report August 22, – September 21, 2019 Highlights”” for informational purposes. She noted staff participated in the “Bay Days” clean up effort and safe community nights. B. Public Utilities Division update – [Tom Chmelik or designee] Mr. Fey submitted the monthly report on response time for “Letters of Availability, Utility Deviations and FDEP Permits” for informational purposes. He noted the Division continues to address staffing levels, including considering utilizing contract labor to provide support due to recent personnel departures. C. Growth Management Department/Transportation Engineering and/or Planning – [Jay Ahmad or designee] Mr. Ahmad reported: Golden Gate Blvd. – on schedule for completion in July of 2021. Vanderbilt Beach Road Ext. – permitting and construction in initiation anticipated for 2021 for the $120M project. Davis Blvd. and Airport Pulling – intersection improvements including addition of turning lanes. Vanderbilt Beach Road, west of US41 – addition of bike lanes. Veterans Memorial Parkway Ext. – in procurement stage. D. County Fire Review update – [Shar Beddow and/or Shawn Hanson] Ms. Beddow reported turnaround times are as follows: Building Plan review – 1 day; Site Plan reviews – 2 days; Inspections – 2 days. Upcoming events include Fire Code Advisory Meeting to review upcoming changes effective 1/1/20; Coastland Mall Fire Prevention Awareness Day, October 5th; Collier and Lee County Fire Marshall Association Charity Clay/Skeet Shoot – December 7th. October 2, 2019 3 E. North Naples Fire Review update – [Capt. Sean Lintz or Daniel Zunzunegui] Capt. Lintz reported turnaround times are as follows: Building Plan review – 621 at 7 days; Site Plan reviews – 60 at 4 days; Inspections – 1 day. F. Operations & Regulatory Mgmt. Division update [Ken Kovensky] Mr. Kovensky submitted the “Collier County September 2019 Monthly Statistics” which outlined the building plan and land development review activities. The following was noted during his report: • The work necessary to implement the credit card processing for CityView continues. • Staff is aware of enhancements needed to the CityView mobile platform for inspection tracking. G. Development Review Division update [Matt McLean] Mr. McLean reported • Developers should be aware the Site and Utility Acceptance requests by contractors should be coordinated with the Engineer of Record. • The number of subdivisions processed in Fiscal Year 2019 was less than 2018. • Staff will review the Administrative Code requirements for submitting as-built plans, including the requirement of a cover letter and any changes which may be implemented. VI. New Business A. LDC Amendments [Jeremy Frantz] Mr. Frantz submitted the Memorandum “LDC and Administrative Code Amendments” dated September 25, 2019 and accompanied by the following amendments for consideration. He noted the Subcommittee provided favorable recommendation on all three proposals with some additional recommendations for Item #2. 1. LDC Sections to be Amended 2.03.05 Civic and Institutional Zoning Districts 2.03.07 Overlay Zoning Districts 2.03.08 Rural Fringe Zoning Districts 4.06.02 Buffer Requirements 5.03.06 Dock Facilities 9.04.04 Specific Requirements for Minor After-the-Fact Encroachment APPENDIX C Final Subdivision Plat, Required Certifications and Suggested Text and Formats for other Required Information The amendments correct scrivener’s errors, cross references from previously approved LDC amendments and updates the current Clerk of Court’s signatory block for plats and required certifications. 2. LDC Section to be Amended 4.02.16 Design Standards for Development The amendment clarifies that the minimum floor area for commercial in the Bayshore Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Area does not apply to the size of a hotel room. October 2, 2019 4 Mr. Mulhere, Subcommittee Member reported they reviewed the proposed amendments and recognized the BCC directed the proposed amendment for a specific issue that arose at a hearing for a development in the Bayshore Triangle, however during discussions at the Subcommittee meeting, the following additional recommendations were made: • Staff should provide further clarification of the language as it relates to dwelling units in commercial establishments. • Staff should provide clarification regarding the minimum size of guest rooms in hotels. • Staff should return to the next DSAC-LDR subcommittee meeting to discuss the definition of the term “mixed-use” as used in LDC section. 3. Code of Laws Sections to Be Amended 62-79 Temporary Emergency Housing 38-07 Determination of Damage, Build-back Policy, Moratoria, Emergency Repairs, and Emergency Permitting System The amendments seek to assist and streamline post disaster recovery efforts for permanent home owners that require an extension for an onsite temporary emergency housing permit after the Board’s declaration of emergency. It allows an administrative approval by the County Manager or designee, to extend a temporary use permit for six months periods until a certificate of occupancy has been issued. Mr. Mulhere moved for the Development Services Advisory Committee to recommend the Board of County Commissioners adopt the above referenced proposed amendments subject to the addition of staff requests for #2: • Provide further clarification of the language as it relates to dwelling units in commercial establishments. • Provide clarification regarding the minimum size of guest rooms in hotels. • Return to the DSAC-LDR to discuss the definition of the term “mixed-use” as used in LDC section. Second by Mr. Curl. Carried unanimously 14 – 0. B. Review Water and Wastewater Impact Fee Update Study [Amy Patterson] Ms. Patterson and Mr. Bellone presented the “Collier County Water-Sewer District 2019 Water and WasteWater Impact Fee Study” and “Fiscal Year 2019 Water and Wastewater Impact Fee Study for Collier County Water-Sewer District Draft” dated September 12, 2019 prepared by PMRG. They noted the rates are reviewed on a 3-year basis and after a study by consultants, the County proposes to increase the water and wastewater rates by 27 percent. Mr. Brooker, Chairman of the Subcommittee reported: • The Subcommittee reviewed the proposed increase and recommended the study be endorsed, however did not opine on the proposal to increase the rates. • The 27 percent increase only amounts to approximately $1,433 of the total $25k +/- fee not creating a significant burden on the overall rate. • Water and wastewater is an important component of development in the County and needs to be adequately funded. October 2, 2019 5 The following was noted during Committee discussions: • There may be some offsets in the overall fee due to reduction in other categories by using the sales tax for funding projects, however the rates have not been finalized as of yet. • There is a reduction in water/wastewater service fees which may help offset the proposed increase in rates. • The new rate proposal is anticipated to be heard by the BCC in October/November and any increases in rates would not be implemented for 90 days after adoption. • Any decreases in rates are effective immediately. • The user fees fund operations and maintenance, rehabilitation projects and repairs to the existing system while the impact fees fund those facilities needed for increased capacity or service. These improvements do benefit all users of the system. • The current fee for up to a 4,000 sq. ft. residence is $27,623.28 and there are programs to reduce fees for projects which create employment opportunities, etc. Mr. Mulhere left at 4:07 p.m. • The fees for Collier are higher than other communities; however the suburban lifestyle with lower density areas creates the need for increased costs for infrastructure. • The methodology to develop the rates is the same for the past several years and which lead to proposed increase in rates. Mr. Dunnavant left at 4:25 p.m. • The County considered establishing a category for 2,400 square feet or less home, however there were legal issues and it also was determined a lower square footage home may have as great or greater impact on County services (school system, parks, etc.) as they tend to be more family oriented, full time uses. Additionally if an owner of this size home proposed converting a garage to living space or a small addition, it would create a large impact fee adjustment at that time to satisfy permit requirements. Mr. Brooker moved for the Development Services Advisory Committee to accept the findings in the report but not provide a recommendation on the proposed Impact Fee rates. Second by Mr. Foley. Carried unanimously 12 – 0. C. Review Transportation Impact Fee Update Study [Amy Patterson] Ms. Patterson reported: • The draft report has been submitted to the Subcommittee for review. • An increase in the rate of 30 – 35 percent is anticipated with some costs to be offset by the newly adopted sales tax revenue. • The item is anticipated to be heard by the DSAC in November and the increases are attributed to the increases in land and construction costs. VII. Old Business None VIII. Committee Member Comments October 2, 2019 6 Chairman Varian reported there are 6 Members serving on the DSAC whose terms are expiring and a review of the Ordinance governing the Committee is ongoing to determine if any changes are necessary regarding the terms of service by an individual member. IX. Adjourn Next Meeting Dates November 6, 2019 GMD Conference Room 610 – 3:00 p.m. December 4, 2019 GMD Conference Room 610 – 3:00 p.m. January 1, 2020 GMD Conference Room 610 – 3:00 p.m. – cancelled February 5, 2020 GMD Conference Room 610 – 3:00 p.m. There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by the order of the Chair at 4:33 P.M. COLLIER COUNTY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE ______________________________________ Chairman, William Varian These Minutes were approved by the Board/Chairman on ________________, as presented _______, or as amended ________. Advisory Board Application Form Collier County Government 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 800 Naples, FL 34112 (239) 252-8400 Application was received on: 10/2/2019 2:07:44 PM. Name: Laura DeJohn Home Phone: 239-403-4035 Home Address: 6070 Copper Leaf Ln City: Naples Zip Code: 34116 Phone Numbers Business: 239-280-4331 E-Mail Address: ldejohn@johnsoneng.com Board or Committee: Development Services Advisory Committee Category: Land Planner Place of Employment: Johnson Engineering, Inc. How long have you lived in Collier County: more than 15 How many months out of the year do you reside in Collier County: I am a year-round resident Have you been convicted or found guilty of a criminal offense (any level felony or first degree misdemeanor only)? No Not Indicated Do you or your employer do business with the County? Yes Johnson Engineering is a multi disciplinary consulting firm that provides engineering, planning, surveying, environmental and landscape architecture services to Collier County. NOTE: All advisory board members must update their profile and notify the Board of County Commissioners in the event that their relationship changes relating to memberships of organizations that may benefit them in the outcome of advisory board recommendations or they enter into contracts with the County. Would you and/or any organizations with which you are affiliated benefit from decisions or recommendations made by this advisory board? Yes Recommendations of the DSAC relate to the operation of the Growth Management department. The work and actions undertaken by the Growth Management department upon which DSAC may make recommendations can be beneficial to me as a citizen of Collier County. Any instance of a conflict requires me to recuse myself and abstain from voting per the required forms and process. Are you a registered voter in Collier County? Yes Do you currently hold an elected office? No Do you now serve, or have you ever served on a Collier County board or committee? Yes DSAC Please list your community activities and positions held: N/A Education: University of Virginia - Bachelor of City Planning - Master of Urban Planning Experience / Background I've been certified through the American Institute of Certified Planners since 2001. Employment: City of Naples - 1999 to 2004 - Planner Johnson Engineering - 2004 to present - currently Director of Planning & Landscape Architecture Advisory Board Application Form Collier County Government 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 800 Naples, FL 34112 (239) 252-8400 Application was received on: 10/2/2019 5:20:50 PM. Name: John Christian English Home Phone: Home Address: 1901 Curling Avenue City: Naples Zip Code: 34109 Phone Numbers Business: 239-403-6818 E-Mail Address: jenglish@barroncollier.com Board or Committee: Development Services Advisory Committee Category: Not indicated Place of Employment: Barron Collier Companies How long have you lived in Collier County: more than 15 How many months out of the year do you reside in Collier County: I am a year-round resident Have you been convicted or found guilty of a criminal offense (any level felony or first degree misdemeanor only)? No Not Indicated Do you or your employer do business with the County? Yes Collier Environmental Services (CES)is a subsidiary business owned by Barron Collier Companies. CES provides primarily aquatic weed management services. From time to time CES pursues contracts with Collier County to provide such services, when they are advertised. NOTE: All advisory board members must update their profile and notify the Board of County Commissioners in the event that their relationship changes relating to memberships of organizations that may benefit them in the outcome of advisory board recommendations or they enter into contracts with the County. Would you and/or any organizations with which you are affiliated benefit from decisions or recommendations made by this advisory board? No Not Indicated Are you a registered voter in Collier County? Yes Do you currently hold an elected office? No Do you now serve, or have you ever served on a Collier County board or committee? Yes Development Services Advisory Committee Please list your community activities and positions held: Leadership Collier - Class of 2007 Junior Achievement - Collier County Business Hall of Fame (past Chair) Education: BS Agricultural Engineering University of Florida Experience / Background I am a licensed professional engineer (PE) in the state of Florida. I have worked as a consulting engineer in Naples since 1995 (24 years). I worked for WilsonMiller for +/-17 years and have been with Peninsula Engineering for +/-7 years. I have been the engineer of record for numerous projects ranging in size from 1 acre to 5,000 acres (Ave Maria). Advisory Board Application Form Collier County Government 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 800 Naples, FL 34112 (239) 252-8400 Application was received on: 10/3/2019 7:54:58 PM. Name: Norman Gentry Home Phone: 2396319389 Home Address: 4085 Nova Lane City: Naples Zip Code: 34119 Phone Numbers Business: 2395949984 E-Mail Address: Gentrynormbcn@gmail.com Board or Committee: Development Services Advisory Committee Category: Not indicated Place of Employment: BUILD How long have you lived in Collier County: more than 15 How many months out of the year do you reside in Collier County: I am a year-round resident Have you been convicted or found guilty of a criminal offense (any level felony or first degree misdemeanor only)? No Not Indicated Do you or your employer do business with the County? No Not Indicated NOTE: All advisory board members must update their profile and notify the Board of County Commissioners in the event that their relationship changes relating to memberships of organizations that may benefit them in the outcome of advisory board recommendations or they enter into contracts with the County. Would you and/or any organizations with which you are affiliated benefit from decisions or recommendations made by this advisory board? No Not Indicated Are you a registered voter in Collier County? Yes Do you currently hold an elected office? No Do you now serve, or have you ever served on a Collier County board or committee? Yes Development Services Advisory Committee Please list your community activities and positions held: CBIA Board Member DSAC Education: Bachelor of Science University of Florida Experience / Background General Contractor Board of County Commissioners 3299 East Tamiami Trail, Suite 800 Naples, FL 34112 (239) 252-8400 Application for Advisory Committees/Boards Name: Mario Valle Home Phone: (239) 825-6486 Home Address: 6064 Huntington Woods Drive, Naples, FL Zip Code: 34112 Business Phone: (239) 643-6527 E-mail address: mvalle@pbscontractors.com Board or Committee Applied for: Development Services Advisory Committee Category (if applicable): Builder / General Contractor Example: Commission District, Developer, environmentalist, lay person, etc. How long have you lived in Collier County: 22 years How many months out of the year do you reside in Collier County: 12 – Full time Resident Have you ever been convicted or found guilty of a criminal offense (any level felony or first degree misdemeanor only)? Yes No X If yes, explain: Place of Employment: PBS Contractors, LLC. Do you or your employer do business with the County? Yes No X If yes, explain: Would you and/or any organizations with which you are affiliated benefit from decisions or recommendations made by this advisory board? Yes X No If yes, explain: As an Auxiliary Deputy with the Collier County Sheriff’s Office, I have recused myself from any recommendations/decisions that affect or concern the Collier County Sheriff’s Office (most issues deal with Impact Fees) NOTE: All advisory board members must update their profile and notify the Board of County Commissioners in the event that their relationship changes relating to memberships of organizations that may benefit them in the outcome of advisory board recommendations or they enter into contracts with the County. Are you a registered voter in Collier County: Yes X No Do you currently hold public office? Yes No If so, what is that office? I am an Auxiliary Deputy with the Collier County Sheriff’s Office. I am not sure if that is a public office for this purpose. Do you now serve, or have you ever served, on a Collier County board or committee? Yes X No If yes, please list the committees/boards: Development Services Advisory Committee; Workforce Housing Committee; Affordable Housing Committee Please list your community activities (civic clubs, neighborhood associations, etc. and positions held: Current Grace Place for Children & Families Board Chair & Building Committee – 2010 – Present Humane Society of Naples Vice-President 2015 – Present Collier County Sheriff’s Office Auxiliary Law Enforcement Officer 2012 – Present Development Services Advisory Committee Board Member 2008 – Present Naples Area Board of Realtors Professional Standards Committee & Mediation Committee Vice Chair 2014 – Present Champions for Learning – Advisory Council Member 2019 - Present Past Community Foundation of Collier County Trustee – Grants Oversight Committee Chair 2011 – 2016 Champions for Learning/Education Foundation of Collier County Board Member – 2016 - 2018 Connect Now Subcommittee & Conversation Facilitator 2008 – 2010 Courtside Commons at Wyndemere President – 2015 – 2018 Wyndemere Homeowners Association Governor, Facilities & Finance Committees – 2015 – 2018 Naples Area Board of Realtors Community Involvement Committee 2013 – 2015 Florida Commission on Human Relations Commissioner, Chair & Vice Chair – 2002 – 2014 Golden Gate Estates Civic Association Board of Directors & President – 1999 – 2006 Education: Bachelor of Science Double Major in Economics and Social Science (Interdisciplinary) from Florida State University, December 1989 Experience: 2006 - Present PBS Contractors, LLC. Director, Relationship Manager, Ave Maria Account Manager, Project Manager, Assistant Project Manager Responsible for finding and attracting new clients, nurturing and retaining those the company already has, and creating a level of client satisfaction that allows them to refer their friends, business associates and family members to our firm. 1996 – 2006 Creative Homes of Southwest Florida, Inc. Vice-President of Sales – President Sales of workforce housing on your lot builder – growth of company was based on referrals from past clients. Clientele was 80% Hispanic and working class in Golden Gate Estates. During its ten-year run, Creative Homes of Southwest Florida built over 950 homes mostly for first-time homebuyers. Affiliations/Organizations/Awards: Various National Home Builders Association Sales Awards 1996 – 2006 Gulfshore Business 40 under 40 – 2004 Leadership Collier Class 2004 Champions for Learning – 2013 Man of Distinction Southwest Florida Public Service Academy’s Andrew Widman Award for Academic Excellence 96.86% 1301 Law Enforcement Auxiliary Class 7/22/13 – 9/7/13 Women’s Council of Realtors – 2013 Humanitarian of the Year Naples Area Board of Realtors – 2013 Citizen of the Year Collier County Sheriff’s Office – Command Recognition April 1, 2019 Please attach any additional information you feel pertinent. This application should be forwarded to WandaRodriguez@colliergov.net or by mail or in person to Wanda Rodriguez, County Attorney’s Office, 3299 East Tamiami Trail, Suite #800, Naples, FL 34112. Thank you for volunteering to serve the citizens of Collier County. Advisory Board Application Form Collier County Government 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 800 Naples, FL 34112 (239) 252-8400 Application was received on: 10/3/2019 9:21:15 AM. Name: Marco A. Espinar Home Phone: 239-263-2747 Home Address: 3211 68th St SW City: Naples Zip Code: 34105 Phone Numbers Business: 239-263-2687 E-Mail Address: marcoe@prodigy.net Board or Committee: Development Services Advisory Committee Category: Biologist- Environmental Place of Employment: Collier Environmental Consultants Inc How long have you lived in Collier County: more than 15 How many months out of the year do you reside in Collier County: I am a year-round resident Have you been convicted or found guilty of a criminal offense (any level felony or first degree misdemeanor only)? No Not Indicated Do you or your employer do business with the County? Yes Occasionally, we are a sub on a few County projects NOTE: All advisory board members must update their profile and notify the Board of County Commissioners in the event that their relationship changes relating to memberships of organizations that may benefit them in the outcome of advisory board recommendations or they enter into contracts with the County. Would you and/or any organizations with which you are affiliated benefit from decisions or recommendations made by this advisory board? No Not Indicated Are you a registered voter in Collier County? Yes Do you currently hold an elected office? No Do you now serve, or have you ever served on a Collier County board or committee? Yes DSAC- Currently Conservation Collier- Expired Environmental Advisory Board- Expired Please list your community activities and positions held: FWC Hunter Safety Class- Teach Wildlife component Pepper Ranch Youth Hunting Program- Volunteer/ Guide VSA- Community Discounted animal vaccinations, animal handler Education: BS- University of South Florida- Biologist AA- Manatee Junior College- Biologist Experience / Background South West Florida Water Management District- Environmental Specialist Collier County- Development Services- Environmental Specialist Private Practice- Environmental Consulting 23 years BP- Deepwater Horizon MS Canyon 252 Oil spill, Natural Resource Advisor Code Enforcement Division Monthlv Report September 22,zOLg - October 2L,2OL9 Highlights a a o a Cases opened: Cases closed due to voluntary compliance: Property inspections: Lien searches requested : 671, 491, 3034 974 Cases Opened Per Month 900 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 864 785806822 776 2868 .)$ +d 746 2765 691 2587 7 748 2681, 3249 642 654 671 "/ -d ..+" $q.f -.- N,-rp ,""f ,"S ."d ,".' J Code lnspections per Month 3s00 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 3034 2048 I 2683 2999 0 .'9 .'9.\o tra' ^$ o" ..>$ +o ^g tao I ^.ot"$"'f J '"'e *,d o\, qt{ G*'o" This report reflects monthly data from September 22,2019 - October 2L,2019 Septembe r 22, 2019 through October 21,, 2019 Code Cases by Category 7te 1200 CRA se Opened Monthly1000 O Monthly Open Cases 800 600 OTotal Opened Cases to Date (Report initiated September 2018) 400 200 n Bayshore lmmokalee 3229 2204 6000 5423 5000 4335 Origin of Case 4000 r code Div. lnitiated Cases r Complaint lnitiated Cases 3000 2000 1000 0 2078 2019 This report reflects monthly data from September 22,2019 - October 2L,2019 Septembe r 22, 2019 through October 2'l-, 2O!9 Code Cases by Category Vehicles 25% Vegetation Requirements 3% Fuel Pumps Animals Property Maintenance Parking Enforcement 6% z% Land Use 10% Occupational Licensing 2% Accessory Use 2% Snipe signs omitted Nuisance Abatement 31% Temporary I o% Site Developme 10% Right of Way 3% Case Type Common issues associated with Case Type Accessory Use - Fence permits, fence maintenance, canopies, shades, guesthouse renting etc. Animals - Prohibited animals, too many animals, etc. Commercial - Shopping carts Land Use - Prohibited land use, roadside stands, outdoor storage, synthetic drugs, zoning issues, etc. Noise - Construction, early morning landscaping, bar or club, outdoor bands, etc. Nuisance Abatement - Litter, grass overgroMh, waste container pits, exotics, etc. Occupational Licensing - Home occupation violations, no business tax receipts, kenneling. etc. Parking Enforcement - Parking within public right-of-way, handicap parking, etc. Propefi Maintenance - Unsanitary conditions, no running water, green pools, structure in disrepair, etc. Protected Species - Gopher Tortoise, sea turtles lighting, bald eagles, etc. Right of Way - Construction in the public right-of-way, damaged culverts, obstruction to public right-of-way, etc.Signs - No sign permits, illegal banners, illegal signs on private property, etc. Site Development -Building permits, building alterations, land alterations, etc. Temporary Land Use - Special events, garage sales, promotional events, sidewalk sales, etc. Vegetation Requirements - Tree maintenance, sight distance triangle, tree pruning, land clearing, landfill, preserves, etc.Vehicles - License plates invalid, inoperable vehicles, grass parking, RV parking, other vehicle parking etc. This report reflects monthly data from September 22,201,9 - October 2L,2019 L% Noise 2% _----_ August 22,201.9 through September 21,,2019 Code Cases by Category Vehicles etc. Snipe signs omilied Animals Vegetation Requ irements Site Development 8% Signs 10/ Right of Way s%Nuisance Abatement 39% Property Maintenance 9%Parking Enforcement 2%Occupational Licensing 10/L/O Case Type Common issues associated with Case Type Accessory Use - Fence permits, fence maintenance/ canopies, shades, guesthouse renting etc. Animals - Prohibited animals, too many animals, etc. Commercial - Shopping carts Land Use - Prohibited land use, roadside stands, outdoor storage, synthetic drugs, zoning issues, etc. Noise - Construction, early morning landscaping, bar or club, outdoor bands, etc. Nuisance Abatement - Litter, grass overgrowth, waste container pits, exotics, etc. Occupational Licensing - Home occupation violations, no business tax receipts, kenneling. etc. Parking Enforcement - Parking within public right-of-way, handicap parking, etc. Property Maintenance - Unsanitary conditions, no running water, green pools, structure in disrepair, etc. Protected Species - Gopher Toftoise, sea tuftles lighting, bald eagles, etc. Right of Way - Construction in the public right-of-way, damaged culvefts, obstruction to public right-of-way, etc.Signs - No sign permits, illegal banners, illegal signs on private properly, etc. Site Development -Building permits, building alterations, land alterations, etc. Temporary Land Use - Special events, garage sales, promotional events, sidewalk sales, etc. Vegetation Requirements - Tree maintenance, sight distance triangle, tree pruning, land clearing, Iandfill, preserves, etc. - License plates invalid, inoperable vehicles, grass parking, RV parking, other vehicle parking This report reflects monthly data from september 22,20L9 - october 2L,2olg Land Use 10% Noise Use 15% 2% July 22,2019 - August 21,2019 Code Cases by Category Accessory Use 10/t/o Animals Ve hicles Land Use 6%Noise L/O Vegetation Requirements 4% Tempora Land Use 0% Develo Signs 7% Site Right of Way 5% Nuisance Abatement 42% Property Maintenance 9% Parrking Enforcement Occupational Licensing T% Case Type Common issues associated with Case Type Accessory Use - Fence permits/ fence maintenance, canopies, shades, guesthouse renting etc.Animals - Prohibited animals, too many animals, etc.Commercial - Shopping carts Land Use - Prohibited land use, roadside stands, outdoor storage, synthetic drugs, zoning issues, etc.Noise - Construction, early morning landscaping, bar or club, outdoor bands, etc. Nuisance Abatement - Litter, grass overgrowth, waste container pits, exotics, etc. Occupational Licensing - Home occupation violations, no business tax receipts, kenneling. etc. Parking Enforcement - Parking within public right-of-way, handicap parking, etc.Propefi Maintenance - Unsanitary conditions, no running water, green pools, structure in disrepalr, etc. Protected Species - Gopher Tortoise, sea turtles lighting, bald eagles, etc. Right of Way - Construction in the public right-of-way, damaged culverts, obstruction to public right-of-way, etc.signs - No sign permits, illegal banners, illegal signs on private property, etc.site Development -Building permits, building alterations, land alterations, etc. Temporary Land Use - Special events, garage sales, promotional events, sidewalk sales, etc.Vegetation Requirements - Tree maintenance, sight distance triangle, tree pruning, land clearing, landfill,preserves, etc. Vehicles etc. - License plates invalid, inoperable vehicles, grass parking, RV parking, other vehicle parking This report reflects monthly data from septembe12 2,201.9 - october 21,,2019 t% 8% Public Utilities DepartmentEngineering and Project Management Division31 121 171313171541326382430777851190246810120510152025303540Apr-19 May-19 Jun-19 Jul-19 Aug-19 Sep-19RequestsBusiness DaysResponse Time - Letters of AvailabilityRequests CompletedMinimumAverageMaximumRequests Received Public Utilities DepartmentEngineering and Project Management Division6662641332124643236111181090246810120246810121416Apr-19 May-19 Jun-19 Jul-19 Aug-19 Sep-19RequestsBusiness DaysResponse Time - FDEP PermitsRequests CompletedInitial Review TimeRevision Review TimeDirector Approval TimeRequests Received Public Utilities DepartmentEngineering and Project Management Division221222555423123029322641051015202530354045012345678Apr-19 May-19 Jun-19 Jul-19 Aug-19 Sep-19RequestsBusiness DaysResponse Time - Utility DeviationsRequests CompletedSufficiency Review TimeSubstantive Review TimeRequests Received 2019 IMPACT FEE STUDY COMPARISON DRAFT IMPACT FEE CURRENT PROPOSED DIFFERENCE CURRENT PROPOSED DIFFERENCE CURRENT PROPOSED DIFFERENCE Parks - Community $933.83 $933.83 $0.00 $455.20 $455.20 $0.00 $455.20 $455.20 $0.00 Parks - Regional $2,694.32 $2,694.32 $0.00 $1,230.24 $1,230.24 $0.00 $1,230.24 $1,230.24 $0.00 School $8,789.54 $8,789.54 $0.00 $2,844.19 $2,844.19 $0.00 $2,844.19 $2,844.19 $0.00 Road $7,443.99 $8,090.00 $646.01 9%$5,541.89 $6,950.00 $1,408.11 25%$5,541.89 $5,174.00 -$367.89 -7% Jail $499.19 $499.19 $0.00 $228.91 $228.91 $0.00 $228.91 $228.91 $0.00 Library $336.05 $336.05 $0.00 $159.78 $159.78 $0.00 $159.78 $159.78 $0.00 EMS $142.07 $142.07 $0.00 $67.50 $67.50 $0.00 $67.50 $67.50 $0.00 Government Buildings $934.34 $934.34 $0.00 $443.94 $443.94 $0.00 $443.94 $443.94 $0.00 Law Enforcement $586.95 $586.95 $0.00 $296.56 $296.56 $0.00 $296.56 $296.56 $0.00 Water - 3/4" Meter $2,562.00 $3,382.00 $820.00 32%$2,562.00 $3,382.00 $820.00 32%$2,562.00 $3,382.00 $820.00 32% Sewer - 3/4" Meter $2,701.00 $3,314.00 $613.00 23%$2,701.00 $3,314.00 $613.00 23%$2,701.00 $3,314.00 $613.00 23% TOTAL $27,623.28 $29,702.29 $2,079.01 $16,531.21 $19,372.32 $2,841.11 $16,531.21 $17,596.32 $1,065.11 OVERALL % INCREASE 7.53%OVERALL % INCREASE 17.19%OVERALL % INCREASE 6.44% IMPACT FEE CURRENT PROPOSED DIFFERENCE CURRENT PROPOSED DIFFERENCE CURRENT PROPOSED DIFFERENCE Road $102,488.80 $86,050.00 -$16,438.80 -16%$106,764.00 $105,680.00 -$1,084.00 -1%$56,999.50 $45,840.00 -$11,159.50 -20% Jail $3,282.00 $3,282.00 $0.00 $6,757.10 $6,757.10 $0.00 $1,903.00 $1,903.00 $0.00 EMS $934.00 $934.00 $0.00 $1,923.00 $1,923.00 $0.00 $541.60 $541.60 $0.00 Government Buildings $6,195.10 $6,195.10 $0.00 $12,754.70 $12,754.70 $0.00 $3,592.10 $3,592.10 $0.00 Law Enforcement $3,715.70 $3,715.70 $0.00 $7,649.90 $7,649.90 $0.00 $2,154.50 $2,154.50 $0.00 Water - 1" Meter $4,278.00 $5,647.00 $1,369.00 32%$4,278.00 $5,647.00 $1,369.00 32%$4,278.00 $5,647.00 $1,369.00 32% Sewer - 1 " Meter $4,510.00 $5,534.00 $1,024.00 23%$4,510.00 $5,534.00 $1,024.00 23%$4,510.00 $5,534.00 $1,024.00 23% TOTAL $125,403.60 $111,357.80 -$14,045.80 $144,636.70 $145,945.70 $1,309.00 $73,978.70 $65,212.20 -$8,766.50 OVERALL % DECREASE -11.20%OVERALL % INCREASE 0.91%OVERALL % DECREASE -11.85% 10,000 Sq. Ft.10,000 Sq. Ft.10,000 Sq.Ft. GENERAL INDUSTRIAL SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED MULTI-FAMILY 1-2 STORIES OFFICE RETAIL 2,000 Sq. Ft. Living Area PER UNIT MULTI-FAMILY 3-10 STORIES PER UNIT          Collier County Road  Impact Fee Update Study    DRAFT Report  October 14, 2019 Prepared for:  Collier County Growth Management  Division, Planning & Regulation  2800 North Horseshoe Drive   Naples, Florida 34104  ph  (239) 252‐2400    Prepared by:  Tindale Oliver  1000 N. Ashley Dr., #400  Tampa, Florida 33602  ph  (813) 224‐8862  fax (813) 226‐2106  E‐mail: nkamp@tindaleoliver.com  0073141‐07.18  DRAFT    Tindale Oliver  Collier County  October 2019  i  Road Impact Fee Update Study  Collier County  Road Impact Fee Update Study    Table of Contents    INTRODUCTION  .................................................................................................................       1    Methodology ......................................................................................................................   1    Legal Overview ...................................................................................................................   2  DEMAND COMPONENT ......................................................................................................   5    Travel Demand ...................................................................................................................   5    Additional Land Uses ..........................................................................................................   5    Interstate & Toll Facility Adjustment Factor .......................................................................   6    State Road Adjustment Factor ...........................................................................................   7  COST COMPONENT .............................................................................................................  8    County Roadway Costs .......................................................................................................  8    Vehicle‐Miles of Capacity Added per Lane Mile .................................................................   11    Cost per Vehicle‐Mile of Capacity ......................................................................................   12  CREDIT COMPONENT ..........................................................................................................    13    Capital Improvement Credit ...............................................................................................   13    Present Worth Variables ....................................................................................................  14  CALCULATED ROAD IMPACT FEE SCHEDULE ........................................................................    16    Road Impact Fee Calculation ..............................................................................................   18    Road Impact Fee Comparison ............................................................................................   18  ROAD IMPACT FEE BENEFIT DISTRICTS ................................................................................    20    District Boundaries .............................................................................................................   20    Impact Fee Revenue Use Across Districts ...........................................................................   21    Regional Roads ...................................................................................................................   21    Benefit Districts Recommendations ...................................................................................   23  SIDEWALK CONSTRUCTION IN‐LIEU PAYMENT ...................................................................   26    Appendices:  Appendix A:   Demand Component  Appendix B:   Cost Component  Appendix C:   Credit Component  Appendix D:   Calculated Road Impact Fee Schedule DRAFT    Tindale Oliver  Collier County  October 2019  1  Road Impact Fee Update Study  Introduction    Collier County is continuing to experience population growth, with a projected countywide  increase of 175,000 persons by 2045, resulting in an average annual growth rate of 1.3%.  This  continuing  growth  requires  additional  capital  facilities.  Collier  County’s  Road  Impact  Fee  Ordinance was originally adopted in January 1985 to assist the County in providing adequate  transportation facilities for expected growth.  The fee was last updated in 2015.  In accordance  with the County’s impact fee ordinance requirements and to reflect most recent and localized  data, the County retained Tindale Oliver to update the technical study that will be the basis for  the  updated  fee  schedule.    The  figures  calculated  in  this  study represent the technically  defensible level of impact fees that the County could charge; however, the Board of County  Commissioners may choose to discount the fees as a policy decision.    This study is based on information obtained from Collier County and other sources, as indicated,  through November of 2018.    Methodology    The methodology used for the road impact fee study continues to follow a consumption‐based  impact fee approach in which new development is charged based upon the proportion of vehicle‐ miles of travel (VMT) that each unit of new development is expected to consume of a lane mile  of roadway network.    Included in this document is the necessary support material used in the calculation of the road  impact fee.  The general equation used to compute the impact fee for a given land use is:    [Demand x Cost] – Credit = Fee    The “demand” for travel placed on a transportation system is expressed in units of Vehicle‐Miles  of Travel (daily vehicle‐trip generation rate x the trip length x the percent new trips [of total trips])  for each land use contained in the impact fee schedule.  Trip generation represents the average  daily rates since new development consumes trips on a daily basis.      The “cost” of building new capacity typically is expressed in units of dollars per vehicle‐mile of  roadway capacity.   DRAFT    Tindale Oliver  Collier County  October 2019  2  Road Impact Fee Update Study  The “credit” is an estimate of future non‐impact fee revenues generated by new development  that are allocated to provide roadway capacity expansion.  The impact fee is considered to be an  “up front” payment for a portion of the cost of building a vehicle‐mile of capacity that is directly  related to the amount of capacity consumed by each unit of land use contained in the impact fee  schedule, that is not paid for by future tax revenues generated by the new development activity.   These credits are required under the supporting case law for the calculation of impact fees where  a new development activity must be reasonably assured that they are not being charged twice  for the same level of service.  More specifically, the input variables used in the fee equation are  as follows:    Demand Variables:   Trip generation rate   Trip length   Trip length adjustment factor   Percent new trips    Cost Variables:   Roadway cost per lane‐mile   Roadway capacity added per lane mile constructed    Credit Variables:   Equivalent gas tax credit (pennies)   Present worth   Fuel efficiency   Effective days per year      Legal Overview    In Florida, legal requirements related to impact fees have primarily been established through  case law since the 1980’s.  Impact fees must comply with the “dual rational nexus” test, which  requires that they:   Be supported by a study demonstrating that the fees are proportionate in amount to the  need created by new development paying the fee; and   Be spent in a manner that directs a proportionate benefit to new development, typically  accomplished through establishment of benefit districts (if needed) and a list of capacity‐ DRAFT    Tindale Oliver  Collier County  October 2019  3  Road Impact Fee Update Study  adding projects included in the County’s Capital Improvement Plan, Capital Improvement  Element, or another planning document/Master Plan.    In 2006, the Florida legislature passed the “Florida Impact Fee Act,” which recognized impact fees  as “an outgrowth of home rule power of a local government to provide certain services within its  jurisdiction.”  § 163.31801(2), Fla. Stat.  The statute – concerned with mostly procedural and  methodological limitations – did not expressly allow or disallow any particular public facility type  from  being  funded  with  impact  fees.    The  Act  did  specify  procedural  and  methodological  prerequisites, such as the requirement of the fee being based on most recent and localized data,  a 90‐day requirement for fee changes, and other similar requirements, most of which were  common to the practice already.    More recent legislation further affected the impact fee framework in Florida, including the  following:   HB 227 in 2009:  The Florida legislation statutorily clarified that in any action challenging  an impact fee, the government has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the  evidence that the imposition or amount of the fee meets the requirements of state legal  precedent or the Impact Fee Act and that the court may not use a deferential standard.   SB 360 in 2009:  Allowed fees to be decreased without the 90‐day notice period required  to increase the fees and purported to change the standard of legal review associated with  impact fees.  SB 360 also required the Florida Department of Community Affairs (now the  Department of Economic Opportunity) and Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT)  to conduct studies on “mobility fees,” which were completed in 2010.   HB  7207  in  2011:    Required  a  dollar‐for‐dollar  credit,  for  purposes  of  concurrency  compliance, for impact fees paid and other concurrency mitigation required.     HB  319  in  2013:   Applied  mostly  to  concurrency  management  authorities,  but  also  encouraged local governments to adopt alternative mobility systems using a series of  tools identified in section 163.31801 (5)(f), Florida Statutes.   HB 207 in  2019:  Included the following changes to the Impact Fee Act along with  additional clarifying language:  o Impact fees cannot be collected prior to building permit issuance; and  o Impact fee revenues cannot be used to pay debt service for previously approved  projects unless the expenditure is reasonably connected to, or has a rational nexus  with, the increased impact generated by the new residential and commercial  construction.  DRAFT    Tindale Oliver  Collier County  October 2019  4  Road Impact Fee Update Study   HB 7103 in 2019:  Addressed multiple issues related to affordable housing/linkage fees,  impact fees, and building services fees.  In terms of impact fees, the bill required that  when local governments increase their impact fees, the outstanding impact fee credits  for developer contributions should also be increased.  This requirement will operate  prospectively.  This bill also allowed local governments to waive/reduce impact fees for  affordable housing projects without having to offset the associated revenue loss.    The following paragraphs provide further detail on the generally applicable legal standards  applicable here.    Impact Fee Definition   An impact fee is a one‐time capital charge levied against new development.   An impact fee is designed to cover the portion of the capital costs of infrastructure  capacity consumed by new development.   The principle purpose of an impact fee is to assist in funding the implementation of  projects  identified  in  the  Capital  Improvements  Element  (CIE)  and  other  capital  improvement programs for the respective facility/service categories.    Impact Fee vs. Tax   An impact fee is generally regarded as a regulatory function established based upon the  specific benefit to the user related to a given infrastructure type and is not established  for the primary purpose of generating revenue for the general benefit of the community,  as are taxes.   Impact fee expenditures must convey a proportional benefit to the fee payer.  This is  accomplished through the establishment of benefit districts, where fees collected in a  benefit district are spent in the same benefit district.     An impact fee must be tied to a proportional need for new infra structure capacity created  by new development.    This technical report has been prepared to support legal compliance with existing case law and  statutory requirements.   DRAFT    Tindale Oliver  Collier County  October 2019  5  Road Impact Fee Update Study  Demand Component    Travel Demand    The amount of transportation system consumed by a unit of new land development is calculated  using the following variables and is a measure of the vehicle‐miles of new travel a unit of  development places on the existing roadway system:     Number of daily trips generated;   Average length of those trips; and   Proportion  of  travel  that  is  new  travel,  rather  than  travel  that  is  already  on  the  transportation system.    The trip characteristics variables were primarily obtained from two sources: (1) similar studies  conducted throughout Florida (Florida Studies Database) and (2) the Institute of Transportation  Engineers’ (ITE) Trip Generation reference report (10th Edition).  The Florida Trip Characteristics  Studies Database is included in Appendix A and contains several studies conducted in Collier  County.  This database was used to determine trip length, percent new trips, and the trip  generation rate for several land uses.    Additional Land Uses    As part of this update study, the following land uses were revised/added to the County’s fee  schedule to better reflect type of uses being developed in Collier County.    Assisted Living Facility/Retirement Home/Independent Living  The current road impact fee schedule includes “retirement community/age‐restricted single‐ family” and “assisted living facility (ALF)” land uses.  Due to updates to ITE 10th Edition and to  better align with the type of uses that are being developed in Collier County, these uses were re‐ organized as the following:   LUC 251: Retirement Community (detached), measured per “dwelling unit”   LUC 252: Retirement Community (attached), measured per “dwelling unit”   LUC 254: Assisted Living, measured per “bed”       DRAFT    Tindale Oliver  Collier County  October 2019  6  Road Impact Fee Update Study  Fast Casual Restaurant  This land use is new to ITE 10th Edition and will be added to the Collier County road impact fee  schedule.     LUC 930: Fast Casual Restaurant, measured per 1,000 sq ft.  This land use is a sit‐down  restaurant with no wait staff or table service.  Customers typically order off a menu board,  pay for food before the food is prepared and seat themselves.  The menu generally  contains  higher  quality,  made‐to‐order  food  items  with  fewer  frozen  or  processed  ingredients than fast food restaurants.  The average size of the  surveyed  sites  is  approximately 3,000 square feet.    Fast Food with Drive‐Thru with Two Meals  The current road impact fee schedule includes single “fast food w/drive‐thru” land use, but does  differentiate between those that are open 24 hours a day and offer three meals vs. those that  offer only two meals.  A new land use has been added to the schedule to reflect the reduced  travel demand associated with fast food restaurants that offer only two meals.   LUC 934.1: Fast Food w/Drive‐Thru with Two Meals    Trip generation rate, trip length, and percent new trips data were based local trip characteristics  studies completed in Collier County in 2011.    Interstate & Toll Facility Adjustment Factor    This variable was used to recognize that interstate highway and toll facility improvements are  funded by the State (specifically, the Florida Department of Transportation) using earmarked  State and Federal funds.  Typically, impact fees are not used to pay for these improvements and  the portion of travel occurring on the interstate/toll facility system is subtracted from the total  travel for each use.    To calculate the interstate and toll (I/T) facility adjustment factor, the loaded highway network  file was generated for the District 1 Regional Planning Model (D1RPM v1.0.3).  A select zone  analysis  was  run  for  all  traffic  analysis  zones  located  within the  Collier  County  in  order  to  differentiate trips with an origin and/or destination within the county versus trips that simply  passed through the county.    The analysis reviewed trips on all interstate and toll facilities within Collier County, including,  Interstate 75 and Alligator Alley (toll portion of I‐75).  The limited access vehicle‐miles of travel  DRAFT    Tindale Oliver  Collier County  October 2019  7  Road Impact Fee Update Study  (Limited Access VMT) for county‐generated trips with an origin and/or destination within county  was calculated for the identified limited access facilities.  Next, the total VMT was calculated for  all county‐generated trips with an origin and/or destination within Collier County for all roads,  including limited access facilities.     The I/T adjustment factor of 14.4 percent was determined by dividing the total limited access  VMT by the total County VMT.  Total County VMT reduced by this factor is representative of only  the roadways that are eligible to be funded with road impact fee revenues.  Appendix A, Table A‐ 1 provides further detail on this calculation.        State Road Adjustment Factor    This variable was used to adjust the trip length for each land use to reflect the portion of the trip  that occurs on non‐state roadway facilities.  To calculate this adjustment factor, the 2040 VMT  distribution was calculated using D1RPM v1.0.3 projections.  Appendix A, Table A‐2 provides  further detail on this calculation.       DRAFT    Tindale Oliver  Collier County  October 2019  8  Road Impact Fee Update Study  Cost Component    Cost information from Collier County and other counties in Florida was reviewed to develop a  unit cost for all phases involved in the construction of one lane‐mile of roadway capacity.   Appendix B provides the data and other support information utilized in these analyses.    County Roadway Cost        This  section  examines  the  right‐of‐way  (ROW),  construction,  and  other  cost  components  associated with county roads with respect to transportation capacity expansion improvements  in Collier County.  In addition to local data, bid data for recently completed/ongoing projects and  recent construction bid data from roadway projects throughout Florida were used to supplement  the cost data for county roadway improvements.  The cost for each roadway capacity project was  separated  into  six  components:   design,  right‐of‐way  (ROW),  construction,  construction  engineering/inspection (CEI), mitigation, and urban overpass costs.    Design and CEI  Design costs for county roads were estimated at 11 percent of construction phase costs based  on a review of recent road/transportation impact fee studies throughout Florida.  Additional  detail is provided in Appendix B, Table B‐1.    CEI costs for county roads were estimated at nine (9) percent of construction phase costs based  on a review of recent road/transportation impact fee studies throughout Florida.  Additional  detail is provided in Appendix B, Table B‐8.    Right‐of‐Way  The ROW cost reflects the total cost of the acquisitions along a corridor that were necessary to  have sufficient cross‐section width to widen an existing road or, in the case of new construction,  to build a new road.  The ROW acquisition data from four recent projects in Collier County was  reviewed:   Golden Gate Blvd from Wilson Blvd to E. of 18th St N   Collier Blvd from Green Blvd to Golden Gate Blvd   Golden Gate Blvd from W. of 20th St SE to E. of Everglades Blvd   Vanderbilt Beach Rd Extension from Collier Blvd to 16th St NE         The  ROW  costs  for  these  improvements  were  then  grouped  as  “low”  cost  or  “high”  cost  DRAFT    Tindale Oliver  Collier County  October 2019  9  Road Impact Fee Update Study  depending on the geographical location and weighted by the distribution of lane miles in the  2040  LRTP.    This  distribution  indicates  that  71  percent  of  planned  improvements  will  be  constructed in “low” ROW cost areas (rural area) and 29 percent of improvements will be  constructed in “high” ROW cost areas (urban and transitioning areas).  Urban and transitioning  areas include west county (City of Naples) and extending into the Golden Gate area.  Rural areas  include Immokalee and east county.  As shown in Appendix B, Tables B‐2 and B‐3, the resulting  ROW cost was approximately $1.67 million per lane mile.  This estimate suggests a significant  increase (95 percent) since the last technical study due primarily to the location of projects in the  last study vs. this study as well as a small sample size.    To supplement this analysis, a review of changes in the market value of all property in Collier  County was reviewed.  As reported by the Florida Department of Revenue, the value of properties  increased by approximately 40 percent between 2014 and 2018.  To update the ROW cost, the  calculated cost per lane mile from the previous study ($863,000) was indexed using the value  increase observed over the past four years (approximately 40 percent).  This index results in a  ROW cost of approximately $1.21 million per lane mile, which represents a conservative estimate  that accounts for the fluctuations in cost due to the location of projects and small sample sizes.   Additional detail is provided in Appendix B, Table B‐4.       Construction Cost  The construction cost for county roads was based on recently completed projects and future  estimates in Collier County and in other communities in Florida.  A review of construction cost  data for improvement Collier County since 2012 identified six capacity expansion projects:   Golden Gate Blvd from Wilson Blvd to E. of 18th St N   Collier Blvd from Green Blvd to Golden Gate Blvd   Golden Gate Blvd from W. of 20th St SE to E. of Everglades Blvd   Vanderbilt Beach Rd Extension from Collier Blvd to 16th St NE   Vanderbilt Beach Rd Extension from US 41 to E. of Goodlette‐Frank Rd   Airport Rd from Vanderbilt Beach Rd to Immokalee Rd     The costs for these improvements ranged from approximately $2.90 million to $5.60 million per  lane mile with a weighted average cost of $3.57 million per lane mile.  Additional detail is  provided in Appendix B, Table B‐6.    In addition to local projects, recent improvements from other counties throughout Florida were  reviewed to increase the sample size.  This review included over 156 lane miles of lane addition  DRAFT    Tindale Oliver  Collier County  October 2019  10  Road Impact Fee Update Study  and new road construction improvements completed between 2012 and 2018 with a weighted  average cost of approximately $2.73 million per lane mile.  This cost has been increasing during  more recent years.  Additional data is provided in Appendix B, Table B‐7.    Based on a review of these data sets, a construction cost estimate of $3.50 million per lane mile  is used in the impact fee calculation for urban design (curb & gutter) improvements.  Based on  discussions with County staff, it is anticipated that all the lane miles that the County will construct  in the future will have urban design characteristics.      Mitigation  Mitigation cost estimates were developed based on cost data received for two recent projects in  Collier County:   Golden Gate Blvd from Wilson Blvd to E. of 18th St N   Collier Blvd (CR 951) from Golden Gate Blvd to Green Blvd    The costs for these projects ranged from $22,000 to $117,000 with a weighted average cost of  approximately $74,000 per lane mile.  It should be noted that both of these projects are located  outside of the Panther Consultation Area (PCA) of Collier County.  Historically, projects within the  PCA have commanded a higher mitigation cost per lane mile than those projects outside of the  area.  Therefore, the use of $74,000 for the county road cost represents a conservative estimate.   Additional detail is provided in Appendix, Table B‐9.    Urban Overpass  Urban overpass cost estimates were developed based on cost data received for three planned  improvements in Collier County:   Immokalee Rd & Randall Blvd   US 41 (SR 90) Tamiami Tr East @ Collier Blvd (CR 951)   Immokalee Rd & Collier Blvd    The total cost of these improvements was then divided by the total lane miles of county needs  projects  in  the  2040  Long  Range  Transportation  Plan,  resulting in a cost of approximately  $523,000 per lane mile.  Additional detail is provided in Appendix B, Table B‐10.    Table 1 summarizes the county road cost estimates for county roads while Table 2 provides a  comparison to the cost estimates used to calculate the current Collier County road impact fee  rates.  As shown, the cost estimate is approximately 30 percent higher than last study.   DRAFT    Tindale Oliver  Collier County  October 2019  11  Road Impact Fee Update Study  Table 1  Estimated Total Cost per Lane Mile   for County Roads    1) Design is estimated at 11% of construction costs.  2) Source: Based on a review of local projects (Appendix B, Table B‐3)  and taxable value increases countywide (Appendix B, Table B‐4)  3) Source: Based on a review of local projects (Appendix B, Table B‐6)  and statewide capacity expansion projects (Appendix B, Table B‐7)  4) CEI is estimated at 9% of construction costs  5) Source: Appendix B, Table B‐9  6) Source: Appendix B, Table B‐10   Note: All figures rounded to nearest $000     Table 2  Total Cost per Lane Mile Comparison for County Roads    1) Source: Collier County Transportation Impact Fee Update Study, January 2015  2) Source: Table 1    Vehicle‐Miles of Capacity per Lane Mile    An additional component of the roadway impact fee equation is the capacity added per lane‐mile  of roadway constructed.  The VMC is an estimate of capacity add ed per lane mile, for city/county  roadway improvements in the Collier County 2040 LRTP.  As shown in Table 3, each lane mile will  add approximately 8,500 vehicles.  Additional detail is provided in Appendix B, Table B‐11.    Cost Phase Cost per Lane  Mile Design(1)$385,000 Right‐of‐Way(2)$1,208,000 Construction(3)$3,500,000 CEI(4)$315,000 Mitigation(5)$74,000 Urban Overpass(6)$523,000 Total Cost $6,005,000 Cost Phase Cost per Lane  Mile (2015)(1) Cost per Lane  Mile (Updated)(2)% Change Design $270,000 $385,000 43% Right‐of‐Way $863,000 $1,208,000 40% Construction $2,700,000 $3,500,000 30% CEI $270,000 $315,000 17% Mitigation $74,000 $74,000 0% Urban Overpass $390,000 $523,000 34% Total Cost $4,567,000 $6,005,000 31% DRAFT    Tindale Oliver  Collier County  October 2019  12  Road Impact Fee Update Study    Table 3  Weighted Average Vehicle‐Miles of Capacity per Lane Mile    1) Source: Appendix B, Table B‐11  2) Source: Appendix B, Table B‐11  3) Vehicle‐miles of capacity added (Item 2) divided by lane miles added (Item 1),  rounded to nearest 00    Cost per Vehicle‐Mile of Capacity    The roadway cost per unit of development is assessed based on the cost per vehicle‐mile of  capacity.  As shown in Table 4, based on information presented in Tables 1 and 3, the cost per  VMC for travel within the county is approximately $706.    The cost per VMC figure is used in the road impact fee calculation to determine the total cost per  unit of development based on vehicle‐miles of travel consumed.  For each vehicle‐mile of travel  that is added to the county roadway system, approximately $706 of capacity is consumed.  As  shown, the cost estimate is approximately 54 percent higher than last study.      Table 4  Average Cost per Vehicle‐Mile of Capacity Added    1) Source: Table 1  2) Source: Table 3  3) Average VMC added per lane mile (Item 2) divided by cost per lane mile (Item 1)     Road Type Lane Miles  Added(1) Vehicle‐Miles of  Capacity Added(2) VMC Added per  Lane Mile(3) County Roads 240.60 2,052,799 8,500 Source Cost per Lane  Mile(1) Average VMC  Added per Lane  Mile(2) Cost per VMC(3) County Roads $6,005,000 8,500 $706.47 DRAFT    Tindale Oliver  Collier County  October 2019  13  Road Impact Fee Update Study  Credit Component    Capital Improvement Credit    The credit component of the impact fee accounts for the existing County funding sources that  are being expended on roadway capacity expansion (excluding impact fee funds).  This section  summarizes the calculations utilized in the credit for non‐impact fee contributions.  Additional  details are provided in Appendix C.    The present value of the portion of non‐impact fee funding generated by new development over  a 25‐year period that is expected to be expended on capacity expansion projects was credited  against the cost of the system consumed by travel associated with new development.  In order  to provide a connection to the demand component, which is measured in terms of travel, the  non‐impact fee dollars were converted to a fuel tax equivalency.    County Credit  A  review  of  the  County’s  FY  2019‐2023  Annual  Update  and  Inventory  Report  (AUIR)  Transportation Work Program was conducted, indicating that a combination of impact fees, fuel  tax revenues, and grants are used to fund roadway capacity expansion.  Based on this review,  Collier  County  allocates  an  equivalent  of  4.7 pennies  for  the  portion of fuel tax and grant  revenues dedicated to roadway capacity expansion improvements.    Additionally, the County is using gas tax revenues to retire debt service used to fund roadway  capacity expansion improvements.  The fuel tax dedication for S eries 2012 and Series 2014 bonds  totals approximately 8.7 pennies of additional county credit.  As shown in Table 5, a total fuel tax  equivalent revenue credit of 13.4 pennies as given for county expenditures.    Due to the recent adoption of a one‐percent local government infrastructure surtax in November  2018, an additional credit scenario was developed to account for the planned expenditures of  the future sales tax revenue.  This scenario assumes that the sales tax will be renewed after its  initial  seven  year  adoption  and  that  a  large  portion  will  continue  to  be  allocated  for  transportation capacity.  As shown in Table 5, the sales tax credit adds an additional 9.7 pennies  of equivalent pennies to the County revenues, bringing the total to 14.4 pennies.    In summary, Collier County contributes 13.4 pennies, annually, to roadway capacity expansion.   A total credit of 13.4 pennies was included in the roadway impact fee calculation to recognize  DRAFT    Tindale Oliver  Collier County  October 2019  14  Road Impact Fee Update Study  the future capital revenues that are expected to be generated by new development from all non‐ impact fee revenues.  When the sales tax is considered, the credit increases to 23.1 pennies.      Table 5  Equivalent Pennies of Gas Tax Revenue    1) Source: Appendix C, Table C‐2  2) Source: Appendix C, Table C‐3  3) Source: Appendix C, Tables C‐2 and C‐4  4) Source: Appendix C, Table C‐1  5) Average annual expenditures divided by the value per penny (Item 4) divided by 100    Present Worth Variables     Facility Life: The roadway facility life used in the impact fee analysis is 25 years, which  represents the reasonable life of a roadway.     Interest Rate: This is the discount rate at which gasoline tax revenues might be bonded.  It is  used to compute the present value of the gasoline taxes generated by new development.   The discount rate of 4.0 percent was used in the impact fee calculation based on interest  rates on recent bonds issued by Collier County.     Fuel Efficiency  The fuel efficiency (i.e., the average miles traveled per gallon of fuel consumed) of the fleet of  motor vehicles was estimated using the quantity of gasoline consumed by travel associated with  a particular land use.    Appendix C, Table C‐10 documents the calculation of fuel efficiency value based on the following  equation, where “VMT” is vehicle miles of travel and “MPG” is fuel efficiency in terms of miles  per gallon.  Credit Average Annual  Expenditures Value per  Penny(4) Equivalent Pennies per Gallon(5) Excluding Local Government Infrastructure Surtax County Revenues(1)$7,897,400 $1,675,465 $0.047 County Debt Service(2)$14,517,552 $1,675,465 $0.087 Total $22,414,952 $0.134 Including Local Government Infrastructure Surtax County Revenues(3)$24,183,114 $1,675,465 $0.144 County Debt Service(2)$14,517,552 $1,675,465 $0.087 Total $38,700,666 $0.231 DRAFT    Tindale Oliver  Collier County  October 2019  15  Road Impact Fee Update Study          TypeRoadwayTypeVehicle TypeVehicle TypeRoadway MPG VMTVMTEfficiencyFuel     The  methodology  uses  non‐interstate  VMT  and  average  fuel  efficiency  data  for  passenger  vehicles (i.e., passenger cars and other 2‐axle, 4‐tire vehicles, such as vans, pickups, and SUVs)  and  large  trucks  (i.e.,  single‐unit,  2‐axle,  6‐tire  or  more  trucks  and  combination  trucks)  to  calculate the total gallons of fuel used by each of these vehicle types.      The combined total VMT for the vehicle types is then divided by the combined total gallons of  fuel consumed to calculate, in effect, a “weighted” fuel efficiency value that reflects the existing  fleet mix of traffic on non‐interstate roadways.  The VMT and average fuel efficiency data were  obtained from the most recent Federal Highway Administration’s Highway Statistics 2016.  Based  on the calculation completed in Appendix C, Table C‐8, the fuel efficiency rate to be used in the  updated impact fee equation is 18.74 miles per gallon.    Effective Days per Year  An effective 365 days per year of operation was assumed for all land uses in the proposed fee.   However, this will not be the case for all land uses since some uses operate only on weekdays  (e.g., office buildings) and/or only seasonally (e.g., schools).  The use of 365 days per year,  therefore, provides a conservative estimate, ensuring that non‐impact fee contributions are  adequately credited against the fee.     DRAFT    Tindale Oliver  Collier County  October 2019  16  Road Impact Fee Update Study  Calculated Road Impact Fee Schedule    Detailed impact fee calculations for each land use are included in Appendix D, which includes the  major land use categories and the impact fees for the individual land uses contained in each of  the major categories.  For each land use, Appendix D illustrates the following:     Demand component variables (trip rate, trip length, and percent of new trips);   Total impact fee cost;   Annual capital improvement credit;   Present value of the capital improvement credit; and   Net road impact fee.    It  should  be  noted  that  the  net  impact  fee  illustrated  in  Appendix D is not necessarily a  recommended fee, but instead represents the technically calculated impact fee per unit of land  use that could be charged in Collier County.      For clarification purposes, it may be useful to walk through the calculation of an impact fee for  one of the land use categories.  In the following example, the net impact fee is calculated for the  single‐family residential detached land use category (ITE LUC 210) using information from the  impact fee schedules included in Appendix D.  For each land use category, the following equations  are utilized to calculate the net impact fee:    Net Impact Fee = Total Impact Cost – Capital Improvement Credit    Where:    Total Road Impact Cost = ([Trip Rate × Adjusted Trip Length × % New Trips] / 2) × (1 –  Interstate/Toll Facility Adjustment Factor) x (Cost per Vehicle‐Mile of Capacity)    Capital Improvement Credit = Present Value (Annual Capital Improvement Credit), given 4.0%  interest rate & a 25‐year facility life    Annual Capital Improvement Credit = ([Trip Rate × Total Trip Length × % New Trips] / 2) ×  (Effective Days per Year × $/Gallon to Capital) / Fuel Efficiency    DRAFT    Tindale Oliver  Collier County  October 2019  17  Road Impact Fee Update Study  Each of the inputs has been discussed previously in this document; however, for purposes of this  example, brief definitions for each input are provided in the following paragraphs, along with the  actual inputs used in the calculation of the fee for the single‐family detached residential land use  category (<4,000 sq. ft.):     Trip Rate = the average daily trip generation rate, in vehicle‐trips/day (7.37)   Assessable Trip Length = the average trip length on collector roads or above, for the category,  in vehicle‐miles (5.88) (excluding local neighborhood roads)   Trip Length Adjustment Factor = used to adjust the trip length for travel occurring on non‐ state roads (71%)   Adjusted Trip Length = the assessable trip length multiplied by the trip length adjustment  factor (5.88 * 71% = 4.17)   Total Trip Length = the assessable trip length plus an adjustment factor of half a mile, which  is added to the trip length to account for the fact that gas taxes are collected for travel on all  roads including local roads (4.17 + 0.50 = 4.67)   % New Trips = adjustment factor to account for trips that are already on the roadway (100%)   Divide  by  2 = the total daily miles of travel  generated  by  a  particular  category  (i.e.,  rate*length*%  new  trips)  is  divided  by  two  to  prevent  the  double‐counting  of  travel  generated between two land use codes since every trip has an origin and a destination   Interstate/Toll Facility Adjustment Factor = discount factor to account for travel demand  occurring on interstate highways and/or toll facilities (14.4%)   Cost  per  Lane Mile  =  unit  cost  to  construct  one  lane  mile  of  roadway,  in  $/lane‐mile  ($6,005,000)   Average Capacity Added per Lane Mile = represents the average daily traffic on one travel  lane at capacity for one lane mile of roadway, in vehicles/lane‐mile/day (8,500)   Cost per Vehicle‐Mile of Capacity = unit of vehicle‐miles of capacity consumed per unit of  development ($706.47)   Present Value = calculation of the present value of a uniform series of cash flows, gas tax  payments in this case, given an interest rate, “i,” and a number of periods, “n;” for 4.00%  interest and a 25‐year facility life, the uniform series present worth factor is 15.6221    Effective Days per Year = 365 days   $/Gallon to Capital = the amount of equivalent gas tax revenue per gallon of fuel that is used  for capital improvements, in $/gallon (excluding sales tax = $0.134, including sales tax =  $0.231)   Fuel Efficiency = average fuel efficiency of vehicles, in vehicle‐miles/gallon (18.74)     DRAFT    Tindale Oliver  Collier County  October 2019  18  Road Impact Fee Update Study  Road Impact Fee Calculation    Using these inputs, a net impact fee can be calculated for the single‐family residential detached  (<4,000 sf) land use category as follows:    Road Impact Fee (excluding sales tax):  Total Impact Cost = ([7.37 * 4.17 * 1.0] /2) * (1 ‐ 0.144) * ($706.47) = $9,293    Annual Cap. Improv. Credit = ([7.37 * 4.67 * 1.0] /2) * 365 * ($0.134 /18.74) = $45  Capital Improvement Credit = $45 * 15.6221 = $703    Net Impact Fee = $9,293 – $703 = $8,590    Road Impact Fee (including sales tax):  Total Impact Cost = ([7.37 * 4.17 * 1.0] /2) * (1 ‐ 0.144) * ($706.47) = $9,293    Annual Cap. Improv. Credit = ([7.37 * 4.67 * 1.0] /2) * 365 * ($0.231 /18.74) = $77  Capital Improvement Credit = $77 * 15.6221 = $1,203    Net Impact Fee = $9,293 – $1,203 = $8,090      Road Impact Fee Comparison    As part of the work effort in developing Collier County’s road impact fee program, a comparison of  calculated fees to road/transportation impact fee schedules adopted in other jurisdictions was  completed, as shown in Table 6.    Note that differences in fee levels for a given land use can be caused by several factors, including  the year of the technical study, adoption percentage, study methodology including variation in  costs, credits, and travel demand, land use categories included in the fee schedule, etc.    DRAFT   Tindale Oliver Collier County October 2019 19 Road Impact Fee Update Study Table 6 Road/Transportation Impact Fee Comparison  1) Represents the portion of the maximum calculated fee for each respective county that is actually charged.  Fees may have been lowered/raised through indexing or policy discounts.  Does not account for moratoriums/suspensions 2) Du = dwelling unit 3) Source: Appendix D, Table D‐1 4) Source: Appendix D, Table D‐2 5) Source: Collier County Growth Management Division, Planning and Regulation.  Road impact fees shown were adopted at 100 percent in 2015 and have since been indexed. 6) Source: Polk County Land Development Department.  Retail/Commercial rate is applied to bank and fast food restaurant uses 7) Source: Pasco County Planning and Development Department.  Mobility fee rates for the “Suburban” district are shown 8) Source: Lake County Office of Planning and Zoning.  Rates for “South Benefit District” are shown 9) Source: Lee County Community Development Department, Building & Permitting Services   10) Source: Charlotte County Community Development Department, Planning & Zoning 11) Source: Martin County Growth Management Department 12) Source: Indian River County Planning Division 13) Source: Marion County Growth Services Department.  Quality Restaurant rate is shown for Fast Food w/Drive‐Thru 14) Source: Manatee County Administration Department.  Average of four districts.  Commercial/Shopping Center rate is applied to Bank and Fast Food Restaurant land uses. 15) Source: Sarasota County Planning & Development Services Department.  Bank w/Drive‐Thru land use is charged “per drive‐thru lane.” 16) Source: Brevard County Planning & Development Department.   17) Source: Miami‐Dade County Development Services Division.  Fees shown are the “non‐urban infill” rates.  Impact fee rates shown reflect phasing and indexing applied since adoption in 2006.  Land UseUnit(2)Collier CountyCalculatedNo Sales Tax(3)Collier CountyCalculatedw/Sales Tax(4)Collier CountyExisting(5)PolkCounty(6)Pasco County(7)LakeCounty(8)LeeCounty(9)Charlotte County(10)Martin County(11)Indian River County(12)Marion County(13)Manatee County(14)Sarasota County(15)Brevard County(16)Miami‐Dade County(17)2019 20192015 2015 2014 2013 2015 2013 2012 2014 2015 2015 2015 2000 2006100% 100%100% 100% 100% 70% 45% 40% 100% 100%/45% 11‐20% 90% 100% 100% 100%Residential:Single Family (2,000 sf) du$8,590 $8,090$7,444 $2,155 $8,570 $2,706 $4,498 $2,389 $2,815 $4,248 $1,397 $5,636 $4,734 $4,353 $9,464Non‐Residential:Light Industrial 1,000 sf$4,865 $4,584$5,700 $666 $0 $1,505 $1,521 $1,518 $1,857 $1,206 $428 $2,471 $1,984 $0 $3,821Office (50,000 sq ft) 1,000 sf$9,152 $8,605$10,249 $2,237 $0 $2,623 $3,426 $2,856 $2,198 $1,916 $676 $3,911 $4,327 $5,058 $15,420Retail (125,000 sq ft) 1,000 sf$14,758 $13,774$14,354 $3,808 $7,051 $3,080 $5,164 $3,793 $5,183 $2,862 $1,014 $9,993 $9,365 $5,270 $20,071Bank w/Drive‐Thru 1,000 sf$22,817 $21,254$28,961 $3,808 $14,384 $3,080 $11,511 $8,003 $6,841 $6,219 $2,260 $9,993$8,598 $23,331 $25,014Fast Food w/Drive‐Thru 1,000 sf$112,365 $104,272$96,567 $3,808 $46,712 $3,080 $22,010 $26,595 $15,693 $20,459 $2,803 $9,993 $17,867 $35,791 $50,346Date of Last UpdateAdoption Percentage(1) DRAFT    Tindale Oliver  Collier County  October 2019  20  Road Impact Fee Update Study  Road Impact Fee Benefit Districts    As part of the update of the road impact fee program, the existing impact fee benefit districts  (illustrated in Map 1) were reviewed.  To charge impact fees, the County must meet one of the  dual rational nexus tests of proof of benefit to fee‐paying development by ensuring that funds  collected are spent on eligible capital improvements projects.  Establishing benefit districts  enhances this proof, showing a close connection to the fee‐payer and their resulting benefit, by  restricting revenues to specific areas of the County where the fee is collected.  Benefit district  boundaries  are  typically  influenced  by  geographic  (i.e.,  lakes and  rivers)  or  man‐made  boundaries/barriers (i.e., roads, highways, municipal limits) which in some way restrict traffic.    District Boundaries    Currently, Collier County has eight road impact fee districts.  Within these districts, Collier County  charges the same roadway impact fee rate, except for Districts 7 and 8, where no fee is charged.   Revenues collected in each district are placed into separate funds and can only be used to fund  improvements within the corresponding benefit district. For example, revenues collected in  District 2 are placed into an individual account and are only eligible to fund roadway capacity  improvements within District 2.  However, exceptions are made for projects that span multiple  adjacent districts1.  In those cases, funds from the two adjacent districts can both be used on the  improvement.  The use of benefit districts restricts the impact fee funds to a smaller area with  the intent of providing a direct benefit (via new road construction, lane additions, intersection  improvements, etc.) to the fee payer.    In regard to the geographic boundaries of the districts, no changes are recommended to the  existing districts.  As shown in Table 7, impact fee revenues collected in Districts 1, 2, 4, and 6 are  all close‐to or above 20 percent of total road impact fee revenues.  Development in District 5 is  expected to pick up with the ongoing development of the Immokalee area while District 3 (City  of Naples) is built‐out with little room for new development, explaining  the  low  revenue  generation.    However,  because  this  District’s  boundaries  correspond  to  the  city  limits,  no  boundary changes are recommended.  If the City annexes additional land in the future, the  District 3 boundary should be expanded to capture this additional area.  Based on a review of the  revenue collection levels, municipal & geographical boundaries, and discussions with County  staff, it is recommended that the current boundaries are maintained.           1 Collier County Code of Ordinances, Section 74‐203 (b)  DRAFT    Tindale Oliver  Collier County  October 2019  21  Road Impact Fee Update Study  Table 7  Road Impact Fee Revenues by District    Source: Collier County Transportation Engineering Department    Impact Fee Revenue Use Across Districts    As previously mentioned, for certain projects, revenues from adjacent districts can be pooled  together.  Although this approach creates some flexibility, it requires an evaluation of each  project on a case‐by‐case basis and does not recognize regional roads that benefit multiple  districts.  Given this, Tindale Oliver identified regional roads in the county, which is discussed  further in the following subsection.    Regional Roads    For purposes of the benefit districts analysis, “regional roads” refer to corridors which serve a  significant portion of the county and are essential to moving traffic across or through the County,  rather than serving as connectors to larger roads.  From an impact fee perspective, improvements  to these corridors provide benefit to all districts, whether they are located within or adjacent to  District 1 District 2 District 3 District 4 District 5 District 6 N. Naples GG City Naples S. Naples/Marco Immokalee GG Estates FY 1993 $2,321,742 $1,163,364 $82,468 $402,663 $97,173 $863,259 $4,930,669 FY 1994 $2,744,801 $1,214,704 $115,869 $1,613,960 $189,868 $594,532 $6,473,734 FY 1995 $3,276,365 $1,521,121 $830,082 $811,176 $202,380 $557,716 $7,198,840 FY 1996 $2,810,839 $0 $200 $934,620 $77,723 $639,302 $4,462,684 FY 1997 $3,808,509 $2,007,956 $167,908 $865,108 $48,136 $745,656 $7,643,273 FY 1998 $4,167,168 $2,230,155 $63,698 $1,340,218 $72,635 $1,094,907 $8,968,781 FY 1999 $5,871,701 $3,406,219 $836,929 $950,243 $126,200 $1,646,388 $12,837,680 FY 2000 $5,778,945 $5,197,577 $539,488 $1,352,513 $131,817 $2,048,342 $15,048,682 FY 2001 $7,749,833 $4,511,417 $705,128 $1,544,623 $142,014 $2,558,992 $17,212,007 FY 2002 $7,735,213 $4,571,497 $554,868 $1,689,156 $264,819 $2,802,035 $17,617,588 FY 2003 $7,888,912 $4,901,994 $728,860 $4,218,999 $408,194 $3,396,842 $21,543,801 FY 2004 $15,174,057 $9,134,434 $552,884 $11,734,663 $199,847 $14,583,554 $51,379,439 FY 2005 $17,751,614 $11,882,408 $1,490,545 $14,385,927 $1,872,243 $11,144,818 $58,527,555 FY 2006 $13,213,937 $9,538,309 $560,954 $15,168,598 $4,468,762 $8,621,745 $51,572,305 FY 2007 $13,598,462 $20,155,638 $2,078,329 $12,673,929 $4,928,468 $16,001,882 $69,436,707 FY 2008 $14,748,470 $3,185,621 $750,668 $4,042,934 $2,804,124 $2,520,900 $28,052,716 FY 2009 $1,917,401 $2,426,745 ‐$125,590 $7,567,178 $181,984 $795,430 $12,763,149 FY 2010 $992,673 $2,398,827 $0 $3,209,026 $831,426 $4,841,052 $12,273,005 FY 2011 $639,635 $1,112,445 ‐$61,285 $2,153,551 $233,830 $1,523,791 $5,601,968 FY 2012 $2,406,382 $297,230 $115,747 $5,128,168 $1,621,702 ‐$1,108,015 $8,461,215 FY 2013 $1,240,684 $588,898 $0 $3,755,034 $412,290 $220,830 $6,217,736 FY 2014 $2,169,998 $1,047,911 $245,144 $4,785,319 $1,088,877 $605,410 $9,942,660 FY 2015 $3,906,462 $921,304 $810,145 $2,374,816 $1,164,597 $1,685,489 $10,862,813 FY 2016 $5,671,025 $3,290,503 $187,474 $5,148,218 $1,048,531 $2,915,399 $18,261,149 FY 2017 $5,937,727 $2,208,132 $206,225 $4,086,585 $1,532,470 $4,682,168 $18,653,307 FY 2018 $4,344,426 $1,918,757 $0 $2,836,945 $567,000 $2,035,060 $11,702,187 Total $157,866,979 $100,833,166 $11,436,739 $114,774,170 $24,717,110 $88,017,484 $497,645,648 % 31.6% 20.3% 2.3% 23.1% 5.0% 17.7% 100.0% Year Total DRAFT    Tindale Oliver  Collier County  October 2019  22  Road Impact Fee Update Study  every transportation district because they are major connectors across the county (east‐west or  north‐south, etc.).  As such, it is appropriate that future capacity improvements to the corridors  classified as “regional” would be eligible for funding from all the impact fee districts in Collier  County.  The process for classifying regional roads is based primarily on the model trip lengths  and traffic volumes along major roadways.  Corridors with long lengths and high volumes suggest  that these roads as significant regional roads.    Model Trip Length Validation  The initial regional roads analysis was included as part of the previous impact fee update study2.   As previously mentioned, this list was determined through a review of model trip lengths, traffic  volumes, and discussions with County staff.  The initial list of regional roads included:   US 41 (Tamiami Trail)   Collier Boulevard   Oil Well Road   Camp Keais Road   Immokalee Road    Since the time of the previous impact fee report, several other segments have been examined  for  potential  re‐classification  as  a  “regional  road”  for  impact  fee  purposes.    The  following  segments were deemed to serve the entire county and have been added to the regional roads  network:   Logan/Santa Barbara Boulevard from County Line to Rattlesnake Hammock Road  o Contingent upon the completion of the extension north to Bonita Beach Rd in Lee  County3   Vanderbilt Beach Road from Collier Boulevard to Desoto Boulevard  o Contingent upon the completion of the planned extension east to Desoto Blvd4     Table 8 presents the full list of designated “regional roads.”              2 Collier County Transportation Impact Fee Update Study, January 2015  3 Classification of Logan/Santa Barbara Boulevard, May 2016  4 Impact Fee Funding for Transportation Capacity Projects, June 2018  DRAFT    Tindale Oliver  Collier County  October 2019  23  Road Impact Fee Update Study  Table 8  Regional Roads in Collier County      As part of this update study the model trip lengths of all regional roads were re‐examined to  verify that they still meet the criteria for the “regional” classification.  For travel demand, the  FDOT District 1 Regional Planning Model (D1RPM v1.0.3) was used.  Major arterial roadways  within the county were divided into multiple segments.  A “select‐link” analysis was conducted  on each of these segments using the existing 2010 scenario of the D1RPM.  A select‐link analysis  determines the characteristics of the travel demand of a particular link in the model network.  It  allows the origin and destination of the traffic traveling on the analyzed link to be identified.  For  example, it measures the trip length of every car that passes by a specific point on a specific road.   The select link analysis was used in order to determine the amount and route of traffic traveling  on the county’s major arterial roadways.  The multiple select‐link analysis allowed the studied  roadways to be evaluated to determine the total projected volume and trip length along the  corridor.    As shown on Map 1, all regional corridors have higher than average trip lengths, determined  through the select link analysis.  The average trip length countywide is approximately 8.6 miles,  while the corridors identified on Map 1 range from 7.3 miles to 54.7 miles, with trip lengths  increasing as the select links move further away from the City of Naples and the urban core.   These relatively longer trip lengths indicate that drivers are utilizing these specific corridors for  long distance trips across Collier County.  Collier Boulevard is the County’s primary north‐south  connector, while Immokalee Road and Oil Well Road provide east‐west connections for the  northern part of the county.    Benefit Districts Recommendations    Based  on  a  review  of geographic barriers,  historical  impact  fee  revenue,  travel,  and  traffic  volume, it is recommended that Collier County continues forward with the existing benefit  district alignments. Additionally, identified “regional roads” should be eligible for impact fee  Description From To US 41 (Tamiami Trail) Lee County Line Miami‐Dade County Line Collier Boulevard Immokalee Road Marco Island Bridge Oil Well Road Immokalee Road Camp Keais Road Camp Keais Road Immokalee Road Oil Well Road Immokalee Road US 41 (Tamiami Trail) Camp Keais Road Logan/Santa Barbara Boulevard Lee County Line Rattlesnake Hammock Road Vanderbilt Beach Road Collier Boulevard Desoto Boulevard DRAFT    Tindale Oliver  Collier County  October 2019  24  Road Impact Fee Update Study  funding from any benefit district, even if the improvement is not located within or adjacent to a  funding district.     The travel demand and traffic characteristics of these corridors highlight their importance in  moving traffic and connecting neighborhoods throughout the entire county. It is recommended  that in future updates Collier County continue to monitor travel and traffic along major corridors  to confirm this list of regional roads as well as to identify any additional regional‐type roadways  that may emerge.      DRAFT   Tindale Oliver Collier County October 2019 25 Road Impact Fee Update Study Map 1 – Collier County “Regional Roads”  22.6 miles 16.9 miles 42.5 miles 13.5 miles 16.6 miles 15.5 miles 8.8 miles 7.3 miles 32.6 miles 5 2 3 6 8 7 4 1 54.7 miles Trip Length Legend Regional Roads Benefit Districts Collier County Avg. Trip Length = 8.6 miles 18.1 miles 18.3 miles 13.6 miles 10.8 miles  DRAFT    Tindale Oliver  Collier County  October 2019  26  Road Impact Fee Update Study  Sidewalk Construction In‐Lieu Payment    This section includes a summary of recent sidewalk construction cost data from Collier County.  As shown in Table 9, recent stand‐alone sidewalk construction projects averaged approximately  $818,000 per mile of construction.  When compared to the FDOT District 75 LRE, which provided  costs for 5’ wide sidewalk ($507,548 per mile, both sides, including design, construction and CEI),  the local projects indicate a higher cost.  However, local projects included in Table 9 are stand‐ alone  construction,  which  is  expected  to  cost  more  than  building  a  sidewalk  as  part  of  a  corresponding roadway improvement.    Table 9  Collier County Sidewalk Construction Costs    Source: Collier County Transportation Engineering Department    Currently, for new development along a County‐maintained roadway, Collier County collects an  in‐lieu fee of $9.92 per square foot.  Assuming a 5’ width and a sidewalk on both sides of the  road, this equates to approximately $524,000 per mile ($9.92 x 5 ft width x 5,280 ft x 2 sides of  road), which is consistent with the FDOT LRE figures.    Given that the roadway cost considered in impact fee calculations tends to include sidewalk  construction, it is recommended that in cases when a new development either builds a sidewalk  on the County’s classified, non‐local roadways or pays an in‐lieu fee, this amount should be  subtracted from the development’s impact fee amount.      5 Similar data for District 1 was not available  Project Length Design Construction CEI Total Cost Total Cost  per Mile East Naples 16‐6599 0.65 $97,597 $269,818 $95,821 $463,236 $712,671 Livingston Rd 13‐6164 0.25 $34,845 $222,491 $0 $257,336 $1,029,344 New Market 15‐6484 2.20 $159,545 $1,468,940 $188,092 $1,816,577 $825,717 Total 3.10 $291,987 $1,961,249 $283,913 $2,537,149 $818,435 DRAFT            Appendix A  Demand Component  DRAFT    Tindale Oliver  Collier County  October 2019  A‐1  Road Impact Fee Update Study  Appendix A: Demand Component    This appendix presents the detailed calculations for the demand component of the road impact  fee study.     Interstate & Toll Facility Adjustment Factor    Table A‐1 presents the interstate and toll facility adjustment factor used in the calculation of the  road impact fee.  This variable is based on data from the District 1 Regional Planning Model  v1.0.3), specifically the 2040 projected vehicle‐miles of travel of all county‐generated trips on all  in‐county roadways.  It should be noted that the adjustment factor excludes all external‐to‐ external trips, which represent traffic that goes through Collier County, but does not necessarily  stop in the county.  This traffic is excluded from the analysis  since it does not come from  development within the county.  The I/T adjustment factor is used to reduce the VMT that the  impact fee charges for each land use.      Table A‐1  Interstate/Toll Facility Adjustment Factor    Source: D1RPM v1.0.3, 2040    Trip Length Adjustment Factor    Table A‐2 presents the trip length adjustment factor for non‐state roads used in the calculation  of the road impact fee.  This variable is based on data from the District 1 Regional Planning Model  v1.0.3), specifically the 2040 projected vehicle‐miles of travel of all county‐generated trips on all  in‐county roadways.               VMT % Interstate/Toll 1,831,685 14.4% Other Roads 10,929,656 85.6% Total 12,761,341 100.0% Facility Type Total DRAFT    Tindale Oliver  Collier County  October 2019  A‐2  Road Impact Fee Update Study  Table A‐2  Trip Length Adjustment Factor    Source: D1RPM v1.0.3, 2040    Florida Studies Trip Characteristics Database    The  Florida  Studies  Trip  Characteristics  Database  includes  over  200  studies  on 40  different  residential and non‐residential land uses collected over the last 25 years.  Data from these studies  include trip generation, trip length, and percent new trips for each land use.  This information  has been used in the development of impact fees and the creation of land use plan category trip  characteristics for communities throughout Florida and the U.S.      Tindale Oliver estimates trip generation rates for all land uses in a roadway impact fee schedule  using data from studies in the Florida Studies Database and the Institute of Transportation  Engineers’ (ITE) Trip Generation reference report (10th edition).  In instances, when both ITE Trip  Generation reference report (10th edition) and Florida Studies trip generation rate (TGR) data are  available for a particular land use, the data is typically blended to increase the sample size and  provide a more valid estimate of the average number of trips ge nerated per unit of development.   If no Florida Studies data is available, only TGR data from the ITE reference report is used in the  fee calculation.      The trip generation rate for each respective land use is calculated using machine counts that  record daily traffic into and out of the site studied.  The traffic count hoses are set at entrances  to residential subdivisions for the residential land uses and at all access points for non‐residential  land uses.      The trip length information is obtained through origin‐destination surveys that ask respondents  where they came from prior to arriving at the site and where they intended to go after leaving  the site.  The results of these surveys were used to estimate average trip length by land use.      The percent new trip variable is based on assigning each trip collected through the origin‐ destination survey process a trip type (primary, secondary, diverted, and captured).  The percent  new trip variable is then calculated as 1 minus the percentage of trips that are captured.  VMT % Non‐State Roads 7,004,055 71% State Roads 2,871,737 29% Total 9,875,792 100% Facility Type Total DRAFT    Tindale Oliver  Collier County  October 2019  A‐3  Road Impact Fee Update Study        Location Size (1,000 sf) Date Total #  Interviews # Trip Length  Interviews Trip Gen Rate Time Period Trip Length Percent New Trips VMT Source Orange Co, FL 89.6 2006 ‐ ‐ 1.23 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Orange County  Orange Co, FL 84.7 2006 ‐ ‐ 1.39 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Orange County  Orange Co, FL 93.0 2006 ‐ ‐ 1.51 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Orange County  Orange Co, FL 107.0 2007 ‐ ‐ 1.45 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Orange County  Orange Co, FL 77.0 2009 ‐ ‐ 2.18 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Tindale Oliver Orange Co, FL 93.7 2012 ‐ ‐ 1.15 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Tindale Oliver Total Size 545.0 5  Average Trip Length: n/a ITE 780.0 15 Weighted Average Trip Length: n/a Blended total 1,325.0 Weighted Percent New Trip Average: ‐ Weighted Average Trip Generation Rate: 1.47 ITE Average Trip Generation Rate: 1.51 Blend of FL Studies and ITE Average Trip Generation Rate: 1.49 Land Use 151: Mini‐Warehouse Location Size / Units Date Total #  Interviews # Trip Length  Interviews Trip Gen Rate Time Period Trip Length Percent New Trips VMT Source Gwinnett Co, GA ‐ 12/13‐18/92  ‐ ‐ 5.80 ‐ 5.40 ‐ 31.32 Street Smarts Gwinnett Co, GA ‐ 12/13‐18/92  ‐ ‐ 5.40 ‐ 6.10 ‐ 32.94 Street Smarts Sarasota Co, FL 76 Jun‐93 70 70 10.03 ‐ 6.00 ‐ 60.18 Sarasota County Sarasota Co, FL 79 Jun‐93 86 86 9.77 ‐ 4.40 ‐ 42.99 Sarasota County Sarasota Co, FL 135 Jun‐93 75 75 8.05 ‐ 5.90 ‐ 47.50 Sarasota County Sarasota Co, FL 152 Jun‐93 63 63 8.55 ‐ 7.30 ‐ 62.42 Sarasota County Sarasota Co, FL 193 Jun‐93 123 123 6.85 ‐ 4.60 ‐ 31.51 Sarasota County Sarasota Co, FL 97 Jun‐93 33 33 13.20 ‐ 3.00 ‐ 39.60 Sarasota County Sarasota Co, FL 282 Jun‐93 146 146 6.61 ‐ 8.40 ‐ 55.52 Sarasota County Sarasota Co, FL 393 Jun‐93 207 207 7.76 ‐ 5.40 ‐ 41.90 Sarasota County Hernando Co, FL 76 May‐96 148 148 10.01 9a‐6p 4.85 ‐ 48.55 Tindale Oliver Hernando Co, FL 128 May‐96 205 205 8.17 9a‐6p 6.03 ‐ 49.27 Tindale Oliver Hernando Co, FL 232 May‐96 182 182 7.24 9a‐6p 5.04 ‐ 36.49 Tindale Oliver Hernando Co, FL 301 May‐96 264 264 8.93 9a‐6p 3.28 ‐ 29.29 Tindale Oliver Charlotte Co, FL 135 Oct‐97 230 ‐ 5.30 9a‐5p 7.90 ‐ 41.87 Tindale Oliver Charlotte Co, FL 142 Oct‐97 245 ‐ 5.20 9a‐5p 4.10 ‐ 21.32 Tindale Oliver Charlotte Co, FL 150 Oct‐97 160 ‐ 5.00 9a‐5p 10.80 ‐ 54.00 Tindale Oliver Charlotte Co, FL 215 Oct‐97 158 ‐ 7.60 9a‐5p 4.60 ‐ 34.96 Tindale Oliver Charlotte Co, FL 257 Oct‐97 225 ‐ 7.60 9a‐5p 7.40 ‐ 56.24 Tindale Oliver Charlotte Co, FL 345 Oct‐97 161 ‐ 7.00 9a‐5p 6.60 ‐ 46.20 Tindale Oliver Charlotte Co, FL 368 Oct‐97 152 ‐ 6.60 9a‐5p 5.70 ‐ 37.62 Tindale Oliver Charlotte Co, FL 383 Oct‐97 516 ‐ 8.40 9a‐5p 5.00 ‐ 42.00 Tindale Oliver Charlotte Co, FL 441 Oct‐97 195 ‐ 8.20 9a‐5p 4.70 ‐ 38.54 Tindale Oliver Charlotte Co, FL 1,169 Oct‐97 348 ‐ 6.10 9a‐5p 8.00 ‐ 48.80 Tindale Oliver Collier Co, FL 90 Dec‐99 91 ‐ 12.80 8a‐6p 11.40 ‐ 145.92 Tindale Oliver Collier Co, FL 400 Dec‐99 389 ‐ 7.80 8a‐6p 6.40 ‐ 49.92 Tindale Oliver Lake Co, FL 49 Apr‐02 170 ‐ 6.70 7a‐6p 10.20 ‐ 68.34 Tindale Oliver Lake Co, FL 52 Apr‐02 212 ‐ 10.00 7a‐6p 7.60 ‐ 76.00 Tindale Oliver Lake Co, FL 126 Apr‐02 217 ‐ 8.50 7a‐6p 8.30 ‐ 70.55 Tindale Oliver Pasco Co, FL 55 Apr‐02 133 ‐ 6.80 8a‐6p 8.12 ‐ 55.22 Tindale Oliver Pasco Co, FL 60 Apr‐02 106 ‐ 7.73 8a‐6p 8.75 ‐ 67.64 Tindale Oliver Pasco Co, FL 70 Apr‐02 188 ‐ 7.80 8a‐6p 6.03 ‐ 47.03 Tindale Oliver Pasco Co, FL 74 Apr‐02 188 ‐ 8.18 8a‐6p 5.95 ‐ 48.67 Tindale Oliver Pasco Co, FL 189 Apr‐02 261 ‐ 7.46 8a‐6p 8.99 ‐ 67.07 Tindale Oliver Marion Co, FL 102 Apr‐02 167 ‐ 8.02 7a‐6p 5.10 ‐ 40.90 Kimley‐Horn & Associates Marion Co, FL 105 Apr‐02 169 ‐ 7.23 7a‐6p 7.22 ‐ 52.20 Kimley‐Horn & Associates Marion Co, FL 124 Apr‐02 170 ‐ 6.04 7a‐6p 7.29 ‐ 44.03 Kimley‐Horn & Associates Marion Co, FL 132 Apr‐02 171 ‐ 7.87 7a‐6p 7.00 ‐ 55.09 Kimley‐Horn & Associates Marion Co, FL 133 Apr‐02 209 ‐ 8.04 7a‐6p 4.92 ‐ 39.56 Kimley‐Horn & Associates Citrus Co, FL 111 Oct‐03 273 ‐ 8.66 7a‐6p 7.70 ‐ 66.68 Tindale Oliver Citrus Co, FL 231 Oct‐03 155 ‐ 5.71 7a‐6p 4.82 ‐ 27.52 Tindale Oliver Citrus Co, FL 306 Oct‐03 146 ‐ 8.40 7a‐6p 3.94 ‐ 33.10 Tindale Oliver Citrus Co, FL 364 Oct‐03 345 ‐ 7.20 7a‐6p 9.14 ‐ 65.81 Tindale Oliver Citrus Co, FL 374 Oct‐03 248 ‐ 12.30 7a‐6p 6.88 ‐ 84.62 Tindale Oliver Lake Co, FL 42 Dec‐06 122 ‐ 11.26 ‐ 5.56 ‐ 62.61 Tindale Oliver Lake Co, FL 51 Dec‐06 346 ‐ 18.22 ‐ 9.46 ‐ 172.36 Tindale Oliver Lake Co, FL 59 Dec‐06 144 ‐ 12.07 ‐ 10.79 ‐ 130.24 Tindale Oliver Lake Co, FL 90 Dec‐06 194 ‐ 9.12 ‐ 5.78 ‐ 52.71 Tindale Oliver Lake Co, FL 239 Dec‐06 385 ‐ 7.58 ‐ 8.93 ‐ 67.69 Tindale Oliver Hernando Co, FL 232 Apr‐07 516 ‐ 8.02 7a‐6p 8.16 ‐ 65.44 Tindale Oliver Hernando Co, FL 95 Apr‐07 256 ‐ 8.08 7a‐6p 5.88 ‐ 47.51 Tindale Oliver Hernando Co, FL 90 Apr‐07 338 ‐ 7.13 7a‐6p 5.86 ‐ 41.78 Tindale Oliver Hernando Co, FL 58 Apr‐07 153 ‐ 6.16 7a‐6p 8.39 ‐ 51.68 Tindale Oliver Collier Co, FL 74 Mar‐08 503 ‐ 12.81 7a‐6p 3.05 ‐ 39.07 Tindale Oliver Collier Co, FL 97 Mar‐08 512 ‐ 8.78 7a‐6p 11.29 ‐ 99.13 Tindale Oliver Collier Co, FL 315 Mar‐08 1,347 ‐ 6.97 7a‐6p 6.55 ‐ 45.65 Tindale Oliver Collier Co, FL 42 Mar‐08 314 ‐ 9.55 7a‐6p 10.98 ‐ 104.86 Tindale Oliver Total Size 10,380 55 13,130 Weighted Average Trip Generation  Rate: 7.81 Single Family Trip Length Analysis ‐ Collier County Location Size / Units Date Total #  Interviews # Trip Length  Interviews Trip Gen Rate Time Period Trip Length Percent New Trips VMT Source Collier Co, FL 770 Dec‐99 175 ‐ ‐ 8a‐6p 4.96 ‐ ‐ Tindale Oliver Collier Co, FL 90 Dec‐99 91 ‐ 12.80 8a‐6p 11.40 ‐ 145.92 Tindale Oliver Collier Co, FL 400 Dec‐99 389 ‐ 7.80 8a‐6p 6.40 ‐ 49.92 Tindale Oliver Total Size 1,260 55 655  Average Trip Length: 7.59 Weighted Average Trip Length: 5.88 Land Use 210: Single Family ‐ Detached DRAFT    Tindale Oliver  Collier County  October 2019  A‐4  Road Impact Fee Update Study                    Location Size / Units Date Total #  Interviews # Trip Length  Interviews Trip Gen Rate Time Period Trip Length Percent New Trips VMT Source Sarasota Co, FL 212 Jun‐93 42 42 5.78 ‐ 5.20 ‐ 30.06 Sarasota County Sarasota Co, FL 243 Jun‐93 36 36 5.84 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Sarasota County Marion Co, FL 214 Apr‐02 175 175 6.84 ‐ 4.61 ‐ 31.53 Kimley‐Horn & Associates Marion Co, FL 240 Apr‐02 174 174 6.96 ‐ 3.43 ‐ 23.87 Kimley‐Horn & Associates Marion Co, FL 288 Apr‐02 175 175 5.66 ‐ 5.55 ‐ 31.41 Kimley‐Horn & Associates Marion Co, FL 480 Apr‐02 175 175 5.73 ‐ 6.88 ‐ 39.42 Kimley‐Horn & Associates Marion Co, FL 500 Apr‐02 170 170 5.46 ‐ 5.94 ‐ 32.43 Kimley‐Horn & Associates Lake Co, FL 250 Dec‐06 135 135 6.71 ‐ 5.33 ‐ 35.76 Tindale Oliver Lake Co, FL 157 Dec‐06 265 265 13.97 ‐ 2.62 ‐ 36.60 Tindale Oliver Lake Co, FL 169 Dec‐06 212 ‐ 8.09 ‐ 6.00 ‐ 48.54 Tindale Oliver Lake Co, FL 226 Dec‐06 301 ‐ 6.74 ‐ 2.17 ‐ 14.63 Tindale Oliver Hernando Co, FL 312 Apr‐07 456 ‐ 4.09 ‐ 5.95 ‐ 24.34 Tindale Oliver Hernando Co, FL 176 Apr‐07 332 ‐ 5.38 ‐ 5.24 ‐ 28.19 Tindale Oliver Orange Co, FL 364 Nov‐13 ‐ ‐ 9.08 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Orange County Orange Co, FL 108 Aug‐14 ‐ ‐ 5.51 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Orange County Hernando Co, FL 31 May‐96 31 31 6.12 9a‐6p 4.98 ‐ 30.48 Tindale Oliver Hernando Co, FL 128 May‐96 128 128 6.47 9a‐6p 5.18 ‐ 33.51 Tindale Oliver Pasco Co, FL 229 Apr‐02 198 198 4.77 9a‐6p ‐ ‐ ‐ Tindale Oliver Pasco Co, FL 248 Apr‐02 353 353 4.24 9a‐6p 3.53 ‐ 14.97 Tindale Oliver Total Size 4,575  Average Trip Length: 4.27 Total Size (TL) 3,631 Weighted Average Trip Length: 5.10 Land Use 220/221/222: Multi‐Family (Low‐, Mid‐, High‐Rise) Location Size / Units Date Total #  Interviews # Trip Length  Interviews Trip Gen Rate Time Period Trip Length Percent New Trips VMT Source Marion Co, FL 67 Jul‐91 22 22 5.40 48hrs. 2.29 ‐ 12.37 Tindale Oliver Marion Co, FL 82 Jul‐91 58 58 10.80 24hr. 3.72 ‐ 40.18 Tindale Oliver Marion Co, FL 137 Jul‐91 22 22 3.10 24hr. 4.88 ‐ 15.13 Tindale Oliver Sarasota Co, FL 996 Jun‐93 181 181 4.19  ‐ 4.40 ‐ 18.44 Sarasota County Sarasota Co, FL 235 Jun‐93 100 100 3.51  ‐ 5.10 ‐ 17.90 Sarasota County Marion Co, FL  188 Apr‐02 147  ‐ 3.51 24hr. 5.48 ‐ 19.23 Kimley‐Horn & Associates Marion Co, FL  227 Apr‐02 173  ‐ 2.76 24hr. 8.80 ‐ 24.29 Kimley‐Horn & Associates Marion Co, FL  297 Apr‐02 175  ‐ 4.78 24hr. 4.76 ‐ 22.75 Kimley‐Horn & Associates Hernando Co, FL 1,892 May‐96 425 425 4.13 9a‐6p 4.13 ‐ 17.06 Tindale Oliver Total Size 4,121 9 1,303  Average Trip Length: 4.84 Weighted Average Trip Length: 4.60 Weighted Average Trip Generation Rate: 4.17 Land Use 240: Mobile Home Park Location Size / Units Date Total #  Interviews # Trip Length  Interviews Trip Gen Rate Time Period Trip Length Percent New Trips VMT Source Lakeland, FL 67 3/28‐4/2/90 26 24 3.50 9am‐4pm 2.44 ‐ 8.54 Tindale Oliver Marion Co, FL 778 Apr‐02 175 ‐ 2.96 24hr. 3.49 ‐ 10.33 Kimley‐Horn & Associates Marion Co, FL 877 Apr‐02 209 ‐ 2.91 24hr. 5.90 ‐ 17.17 Kimley‐Horn & Associates Marion Co, FL 1,054 Apr‐02 173 ‐ 3.65 24hr. 6.00 ‐ 21.90 Kimley‐Horn & Associates Marion Co, FL 3,076 Apr‐02 198 ‐ 2.63 24hr. 5.16 ‐ 13.57 Kimley‐Horn & Associates Marion Co, FL 3,625 Apr‐02 164 ‐ 2.50 24hr. 5.83 ‐ 14.58 Kimley‐Horn & Associates Total Size 9,477 6 945  Average Trip Length: 4.80   ITE 9,170 14 Weighted Average Trip Length: 5.42 Blended total 18,647 Weighted Average Trip Generation Rate: 2.75 ITE Average Trip Generation Rate: 4.27 Blend of FL Studies and ITE Average Trip Generation Rate: 3.50 Land Use 251: Retirement Community/Senior Adult Housing ‐ Detached Location Size / Units Date Total #  Interviews # Trip Length  Interviews Trip Gen Rate Time Period Trip Length Percent New Trips VMT Source Sun City Center, FL 208 Oct‐91 726 726 2.46 24hr. 3.28 ‐ 8.07 Tindale Oliver Total Size 208 1  Average Trip Length: 3.28 ITE 486 6 Weighted Average Trip Length: 3.28 Blended total 694 Weighted Average Trip Generation Rate: 2.46 ITE Average Trip Generation Rate: 3.70 Blend of FL Studies and ITE Average Trip Generation Rate: 3.33 Land Use 252: Retirement Community/Senior Adult Housing ‐ Attached Location Size / Units Date Total #  Interviews # Trip Length  Interviews Trip Gen Rate Time Period Trip Length Percent New Trips VMT Source Pinellas Park, FL 72 Aug‐89 25 19 3.50 9am‐5pm 2.20 79.0 7.70 Tindale Oliver Palm Harbor, FL 200 Oct‐89 58 40 ‐ 9am‐5pm 3.40 69.0 ‐ Tindale Oliver Total Size 272 2 83  Average Trip Length: 2.80 ITE 388 2 Weighted Average Trip Length: 3.08 Blended total 660 Weighted Percent New Trip Average: 71.6 Land Use 253: Congregate Care Facility/Assisted Living Facility DRAFT    Tindale Oliver  Collier County  October 2019  A‐5  Road Impact Fee Update Study                    Location Size (Rooms) Date Total #  Interviews # Trip Length  Interviews Trip Gen Rate Time Period Trip Length Percent New Trips VMT Source Pinellas Co, FL 174 Aug‐89 134 106 12.50 7‐11a/3‐7p 6.30 79.0 62.21 Tindale Oliver Pinellas Co, FL 114 Oct‐89 30 14 7.30 12‐7p 6.20 47.0 21.27 Tindale Oliver Orange Co, FL 123 1997 ‐ ‐ 6.32 Orange County Orange Co, FL 120 1997 ‐ ‐ 5.27 Orange County Orange Co, FL 146 1997 ‐ ‐ 7.61 Orange County Orange Co, FL 252 1997 ‐ ‐ 5.63 Orange County Orange Co, FL 172 1997 ‐ ‐ 6.36 Orange County Orange Co, FL 170 1997 ‐ ‐ 6.06 Orange County Orange Co, FL 128 1997 ‐ ‐ 6.10 Orange County Orange Co, FL 200 1997 ‐ ‐ 4.56 Orange County Orange Co, FL 112 1998 ‐ ‐ 2.78 Orange County Orange Co, FL 130 1998 ‐ ‐ 9.12 Orange County Orange Co, FL 106 1998 ‐ ‐ 7.34 Orange County Orange Co, FL 98 1998 ‐ ‐ 7.32 Orange County Orange Co, FL 120 1998 ‐ ‐ 5.57 Orange County Orange Co, FL 70 1999 ‐ ‐ 1.85 Orange County Orange Co, FL 123 1999 ‐ ‐ 4.81 Orange County Orange Co, FL 123 1999 ‐ ‐ 3.70 Orange County Orange Co, FL 211 2000 ‐ ‐ 2.23 Orange County Orange Co, FL 144 2000 ‐ ‐ 7.32 Orange County Orange Co, FL 105 2001 ‐ ‐ 5.25 Orange County Orange Co, FL 891 2005 ‐ ‐ 5.69 Orange County Orange Co, FL 1,584 2005 ‐ ‐ 5.88 Orange County Orange Co, FL 210 2006 ‐ ‐ 4.88 Orange County Orange Co, FL 1,499 2006 ‐ ‐ 4.69 Orange County Orange Co, FL 144 ‐ ‐ ‐ 4.74 Orange County Orange Co, FL 148 ‐ ‐ ‐ 7.61 Orange County Orange Co, FL 160 ‐ ‐ ‐ 6.19 Orange County Orange Co, FL 130 ‐ ‐ ‐ 4.29 Orange County Orange Co, FL 130 ‐ ‐ ‐ 3.40 Orange County Orange Co, FL 144 ‐ ‐ ‐ 7.66 Orange County Orange Co, FL 100 ‐ ‐ ‐ 7.37 Orange County Orange Co, FL 190 ‐ ‐ ‐ 4.71 Orange County Orange Co, FL 1,501 2011 ‐ ‐ 3.50 Tindale Oliver Orange Co, FL 174 2011 ‐ ‐ 7.03 Tindale Oliver Orange Co, FL 238 2014 ‐ ‐ 4.05 Tindale Oliver Total Size 10,184 21 164  Average Trip Length: ‐ ITE 876 6 Weighted Average Trip Length: ‐ Blended total 11,060 Weighted Percent New Trip Average: 66.3 Weighted Average Trip Generation Rate: 5.31 ITE Average Trip Generation Rate: 8.36 Blend of FL Studies and ITE Average Trip Generation Rate: 5.55 Land Use 310: Hotel Location Size (Rooms) Date Total #  Interviews # Trip Length  Interviews Trip Gen Rate Time Period Trip Length Percent New Trips VMT Source Pinellas Co, FL 48 Oct‐89 46 24 ‐ 10a‐2p 2.80 65.0 ‐ Tindale Oliver Pinellas Co, FL 54 Oct‐89 32 22 ‐ 12p‐7p 3.80 69.0 ‐ Tindale Oliver Pinellas Co, FL 120 Oct‐89 26 22 ‐ 2p‐7p 5.20 84.6 ‐ Tindale Oliver Total Size 222 3 104  Average Trip Length: 3.93 ITE 654 6 Weighted Average Trip Length: 4.34 Weighted Percent New Trip Average: 76.6 Land Use 320: Motel Location Size (Rooms) Date Total #  Interviews # Trip Length  Interviews Trip Gen Rate Time Period Trip Length Percent New Trips VMT Source Pinellas Co, FL 174 Aug‐89 134 106 12.50 7‐11a/3‐7p 6.30 79.0 62.21 Tindale Oliver Pinellas Co, FL 114 Oct‐89 30 14 7.30 12‐7p 6.20 47.0 21.27 Tindale Oliver Pinellas Co, FL 48 Oct‐89 46 24 ‐ 10a‐2p 2.80 65.0 ‐ Tindale Oliver Pinellas Co, FL 54 Oct‐89 32 22 ‐ 12p‐7p 3.80 69.0 ‐ Tindale Oliver Pinellas Co, FL 120 Oct‐89 26 22 ‐ 2p‐7p 5.20 84.6 ‐ Tindale Oliver Total Size 510  Average Trip Length: 4.86 Weighted Average Trip Length: 5.42 Land Use 310/320: Hotel/Motel Location Size (Screens) Date Total #  Interviews # Trip Length  Interviews Trip Gen Rate Time Period Trip Length Percent New Trips VMT Source Pinellas Co, FL 8 Oct‐89 151 116 113.10 2p‐8p 2.70 77.0 235.13 Tindale Oliver Pinellas Co, FL 12 Sep‐89 122 116 63.40 2p‐8p 1.90 95.0 114.44 Tindale Oliver Total Size 20 2 273  Average Trip Length: 2.30 ITE 6 1 Weighted Average Trip Length: 2.22 Blended total 26 Weighted Percent New Trip Average: 87.8 Weighted Average Trip Generation Rate: 83.28 ITE Average Trip Generation Rate: 220.00 Blend of FL Studies and ITE Average Trip Generation Rate: 114.83 Land Use 444: Movie Theater Location Size (1,000 sf) Date Total #  Interviews # Trip Length  Interviews Trip Gen Rate Time Period Trip Length Percent New Trips VMT Source Pinellas Co, FL 5.6 Aug‐89 94 66 66.99 7a‐6p 1.90 70.0 89.10 Tindale Oliver Pinellas Co, FL 10.0 Sep‐89 179 134 66.99 7a‐6p 2.10 75.0 105.51 Tindale Oliver Tampa, FL ‐ Mar‐86 28 25 ‐  ‐ 2.60 89.0  ‐ Kimley‐Horn & Associates Total Size 15.6 301  Average Trip Length: 2.20 Weighted Average Trip Length: 2.03 Weighted Percent New Trip Average: 73.2 Land Use 565: Day Care Center DRAFT    Tindale Oliver  Collier County  October 2019  A‐6  Road Impact Fee Update Study                      Location Size (Beds) Date Total #  Interviews # Trip Length  Interviews Trip Gen Rate Time Period Trip Length Percent New Trips VMT Source Lakeland, FL 120 Mar‐90 74 66 2.86 11a‐4p 2.59 89.0 6.59 Tindale Oliver Total Size 120 1 74  Average Trip Length: 2.59 ITE 480 3 Weighted Average Trip Length: 2.59 Blended total 600 Weighted Percent New Trip Average: 89.0 Weighted Average Trip Generation Rate: 2.86 ITE Average Trip Generation Rate: 3.06 Blend of FL Studies and ITE Average Trip Generation Rate: 3.02 Land Use 620: Nursing Home Location Size (1,000 sf) Date Total #  Interviews # Trip Length  Interviews Trip Gen Rate Time Period Trip Length Percent New Trips VMT Source Sarasota Co, FL 14.3 Jun‐93 14 14 46.85 ‐ 11.30 ‐ 529.41 Sarasota County Gwinnett Co, GA 98.0 Dec‐92 ‐ ‐ 4.30 ‐ 5.40 ‐  ‐ Street Smarts Gwinnett Co, GA 180.0 Dec‐92 ‐ ‐ 3.60 ‐ 5.90 ‐  ‐ Street Smarts Pinellas Co, FL 187.0 Oct‐89 431 388 18.49 7a‐5p 6.30 90.0 104.84 Tindale Oliver St. Petersburg, FL 262.8 Sep‐89 291 274 ‐ 7a‐5p 3.40 94.0  ‐ Tindale Oliver Total Size 742.1 5 736  Average Trip Length: 6.46 ITE 11,286.0 66 Weighted Average Trip Length: 5.15 Weighted Percent New Trip Average: 92.3 Land Use 710: General Office Building INOUTINOUTINOUTINOUTINOUTINOUTTOTAL Site 1 2.100 35 35 22 22 13 13 70 70 23.33 23.33 11.11 11.11 22.22 Site 2 3.000 40 40 52 52 53 53 145 145 48.33 48.33 16.11 16.11 32.22 Site 3 2.000 28 28 19 21 24 26 71 75 23.67 25.00 11.84 12.50 24.34 Site 4 1.000 30 30 52 52 57 57 139 139 46.33 46.33 46.33 46.33 92.66 Site 5 3.024 31 32 43 43 24 24 98 99 32.67 33.00 10.80 10.91 21.71 Site 6 1.860 22 24 19 17 11 11 52 52 17.33 17.33 9.32 9.32 18.64 Average 17.59 17.71 35.30 Average (excluding Site 4)11.84 11.99 23.83 LUC 720: Small Medical/Dental Office Building: 10,000 sf or Less Site Size (1,000 sf) Tues., Jan 11 Wedn., Jan 12 Thur., Jan 13 TOTAL AVERAGE AVERAGE (per 1,000 sf) Location Size (1,000 sf) Date Total #  Interviews # Trip Length  Interviews Trip Gen Rate Time Period Trip Length Percent New Trips VMT Source Tampa, FL ‐ Mar‐86 33 26 ‐ ‐ 6.00 79.0 ‐ Kimley‐Horn & Associates Palm Harbor, FL 14.6 Oct‐89 104 76 33.98 9a‐5p 6.30 73.0 156.27 Tindale Oliver St. Petersburg, FL ‐ Nov‐89 34 30 57.20 9a‐4p 1.20 88.0 ‐ Tindale Oliver Hernando Co, FL 58.4 May‐96 390 349 28.52 9a‐6p 6.47 89.5 165.09 Tindale Oliver Hernando Co, FL 28.0 May‐96 202 189 49.75 9a‐6p 6.06 93.8 282.64 Tindale Oliver Charlotte Co, FL 11.0 Oct‐97 ‐ 186 49.50 9a‐5p 4.60 92.1 209.67 Tindale Oliver Charlotte Co, FL 28.0 Oct‐97 ‐ 186 31.00 9a‐5p 3.60 81.6 91.04 Tindale Oliver Charlotte Co, FL 30.4 Oct‐97 ‐ 324 39.80 9a‐5p 3.30 83.5 109.68 Tindale Oliver Citrus Co, FL 38.9 Oct‐03 ‐ 168 32.26 8‐6p 6.80 97.1 213.03 Tindale Oliver Citrus Co, FL 10.0 Nov‐03 ‐ 340 40.56 8‐630p 6.20 92.4 232.33 Tindale Oliver Citrus Co, FL 5.3 Dec‐03 ‐ 20 29.36 8‐5p 5.25 95.2 146.78 Tindale Oliver Orange Co, FL 50.6 2009 ‐ ‐ 26.72 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Orange County Orange Co, FL 23.5 2010 ‐ ‐ 16.58 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Tindale Oliver Total Size 298.6 11 763  Average Trip Length: 5.07 ITE 672.0 28 Weighted Average Trip Length: 5.55 Blended total 970.6 Weighted Percent New Trip Average: 88.9 Average Trip Generation Rate: 32.59 ITE Average Trip Generation Rate: 34.80 Blend of FL Studies and ITE Average Trip Generation Rate: 34.12 Land Use 720: Medical‐Dental Office Building Location Size (1,000 sf) Date Total #  Interviews # Trip Length  Interviews Trip Gen Rate Time Period Trip Length Percent New Trips VMT Source Collier Co, FL 14.1 May‐99 ‐ 55 33.48 8a‐6p 3.60 72.7 87.62 Tindale Oliver Collier Co, FL 66.0 May‐99 ‐ 43 11.53 8a‐6p 5.70 79.0 51.92 Tindale Oliver Collier Co, FL 211.1 May‐99 ‐ 284 17.91 8a‐6p 5.40 93.0 89.94 Tindale Oliver Total Size 291.2 3  Average Trip Length: 4.90 ITE 6,288.0 16 Weighted Average Trip Length: 5.38 Blended total 6,579.2 Weighted Percent New Trip Average: 88.8 Weighted Average Trip Generation Rate: 17.22 ITE Average Trip Generation Rate: 12.44 Blend of FL Studies and ITE Average Trip Generation Rate: 12.65  Land Use 770: Business Park DRAFT    Tindale Oliver  Collier County  October 2019  A‐7  Road Impact Fee Update Study      Figure A‐1  Shopping Center/Retail (LUC 820) – Florida Curve Trip Length Regression    Source: Regression analysis based on FL Studies data for LUC 820                Location Size (1,000 sf) Date Total #  Interviews # Trip Length  Interviews Trip Gen Rate Time Period Trip Length Percent New Trips VMT Source Tampa, FL ‐ Mar‐86 527 348 ‐ ‐ ‐ 66.0 ‐ Kimley‐Horn & Associates Tampa, FL ‐ Mar‐86 170 ‐ ‐ ‐ 1.70 ‐ ‐ Kimley‐Horn & Associates Tampa, FL ‐ Mar‐86 354 269 ‐ ‐ ‐ 76.0 ‐ Kimley‐Horn & Associates Tampa, FL ‐ Mar‐86 144 ‐ ‐ ‐ 2.50 ‐ ‐ Kimley‐Horn & Associates St. Petersburg, FL 1,192.0 Aug‐89 384 298 ‐ 11a‐7p 3.60 78.0 ‐ Tindale Oliver St. Petersburg, FL 132.3 Sep‐89 400 368 77.00 10a‐7p 1.80 92.0 127.51 Tindale Oliver Largo, FL 425.0 Aug‐89 160 120 26.73 10a‐6p 2.30 75.0 46.11 Tindale Oliver Dunedin, FL 80.5 Sep‐89 276 210 81.48 9a‐5p 1.40 76.0 86.69 Tindale Oliver Pinellas Park, FL 696.0 Sep‐89 485 388 ‐ 9a‐6p 3.20 80.0 ‐ Tindale Oliver Seminole, FL 425.0 Oct‐89 674 586 ‐ ‐ ‐ 87.0 ‐ Tindale Oliver Hillsborough Co, FL 134.0 Jul‐91 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 1.30 74.0 ‐ Tindale Oliver Hillsborough Co, FL 151.0 Jul‐91 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 1.30 73.0 ‐ Tindale Oliver Collier Co, FL ‐ Aug‐91 68 64 ‐ ‐ 3.33 94.1 ‐ Tindale Oliver Collier Co, FL ‐ Aug‐91 208 154 ‐ ‐ 2.64 74.0 ‐ Tindale Oliver Sarasota/Bradenton, FL 109.0 Sep‐92 300 185 ‐ 12a‐6p ‐ 61.6 ‐ King Engineering Associates, Inc. Ocala, FL 133.4 Sep‐92 300 192 ‐ 12a‐6p ‐ 64.0 ‐ King Engineering Associates, Inc. Gwinnett Co, GA 99.1 Dec‐92 ‐ ‐ 46.00 ‐ 3.20 70.0 103.04 Street Smarts Gwinnett Co, GA 314.7 Dec‐92 ‐ ‐ 27.00 ‐ 8.50 84.0 192.78 Street Smarts Sarasota Co, FL 110.0 Jun‐93 58 58 122.14 ‐ 3.20 ‐ ‐ Sarasota County Sarasota Co, FL 146.1 Jun‐93 65 65 51.53 ‐ 2.80 ‐ ‐ Sarasota County Sarasota Co, FL 157.5 Jun‐93 57 57 79.79 ‐ 3.40 ‐ ‐ Sarasota County Sarasota Co, FL 191.0 Jun‐93 62 62 66.79 ‐ 5.90 ‐ ‐ Sarasota County Hernando Co, FL 107.8 May‐96 608 331 77.60 9a‐6p 4.68 54.5 197.85 Tindale Oliver Charlotte Co, FL 88.0 Oct‐97 ‐ ‐ 73.50 9a‐5p 1.80 57.1 75.56 Tindale Oliver Charlotte Co, FL 191.9 Oct‐97 ‐ ‐ 72.00 9a‐5p 2.40 50.9 87.97 Tindale Oliver Charlotte Co, FL 51.3 Oct‐97 ‐ ‐ 43.00 9a‐5p 2.70 51.8 60.08 Tindale Oliver Lake Co, FL 67.8 Apr‐01 246 177 102.60 ‐ 3.40 71.2 248.37 Tindale Oliver Lake Co, FL 72.3 Apr‐01 444 376 65.30 ‐ 4.50 59.0 173.37 Tindale Oliver Pasco Co, FL 65.6 Apr‐02 222 ‐ 145.64 9a‐5p 1.46 46.9 99.62 Tindale Oliver Pasco Co, FL 75.8 Apr‐02 134 ‐ 38.23 9a‐5p 2.36 58.2 52.52 Tindale Oliver Citrus Co, FL 185.0 Oct‐03 ‐ 784 55.84 8a‐6p 2.40 88.1 118.05 Tindale Oliver Citrus Co, FL 91.3 Nov‐03 ‐ 390 54.50 8a‐6p 1.60 88.0 76.77 Tindale Oliver Bozeman, MT 104.3 Dec‐06 359 359 46.96 ‐ 3.35 49.0 77.08 Tindale Oliver Bozeman, MT 159.9 Dec‐06 502 502 56.49 ‐ 1.56 54.0 47.59 Tindale Oliver Bozeman, MT 35.9 Dec‐06 329 329 69.30 ‐ 1.39 74.0 71.28 Tindale Oliver Total Size 5,757.5 7,536  Average Trip Length: 2.66 Land Use 820: Shopping Center 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600Trip Length (Miles)Square Footage DRAFT    Tindale Oliver  Collier County  October 2019  A‐8  Road Impact Fee Update Study  Figure A‐2  Shopping Center/Retail (LUC 820) – Florida Curve Percent New Trips Regression    Source: Regression analysis based on FL Studies data for LUC 820            0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600Percent New TripsSquare Footage Location Size (1,000 sf) Date Total #  Interviews # Trip Length  Interviews Trip Gen Rate Time Period Trip Length Percent New Trips VMT Source St.Petersburg, FL 43.0 Oct‐89 152 120 ‐ 9a‐5p 4.70 79.0 ‐ Tindale Oliver Clearwater, FL 43.0 Oct‐89 136 106 29.40 9a‐5p 4.50 78.0 103.19 Tindale Oliver Orange Co, FL 13.8 1997 ‐ ‐ 35.75 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Orange County Orange Co, FL 34.4 1998 ‐ ‐ 23.45 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Orange County Orange Co, FL 66.3 2001 ‐ ‐ 28.50 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Orange County Orange Co, FL 39.1 2002 ‐ ‐ 10.48 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Orange County Orange Co, FL 116.7 2003 ‐ ‐ 22.18 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Orange County Orange Co, FL 51.7 2007 ‐ ‐ 40.34 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ L‐TEC Orange Co, FL 36.6 ‐ ‐ ‐ 15.17 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Orange County Orange Co, FL 216.4 2008 ‐ ‐ 13.45 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Orange County Total Size 618.0 8 288  Average Trip Length: 4.60 ITE (840) 648.0 18 Weighted Average Trip Length: 4.60 ITE (841) 28.0 14 Weighted Percent New Trip Average: 78.5 Blended total 1,294.0 Weighted Average Trip Generation  Rate: 21.04 ITE Average Trip Generation Rate (LUC 840): 27.84 ITE Average Trip Generation Rate (LUC 841): 27.06 Blend of FL Studies and ITE Average Trip Generation Rate: 24.58 Land Use 840/841: New/Used Automobile Sales Location Size (1,000 sf) Date Total #  Interviews # Trip Length  Interviews Trip Gen Rate Time Period Trip Length Percent New Trips VMT Source Palm Harbor, FL 62.0 Aug‐89 163 62 106.26 9a‐4p 2.08 56.0 123.77 Tindale Oliver Total Size 62.0 1 163  Average Trip Length: 2.08 ITE 170.0 5 Weighted Average Trip Length: 2.08 Blended total 232.0 Weighted Percent New Trip Average: 56.0 Weighted Average Trip Generation  Rate: 106.26 ITE Average Trip Generation Rate: 106.78 Blend of FL Studies and ITE Average Trip Generation Rate: 106.64 Land Use 850: Supermarket DRAFT    Tindale Oliver  Collier County  October 2019  A‐9  Road Impact Fee Update Study                        Location Size (1,000 sf) Date Total #  Interviews # Trip Length  Interviews Trip Gen Rate Time Period Trip Length Percent New Trips VMT Source Tampa, FL ‐ Mar‐86 80  ‐ ‐  ‐ 1.10 ‐ ‐ Kimley‐Horn & Associates Largo, FL 2.5 8/15,25/89 171 116 634.80  ‐ 1.20 68.0 518.00 Tindale Oliver Clearwater, FL 2.5 Aug‐89 237 64 690.80  ‐ 1.60 27.0 298.43 Tindale Oliver Clearwater, FL 2.1 Nov‐89 143 50 635.24 24hr. 1.60 35.0 355.73 Tindale Oliver Marion Co, FL 2.5 Jun‐91 94 43 787.20 48hrs. 1.52 46.2 552.80 Tindale Oliver Marion Co, FL 2.5 Jun‐91 74 20 714.00 48hrs. 0.75 27.0 144.59 Tindale Oliver Collier Co, FL ‐ Aug‐91 146 36 ‐  ‐ 2.53 24.7 ‐ Tindale Oliver Collier Co, FL ‐ Aug‐91 148 38 ‐  ‐ 1.08 25.7 ‐ Tindale Oliver Collier Co, FL ‐ Aug‐91 148 84 ‐  ‐ 1.11 56.8  ‐ Tindale Oliver Gwinnett Co, GA 2.9 12/13‐18/92 ‐  ‐ ‐  ‐ 2.30 48.0 ‐ Street Smarts Gwinnett Co, GA 3.2 12/13‐18/92 ‐  ‐ ‐  ‐ ‐ 37.0 ‐ Street Smarts Total Size 18.2 7 1,241  Average Trip Length: 1.48 ITE 24.0 8 Weighted Average Trip Length: 1.52 Blended total 42.2 Weighted Percent New Trip Average: 41.3 36.1 Weighted Average Trip Generation  Rate: 694.30 ITE Average Trip Generation Rate: 762.28 Blend of FL Studies and ITE Average Trip Generation Rate: 739.50 Land Use 851: Convenience Market Location Size (1,000 sf) Date Total #  Interviews # Trip Length  Interviews Trip Gen Rate Time Period Trip Length Percent New Trips VMT Source Pasco Co, FL 11.1 Apr‐02 138 38 88.97 ‐ 2.05 27.5 50.23 Tindale Oliver Pasco Co, FL 12.0 Apr‐02 212 90 122.16 ‐ 2.04 42.5 105.79 Tindale Oliver Pasco Co, FL 15.1 Apr‐02 1192 54 97.96 ‐ 2.13 28.1 58.69 Tindale Oliver Total Size 38.2 3 1,542  Average Trip Length: 2.07 ITE (LUC 880) 66.0 6 Weighted Average Trip Length: 2.08 ITE (LUC 881) 208.0 16 Weighted Percent New Trip Average: 32.4 Blended total 312.2 Average Trip Generation  Rate: 103.03 ITE Average Trip Generation Rate (LUC 880): 90.08 ITE Average Trip Generation Rate (LUC 881): 109.16 Blend of FL Studies and ITE Average Trip Generation Rate: 104.37 Land Use 880/881: Pharmacy with and without Drive‐Through Window Location Size (1,000 sf) Date Total #  Interviews # Trip Length  Interviews Trip Gen Rate Time Period Trip Length Percent New Trips VMT Source Largo, FL 15.0 7/28‐30/92 64 34 ‐ ‐ 4.63 52.5 ‐ Tindale Oliver Tampa, FL 16.9 Jul‐92 68 39 ‐ ‐ 7.38 55.7 ‐ Tindale Oliver Pompano Beach, FL 58.5 Jun‐06 31 140 3.70 9a‐6p 4.38 89.2 16.21 Nunner Group ‐ Collier County Stuart, FL 100.0 Jun‐06 198 154 6.50 9a‐6p 3.14 79.4 20.41 Nunner Group ‐ Collier County Boca Raton, FL 19.1 Jun‐06 198 108 11.00 9a‐6p 4.36 74.5 47.96 Nunner Group ‐ Collier County Total Size 209.5 132  Average Trip Length: 4.78 177.6 Weighted Average Trip Length: 4.05 ITE 779.0 19 Weighted Percent New Trip Average: 77.8 Blended total 956.60 Average Trip Generation  Rate: 6.06 ITE Average Trip Generation Rate: 6.30 Blend of FL Studies and ITE Average Trip Generation Rate: 6.26 Land Use 890: Furniture Store Location Size (1,000 sf) Date Total #  Interviews # Trip Length  Interviews Trip Gen Rate Time Period Trip Length Percent New Trips VMT Source Tampa, FL  ‐ Mar‐86 77  ‐ ‐ ‐ 2.40 ‐  ‐ Kimley‐Horn & Associates Tampa, FL  ‐ Mar‐86 211  ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 54.0  ‐ Kimley‐Horn & Associates Clearwater, FL 0.4 Aug‐89 113 52 ‐ 9a‐6p 5.20 46.0  ‐ Tindale Oliver Largo, FL 2.0 Sep‐89 129 94 ‐ ‐ 1.60 73.0  ‐ Tindale Oliver Seminole, FL 4.5 Oct‐89  ‐  ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐  ‐ Tindale Oliver Marion Co, FL 2.3 Jun‐91 69 29 ‐ 24hr. 1.33 42.0  ‐ Tindale Oliver Marion Co, FL 3.1 Jun‐91 47 32 ‐ 24hr. 1.75 68.1  ‐ Tindale Oliver Marion Co, FL 2.5 Jul‐91 57 26 ‐ 48hrs. 2.70 45.6  ‐ Tindale Oliver Collier Co, FL  ‐ Aug‐91 162 96 ‐ 24hr. 0.88 59.3  ‐ Tindale Oliver Collier Co, FL  ‐ Aug‐91 116 54 ‐ ‐ 1.58 46.6  ‐ Tindale Oliver Collier Co, FL  ‐ Aug‐91 142 68 ‐ ‐ 2.08 47.9  ‐ Tindale Oliver Hernando Co, FL 5.4 May‐96 164 41 ‐ 9a‐6p 2.77 24.7  ‐ Tindale Oliver Marion Co, FL 2.4 Apr‐02 70  ‐ ‐ 24hr. 3.55 54.6  ‐ Kimley‐Horn & Associates Marion Co, FL 2.7 May‐02 50  ‐ 246.66 24hr. 2.66 40.5 265.44 Kimley‐Horn & Associates Total Size 25.2 9 1,407  Average Trip Length: 2.38 ITE 147.0 21 Weighted Average Trip Length: 2.46 Blended total 172.2 Weighted Percent New Trip Average: 46.2 149.7 Weighted Average Trip Generation  Rate: 246.66 ITE Average Trip Generation Rate: 100.03 Blend of FL Studies and ITE Average Trip Generation Rate: 102.66 Land Use 912: Drive‐In Bank Location Size (1,000 sf) Date Total #  Interviews # Trip Length  Interviews Trip Gen Rate Time Period Trip Length Percent New Trips VMT Source Tampa, FL ‐ Mar‐86 76 62 ‐ ‐ 2.10 82.0 ‐ Kimley‐Horn & Associates St. Petersburg, FL 7.5 Oct‐89 177 154 ‐ 11a‐2p/4‐8p 3.50 87.0 ‐ Tindale Oliver Clearwater, FL 8.0 Oct‐89 60 40 110.63 10a‐2p/5‐9p 2.80 67.0 207.54 Tindale Oliver Total Size 15.5 2 313  Average Trip Length: 2.80 ITE 90.0 10 Weighted Average Trip Length: 3.14 Blended total 105.5 Weighted Percent New Trip Average: 76.7 Land Use 931: Low‐Turnover (Quality) Restaurant DRAFT    Tindale Oliver  Collier County  October 2019  A‐10  Road Impact Fee Update Study                  Location Size (1,000 sf) Date Total #  Interviews # Trip Length  Interviews Trip Gen Rate Time Period Trip Length Percent New Trips VMT Source Hernando Co, FL 6.2 1996 242 175 187.51 9a‐6p 2.76 72.5 375.00 Tindale Oliver Hernando Co, FL 8.2 1996 154 93 102.71 9a‐6p 4.15 60.2 256.43 Tindale Oliver St. Petersburg, FL 5.0 1989 74 68 132.60 1130‐7p 2.00 92.0 243.98 Tindale Oliver Kenneth City, FL 5.2 1989 236 176 127.88 4p‐730p 2.30 75.0 220.59 Tindale Oliver Pasco Co, FL 5.2 2002 114 88 82.47 9a‐6p 3.72 77.2 236.81 Tindale Oliver Pasco Co, FL 5.8 2002 182 102 116.97 9a‐6p 3.49 56.0 228.77 Tindale Oliver Orange Co, FL 5.0 1996 ‐ ‐ 135.68 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Orange County Orange Co, FL 9.7 1996 ‐ ‐ 132.32 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Orange County Orange Co, FL 11.2 1998 ‐ ‐ 18.76 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Orange County Orange Co, FL 7.0 1998 ‐ ‐ 126.40 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Orange County Orange Co, FL 4.6 1998 ‐ ‐ 129.23 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Orange County Orange Co, FL 7.4 1998 ‐ ‐ 147.44 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Orange County Orange Co, FL 6.7 1998 ‐ ‐ 82.58 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Orange County Orange Co, FL 11.3 2000 ‐ ‐ 95.33 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Orange County Orange Co, FL 7.2 2000 ‐ ‐ 98.06 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Orange County Orange Co, FL 11.4 2001 ‐ ‐ 91.67 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Orange County Orange Co, FL 5.6 2001 ‐ ‐ 145.59 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Orange County Orange Co, FL 5.5 ‐ ‐ ‐ 100.18 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Orange County Orange Co, FL 11.3 ‐ ‐ ‐ 62.12 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Orange County Orange Co, FL 10.4 ‐ ‐ ‐ 31.77 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Orange County Orange Co, FL 5.9 ‐ ‐ ‐ 147.74 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Orange County Orange Co, FL 8.9 2008 ‐ ‐ 52.69 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Orange County Orange Co, FL 9.7 2010 ‐ ‐ 105.84 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Orange County Orange Co, FL 9.5 2013 ‐ ‐ 40.46 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Orange County Orange Co, FL 11.0 2015 ‐ ‐ 138.39 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Orange County Total Size 194.9 21 1,102  Average Trip Length: 3.07 ITE 250.0 50 Weighted Average Trip Length: 3.17 Blended total 444.9 Weighted Percent New Trip Average: 70.8 Land Use 932: High‐Turnover (Sit‐Down) Restaurant Location Size (1,000 sf) Date Total #  Interviews # Trip Length  Interviews Trip Gen Rate Time Period Trip Length Percent New Trips VMT Source Tampa, FL ‐ Mar‐86 61 ‐ ‐ ‐ 2.70 ‐ ‐ Kimley‐Horn & Associates Tampa, FL ‐ Mar‐86 306 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 65.0 ‐ Kimley‐Horn & Associates Pinellas Co, FL 2.20 Aug‐89 81 48 502.80 11a‐2p 1.70 59.0 504.31 Tindale Oliver Pinellas Co, FL 4.30 Oct‐89 456 260 660.40 1 day 2.30 57.0 865.78 Tindale Oliver Tarpon Springs, FL ‐ Oct‐89 233 114 ‐ 7a‐7p 3.60 49.0 ‐ Tindale Oliver Marion Co, FL 1.60 Jun‐91 60 32 962.50 48hrs. 0.91 53.3 466.84 Tindale Oliver Marion Co, FL 4.00 Jun‐91 75 46 625.00 48hrs. 1.54 61.3 590.01 Tindale Oliver Collier Co, FL ‐ Aug‐91 66 44 ‐ ‐ 1.91 66.7 ‐ Tindale Oliver Collier Co, FL ‐ Aug‐91 118 40 ‐ ‐ 1.17 33.9 ‐ Tindale Oliver Hernando Co, FL 5.43 May‐96 136 82 311.83 9a‐6p 1.68 60.2 315.27 Tindale Oliver Hernando Co, FL 3.13 May‐96 168 82 547.34 9a‐6p 1.59 48.8 425.04 Tindale Oliver Orange Co, FL 8.93 1996 ‐ ‐ 377.00 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Orange County Lake Co, FL 2.20 Apr‐01 376 252 934.30 ‐ 2.50 74.6 1742.47 Tindale Oliver Lake Co, FL 3.20 Apr‐01 171 182 654.90 ‐ ‐ 47.8 ‐ Tindale Oliver Lake Co, FL 3.80 Apr‐01 188 137 353.70 ‐ 3.30 70.8 826.38 Tindale Oliver Pasco Co, FL 2.66 Apr‐02 100 46 283.12 9a‐6p ‐ 46.0 ‐ Tindale Oliver Pasco Co, FL 2.96 Apr‐02 486 164 515.32 9a‐6p 2.72 33.7 472.92 Tindale Oliver Pasco Co, FL 4.42 Apr‐02 168 120 759.24 9a‐6p 1.89 71.4 1024.99 Tindale Oliver Total Size 48.8 13 4,463  Average Trip Length: 2.11 ITE 201.0 67 Weighted Average Trip Length: 2.05 Blended total 249.8 Weighted Percent New Trip Average: 57.9 34.0 Weighted Average Trip Generation  Rate: 530.19 ITE Average Trip Generation Rate: 470.95 Blend of FL Studies and ITE Average Trip Generation Rate: 482.53 Land Use 934: Fast Food Restaurant with Drive‐Through Window Location Size (1,000 sf) Date Total #  Interviews # Trip Length  Interviews Trip Gen Rate Time Period Trip Length Percent New Trips VMT Source Largo, FL 5.5 Sep‐89 34 30 37.64 9a‐5p 2.40 88.0 79.50 Tindale Oliver Jacksonville, FL 2.3 2/3‐4/90 124 94 ‐ 9a‐5p 3.07 76.0 ‐ Tindale Oliver Jacksonville, FL 2.3 2/3‐4/90 110 74 ‐ 9a‐5p 2.96 67.0 ‐ Tindale Oliver Jacksonville, FL 2.4 2/3‐4/90 132 87 ‐ 9a‐5p 2.32 66.0 ‐ Tindale Oliver Lakeland, FL 5.2 Mar‐90 24 14 ‐ 9a‐4p 1.36 59.0 ‐ Tindale Oliver Lakeland, FL ‐ Mar‐90 54 42 ‐ 9a‐4p 2.44 78.0 ‐ Tindale Oliver Orange Co, FL 25.0 Nov‐92 41 39 ‐ 2‐6p 4.60 ‐ ‐ LCE, Inc.  Orange Co, FL 36.6 ‐ ‐ ‐ 15.17 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Orange County Orange Co, FL 7.0 ‐ ‐ ‐ 46.43 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Orange County Total Size 86.2 6 519  Average Trip Length: 2.74 ITE  102.0 6 Weighted Average Trip Length: 3.62 Blended total 188.2 Weighted Percent New Trip Average: 72.2 Land Use 942: Automobile Care Center Location Size (1,000 sf) Date Total #  Interviews # Trip Length  Interviews Trip Gen Rate Time Period Trip Length Percent New Trips VMT Source Largo, FL 0.6 Nov‐89 70 14 ‐ 8am‐5pm ‐ 23.0  ‐ Tindale Oliver Collier Co, FL ‐ Aug‐91 168 40 ‐  ‐ 1.01 23.8  ‐ Tindale Oliver Total Size 0.6 1 238  Average Trip Length: 1.01 ITE (vfp) 144.0 18 Weighted Average Trip Length: 1.01 Weighted Percent New Trip Average: 23.0 Land Use 944/945: Gasoline/Service Station DRAFT    Tindale Oliver  Collier County  October 2019  A‐11  Road Impact Fee Update Study                Single Family Residential Trip Generation Rate Tiering    As part of this study, the single family residential trip generation rate tiering was included to  reflect a tiering analysis to ensure equity by the size of a home.  To facilitate this, an analysis was  completed on the comparative relationship between housing size and household travel behavior.   This analysis utilized data from the 2009 National Household Travel Survey (NHTS) and the 2015  American Housing Survey (AHS) to examine overall trip‐making characteristics of households in  the United States.    Table  A‐3  presents  that  trip  characteristics  being  utilized  in the  proposed  road  impact  fee  schedule for the single family (detached) land use.  The 2009 NHTS database was used to assess  average annual household vehicle miles of travel (VMT) for various annual household income  levels.    In  addition,  the  2015  AHS  database  was  used  to  compare  median  annual  family/household incomes with housing unit size.  It is important to recognize that the use of the  income variable in each of these databases is simply to provide a convenient linking mechanism  between household VMT from the NHTS and housing unit size from the AHS.        Location Size (Bays) Date Total #  Interviews # Trip Length  Interviews Trip Gen Rate Time Period Trip Length Percent New Trips VMT Source Largo, FL 10 Nov‐89 111 84 ‐ 8am‐5pm 2.00 76.0  ‐ Tindale Oliver Clearwater, FL  ‐ Nov‐89 177 108 ‐ 10am‐5pm 1.30 61.0  ‐ Tindale Oliver Collier Co, FL 11 Dec‐09 304 ‐ 30.24 ‐ 2.50 57.0  ‐ Tindale Oliver Collier Co, FL 8 Jan‐09 186 ‐ 22.75 ‐ 1.96 72.0  ‐ Tindale Oliver Total Size 29 3 778  Average Trip Length: 1.94 Total Size (TGR) 19 2 Weighted Average Trip Length: 2.18 ITE  5 1 Weighted Percent New Trip Average: 67.7 Blended total 24 Weighted Average Trip Generation  Rate: 27.09 ITE Average Trip Generation Rate: 108.00 Blend of FL Studies and ITE Average Trip Generation Rate: 43.94 Land Use 947: Self‐Service Car Wash Location Size (1,000 sf) Date Total #  Interviews # Trip Length  Interviews Trip Gen Rate Time Period Trip Length Percent New Trips VMT Source Collier Co, FL 12.0 May‐99 ‐ 13 19.70 8a‐6p 3.70 75.0 54.67 Tindale Oliver Collier Co, FL 12.0 May‐99 ‐ 146 127.50 8a‐6p 2.24 84.3 240.76 Tindale Oliver Total Size 24.0 3  Average Trip Length: 2.97 ITE 100.0 4 Weighted Average Trip Length: 2.97 Blended total 124.0 Weighted Percent New Trip Average: 79.7 Weighted Average Trip Generation Rate: 73.60 ITE Average Trip Generation Rate (9th Edition): 44.32 Blend of FL Studies and ITE Average Trip Generation Rate: 49.99 Land Use N/A: Specialty Retail Center Location Size (1,000 sf) Date Total #  Interviews # Trip Length  Interviews Trip Gen Rate Time Period Trip Length Percent New Trips VMT Source Collier Co, FL 7.000 Jul‐08 ‐ ‐ 30.29 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Tindale Oliver Collier Co, FL 20.48 Jul‐08 ‐ ‐ 17.19 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Tindale Oliver Collier Co, FL 8.705 Jul‐08 ‐ ‐ 23.89 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Tindale Oliver Total Size 36.2 3  Average Trip Length: n/a Weighted Average Trip Length: n/a Weighted Average Trip Generation  Rate: 21.33 Land Use N/A: Dance Studio DRAFT    Tindale Oliver  Collier County  October 2019  A‐12  Road Impact Fee Update Study  Table A‐3  Calculated Single Family Trip Characteristics    Source: Florida Studies TCS Database, Land Use 210: Single Family Residential  *Does not include the trip length adjustment factor      The results of the NHTS and AHS analyses are included in Tables A‐4 and A‐5.  First, the data  shown in Table A‐4 indicates that the average income in the U.S. for families/households living in  housing units smaller than 4,000 square feet in size ($61,444) is lower than the overall average  income for the U.S. ($62,419).  In Table A‐5, annual average household VMT was calculated from  the NHTS database for several different income levels and ranges related to the resulting AHS  income data in Table A‐4.    Table A‐4  Annual Income by Housing Size    Source: American Housing Survey for the United State in 2017  1) Weighted average of annual income for each tier      Table A‐5  NHTS VMT Annual VMT by Income Category    Source: 2017 National Household Travel Survey Database, Federal Highway Administration      To calculate a corresponding trip rate for the new tiers it was necessary to rely on comparative  ratios.  As an example, consider the $61,444 annual income category.  First, it was determined  that the average annual household VMT for this income level is 18,612 miles.  This figure was  than compared to the overall average annual VMT per household in the U.S. and normalized to  the average of the $70,622 (19,713 miles) category to derive a ratio of 0.944.  It should be noted  Calculated Values Excluding  Tiering Trip Rate Assessable  Trip Length* Daily VMT Single Family (Detached) 7.81 5.88 45.92 2017 AHS Average Income Data  by Housing Size Annual  Income(1) Less than 4,000 sf $61,444 1,500 to 2,499 sf $70,622 4,000 sf or more $90,886 Average of All Houses $62,419 2017 NHTS Travel Data by Annual HH Income Annual  VMT/HH Days Daily VMT Ratio to  Mean Normalized to 1.055 Total (All Homes) 18,684 365 51.19 1.000 ‐ Average of $61,444 18,612 365 50.99 0.996 0.944 Average of $70,622 19,713 365 54.01 1.055 1.000 Average of $90,886 22,703 365 62.20 1.215 1.152 DRAFT    Tindale Oliver  Collier County  October 2019  A‐13  Road Impact Fee Update Study  that the $70,622 (1,500‐2,499 sq ft) category is not an impact fee tier, but rather the average  homes size that corresponds with the Florida Studies data shown in Table A‐3.    Next, the normalized ratio was applied to the daily VMT for the average single family housing  unit size (less than 4,000 sq ft) to generate a daily VMT of 43.35 for the tier, as shown in Table A‐ 6.  This daily VMT figure was then divided by the proposed assessable trip length of 5.88 miles to  obtain a trip generation rate of 7.37 trips per day.    Table A‐6  Trip Generation Rate by Single Family Land Use Tier    1) Daily VMT (Item 3) divided by assessable trip length (Item 2) for each tier  2) Source: Table A‐3  3) Ratio to the mean (Item 4) multiplied by the total daily VMT for the 1,500 to 2,499 sq tier  4) Source: Table A‐5      Table A‐7 illustrates the impact that the trip generation rate tiers for the single family (detached)  land use have on the County’s calculated roadway impact fee rate.    Table A‐7  Net Impact Fee by Single Family Land Use Tier    1) Source: Table A‐6, Item 1  2) Source: Appendix D, Table D‐1    Demand Variable Changes    Since the last demand component update in 2015, the trip generation rate (TGR), trip length (TL),  and percent new trips (PNT) has changed for several land uses.  Tables A‐8 through A‐11 present  the change in each variable for each land use for the 2019 update. Estimation of Trip Rate by Tier Trip Rate(1)Assessable  Trip Length(2) Daily  VMT(3) Ratio to  Mean(4) Single Family (Detached) Less than 4,000 sf 7.37 5.88 43.35 0.944 1,500 to 2,499 sf 7.81 5.88 45.92 1.000 4,000 sf or larger 9.00 5.88 52.90 1.152 Impact of Tiering on Fee Schedule Trip Rate(1)Assessable  Trip Length(2) Daily  VMT(3)Net Fee(2) Single Family (Detached) Less than 4,000 sf 7.37 5.88 43.35 $8,590 4,000 sf or larger 9.00 5.88 52.90 $10,489 DRAFT    Tindale Oliver Collier County  October 2019  A‐14  Road Impact Fee Update Study  Table A‐8  Percent Change in Gross VMT of Impact Fee Land Uses    ‐ Gross VMT = TGR * TL * PNT / 2  ‐ Individual variables are shown in Tables A‐9 through A‐11     ITE LUC Land Use Unit GVMT 2015 GVMT 2019 %  Explanation RESIDENTIAL: Single Family (Detached) <4,000 sf du 22.49 21.67 ‐3.6% TGR update, see Table A‐9 Single Family (Detached) 4,000 sf and more du 27.11 26.46 ‐2.4% TGR update, see Table A‐9 220 Multi‐Family Housing (Low‐Rise, 1‐2 floors) du 16.83 18.67 10.9%TGR update, see Table A‐9 221 Multi‐Family Housing (Mid‐Rise, 3‐10 floors) du 10.71 13.87 29.5% TGR update, see Table A‐9 222 Multi‐Family Housing (High‐Rise, >10 floors) du 14.69 11.35 ‐22.7% TGR update, see Table A‐9 231 Mid‐Rise Residential w/1st floor Commercial du ‐ 8.77 ‐ New land use 232 High‐Rise Residential w/1st floor Commercial du ‐ 5.13 ‐ New land use 240 Mobile Home Park du 9.59 9.59 0.0% No change 251 Retirement Community (detached) du 8.46 9.49 12.2% TGR update, see Table A‐9 252 Retirement Community (attached) du 8.46 5.46 ‐35.5% TGR & TL update, see Tables A‐9 and A‐10 254 Assisted Living bed 2.48 2.42 ‐2.4% TGR, TL & PNT update, see Tables A‐9, A‐10, and A‐11 LODGING: 310 Hotel room 11.38 9.93 ‐12.7% TGR update, see Table A‐9 311 All Suites Hotel room 8.76 7.98 ‐8.9% TGR update, see Table A‐9 320 Motel room 9.41 5.60 ‐40.5% TGR update, see Table A‐9 RECREATION: 416 Campground/RV Park site 3.73 3.73 0.0% No change 420 Marina berth 7.83 6.38 ‐18.5% TGR update, see Table A‐9 430 Golf Course 18 holes 642.68 546.29 ‐15.0% TGR update, see Table A‐9 n/a Bundled Golf Course 18 holes 192.81 163.89 ‐15.0% TGR update, see Table A‐9 444 Movie Theater screen 104.16 112.17 7.7% TGR update, see Table A‐9 n/a Dance Studio/Gym 1,000 sf 25.34 25.34 0.0% No change INSTITUTIONS: 520 Elementary School (Private) student 2.22 2.22 0.0% TGR & TL update, see Tables A‐9 and A‐10 522 Middle/Junior High School (Private) student 3.13 2.50 ‐20.1% TGR, TL & PNT update, see Tables A‐9, A‐10, and A‐11 530 High School (Private) student 3.31 2.69 ‐18.7% TGR & TL update, see Tables A‐9 and A‐10 540 University/Junior College (7,500 or fewer students) (Private) student 5.29 5.29 0.0% No change 550 University/Junior College (more than 7,500 students) (Private) student 3.97 3.97 0.0% No change 560 Church seat 1.07 0.77 ‐28.0% TGR & TL update, see Tables A‐9 and A‐10 565 Day Care Center student 3.25 3.03 ‐6.8% TGR update, see Table A‐9 MEDICAL: 610 Hospital 1,000 sf 29.93 24.58 ‐17.9% TGR & PNT update, see Tables A‐9 and A‐11 620 Nursing Home bed 3.18 3.48 9.4% TGR update, see Table A‐9 OFFICE: 710 General Office 1,000 sf 26.11 23.07 ‐11.6% TGR update, see Table A‐9 Medical Office/Clinic 10,000 sq ft or less 1,000 sf 58.85 58.85 0.0%No change Medical Office/Clinic greater than 10,000 sq ft 1,000 sf 85.75 84.27 ‐1.7% TGR update, see Table A‐9 770 Business Park (Flex‐Space) 1,000 sf 30.29 30.29 0.0% No change RETAIL: Retail 6,000 sfgla or less 1,000 sfgla 18.90 16.39 ‐13.3% TGR update, see Table A‐9 Retail 6,001‐25,000 sfgla 1,000 sfgla 34.19 29.64 ‐13.3% TGR update, see Table A‐9 Retail greater than 25,000 sfgla 1,000 sfgla 41.66 37.57 ‐9.8% TGR, TL & PNT update, see Tables A‐9, A‐10, and A‐11 840/841 New/Used Auto Sales 1,000 sf 51.33 44.66 ‐13.0% TGR update, see Table A‐9 849 Tire Superstore service bay 25.52 25.52 0.0% No change 850 Supermarket 1,000 sf 60.21 62.11 3.2% TGR update, see Table A‐9 851 Convenience Market, 24 hrs 1,000 sf 224.10 230.43 2.8% TGR update, see Table A‐9 862 Home Improvement Superstore 1,000 sf 23.38 23.38 0.0% No change 880/881 Pharmacy with & w/o Drive‐Thru 1,000 sf 31.94 34.73 8.7% TGR update, see Table A‐9 890 Furniture Store 1,000 sf 8.26 9.89 19.7% TGR update, see Table A‐9 SERVICES: 911 Bank/Savings Walk‐In 1,000 sf 68.63 33.60 ‐51.0% TGR update, see Table A‐9 912 Bank/Savings Drive‐In 1,000 sf 90.15 58.09 ‐35.6% TGR update, see Table A‐9 930 Fast Casual Restaurant 1,000 sf ‐ 187.37 ‐ New land use 931 Low‐Turnover Restaurant seat 3.46 3.14 ‐9.2% TGR update, see Table A‐9 932 High‐Turnover Restaurant seat 5.44 4.92 ‐9.6% TGR update, see Table A‐9 934 Fast Food Restaurant w/Drive‐Thru 1,000 sf 303.79 286.86 ‐5.6% TGR update, see Table A‐9 934.1 Fast Food w/Drive‐Thru with Two Meals 1,000 sf ‐ 264.40 ‐ New land use 941 Quick Lube service bay 33.41 33.41 0.0% No change 944 Gas Station w/Convenience Market <2,000 sq ft fuel pos. 18.27 19.98 9.4% TGR update, see Table A‐9 945 Gas Station w/Convenience Market 2,000‐2,999 sq ft fuel pos. 18.27 23.85 30.5% TGR update, see Table A‐9 960 Gas Station w/Convenience Market 3,000+ sq ft fuel pos. 18.27 26.77 46.5% TGR update, see Table A‐9 947 Self‐Service Car Wash service bay 32.57 32.57 0.0% No change 948 Automated Car Wash 1,000 sf 104.66 105.25 0.6% TGR update, see Table A‐9 n/a Luxury Auto Sales 1,000 sf 33.25 33.25 0.0% No change INDUSTRIAL: 110 General Light Industrial 1,000 sf 17.25 12.28 ‐28.8% TGR update, see Table A‐9 140 Manufacturing 1,000 sf 9.45 9.73 3.0% TGR update, see Table A‐9 150 Warehousing 1,000 sf 8.81 4.31 ‐51.1% TGR update, see Table A‐9 151 Mini‐Warehouse 1,000 sf 3.07 2.41 ‐21.5% TGR & TL update, see Tables A‐9 and A‐10 n/a Mine 1,000 cy 0.07 0.07 0.0% No change 720 210 820 DRAFT    Tindale Oliver Collier County  October 2019  A‐15  Road Impact Fee Update Study  Table A‐9  Percent Change in Trip Generation Rate of Impact Fee Land Uses    ‐ See Appendix D for additional information       ITE LUC Land Use Unit TGR 2015 TGR 2019 %  Explanation RESIDENTIAL: Single Family (Detached) <4,000 sf du 7.65 7.37 ‐3.7% Updated tiering to AHS 2017 & NHTS 2017 Single Family (Detached) 4,000 sf and more du 9.22 9.00 ‐2.4% Updated tiering to AHS 2017 & NHTS 2017 220 Multi‐Family Housing (Low‐Rise, 1‐2 floors) du 6.60 7.32 10.9% Re‐alignment of multi‐family land uses in ITE 10th Edition 221 Multi‐Family Housing (Mid‐Rise, 3‐10 floors) du 4.20 5.44 29.5% Re‐alignment of multi‐family land uses in ITE 10th Edition 222 Multi‐Family Housing (High‐Rise, >10 floors) du 5.76 4.45 ‐22.7%Re‐alignment of multi‐family land uses in ITE 10th Edition 231 Mid‐Rise Residential w/1st floor Commercial du ‐ 3.44 ‐ New land use 232 High‐Rise Residential w/1st floor Commercial du ‐ 2.01 ‐ New land use 240 Mobile Home Park du 4.17 4.17 0.0% No change 251 Retirement Community (detached) du 3.12 3.50 12.2% Updated TGR in ITE 10th Edition 252 Retirement Community (attached) du 3.12 3.33 6.7% New land use, previously "attached" units assessed as LUC 251 254 Assisted Living bed 2.25 2.60 15.6% Unit change, update to ITE 10th Edition LODGING: 310 Hotel room 6.36 5.55 ‐12.7% Additional FL Studies added and updated TGR in ITE 10th Edition 311 All Suites Hotel room 4.90 4.46 ‐9.0% Updated TGR in ITE 10th Edition 320 Motel room 5.63 3.35 ‐40.5% Updated TGR in ITE 10th Edition RECREATION: 416 Campground/RV Park site 1.62 1.62 0.0% No change 420 Marina berth 2.96 2.41 ‐18.6% Updated TGR in ITE 10th Edition 430 Golf Course 18 holes 643.32 546.84 ‐15.0% Updated TGR in ITE 10th Edition n/a Bundled Golf Course 18 holes 193.00 164.05 ‐15.0% Updated TGR for LUC 430 in ITE 10th Edition (Bundled = 30%) 444 Movie Theater screen 106.63 114.83 7.7% Updated TGR in ITE 10th Edition n/a Dance Studio/Gym 1,000 sf 21.33 21.33 0.0% No change INSTITUTIONS: 520 Elementary School (Private) student 1.29 1.89 46.5% Updated TGR in ITE 10th Edition 522 Middle/Junior High School (Private) student 1.62 2.13 31.5% Updated TGR in ITE 10th Edition 530 High School (Private) student 1.71 2.03 18.7% Updated TGR in ITE 10th Edition 540 University/Junior College (7,500 or fewer students) (Private) student 2.00 2.00 0.0% No change 550 University/Junior College (more than 7,500 students) (Private) student 1.50 1.50 0.0% No change 560 Church seat 0.61 0.44 ‐27.9% Updated TGR in ITE 10th Edition 565 Day Care Center student 4.38 4.09 ‐6.6% Updated TGR in ITE 10th Edition MEDICAL: 610 Hospital 1,000 sf 13.22 10.72 ‐18.9% Updated TGR in ITE 10th Edition 620 Nursing Home bed 2.76 3.02 9.4% Updated TGR in ITE 10th Edition OFFICE: 710 General Office 1,000 sf 11.02 9.74 ‐11.6% Updated TGR in ITE 10th Edition, removal of sq ft tiers Medical Office/Clinic 10,000 sq ft or less 1,000 sf 23.83 23.83 0.0%No change Medical Office/Clinic greater than 10,000 sq ft 1,000 sf 34.72 34.12 ‐1.7% Update to ITE 10th 770 Business Park (Flex‐Space) 1,000 sf 12.65 12.65 0.0% No change RETAIL: Retail 6,000 sfgla or less 1,000 sfgla 86.56 75.05 ‐13.3% Updated TGR in ITE 10th Edition Retail 6,001‐25,000 sfgla 1,000 sfgla 86.56 75.05 ‐13.3% Updated TGR in ITE 10th Edition Retail greater than 25,000 sfgla 1,000 sfgla 28.46 37.75 32.6% Updated TGR in ITE 10th Edition, reduction of sq ft tiers 840/841 New/Used Auto Sales 1,000 sf 28.25 24.58 ‐13.0% Update to ITE 10th Edition and merging of LUC 840 & 841 849 Tire Superstore service bay 30.55 30.55 0.0% No change 850 Supermarket 1,000 sf 103.38 106.64 3.2% Updated TGR in ITE 10th Edition 851 Convenience Market, 24 hrs 1,000 sf 719.18 739.50 2.8% Updated TGR in ITE 10th Edition 862 Home Improvement Superstore 1,000 sf 30.74 30.74 0.0% No change 880/881 Pharmacy with & w/o Drive‐Thru 1,000 sf 95.96 104.37 8.8% Updated TGR in ITE 10th Edition for LUC 880 & 881 890 Furniture Store 1,000 sf 5.23 6.26 19.7% Updated TGR in ITE 10th Edition SERVICES: 911 Bank/Savings Walk‐In 1,000 sf 121.30 59.39 ‐51.0% Update to peak hour‐to‐daily conversion calculation 912 Bank/Savings Drive‐In 1,000 sf 159.34 102.66 ‐35.6% Updated TGR i n ITE 10th Edition 930 Fast Casual Restaurant 1,000 sf ‐ 315.17 ‐ New land use 931 Low‐Turnover Restaurant seat 2.86 2.60 ‐9.1% Updated TGR in ITE 10th Edition 932 High‐Turnover Restaurant seat 4.83 4.37 ‐9.5% Updated TGR in ITE 10th Edition 934 Fast Food Restaurant w/Drive‐Thru 1,000 sf 511.00 482.53 ‐5.6% Updated TGR in ITE 10th Edition 934.1 Fast Food w/Drive‐Thru with Two Meals 1,000 sf ‐ 409.25 ‐ New land use 941 Quick Lube service bay 40.00 40.00 0.0% No change 944 Gas Station w/Convenience Market <2,000 sq ft fuel pos. 157.33 172.01 9.3% Re‐alignment of gas station w/ conv. land uses in ITE 10th Edition 945 Gas Station w/Convenience Market 2,000‐2,999 sq ft fuel pos. 157.33 205.36 30.5% Re‐alignment of gas station w/ conv. land uses in ITE 10th Edition 960 Gas Station w/Convenience Market 3,000+ sq ft fuel pos. 157.33 230.52 46.5% Re‐alignment of gas station w/ conv. land uses in ITE 10th Edition 947 Self‐Service Car Wash service bay 43.94 43.94 0.0% No change 948 Automated Car Wash 1,000 sf 141.20 142.00 0.6% Updated TGR in ITE 10th Edition n/a Luxury Auto Sales 1,000 sf 16.30 16.30 0.0% No change INDUSTRIAL: 110 General Light Industrial 1,000 sf 6.97 4.96 ‐28.8% Updated TGR in ITE 10th Edition 140 Manufacturing 1,000 sf 3.82 3.93 2.9% Updated TGR in ITE 10th Edition 150 Warehousing 1,000 sf 3.56 1.74 ‐51.1% Updated TGR in ITE 10th Edition 151 Mini‐Warehouse 1,000 sf 2.15 1.49 ‐30.7% Updated TGR in ITE 10th Edition n/a Mine 1,000 cy 0.01 0.01 0.0% No change 720 210 820 DRAFT    Tindale Oliver Collier County  October 2019  A‐16  Road Impact Fee Update Study  Table A‐10  Percent Change in Assessable Trip Length of Impact Fee Land Uses    ‐ See Appendix D for additional information  ‐ Trip length values do not include the trip length adjustment factor       ITE LUC Land Use Unit TL 2015 TL 2019 %  Explanation RESIDENTIAL: Single Family (Detached) <4,000 sf du 5.88 5.88 0.0% No change Single Family (Detached) 4,000 sf and more du 5.88 5.88 0.0% No change 220 Multi‐Family Housing (Low‐Rise, 1‐2 floors) du 5.10 5.10 0.0% No change 221 Multi‐Family Housing (Mid‐Rise, 3‐10 floors) du 5.10 5.10 0.0% No change 222 Multi‐Family Housing (High‐Rise, >10 floors) du 5.10 5.10 0.0% No change 231 Mid‐Rise Residential w/1st floor Commercial du ‐ 5.10 ‐ New land use 232 High‐Rise Residential w/1st floor Commercial du ‐ 5.10 ‐ New land use 240 Mobile Home Park du 4.60 4.60 0.0% No change 251 Retirement Community (detached) du 5.42 5.42 0.0% No change 252 Retirement Community (attached) du 5.42 3.28 ‐39.5% Updated to reflect Florida Studies for "attached" communities 254 Assisted Living bed 3.08 2.59 ‐15.9% Updated to use the TL for LUC 620, previously used LUC 253 (App. A) LODGING: 310 Hotel room 5.42 5.42 0.0% No change 311 All Suites Hotel room 5.42 5.42 0.0% No change 320 Motel room 4.34 4.34 0.0% No change RECREATION: 416 Campground/RV Park site 4.60 4.60 0.0% No change 420 Marina berth 5.88 5.88 0.0% No change 430 Golf Course 18 holes 2.22 2.22 0.0% Same as LUC 444 n/a Bundled Golf Course 18 holes 2.22 2.22 0.0% Same as LUC 444 444 Movie Theater screen 2.22 2.22 0.0% No change n/a Dance Studio/Gym 1,000 sf 2.97 2.97 0.0% No change INSTITUTIONS: 520 Elementary School (Private) student 4.30 2.94 ‐31.6% updated to use 50% of LUC 210 per review of travel demand models 522 Middle/Junior High School (Private) student 4.30 2.94 ‐31.6% updated to use 50% of LUC 210 per review of travel demand models 530 High School (Private) student 4.30 2.94 ‐31.6% updated to use 50% of LUC 210 per review of travel demand models 540 University/Junior College (7,500 or fewer students) (Private) student 5.88 5.88 0.0% No change 550 University/Junior College (more than 7,500 students) (Private) student 5.88 5.88 0.0% No change 560 Church seat 3.90 3.91 0.3% Updated to use the midpoint of office and retail (App. A) 565 Day Care Center student 2.03 2.03 0.0% No change MEDICAL: 610 Hospital 1,000 sf 5.88 5.88 0.0% No change 620 Nursing Home bed 2.59 2.59 0.0% No change OFFICE: 710 General Office 1,000 sf 5.15 5.15 0.0% No change Medical Office/Clinic 10,000 sq ft or less 1,000 sf 5.55 5.55 0.0% No change Medical Office/Clinic greater than 10,000 sq ft 1,000 sf 5.55 5.55 0.0% No change 770 Business Park (Flex‐Space) 1,000 sf 5.38 5.38 0.0% No change RETAIL: Retail 6,000 sfgla or less 1,000 sfgla 1.12 1.12 0.0% No change Retail 6,001‐25,000 sfgla 1,000 sfgla 1.58 1.58 0.0% No change Retail greater than 25,000 sfgla 1,000 sfgla 3.57 2.69 ‐24.6% Reduction of retail tiers, TL tied to avg size (450k sfgla) from ITE 10th 840/841 New/Used Auto Sales 1,000 sf 4.60 4.60 0.0% No change 849 Tire Superstore service bay 2.32 2.32 0.0% No change 850 Supermarket 1,000 sf 2.08 2.08 0.0% No change 851 Convenience Market, 24 hrs 1,000 sf 1.52 1.52 0.0% No change 862 Home Improvement Superstore 1,000 sf 2.34 2.34 0.0% No change 880/881 Pharmacy with & w/o Drive‐Thru 1,000 sf 2.08 2.08 0.0% No change 890 Furniture Store 1,000 sf 4.05 4.05 0.0% No change SERVICES: 911 Bank/Savings Walk‐In 1,000 sf 2.46 2.46 0.0% No change 912 Bank/Savings Drive‐In 1,000 sf 2.46 2.46 0.0% No change 930 Fast Casual Restaurant 1,000 sf ‐ 2.05 ‐ New land use 931 Low‐Turnover Restaurant seat 3.14 3.14 0.0% No change 932 High‐Turnover Restaurant seat 3.17 3.17 0.0% No change 934 Fast Food Restaurant w/Drive‐Thru 1,000 sf 2.05 2.05 0.0% No change 934.1 Fast Food w/Drive‐Thru with Two Meals 1,000 sf ‐ 2.19 ‐ New land use 941 Quick Lube service bay 2.32 2.32 0.0% No change 944 Gas Station w/Convenience Market <2,000 sq ft fuel pos. 1.01 1.01 0.0% No change 945 Gas Station w/Convenience Market 2,000‐2,999 sq ft fuel pos. 1.01 1.01 0.0% No change 960 Gas Station w/Convenience Market 3,000+ sq ft fuel pos. 1.01 1.01 0.0% No change 947 Self‐Service Car Wash service bay 2.18 2.18 0.0% No change 948 Automated Car Wash 1,000 sf 2.18 2.18 0.0% No change n/a Luxury Auto Sales 1,000 sf 4.80 4.80 0.0% No change INDUSTRIAL: 110 General Light Industrial 1,000 sf 5.38 5.38 0.0% No change 140 Manufacturing 1,000 sf 5.38 5.38 0.0% No change 150 Warehousing 1,000 sf 5.38 5.38 0.0% No change 151 Mini‐Warehouse 1,000 sf 3.10 3.51 13.2% Updated to use the midpoi nt of office and retail <50k sq ft (1.87) n/a Mine 1,000 cy 14.82 14.82 0.0% No change 720 210 820 DRAFT    Tindale Oliver Collier County  October 2019  A‐17  Road Impact Fee Update Study  Table A‐11  Percent Change in Percent New Trips of Impact Fee Land Uses    ‐ See Appendix D for additional information        ITE LUC Land Use Unit PNT 2015 PNT 2019 %  Explanation RESIDENTIAL: Single Family (Detached) <4,000 sf du 100% 100% 0.0% No change Single Family (Detached) 4,000 sf and more du 100% 100% 0.0% No change 220 Multi‐Family Housing (Low‐Rise, 1‐2 floors) du 100% 100% 0.0% No change 221 Multi‐Family Housing (Mid‐Rise, 3‐10 floors) du 100% 100% 0.0% No change 222 Multi‐Family Housing (High‐Rise, >10 floors) du 100% 100% 0.0% No change 231 Mid‐Rise Residential w/1st floor Commercial du ‐ 100% ‐ New land use 232 High‐Rise Residential w/1st floor Commercial du ‐ 100% ‐ New land use 240 Mobile Home Park du 100% 100% 0.0% No change 251 Retirement Community (detached) du 100% 100% 0.0% No change 252 Retirement Community (attached) du 100% 100% 0.0% No change 254 Assisted Living bed 72% 72% 0.5% Slight change due to rounding issue LODGING: 310 Hotel room 66% 66% 0.0% No change 311 All Suites Hotel room 66% 66% 0.0% No change 320 Motel room 77% 77% 0.0% No change RECREATION: 416 Campground/RV Park site 100% 100% 0.0% No change 420 Marina berth 90% 90% 0.0% No change 430 Golf Course 18 holes 90% 90% 0.0% No change n/a Bundled Golf Course 18 holes 90% 90% 0.0% No change 444 Movie Theater screen 88% 88% 0.0% No change n/a Dance Studio/Gym 1,000 sf 80% 80% 0.0% No change INSTITUTIONS: 520 Elementary School (Private) student 80% 80% 0.0% No change 522 Middle/Junior High School (Private) student 90% 80% ‐11.1% Updated to be the same as LUC 520 530 High School (Private) student 90% 90% 0.0% No change 540 University/Junior College (7,500 or fewer students) (Private) student 90% 90% 0.0% No change 550 University/Junior College (more than 7,500 students) (Private) student 90% 90% 0.0% No change 560 Church seat 90% 90% 0.0% No change 565 Day Care Center student 73% 73% 0.0% No change MEDICAL: 610 Hospital 1,000 sf 77% 78% 1.3% Updated to use the midpoint of LUC 310 and LUC 720 620 Nursing Home bed 89% 89% 0.0% No change OFFICE: 710 General Office 1,000 sf 92% 92% 0.0% No change Medical Office/Clinic 10,000 sq ft or less 1,000 sf 89% 89% 0.0% No change Medical Office/Clinic greater than 10,000 sq ft 1,000 sf 89% 89% 0.0% No change 770 Business Park (Flex‐Space) 1,000 sf 89% 89% 0.0% No change RETAIL: Retail 6,000 sfgla or less 1,000 sfgla 39% 39% 0.0% No change Retail 6,001‐25,000 sfgla 1,000 sfgla 50% 50% 0.0% No change Retail greater than 25,000 sfgla 1,000 sfgla 82% 74% ‐9.8% Reduction of retail tiers, PNT tied to avg size (450k sfgla) from ITE 10th 840/841 New/Used Auto Sales 1,000 sf 79% 79% 0.0% No change 849 Tire Superstore service bay 72% 72% 0.0% No change 850 Supermarket 1,000 sf 56% 56% 0.0% No change 851 Convenience Market, 24 hrs 1,000 sf 41% 41% 0.0% No change 862 Home Improvement Superstore 1,000 sf 65% 65% 0.0% No change 880/881 Pharmacy with & w/o Drive‐Thru 1,000 sf 32% 32% 0.0% No change 890 Furniture Store 1,000 sf 78% 78% 0.0% No change SERVICES: 911 Bank/Savings Walk‐In 1,000 sf 46% 46% 0.0% No change 912 Bank/Savings Drive‐In 1,000 sf 46% 46% 0.0% No change 930 Fast Casual Restaurant 1,000 sf ‐ 58% ‐ New land use 931 Low‐Turnover Restaurant seat 77% 77% 0.0% No change 932 High‐Turnover Restaurant seat 71% 71% 0.0% No change 934 Fast Food Restaurant w/Drive‐Thru 1,000 sf 58% 58% 0.0% No change 934.1 Fast Food w/Drive‐Thru with Two Meals 1,000 sf ‐ 59% ‐ New land use 941 Quick Lube service bay 72% 72% 0.0% No change 944 Gas Station w/Convenience Market <2,000 sq ft fuel pos. 23% 23%0.0% No change 945 Gas Station w/Convenience Market 2,000‐2,999 sq ft fuel pos. 23% 23% 0.0% No change 960 Gas Station w/Convenience Market 3,000+ sq ft fuel pos. 23% 23%0.0% No change 947 Self‐Service Car Wash service bay 68% 68% 0.0% No change 948 Automated Car Wash 1,000 sf 68% 68% 0.0% No change n/a Luxury Auto Sales 1,000 sf 85% 85% 0.0% No change INDUSTRIAL: 110 General Light Industrial 1,000 sf 92% 92% 0.0% No change 140 Manufacturing 1,000 sf 92% 92% 0.0% No change 150 Warehousing 1,000 sf 92% 92% 0.0% No change 151 Mini‐Warehouse 1,000 sf 92% 92% 0.0% No change n/a Mine 1,000 cy 97% 97% 0.0% No change 720 210 820 DRAFT      Appendix B  Cost Component  DRAFT    Tindale Oliver  Collier County  October 2019  B‐1  Road Impact Fee Update Study  Appendix B: Cost Component    This appendix presents the detailed calculations for the cost component of the road impact fee  update.  Supporting data and estimates are provided for all cost variables, including:     Design   Right‐of‐Way   Construction   CEI   Mitigation   Urban Overpass   Roadway Capacity    Design    The design cost factor for county roads was estimated as a percentage of the construction cost  per lane mile.  This factor was determined based on a review of design‐to‐construction cost ratios  from previously completed road/transportation impact fee studies throughout Florida.  As shown  in Table B‐1, recent design factors ranged from 8 to 14 percent with a weighted average of 11  percent.  For purposes of this study, the design cost for county roads was calculated at 11 percent  of the construction cost per lane mile.         DRAFT    Tindale Oliver  Collier County  October 2019  B‐2  Road Impact Fee Update Study  Table B‐1  Design Cost Factor for County Roads – Recent Impact Fee Studies    Source: Recent impact fee studies conducted throughout Florida    Right‐of‐Way    The ROW cost reflects the total cost of the acquisitions along a corridor that are necessary to  have sufficient cross‐section width to widen an existing road or, in the case of new construction,  build a new road.    A review of ROW data for county roadway capacity expansion improvements identified two  recently completed and two recently bid expansion improvements:   Golden Gate Blvd from Wilson Blvd to E. of 18th St N   Collier Blvd from Green Blvd to Golden Gate Blvd   Golden Gate Blvd from W. of 10th St SE to E. of Everglades Blvd   Vanderbilt Beach Rd Ext. from Collier Blvd to 16th St NE    Due to variation in the cost per lane mile for these projects based on geographical location, the  improvements were grouped into “high” and “low” cost per lane mile categories.  The “high”  ROW category included improvements along Collier Blvd and Vanderbilt Beach Rd Extension,  while “low” improvements were located along Golden Gate Blvd.      Design Constr. Ratio 2012 Osceola $371,196 $2,651,400 14% 2012 Orange $264,000 $2,400,000 11% 2013 Hernando $198,000 $1,980,000 10% 2013 Charlotte $220,000 $2,200,000 10% 2014 Indian River $159,000 $1,598,000 10% 2015 Collier $270,000 $2,700,000 10% 2015 Brevard $242,000 $2,023,000 12% 2015 Sumter $210,000 $2,100,000 10% 2015 Marion $167,000 $1,668,000 10% 2015 Palm Beach $224,000 $1,759,000 13% 2016 Hillsborough $348,000 $2,897,000 12% 2016 St. Lucie $220,000 $2,200,000 10% 2017 Clay $239,000 $2,385,000 10% 2018 Orange $203,000 $2,542,000 8% $238,228 $2,221,671 11% Year Study County Roadways (Cost per Lane Mile) Average DRAFT    Tindale Oliver  Collier County  October 2019  B‐3  Road Impact Fee Update Study  To determine a single weighted average cost per lane mile for the impact fee calculation, the  “high” and “low” ROW costs were blended together based on the ROW designation of all capacity  expansion improvements listed in the 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan.  Improvements  located in rural areas were designated as “low” while improvements in urban or transitioning  areas were designated as “high”.  Urban and transitioning areas include west county (City of  Naples) and extending into the Golden Gate area.  Rural areas include Immokalee and east  county.  Table B‐2 details the specific improvements used to calculate the high and low ROW  costs and Table B‐3 details the weighted average calculation.  Additionally, Table B‐11 provides  the project‐by‐project ROW designation for all roadway capacity  expansion improvements in the  LRTP.      As calculated, the $1.67 million per lane mile represents a significant increase (94 percent) since  the last study.  To supplement this analysis, a review of the recent changes in the just/market  value of all property in Collier County was conducted.  As shown in Table B‐4, the value of  properties increased by approximately 40 percent between 2014 and 2018.  To update the ROW  cost for the impact fee calculation, the figure calculated in the previous study ($863,000 per lane  mile) was indexed using the value increase observed since this study (40 percent).  This index  results  in  a  ROW  cost  of  approximately  $1.21  million  per  lane  mile, which represents a  conservative estimate, accounting for the fluctuations in cost due to the location of projects and  the small sample size.             DRAFT   Tindale Oliver Collier County October 2019  B‐4  Road Impact Fee Update Study Table B‐2 Right‐of‐Way Acquisitions and Estimates – County Roads  Source: Collier County Transportation Engineering Department  Table B‐3 Right‐of‐Way Cost Calculation  1) Source: Table B‐11 2) Source: Table B‐2 3) ROW cost per lane mile (Item 2) multiplied by the LRTP ROW designation distribution (Item 1) to develop a weighted average cost per lane mile   Description From To AreaLane MilesRight‐of‐Way CostROW Cost per Lane MileCompleted ProjectsGolden Gate Blvd Wilson Blvd E. of 18th St N Low 4.80 $4,444,170 $925,869Collier Blvd Green Blvd Golden Gate Blvd High 4.00 $5,938,850 $1,484,713Future ProjectsGolden Gate Blvd W. of 20th St SE E. of Everglades Blvd Low 2.88 $4,920,550 $1,708,524Vanderbilt Beach Rd Ext. Collier Blvd 16th St NE High 14.00 $44,002,000 $3,143,00025.68 $59,305,570 $2,309,4077.68 $9,364,720 $1,219,36518.00 $49,940,850 $2,774,492Low Cost AreaHigh Cost AreaTotalROW Cost RatesLRTP ROW Distribution(1)ROW Cost per Lane Mile(2)WeightedAvg. ROW(3)Low Cost ROW 71% $1,219,365 $865,749High Cost ROW 29% $2,774,492 $804,603Weighted Average Cost per Lane Mile $1,670,352Weighted Average Cost per Lane Mile (Rounded) $1,670,000 DRAFT    Tindale Oliver  Collier County  October 2019  B‐5  Road Impact Fee Update Study  Table B‐4  Just/Market Value Change – Real, Personal and Centrally Assessed Property    Source: Florida Property Valuations and Tax Databook    Table B‐5  ROW Cost Factor for County Roads – Recent Impact Fee Studies    Source: Recent impact fee studies conducted throughout Florida    Construction    The construction cost for county roads (curb & gutter, urban section design) was based on local  projects and the cost of recent projects in other communities in Florida.  A review of local  construction cost data from recent years identified two recent bids and four future project  estimates:   Golden Gate Blvd from Wilson Blvd to E. of 18th St N (2014 bid)   Collier Blvd from Green Blvd to Golden Gate Blvd (2013 bid)   Golden Gate Blvd from W. of 20th St SE to E. of Everglades Blvd  Year Just/Market Value % Change 2014 $81,260,298,470 ‐ 2015 $90,995,640,578 11.98% 2016 $102,025,075,579 12.12% 2017 $108,865,945,366 6.71% 2018 $112,378,569,611 3.23% 2014‐2018 38.29% ROW Constr. Ratio 2012 Osceola $1,087,074 $2,651,400 41% 2012 Orange $1,080,000 $2,400,000 45% 2013 Hernando $811,800 $1,980,000 41% 2013 Charlotte $1,034,000 $2,200,000 47% 2014 Indian River $656,000 $1,598,000 41% 2015 Collier $863,000 $2,700,000 32% 2015 Brevard $708,000 $2,023,000 35% 2015 Sumter $945,000 $2,100,000 45% 2015 Marion $1,001,000 $1,668,000 60% 2015 Palm Beach $721,000 $1,759,000 41% 2016 Hillsborough $1,448,000 $2,897,000 50% 2016 St. Lucie $990,000 $2,200,000 45% 2017 Clay $954,000 $2,385,000 40% 2018 Orange $1,200,000 $3,000,000 40% $964,205 $2,254,386 43% Year Study County Roadways (Cost per Lane Mile) Average DRAFT    Tindale Oliver  Collier County  October 2019  B‐6  Road Impact Fee Update Study   Vanderbilt Beach Rd Ext. from Collier Blvd to 16th St NE   Vanderbilt Beach Rd Ext. from US 41 to E. of Goodlette‐Frank Rd   Airport Rd from Vanderbilt Beach Rd to Immokalee Rd    Costs for these local improvements ranged from $2.9 million to $5.6 million per lane mile with a  weighted average cost of $3.6 million per lane mile (Table B‐6).    In addition to local improvements, recent bids/completed projects from other communities  throughout Florida were reviewed to increase the sample size of data.  This review included  approximately 157 lane miles of improvements across 12 different counties, averaging $2.7  million per lane mile.      As show in Table B‐7 and Figure B‐1, the average cost per lane mile has been steadily increasing  in the past few years, far exceeding the average over the entire time period ($2.7 million).  Figure  B‐1 illustrates the range of construction costs per year as well as providing the annual average of  the entire sample (excluding the Collier projects).    Figure B‐2 goes a step further, providing two different trend lines based on the set of statewide  data (excluding Collier projects).  The “reduction of sample” trend shows how costs have been  increasing in more recent years by starting with the average of all projects (from 2012 to 2018)  and  then  gradually  removing  an  earlier  year  of  additional  sample  data.    Conversely,  the  “cumulative sample” shows how each additional year of cost data has impacted the weighted  average as the sample size has increased.  As shown, the use of past seven years of data  moderates recent cost increases as the early years (2012 and 2013) had significantly more  improvements at lower costs.      Based on a review of the local projects, statewide projects, an d the various trends, a construction  of $3.5 million per lane mile for county roads (curb & gutter) is utilized for the road impact fee  calculation.  This figure is influenced heavily by the local project data and is also consistent with  the statewide data observed over the past several years, providing a reasonable estimate for  planning purposes.      DRAFT   Tindale Oliver Collier County October 2019 B‐7 Road Impact Fee Update Study Table B‐6 Local Roadway Construction Costs – County Roads  Source: Collier County Transportation Engineering Department 1) Cost figures from County staff included construction/design/CEI as a single cost item.  To estimate the portion solely allocated to construction, the cost was reduced by 20 percent (11 percent for design and 9 percent for CEI) based on the average ratios observed statewide, presented in Tables B‐1 and B‐8     Description From ToBidYearFeature Design LengthLanes AddedLane Miles AddedConstruction/ Design/CEICostCost per Lane MileConstruction Cost (80%)(1)Construction Cost per Lane MileCompleted ProjectsGolden Gate Blvd Wilson Blvd E. of 18th St N 2014 2 to 4 Urban 2.40 2 4.80 $20,004,380 $4,167,579 $16,003,504 $3,334,063Collier Blvd Green Blvd Golden Gate Blvd 2013 4 to 6 Urban 2.00 2 4.00 $21,403,300 $5,350,825 $17,122,640 $4,280,660Future ProjectsGolden Gate Blvd W. of 20th St SE E. of Everglades Blvd Est. 2 to 4Urban 1.44 2 2.88 $20,165,450 $7,001,892 $16,132,360 $5,601,514Vanderbilt Beach Rd Ext. Collier Blvd 16th St NE Est. 4 to 6 Urban 7.00 2 14.00 $54,858,000 $3,918,429 $43,886,400 $3,134,743Vanderbilt Beach Rd Ext. US 41 E. of Goodlette‐Frank Rd Est. 4 to 6Urban 0.92 2 1.84 $9,700,000 $5,271,739 $7,760,000 $4,217,391Airport Rd Vanderbilt Beach Rd Immokalee Rd Est. 4 to 6 Urban 2.00 2 4.00$14,520,000$3,630,000 $11,616,000$2,904,00031.52 $140,651,130 $4,462,282 $112,520,904 $3,569,826Total DRAFT   Tindale Oliver Collier County October 2019 B‐8 Road Impact Fee Update Study Table B‐7 Construction Cost – County Road Improvements from Other Jurisdictions throughout Florida  Source: Data obtained from each respective county (Building and Public Works Departments)    County District Description From To Year Status Feature Design LengthLanes AddedLane Miles AddedConstruction CostConstruction Cost per Lane MileIndian River 4 Oslo Rd Ph. III 43rd Ave 58th Ave 2012 Bid 2 to 4 Urban 1.15 2 2.30 $3,812,202 $1,657,479Indian River 4 66th Ave SR 60 49th St 2012 Bid 2 to 4 Urban 3.05 2 6.10 $20,773,389 $3,405,474Polk 1 Kathleen Rd (CR35A) Ph. II Galloway Rd Duff Rd 2012 Bid 2 to 4 Urban 3.00 2 6.00 $17,813,685 $2,968,948Polk 1 Bartow Northern Connector Ph. I US 98  US 17 2012 Bid 0 to 4 Urban 2.00 4 8.00 $11,255,736 $1,406,967Volusia 5 Tymber Creek Rd S. of SR 40 N. of Peruvian Ln 2012 Bid 2 to 4 Urban 0.89 2 1.78 $5,276,057 $2,964,077Palm Beach 4 Jog Rd N. of SR 710 N. of Florida's Turnpike 2012 Bid 0 to 4 Urban 0.70 4 2.80 $3,413,874 $1,219,241Palm Beach 4 West Atlantic Ave W. of Lyons Rd Starkey Rd 2012 Bid 2 to 4 Urban 0.80 2 1.60 $8,818,727 $5,511,704Palm Beach 4 60th St N & SR 7 Ext. E. of Royal Palm Beach Blvd SR 72012 Bid 0 to 2 Urban 1.50 2 3.00 $3,821,404 $1,273,801Orange 5 Clarcona‐Ocoee Rd Ocoee‐Apopka Rd Hiawassee Rd 2012 Bid 2 to 4 Urban 5.08 2 10.16 $19,831,058 $1,951,876Orange 5 John Young Pkwy SR 528 FL Turnpike 2012 Bid 4 to 6 Urban 2.34 2 4.68 $13,722,494 $2,932,157Orange 5 Econlockhatchee Tr SR 408 SR 50 2012 Bid 2 to 4 Urban 1.38 2 2.76$8,621,445 $3,123,712Brevard 5 Babcock St S. of Foundation Park Blvd Malabar Rd 2013 Bid 2 to 4 Urban 12.40 2 24.80 $56,000,000 $2,258,065Marion 5 SW 110th St US 41 SW 200th Ave 2013 Bid 0 to 2 Urban 0.11 2 0.22 $438,765 $1,994,386Marion 5 NW 35th St NW 35th Avenue Rd NW 27th Ave 2013 Bid 0 to 4 Urban0.50 4Marion 5 NW 35th St NW 27th Ave US 441 2013 Bid 2 to 4 Urban 1.30 2Sumter 5 C‐466A, Ph. III US 301 N Powell Rd 2013 Bid 2 to 3/4 Urban 1.102 2.20 $4,283,842 $1,947,201Orange 5 Rouse Rd Lake Underhill Corporate Blvd 2013 Bid 2 to 4 Urban 4.15 2 8.30 $35,075,000 $4,225,904Orange 5 Lake Underhill Goldenrod Rd Chickasaw Tr 2013 Bid 2 to 4 Urban0.69 2 1.38 $6,629,620 $4,804,072Brevard 5 St. Johns Heritage Pkwy SE of I‐95 Intersection US 192 (Space Coast Pkwy) 2014 Bid 0 to 2 Sub‐Urb 3.11 2 6.22 $16,763,567 $2,695,107Sarasota 1 Bee Ridge Rd Mauna Loa Blvd Iona Rd 2014 Bid 2 to 4 Urban 2.68 2 5.36 $14,066,523 $2,624,351St. Lucie 4 W Midway Rd (CR 712) Selvitz Rd South 25th St 2014 Bid 2 to 4 Urban 1.00 2 2.00 $6,144,000 $3,072,000Orange 5 CR 535 Seg. F Overstreet Rd Fossick Rd 2014 Bid 2 to 4 Urban 0.60 2 1.20 $3,836,448 $3,197,040Orange 5 Wetherbee Rd Balcombe Rd Orange Ave 2014 Bid 2 to 4 Urban 1.50 23.00 $9,234,873 $3,078,291Lake 5 N Hancock Rd Ext. Old 50 Gatewood Dr 2014 Bid 0/2 to 4 Urban 1.502/4 5.00 $8,185,574 $1,637,115Polk 1 CR 655 & CR 559A Pace Rd & N of CR 559A N of CR 559A & SR 599 2014 Bid 2 to 4 Urban 2.60 2 5.20 $10,793,552 $2,075,683Volusia 5 Howland Blvd Courtland Blvd N of SR 415 2014 Bid 2 to 4 Urban2.08 2 4.16 $11,110,480 $2,670,788Hillsborough 7 Turkey Creek Rd Dr. MLK Blvd Sydney Rd 2014 Bid 2 to 4 Urban 1.40 2 2.80 $3,166,000 $1,130,714Polk 1 Ernie Caldwell Blvd Pine Tree Tr US 17/92 2015 Bid 0 to 4 Urban 2.41 4 9.64 $19,535,391 $2,026,493Orange 5 International Dr N Westwood Blvd S Westwood Blvd 2015 Bid 4 to 6 Urban 2.20 2 4.40 $18,802,148 $4,273,215Volusia 5 LPGA Blvd Jimmy Ann Dr/Grand Reserve Derbyshire Rd 2016 Bid2 to 4 Urban 0.68 2 1.36 $3,758,279 $2,763,440St. Lucie 4 W Midway Rd (CR 712) W. of South 25th St E. of SR 5 (US 1) 2016 Bid 2 to 4 Urban 1.77 2 3.54 $24,415,701 $6,897,091Volusia 5 Howland Blvd Providence Blvd Elkcam Blvd 2017 Bid 2 to 4 Urban 2.15 2 4.30 $10,850,000 $2,523,256Volusia 5 Orange Camp Rd MLK Blvd I‐4 in DeLand 2017 Bid 2 to 4 Urban 0.75 2 1.50 $10,332,000 $6,888,000Orange 5 Reams Rd Delmar Ave Taborfield Ave 2017 Bid 2 to 4 Urban 0.60 2 1.20 $5,487,872 $4,573,227Lake 5 CR 466A, Ph. IIIA Poinsettia Ave Centruy Ave 2018 Bid 2 to 4 Urban 0.42 2 0.84 $3,062,456 $3,645,781Hillsborough 7 Van Dyke  Suncoast Pkwy Whirley 2018 Estimate 2 to 4  Urban 2.05 2 4.10 $20,000,000 $4,878,049Count: 36 156.50 $427,748,398 $2,733,217   Total4.60 $8,616,236 $1,873,095 DRAFT   Tindale Oliver Collier County October 2019  B‐9  Road Impact Fee Update Study Figure B‐1 Construction Costs – County Roads   Source: Table B‐5 for projects (red dots) and Table B‐6 for statewide projects (blue dots)    $0$1,000,000$2,000,000$3,000,000$4,000,000$5,000,000$6,000,000$7,000,000$8,000,0002011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019ProjectsYearly AverageProposed Collier County Projects in RED  DRAFT   Tindale Oliver Collier County October 2019  B‐10  Road Impact Fee Update Study Figure B‐2 Construction Cost Trend – County Roads  Source: Table B‐6 ‐ Reduction of Sample = as trend line progresses an additional year of historical data is removed ‐ Cumulative Sample = as trend line progresses as additional year of data is added to the sample  $0$500,000$1,000,000$1,500,000$2,000,000$2,500,000$3,000,000$3,500,000$4,000,000$4,500,000$5,000,0002012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018Reduction of SampleCumulative Sample2018 2017‐2018 2016‐2018 2015‐2018 2014‐2018 Proposed 2012‐2018 2012‐2017 2012‐2016 2012‐2015 2012‐2014 2012‐2013 2012 2013‐2018 2012‐2018  DRAFT    Tindale Oliver  Collier County  October 2019  B‐11  Road Impact Fee Update Study  Figures B‐3 through B‐7 illustrate the recent change in units cost for earthwork, base, steel,  asphalt, and concrete for both District 1 and statewide.  Each of these graphs indicates that costs  are recovering since the crash in 2009/10, which is consistent with trends observed in the  County’s construction costs.      Figure B‐3  FDOT Earthwork Cost Trend    Source: Cost Trends by Fiscal Year for Major Pay Item Groups, July 2007 thru July 2017, FDOT Program Management  Office    Figure B‐4  FDOT Base Cost Trend    Source: Cost Trends by Fiscal Year for Major Pay Item Groups, July 2007 thru July 2017, FDOT Program Management  Office  $0.00 $1.00 $2.00 $3.00 $4.00 $5.00 $6.00 $7.00 $8.00 $9.00 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 SW D1 $0.00 $2.00 $4.00 $6.00 $8.00 $10.00 $12.00 $14.00 $16.00 $18.00 $20.00 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 SW D1 DRAFT    Tindale Oliver  Collier County  October 2019  B‐12  Road Impact Fee Update Study  Figure B‐5  FDOT Asphalt Cost Trend    Source: Cost Trends by Fiscal Year for Major Pay Item Groups, July 2007 thru July 2017, FDOT Program Management  Office    Figure B‐6  FDOT Concrete Cost Trend    Source: Cost Trends by Fiscal Year for Major Pay Item Groups, July 2007 thru July 2017, FDOT Program Management  Office            $0.00 $20.00 $40.00 $60.00 $80.00 $100.00 $120.00 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 SW D1 $0.00 $100.00 $200.00 $300.00 $400.00 $500.00 $600.00 $700.00 $800.00 $900.00 $1,000.00 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 SW D1 DRAFT    Tindale Oliver  Collier County  October 2019  B‐13  Road Impact Fee Update Study  Figure B‐7  FDOT Steel Cost Trend    Source: Cost Trends by Fiscal Year for Major Pay Item Groups, July 2007 thru July 2017, FDOT Program Management  Office    Construction Engineering/Inspection    The CEI cost factor for county roads was estimated as a percentage of the construction cost per  lane mile.  This factor was determined based on a review of CEI‐to‐construction cost ratios from  previously completed road/transportation impact fee studies throughout Florida.  As shown in  Table B‐8, recent CEI factors ranged from 3 percent to 17 percent with a weighted average of 9  percent.  For purposes of this study, the CEI cost for county roads was calculated at 9 percent of  the construction cost per lane mile.         $0.00 $100.00 $200.00 $300.00 $400.00 $500.00 $600.00 $700.00 $800.00 $900.00 $1,000.00 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 SW D1 DRAFT    Tindale Oliver  Collier County  October 2019  B‐14  Road Impact Fee Update Study  Table B‐8  CEI Cost Factor for County Roads – Recent Impact Fee Studies    Source: Recent impact fee studies conducted throughout Florida    Mitigation    Mitigation cost estimates were developed based on cost data received for two recent projects in  Collier County:   Golden Gate Blvd from Wilson Blvd to E. of 18th St N   Collier Blvd (CR 951) from Golden Gate Blvd to Green Blvd    Both segments are located outside of the Panther Consultation Area (PCA), which, historically,  tend to have higher costs than non‐PCS mitigation.  As shown in Table B‐9, the weighted average  cost per lane mile for the two county roads projects is approximately $74,000 per lane mile.    CEI Constr. Ratio 2012 Osceola $265,140 $2,651,400 10% 2013 Hernando $178,200 $1,980,000 9% 2013 Charlotte $220,000 $2,200,000 10% 2014 Indian River $143,000 $1,598,000 9% 2015 Collier $270,000 $2,700,000 10% 2015 Brevard $344,000 $2,023,000 17% 2015 Sumter $147,000 $2,100,000 7% 2015 Marion $50,000 $1,668,000 3% 2015 Palm Beach $108,000 $1,759,000 6% 2016 Hillsborough $261,000 $2,897,000 9% 2016 St. Lucie $198,000 $2,200,000 9% 2017 Clay $191,000 $2,385,000 8% $197,945 $2,180,117 9% Year Study County Roadways (Cost per Lane Mile) Average DRAFT   Tindale Oliver Collier County October 2019  B‐15  Road Impact Fee Update Study Table B‐9 Mitigation Costs – County Roads  Source: Collier County Transportation Engineering Department  Panther Consultation AreaProj. # Description From To FeatureLanes AddedMitigation CostProject Length (Miles)Lane Miles AddedMitigation Cost per Lane MileN 60040 Golden Gate Blvd Wilson Blvd E. of 18th St N 2 to 4 2 $562,1152.40 4.80 $117,107N 68056 Collier Blvd (CR 951) Golden Gate Blvd Green Blvd 4 to 6 2 $88,0602.004.00$22,015‐$650,175 4.40 8.80 $73,884Total DRAFT    Tindale Oliver  Collier County  October 2019  B‐16  Road Impact Fee Update Study  Urban Overpass    The urban overpass cost estimate was based on four planned improvements along county roads  in Collier County.  These projects are estimated to have a total cost of $126 million, as shown in  Table  B‐10.    This  total  was  then  divided  by  the  total  lane  miles of county road capacity  improvements in the Needs Plan from the 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan (Table B‐11) to  develop an urban overpass cost per lane mile.  The resulting cost of approximately $523,000 per  lane mile is used in the road impact fee calculation.    Table B‐10  Urban Overpass Costs – County Roads    1) Source: Collier County Transportation Engineering Department  2) Source: Table B‐11  3) Total urban overpass cost divided by the Needs Plan LRTP lane miles (Item 2), rounded to thousands      Roadway Capacity    As shown in Table B‐11, the average capacity per lane miles was based on the projects in the  Collier County 2040 Long Range Transportation’s cost feasible and unfunded roadway projects  lists.  The listing of projects reflects the mix of improvements that will yield the vehicle‐miles of  capacity (VMC) that will be built in Collier County.  The resulting weighted average capacity per  lane mile of approximately 8,500 was used in the road impact fee calculation.     Urban Overpass Status Cost(1) Immokalee Rd & Randall Blvd CF Plan; 2026‐2030 $54,000,000 US 41 (SR 90) Tamiami Tr East @ Collier Blvd (CR 951) Unfunded $35,957,477 Immokalee Rd & Collier Blvd Unfunded $35,957,477 $125,914,954 240.60 $523,000 Total Urban Overpass Cost Total 2040 Needs Plan (Cost Feasible/Unfunded) Lane Miles Added(2) Total Urban Overpass Cost per Lane Mile(3) DRAFT   Tindale Oliver Collier County October 2019 B‐17 Road Impact Fee Update Study Table B‐11 Collier County 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan – Needs Plan  Sources: Collier County 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan ReferenceCounty/ StateFacility From To Project Type ROW AreaProject Length# of Existing Lanes# of Future LanesLane Miles AddedInitialCapacityFutureCapacityAdded CapacityVehicle‐Miles of Capacity AddedVMC Added per Lane MileCost Feasible Projects12 County Old US 41 US 41 (SR 45) Lee/Collier Line Lane Addition, 2 to 4 High 1.50 2 4 3.00 15,930 35,820 19,890 29,835 9,9455 County CR 951 (Collier Blvd) Golden Gate Canal Green Blvd Lane Addition, 4 to 6 High 2.00 4 6 4.00 35,820 53,910 18,090 36,180 9,04514a County Vanderbilt Beach Rd CR 951 (Collier Blvd) 8th St Expand from 0 & 2 Lanes to 2 & 3 lanes High 6.00 0 2 12.00 0 12,780 12,780 76,6806,39040 County Airport Pulling Rd Vanderbilt Beach Rd Immokalee Rd Lane Addition, 4 to 6 High 2.00 4 6 4.00 29,160 45,000 15,840 31,680 7,92025 County Oil Well Rd/CR 858 Everglades Blvd Oil Well Grade Rd Lane Addition, 2 to 4 Low 3.90 2 4 7.80 14,580 31,950 17,370 67,743 8,68516 County Randall Blvd 8th St Oil Well Rd/Everglades Lane Addition, 2 to 6 Low 6.00 2 6 24.00 14,580 31,950 17,370 104,220 4,34320 County Immokalee Rd Camp Keais Rd Carver St Lane Addition, 2 to 4Low 2.50 2 4 5.00 23,100 52,400 29,300 73,250 14,65056 County Benfield Rd City Gate Blvd North Lords Way New Construction, 0 to 2 (4‐lane footprint) Low 3.90 0 2 7.80 0 23,100 23,100 90,090 11,55029 County Wilson Blvd/Black Burn Rd Wilson Blvd End of Haul Rd New Construction, 0 to 2 (4‐lane footprint) Low 2.60 0 2 5.20 0 13,320 13,320 34,632 6,66013 County Vanderbilt Beach Rd Ext. 8th St Desoto New Construction, 0 to 2 (4‐lane footprint) Low 4.70 0 2 9.40 0 12,780 12,780 60,066 6,39051 County Wilson Blvd Golden Gate Blvd Immokalee Rd Lane Addition, 2 to 4 Low 3.30 2 4 6.60 13,320 29,160 15,840 52,272 7,92073 County Little League Rd Ext. SR 82 Westclox St New Construction, 0 to 2 Low 3.70 0 2 7.40 0 15,930 15,930 58,941 7,96514b County Vanderbilt Beach Rd Ext. CR 951 (Collier Blvd) 8th St Add 3 Remaining Lanes Low 6.00 2 6 24.00 12,780 41,220 28,440 170,640 7,11034 County Camp Keais Rd Immokalee Rd Pope John Paul Blvd Lane Addition, 2 to 4 Low 2.60 2 4 5.20 23,100 52,400 29,300 76,180 14,65036 County Vanderbilt Beach Rd Airport Rd US 41 Lane Addition, 4 to 6High 2.10 4 6 4.20 35,820 53,910 18,090 37,989 9,04532 County Immokalee Rd (CR 846) SR 29 Airpark Blvd Land Addition, 2 to 4 High 0.40 2 4 0.80 23,100 52,400 29,300 11,720 14,650Unfunded Needs17 County Green Blvd Ext./16th Ave SW 23rd St SW Wilson Blvd Ext. New Construction, 0 to 2 Low 2.90 0 2 5.80 0 15,930 15,930 46,197 7,96523 County Green Blvd Ext./16th Ave SW CR 951 (Collier Blvd) 23rd St SW New Construction, 0 to 4 High 2.10 0 4 8.40 0 35,820 35,820 75,222 8,95526 County Everglades Blvd Golden Gate Blvd Vanderbilt Beach Rd Ext.Lane Addition, 2 to 4 Low 2.20 2 4 4.40 12,780 27,360 14,580 32,076 7,29027 County CR 951 Ext. Heritage Bay Entrance Lee/Collier Line New Construction, 0 to 2 High 2.50 0 2 5.00 0 15,930 15,930 39,825 7,96531 County Goodlette‐Frank Rd Orange Blossom Dr Vanderbilt Beach Rd Ext. Lane Addition, 4 to 6 High 0.90 4 6 1.80 35,820 53,910 18,090 16,2819,04537 County Goodlette‐Frank Rd Vanderbilt Beach Rd Immokalee Rd Lane Addition, 2 to 4 High 1.80 2 4 3.60 15,930 35,820 19,890 35,802 9,94538 County Logan Blvd Green Blvd Pine Ridge Rd Lane Addition, 4 to 6 High 2.60 4 6 5.20 35,820 53,910 18,090 47,034 9,04539 County Green Blvd Ext./16th Ave SW Wilson Blvd Ext. Everglades Blvd New Construction, 0 to 2 Low 3.90 0 2 7.80 0 15,930 15,930 62,127 7,96542 County Santa Barbara Blvd Painted Leaf Ln Green Blvd Lane Addition, 4 to 6 High 1.70 4 6 3.40 35,820 53,910 18,090 30,753 9,04544 County Logan Blvd Vanderbilt Beach Rd Immokalee Rd Lane Addition, 2 to 4 High 2.10 2 4 4.20 15,930 35,820 19,890 41,769 9,94545 County Everglades Blvd I‐75 (SR 93) Golden Gate Blvd Lane Addition, 2 to 4 Low 5.30 2 4 10.60 12,780 27,360 14,580 77,274 7,29047 County Logan Blvd Pine Ridge Rd Vanderbilt Beach Rd Lane Addition, 2 to 4 High 2.10 2 4 4.20 15,930 35,820 19,890 41,769 9,94548 County Green Blvd Santa Barbara/Logan Blvd Sunshine Blvd Lane Addition, 2 to 4 High 1.00 2 4 2.00 15,930 35,820 19,890 19,890 9,94549 County Oil Well Rd/CR 858 Ave Maria Entrance Camp Keias Rd Lane Addition, 2 to 6 Low 1.00 2 6 4.00 12,780 41,220 28,440 28,440 7,11050 County Everglades Blvd Vanderbilt Beach Rd Ext. S of Oil Well RdLane Addition, 2 to 4 Low 2.20 2 4 4.40 12,780 27,360 14,580 32,076 7,29052 County Everglades Blvd Oil Well Rd Immokalee Rd Lane Addition, 2 to 4 Low 5.00 2 4 10.00 23,100 52,400 29,300 146,500 14,65053 County Orange Blossom Dr Airport Pulling Rd Livingston Rd Lane Addition, 2 to 4 High 0.70 2 4 1.40 14,580 31,950 17,370 12,159 8,68554 County Westclox St Ext. Little League Rd W of Carson Rd New Construction, 0 to 2 High 0.90 0 2 1.80 0 15,930 15,930 14,337 7,96555 County Benfield Rd US 41 (SR 90) Rattlesnake‐Hammock Ext. New Construction, 0 to 2 Low 4.50 0 2 9.00 0 23,100 23,100 103,950 11,55058 County Camp Keais Rd Oil Well Rd Pope John Paul Blvd Lane Addition, 2 to 4 Low 2.60 2 4 5.20 23,100 52,400 29,300 76,180 14,65068 County Golden Gate Blvd Everglades Blvd Desoto Blvd Lane Addition, 2 to 4 Low 2.00 2 4 4.00 12,780 27,360 14,580 29,160 7,29070 County Keane Ave Inez Rd Wilson Blvd Ext. New Construction, 0 to 2 Low 2.00 0 2 4.00 0 15,930 15,930 31,860 7,965Total:Total: 240.60 2,052,799 8,532ROW (Low):ROW (Low): 171.60 71% 1,453,874 8,472ROW (High):ROW (High): 69.00 29% 598,925 8,680 DRAFT      Appendix C  Credit Component  DRAFT    Tindale Oliver  Collier County  October 2019  C‐1  Road Impact Fee Update Study  Appendix C: Credit Component    This appendix presents the detailed calculations for the credit component.  County fuel taxes that  are collected in Collier County are listed below, along with a few pertinent characteristics of each.    1. Constitutional Fuel Tax (2¢/gallon)   Tax applies to every net gallon of motor and diesel fuel sold within a county.  Collected in  accordance with Article XII, Section 9 (c) of the Florida Constitution.    The State allocated 80 percent of this tax to Counties after first withholding amounts  pledged for debt service on bonds issued pursuant to provisions of the State Constitution  for road and bridge purposes.   The 20 percent surplus can be used to support the road construction program within the  county.   Counties are not required to share the proceeds of this tax with their municipalities.    2.  County Fuel Tax (1¢/gallon)   Tax applies to every net gallon of motor and diesel fuel sold within a county.   Primary purpose of these funds is to help reduce a County’s reliance on ad valorem taxes.   Proceeds are to be used for transportation‐related expenses, including the reduction of  bond  indebtedness  incurred  for  transportation  purposes.    Authorized  uses  include  acquisition of rights‐of‐way; the construction, reconstruction, operation, maintenance,  and  repair  of  transportation  facilities,  roads,  bridges,  bicycle  paths,  and  pedestrian  pathways; or the reduction of bond indebtedness incurred for transportation purposes.   Counties are not required to share the proceeds of this tax with their municipalities.    3. Ninth‐Cent Fuel Tax (1¢/gallon)   Tax applies to every net gallon of motor and diesel fuel sold within a county.   Proceeds may be used to fund transportation expenditures.   To accommodate statewide equalization, this tax is automatically levied on diesel fuel in  every county, regardless of whether a County is levying the tax on motor fuel at all.   Counties are not required to share the proceeds of this tax with their municipalities.    4. 1st Local Option Tax (up to 6¢/gallon)   Tax applies to every net gallon of motor and diesel fuel sold within a county.   Proceeds may be used to fund transportation expenditures.  DRAFT    Tindale Oliver  Collier County  October 2019  C‐2  Road Impact Fee Update Study   To accommodate statewide equalization, all six cents are automatically levied on diesel  fuel in every county, regardless of whether a county is levying the tax on motor fuel at all  or at the maximum rate.   Proceeds are distributed to a co unty and its municipalities according to a mutually agreed  upon distribution ratio, or by using a formula contained in the Florida Statutes.    5. 2nd Local Option Tax (up to 5¢/gallon)   Tax applies to every net gallon of motor and diesel fuel sold within a county.   Proceeds may be used to fund transportation expenditures needed to meet requirements  of the capital improvements element of an adopted Local Government Comprehensive  Plan.   Proceeds are distributed to a co unty and its municipalities according to a mutually agreed  upon distribution scheme, or by using a formula contained in the Florida Statutes.    Each  year,  the  Florida  Legislature’s  Office  of  Economic  and  Demographic  Research  (EDR)  produces the Local Government Financial Information Handbook, which details the estimated  local government revenues for the upcoming fiscal year.  Included in this document are the  estimated distributions of the various fuel tax revenues for each county in the state.  The 2018‐ 19 data represent projected fuel tax distributions to Collier County for the current fiscal year.   Table C‐1 shows the distribution per penny for each of the fuel levies, and then the calculation of  the weighted average for the value of a penny of fuel tax.  The weighting procedure takes into  account the differing amount of revenues generated for the various types of fuel taxes.  It is  estimated that approximately $1.68 million of annual revenue will be generated for the County  from one penny of fuel tax in Collier County.         DRAFT    Tindale Oliver  Collier County  October 2019  C‐3  Road Impact Fee Update Study  Table C‐1  Estimated Fuel Tax Distribution Allocated to Capital Programs for  Collier County & Municipalities, FY 2018‐19(1)    1) Source:  Florida  Legislature’s  Office  of  Economic  and  Demographic  Research,  http://edr.state.fl.us/content/local‐government/reports/ ‐‐  2) The weighted average distribution per penny is calculated by taking the sum of the  total distribution and dividing that value by the sum of the total levies per gallon  (multiplied by 100).    Capital Improvement Credit    For the calculated impact fee, the capital improvement credit includes  capacity‐expansion  expenditures for roadway improvements in Collier County.    County Capital Project Funding  A  review  of  the  County’s  FY  2019‐2023  Annual  Update  and  Inventory  Report  (AUIR)  Transportation Work Program indicates that a combination of fuel tax revenues, impact fees, and  grants are used to fund transportation capacity expansion improvements.  As shown in Table C‐ 2,  Collier  County  allocates  approximately  an  equivalent  of  4.7 pennies  for  non‐impact  fee  revenues dedicated to capacity expansion projects such as new road construction, lane additions,  and intersection improvements.  The fuel tax credit in Table C‐2 does not include the portion of  fuel tax revenues being used to repay debt service.                   Tax Amount of  Levy per  Gallon Total  Distribution Distribution  per Penny Constitutional Fuel Tax $0.02 $4,606,831 $2,303,416 County Fuel Tax $0.01 $2,034,546 $2,034,546 9th Cent Fuel Tax $0.01 $1,705,570 $1,705,570 1st Local Option (1‐6 cents) $0.06 $9,577,469 $1,596,245 2nd Local Option (1‐5 cents) $0.05 $7,207,560 $1,441,512 Total $0.15 $25,131,976 $1,675,465Weighted Average per Penny(2) DRAFT    Tindale Oliver  Collier County  October 2019  C‐4  Road Impact Fee Update Study  Table C‐2  County Fuel Tax Equivalent Pennies    1) Source: Table C‐5  2) Source: Table C‐1  3) Cost of projects divided by number of years divided by revenue from 1 penny (Item 3) divided by 100    As previously mentioned, the County is currently using fuel tax revenues to retire debt of the  Series 2012 and Series 2014 Fuel Tax Bond Issues that are being used to fund capacity expansion  improvements.  As shown in Table C‐3, a credit of 8.7 pennies is allocated toward outstanding  debt service in Collier County.      Table C‐3  County Debt Service Fuel Tax Equivalent Pennies    1) Source: Table C‐6  2) Source: Table C‐7  3) Source: Table C‐1  4) Cost of projects divided by number of years divided by revenue from 1 penny (Item 3) divided by 100    In November 2018, the County adopted a one‐percent local government infrastructure surtax.   The tax went into effect January 1, 2019 with revenues available to tangible capital projects.  The  tax is designed to expire after seven years, but may expire earlier is the revenue goal of $490  million is met.  There is potential for an extension via another voter referendum.  As shown in  Table C‐4, based on the preliminary project list, approximately $114 million will be allocated for  transportation capacity expansion:   Airport Rd from Vanderbilt Beach Rd to Immokalee Rd, $4 million   Pine Ridge, Livingston & Whippoorwill intersection, $23 million   Triangle Blvd roundabouts, $6 million  Source Cost of  Projects Number  of Years Revenue  from 1  Penny(2) Equivalent  Pennies(3) Grant Revenues(1)$5,500,000 5 $1,675,465 $0.007 Fuel Tax Revenues(2)$33,987,000 5 $1,675,465 $0.041 Total $39,487,000 5 $1,675,465 $0.047 Source Cost of  Projects Number  of Years Revenue  from 1  Penny(3) Equivalent  Pennies(4) Fuel Tax Bond Issue, Series 2012(1)$19,363,150 5 $1,675,465 $0.023 Fuel Tax Bond Issue, Series 2014(2)$74,514,454 7 $1,675,465 $0.064 Total $93,877,604 $0.087 DRAFT    Tindale Oliver  Collier County  October 2019  C‐5  Road Impact Fee Update Study   Randall Blvd & Immokalee intersection, $7 million   Vanderbilt Beach Rd Extension to the East, $74 million    For impact fee credit purposes it is assumed that the sales tax will be renewed for at least 25  years and that the annual contributions to capacity expansion will remain at this initial level.  As  shown in Table C‐4, a credit of 9.7 pennies is given for the local government infrastructure surtax.   This report includes scenarios excluding and including this recently adopted revenue source.      Table C‐4  County Local Option Sales Tax Equivalent Pennies    1) Source: Collier County Infrastructure Surtax Citizen Committee; collieronecenttax.com  2) Source: Table C‐1  3) Cost of projects divided by number of years divided by revenue from 1 penny (Item 3) divided by 100      Tables C‐5 through C‐9 provide additional backup detail for the summaries included previously in  this report and in Appendix C, Tables C‐1 through C‐4.     Source Cost of  Projects Number  of Years Revenue  from 1  Penny(2) Equivalent  Pennies(3) Local Govt Infrastructure Surtax Revenues(1)$114,000,000 7 $1,675,465 $0.097 DRAFT    Tindale Oliver  Collier County  October 2019  C‐6  Road Impact Fee Update Study  Table C‐5  Collier County – AUIR Summary    1) Source: FY 2019 – FY 2023 5‐Year Work Program; AUIR  2) Source: Total debt service for FY 2019‐2023 for Series 2012 Bond (Table C‐6) and Series  2014 Bond (Table C‐7)    Table C‐6  Collier County – Gas Tax Bond, Series 2012    Source: Collier County Budget Department        AUIR Expenditures &  Revenues Work Program Expenditures   Total ‐ Capacity Expansion Projects (1)$136,120,000 Revenues available to fund capacity expansion (new projects)  ‐ Impact Fees (including interest & fund balance) $96,633,000  ‐ Grant Funds $5,500,000  ‐ Fuel Tax (including interest & fund balance) $111,075,000  ‐ Fuel Tax Fund 313 (carry forward) $7,066,000   Total $220,274,000 Revenues used to fund capacity expansion (new projects)  ‐ Impact Fees (including interest & fund balance) $96,633,000  ‐ Grant Funds (used to fund capacity expansion projects) $5,500,000  ‐ Fuel Tax (includes General Fund transfer) $33,987,000  ‐ Fuel Tax (used to fund debt service)(2)$66,585,189   Total $202,705,189 Revenues available to fund non‐capacity improvements  ‐ Fuel Tax  $17,568,812 Year Principal Interest Total Debt  Service  FY 2019 $3,120,000 $749,650 $3,869,650  FY 2020 $3,280,000 $593,650 $3,873,650  FY 2021 $3,445,000 $429,650 $3,874,650  FY 2022 $3,615,000 $257,400 $3,872,400  FY 2023 $3,760,000 $112,800 $3,872,800 Total $17,220,000 $2,143,150 $19,363,150 5 $3,872,630 Payments Remaining Annual Average Payment DRAFT    Tindale Oliver  Collier County  October 2019  C‐7  Road Impact Fee Update Study  Table C‐7  Collier County – Gas Tax Bond, Series 2014    Source: Collier County Budget Department Year Principal Interest Total Debt  Service  FY 2019 $7,710,000 $1,791,944 $9,501,944  FY 2020 $7,890,000 $1,584,545 $9,474,545  FY 2021 $8,070,000 $1,372,304 $9,442,304  FY 2022 $8,260,000 $1,155,221 $9,415,221  FY 2023 $8,455,000 $933,027 $9,388,027  FY 2024 $12,965,000 $705,587 $13,670,587  FY 2025 $13,265,000 $356,829 $13,621,829 Total $66,615,000 $7,899,454 $74,514,454 7 $10,644,922 Payments Remaining Annual Average Payment DRAFT   Tindale Oliver Collier County October 2019  C‐8  Road Impact Fee Update Study  Table C‐8 Average Motor Vehicle Fuel Efficiency – Excluding Interstate Travel    22.0 6.4 @ 22.0 mpg  @ 6.4 mpgOther Arterial Rural317,691,000,000             45,164,000,000               362,855,000,000             88% 12%Other Rural302,483,000,000             27,939,000,000               330,422,000,000             92% 8%Other Urban1,553,636,000,000         93,910,000,000               1,647,546,000,000        94%6%Total 2,173,810,000,000         167,013,000,000            2,340,823,000,000        93% 7%Gallons @ 22.0 mpg Gallons @ 6.4 mpg2,340,823       miles (millions)Other Arterial Rural14,440,500,000               7,056,875,000                  21,497,375,000              124,905           gallons (millions)Other Rural13,749,227,273               4,365,468,750                  18,114,696,023              18.74                mpgOther Urban70,619,818,182               14,673,437,500               85,293,255,682              Total 98,809,545,455               26,095,781,250               124,905,326,705           Source:  U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Highway Statistics 2016, Section V, Table VM‐1Annual Vehicle Distance Traveled in Miles and Related Data ‐ 2016 by Highway Category and Vehicle Typehttp://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/statistics.cfmTravelVehicle Miles of Travel (VMT) @Percent VMTFuel Consumed Total Mileage and Fuel  DRAFT   Tindale Oliver Collier County October 2019  C‐9  Road Impact Fee Update Study Table C‐9 Annual Vehicle Distance Travelled in Miles and Related Data – 2016(1) By Highway Category and Vehicle Type  Published December 2017TABLE  VM‐1ALL LIGHT VEHICLES(2)SINGLE‐UNIT 2‐AXLE 6‐TIRE OR MORE AND COMBINATION TRUCKS Motor‐Vehicle Travel:     (millions of vehicle‐miles)2016   Interstate Rural 139,460 1,095 1,740 44,086 9,905 50,430183,546 60,335246,7162016   Other Arterial Rural 226,036 2,633 2,116 91,655 16,371 28,794317,691 45,164367,6052016   Other Rural 212,457 2,856 1,946 90,026 15,563 12,375302,483 27,939335,2242016  All Rural 577,954 6,583 5,802 225,768 41,839 91,599 803,721 133,439949,5452016   Interstate Urban 392,838 2,939 2,542 99,523 18,555 41,991492,361 60,546558,3882016   Other Urban 1,220,973 10,923 8,006 332,663 52,944 40,9661,553,636 93,9101,666,4752016  All Urban   1,613,810 13,862 10,548 432,186 71,499 82,958 2,045,997 154,456 2,224,8632016  Total Rural and Urban(5)2,191,764 20,445 16,350 657,954 113,338 174,557 2,849,718 287,895 3,174,4082016  Number of motor vehicles 192,774,508 8,679,380 976,161 54,870,473 8,746,518 2,752,043 247,644,981 11,498,561 268,799,083  registered(2)2016  Average miles traveled 11,370 2,356 16,749 11,991 12,958 63,428 11,507 25,037 11,810  per vehicle2016  Person‐miles of travel(4)3,045,205 22,022 346,610 878,994 113,338 174,557 3,924,199 287,895 4,580,725  (millions)2016  Fuel consumed 91,487,810 465,802 2,225,795 37,818,755 15,338,479 29,554,641 129,306,565 44,893,120 176,891,283  (thousand gallons)2016  Average fuel consumption per 475 54 2,280 689 1,754 10,739 522 3,904 658  vehicle (gallons)2016  Average miles traveled per 24.0 43.9 7.3 17.4 7.4 5.922.0 6.417.9  gallon of fuel consumed(3) Single‐Unit ‐ single frame trucks that have 2‐Axles and at least 6 tires or a gross vehicle weight rating exceeding 10,000 lbs.(4) Vehicle occupancy is estimated by the FHWA from the 2009 National Household Travel Survey (NHTS); For single unit truck and heavy trucks, 1 motor vehicle mile travelled = 1 person‐mile traveled.(5) VMT data are based on the latest HPMS data available; it may not match previous published results.SINGLE‐UNIT TRUCKS(3)COMBINATION TRUCKSSUBTOTALSALL MOTOR VEHICLES(1) The FHWA estimates national trends by using State reported Highway Performance and Monitoring System (HPMS) data, fuel consumption data (MF‐21 and MF‐27), vehicle registration data (MV‐1, MV‐9, and MV‐10), other data such as the R.L. Polk vehicle data, and a host of modeling techniques.  Starting with the 2009 VM‐1, an enhanced methodology was used to provide timely indicators on both travel and travel behavior changes.(2) Light Duty Vehicles Short WB ‐ passenger cars, light trucks, vans and sport utility vehicles with a wheelbase (WM) equal to or less than 121 inches.  Light Duty Vehicles Long WB ‐ large passenger cars, vans, pickup trucks, and sport/utility vehicles with wheelbases (WB) larger than 121 inches.  All Light Duty Vehicles ‐ passenger cars, light trucks, vans and sport utility vehicles regardless of YEAR  ITEMLIGHT DUTY VEHICLES SHORT WB(2)MOTOR‐CYCLESBUSESLIGHT DUTY VEHICLES LONG WB(2) DRAFT      Appendix D  Calculated Road Impact Fee Schedule DRAFT    Tindale Oliver  Collier County  October 2019  D‐1  Road Impact Fee Update Study  Appendix D: Calculated Road Impact Fee Schedule    This appendix presents the detailed fee calculations for each land use in the Collier County road  impact fee schedule.    Table D‐1 presents the calculated road impact fee rates for Collier County, excluding a revenue  credit for the recently adopted local government infrastructure surtax.      Table D‐2 presents the calculated road impact fee rates for Collier County, including a revenue  credit for the recently adopted local government infrastructure surtax.  This scenario calculates  lower impact fee rates due to the availability of an additional revenue source to pay for roadway  capacity expansion improvements.    DRAFT   Tindale Oliver Collier County October 2019 D‐2 Road Impact Fee Update Study Table D‐1 Collier County – Calculated Road Impact Fee Schedule (Excluding Sales Tax Credit)  Gasoline TaxUnit Cost per Lane Mile: $6,005,000 Interstate/Toll Facility Adjustment Factor: 14.4%$$ per gallon to capital: $0.134Average VMC per Lane Mile: 8,500 Cost per PMC: $706.47Facility life (years): 25Fuel Efficiency: 18.74 mpgInterest rate: 4.00%Effectivedays per year: 365ITE LUC Land Use Unit Trip Rate Trip Rate SourceAssessableTrip LengthTrip Length Adjustment FactorAdjustedTrip LengthTotal Trip LengthTrip Length SourcePercentNew Trips % New Trips SourceNet VMT(1) TotalImpact CostAnnualGas TaxGas Tax CreditNet Road Impact FeeCurrent Road Impact Fee(2)% ChangeRESIDENTIAL:Single Family (Detached) ‐ Less than 4,000 sf du 7.37 Appendix A: Table A‐5 5.88 0.71 4.17 4.67 Appendix A: LUC 210 100% n/a 13.15 $9,293 $45 $703$8,590$7,444 15%Single Family (Detached) ‐ 4,000 sf and greater du 9.00 Appendix A: Table A‐5 5.88 0.71 4.17 4.67 Appendix A: LUC 210 100% n/a 16.06 $11,348 $55 $859$10,489$8,959 17%220 Multi‐Family Housing (Low‐Rise, 1‐2 floors) du 7.32 ITE 10th Edition 5.10 0.71 3.62 4.12Appendix A:LUC 220/221/222 100% n/a 11.34 $8,012 $39 $609$7,403$5,542 34%221 Multi‐Family Housing (Mid‐Rise, 3‐10 floors) du 5.44 ITE 10th Edition 5.10 0.71 3.62 4.12Appendix A:LUC 220/221/222 100% n/a 8.43 $5,955 $29 $453$5,502$5,542 ‐1%222 Multi‐Family Housing (High‐Rise, >10 floors) du 4.45 ITE 10th Edition 5.10 0.71 3.62 4.12Appendix A:LUC 220/221/222 100% n/a 6.89 $4,871 $24 $375$4,496$3,532 27%231 Mid‐Rise Residential w/1st floor Commercial du 3.44 ITE 10th Edition 5.10 0.71 3.62 4.12 Same as LUC 220 100% n/a 5.33 $3,765 $18 $281$3,484n/a n/a232 High‐Rise Residential w/1st floor Commercial(3)du 2.01ITE 10th Edition(Adjusted) 5.10 0.71 3.62 4.12 Same as LUC 220 100% n/a 3.11 $2,200 $11 $172$2,028n/a n/a240 Mobile Home Park du 4.17 Appendix A: LUC 240 4.60 0.71 3.27 3.77 Appendix A: LUC 240 100% n/a 5.84 $4,123 $21 $328$3,795$3,146 21%251 Retirement Community (detached) du 3.50 Appendix A: LUC 251 5.420.71 3.85 4.35 Appendix A: LUC 251 100% n/a 5.77 $4,074 $20 $312$3,762$2,788 35%252 Retirement Community (attached) du 3.33 Appendix A: LUC 252 3.280.71 2.33 2.83 Appendix A: LUC 252 100% n/a 3.32 $2,346 $12 $187$2,159$2,788 ‐23%254 Assisted Living bed 2.60 ITE 10th Edition 2.59 0.71 1.84 2.34 Same as LUC 620 72% Appendix A: LUC 253 1.47 $1,042 $6 $94$948n/a n/aLODGING:310 Hotel room 5.55 Appendix A: LUC 310 5.42 0.71 3.85 4.35Appendix A:LUC 310/320 66% Appendix A: LUC 310 6.04 $4,264 $21 $328$3,936$3,760 5%311 All Suites Hotel room 4.46 ITE 10th Edition 5.42 0.71 3.85 4.35 Same as LUC 310 66% Same as LUC 310 4.85 $3,427 $17 $266$3,161$2,900 9%320 Motel room 3.35 ITE 10th Edition 4.34 0.71 3.08 3.58 Appendix A: LUC 320 77% Appendix A: LUC 320 3.40 $2,402 $12 $187$2,215$3,086 ‐28%RECREATION:416 Campground/RV Park(4)site 1.62ITE 10th Edition(Adjusted) 4.60 0.71 3.27 3.77 Same as LUC 240 100%Same as Residential Land Uses 2.27 $1,602 $8 $125$1,477$1,226 20%420 Marina boat berth 2.41 ITE 10th Edition 5.88 0.71 4.17 4.67 Same as LUC 210 90% Based on LUC 710 3.87 $2,735 $13 $203$2,532$2,593 ‐2%430 Golf Course 18 holes 546.84ITE 10th Edition(Adjusted) 2.22 0.71 1.58 2.08 Same as LUC 444 90% Based on LUC 710 332.82 $235,124 $1,336 $20,871$214,253$205,266 4%n/a Bundled Golf Course(5)18 holes 164.05Same as LUC 430 (Adjusted to 30%) 2.22 0.71 1.58 2.08 Same as LUC 444 90% Based on LUC 710 99.84 $70,536 $401 $6,264$64,272$61,587 4%444 Movie Theater screen 114.83Blend ITE 10th &Florida Studies 2.22 0.71 1.58 2.08 Appendix A: LUC 444 88% Appendix A: LUC 444 68.33 $48,276 $274 $4,280$43,996$33,271 32%n/a Dance Studios/Gym 1,000 sf 21.33Appendix A: LUC N/A Dance Studio 2.97 0.71 2.11 2.61Appendix A: LUC N/A Specialty Retail 80%Appendix A: LUC N/A Specialty Retail 15.41 $10,887 $58 $906$9,981$8,204 22%INSTITUTIONS:520 Elementary School (Private) student 1.89 ITE 10th Edition 2.94 0.71 2.09 2.5950% of LUC 210 based on Transp. Modeling 80%Based on LUC 710(adjusted)(5)1.35 $956 $5 $78$878$729 20%522 Middle/Junior High School (Private) student 2.13 ITE 10th Edition 2.94 0.71 2.09 2.5950% of LUC 210 based on Transp. Modeling 80%Based on LUC 710(adjusted)(5)1.52 $1,077 $6 $94$983$1,028 ‐4%530 High School (Private) student 2.03 ITE 10th Edition 2.94 0.71 2.092.5950% of LUC 210 based on Transp. Modeling 90% Based on LUC 710 1.63 $1,155 $6 $94$1,061$1,085 ‐2%University/Junior College (7,500 or fewer students)(Private) student 2.00ITE RegressionAnalysis 5.88 0.71 4.17 4.67 Same as LUC 210 90% Based on LUC 710 3.21 $2,270 $11 $172$2,098$1,748 20%University/Junior College (more than 7,500 students) (Private) student 1.50ITE RegressionAnalysis 5.88 0.71 4.17 4.67 Same as LUC 210 90% Based on LUC 710 2.41 $1,702 $8 $125$1,577$1,311 20%560 Church seat 0.44 ITE 10th Edition 3.91 0.71 2.78 3.28Midpoint of LUC 710 & LUC 820 (App. A) 90% Based on LUC 710 0.47 $333 $2 $31$302$348 ‐13%565 Day Care Center student 4.09 ITE 10th Edition 2.03 0.71 1.44 1.94 Appendix A: LUC 565 73% Appendix A: LUC 565 1.84 $1,300 $8 $125$1,175$1,026 15%210540/550 DRAFT   Tindale Oliver Collier County October 2019 D‐3 Road Impact Fee Update Study Table D‐1 (continued) Collier County – Calculated Road Impact Fee Schedule (Excluding Sales Tax Credit)  ITE LUC Land Use Unit Trip Rate Trip Rate SourceAssessableTrip LengthTrip Length Adjustment FactorAdjustedTrip LengthTotal Trip LengthTrip Length SourcePercentNew Trips % New Trips SourceNet VMT(1) TotalImpact CostAnnualGas TaxGas Tax CreditNet Road Impact FeeCurrent Road Impact Fee(2)% ChangeMEDICAL:610 Hospital 1,000 sf 10.72 ITE 10th Edition 5.88 0.71 4.17 4.67 Same as LUC 210 78%Midpoint ofLUC 310 & LUC 720 14.92 $10,543 $51 $797$9,746$9,889 ‐1%620 Nursing Home bed 3.02 Appendix A: LUC 620 2.59 0.71 1.84 2.34 Appendix A: LUC 620 89% Appendix A: LUC 620 2.12 $1,495 $8 $125$1,370$1,031 33%OFFICE:710 General Office 1,000 sf 9.74 ITE 10th Edition 5.15 0.71 3.66 4.16 Appendix A: LUC 710 92% Appendix A: LUC 710 14.04 $9,917 $49 $765$9,152$10,249 ‐11%Medical Office/Clinic 10,000 sq ft or less 1,000 sf 23.83Appendix A: LUC 720Small Medical/Dental 5.55 0.71 3.94 4.44 Appendix A: LUC 720 89% Appendix A: LUC 720 35.76 $25,267 $123 $1,922$23,345$19,443 20%Medical Office/Clinic greater than 10,000 sq ft 1,000 sf 34.12 Appendix A: LUC 720 5.55 0.71 3.94 4.44 Appendix A: LUC 720 89% Appendix A: LUC 720 51.21 $36,177 $176 $2,749$33,428$28,313 18%770 Business Park (Flex‐Space) 1,000 sf 12.65 Appendix A: LUC 770 5.38 0.71 3.82 4.32 Appendix A: LUC 770 89% Appendix A: LUC 770 18.41 $13,004 $63 $984$12,020$9,989 20%RETAIL:Retail 6,000 sfgla or less(6)1,000 sfgla 75.05 ITE 10th equation 1.12 0.71 0.80 1.30Appendix A: Fig. A‐1(6k sq ft) 39%Appendix A: Fig. A‐2(6k sq ft) 10.02 $7,080 $50 $781$6,299$5,697 11%Retail 6,001‐25,000 sfgla(6)1,000 sfgla 75.05 ITE 10th equation 1.58 0.71 1.12 1.62Appendix A: Fig. A‐1(25k sq ft) 50%Appendix A: Fig. A‐2(25k sq ft) 17.99 $12,708 $79 $1,234$11,474$10,676 7%Retail greated than 25,000 sfgla(6)1,000 sfgla 37.75 ITE 10th edition 2.69 0.71 1.91 2.41Appendix A: Fig. A‐1(450k sq ft) 74%Appendix A: Fig. A‐2(450k sq ft) 22.84 $16,133 $88 $1,375$14,758$14,354 3%840/ 841 New/Used Auto Sales 1,000 sf 24.58Appendix A:LUC 840/841 4.60 0.71 3.27 3.77Appendix A:LUC 840/841 79%Appendix A:LUC 840/841 27.18 $19,200 $96 $1,500$17,700$16,878 5%849 Tire Superstore service bay 30.55 ITE 10th Edition 2.32 0.71 1.65 2.15Mid‐Point of LUC 944 and LUC 942 (App. A) 72%Same as LUC 942(Appendix A) 15.53 $10,974 $62 $969$10,005$8,178 22%850 Supermarket 1,000 sf 106.64 Appendix A: LUC 850 2.08 0.71 1.48 1.98Appendix A: LUC 850 56% Appendix A: LUC 850 37.83 $26,724 $154 $2,406$24,318$19,163 27%851 Convenience Market (24 hour) 1,000 sf 739.50 Appendix A: LUC 851 1.52 0.71 1.08 1.58 Appendix A: LUC 851 41% Appendix A: LUC 851 140.15 $99,011 $625 $9,764$89,247$69,707 28%862 Home Improvement Superstore 1,000 sf 30.74 ITE 10th Edition 2.340.71 1.66 2.16Appendix A: Fig. A‐1(150k sq ft) 65%Appendix A: Fig. A‐2(150k sq ft) 14.20 $10,029 $56 $875$9,154$7,483 22%880/881 Pharmacy with & without Drive‐Thru 1,000 sf 104.37Appendix A:LUC 880/881 2.08 0.71 1.48 1.98Appendix A:LUC 880/881 32%Appendix A:LUC 880/881 21.16 $14,946 $86 $1,343$13,603$10,165 34%890 Furniture Store 1,000 sf 6.26 Appendix A: LUC 890 4.05 0.71 2.88 3.38 Appendix A: LUC 890 78% Appendix A: LUC 890 6.02 $4,252 $22 $344$3,908$2,706 44%SERVICES:911 Bank/Savings Walk‐In(7)1,000 sf 59.39ITE 10th Edition(Adjusted) 2.46 0.71 1.75 2.25 Same as LUC 912 46% Same as LUC 912 20.46 $14,456 $80 $1,250$13,206$22,038 ‐40%912 Bank/Savings Drive‐In 1,000 sf 102.66 Appendix A: LUC 912 2.46 0.71 1.75 2.25 Appendix A: LUC 912 46% Appendix A: LUC 912 35.37 $24,988$139 $2,171$22,817$28,961 ‐21%930 Fast Casual Restaurant 1,000 sf 315.17 ITE 10th Edition 2.05 0.711.46 1.96 Same as LUC 934 58% Same as LUC 934 114.23 $80,698 $468 $7,311$73,387n/a n/a931 Low‐Turnover Restaurant seat 2.60 ITE 10th Edition 3.14 0.71 2.23 2.73 Appendix A: LUC 931 77% Appendix A: LUC 931 1.91 $1,350 $7 $109$1,241$1,130 10%932 High‐Turnover Restaurant seat 4.37 ITE 10th Edition 3.17 0.71 2.252.75 Appendix A: LUC 932 71% Appendix A: LUC 932 2.99 $2,111 $11 $172$1,939$1,758 10%934 Fast Food Restaurant w/Drive‐Thru 1,000 sf 482.53 Appendix A: LUC 934 2.05 0.71 1.46 1.96 Appendix A: LUC 934 58% Appendix A: LUC 934174.88 $123,550 $716 $11,185$112,365$96,567 16%934.1 Fast Food w/Drive‐Thru with Two Meals 1,000 sf 409.25 Local Studies (2011) 2.19 0.71 1.55 2.05 Local Studies (2011) 59% Local Studies (2011) 160.18 $113,165 $646 $10,092$103,073n/a n/a941 Quick Lube service bay 40.00 ITE 10th Edition 2.32 0.71 1.65 2.15Mid‐Point of LUC 944 & LUC 942 (App. A) 72%Same as LUC 942(Appendix A) 20.34 $14,369 $81 $1,265$13,104$10,697 23%944 Gas Station w/Convenience Market <2,000 sq ft fuel pos. 172.01ITE 10th Edition 1.01 0.71 0.72 1.22Appendix A:LUC 944/945 23%Appendix A:LUC 944/945 12.19 $8,613 $63 $984$7,629n/a n/a945 Gas Station w/Convenience Market 2,000‐2,999 sq ft fuel pos. 205.36 ITE 10th Edition 1.01 0.71 0.72 1.22Appendix A:LUC 944/945 23%Appendix A:LUC 944/945 14.56 $10,283 $75 $1,172$9,111n/a n/a960 Gas Station w/Convenience Market 3,000+ sq ft fuel pos. 230.52ITE 10th Edition 1.01 0.71 0.72 1.22 Same as LUC 945 23% Same as LUC 945 16.34 $11,543 $84 $1,312$10,231n/a n/a947 Self‐Service Car Wash service bay 43.94 Appendix A: LUC 947 2.180.71 1.55 2.05 Appendix A: LUC 947 68% Appendix A: LUC 947 19.82 $14,004 $80 $1,250$12,754$10,395 23%948 Automated Car Wash(8)1,000 sf 142.00ITE 10th Edition(Adjusted) 2.18 0.71 1.55 2.05 Same as LUC 947 68% Same as LUC 947 64.06 $45,255 $258 $4,030$41,225$33,398 23%720820 DRAFT   Tindale Oliver Collier County October 2019 D‐4 Road Impact Fee Update Study Table D‐1 (continued) Collier County – Calculated Road Impact Fee Schedule (Excluding Sales Tax Credit)  1) Net VMT calculated as ((Trip Generation Rate* Trip Length* % New Trips)*(1‐Interstate/Toll Facility Adjustment Factor)/2).  This reflects the unit of vehicle‐miles of capacity consumed per unit of development and is multiplied by the cost per vehicle 2) Source: Collier County Capital Project Planning, Impact Fees, and Program Management Division.  Residential Condo/Townhouse rate shown for LUC 231; High‐Rise Condo (3+ stories) rate shown for LUC 232; Retirement Community/Age‐Restricted Single Family rate shown for LUC 215 and LUC 252; Office 6,001‐100,000 sf rate shown for LUC 710; Retail 100,001‐150,000 sfgla rate shown for LUC 820 greater than 25,000 sfgla; Gas/Service Station with or w/o Car Wash rate shown for LUC 944, LUC 945, and LUC 960 3) The ITE 10th Edition trip generation rate for PM Peak Hour of Adjacent traffic was adjusted by the ratio of Daily to PM Peak Hour for LUC 231 to approximate a daily TGR  4) The ITE 10th Edition trip generation rate was adjusted to reflect the average occupancy rate of 60 percent based on data provided by the Florida Association of RV Parks and Campgrounds 5) The TGR for bundled golf course is estimated at 30 percent of the TGR for LUC 430 6) The trip generation rates recommended for retail are based off a 50,000 sfgla development for tiers 0‐6,000 and 6,001‐25,000 and based on 450,000 sfgla for the >25,000 sfgla option 7) The ITE 10th Edition trip generation rate for PM Peak Hour of Adjacent traffic was adjusted by the ratio of Daily to PM Peak Hour for LUC 912 to approximate a daily TGR 8) The ITE 10th Edition trip generation rate for PM Peak Hour of Adjacent traffic was adjusted by a factor of 10 to approximate the Daily TGR 9) The mines land use impact fee rate was calculated using and I/T adjustment factor if 27.3% and a fuel efficiency value of 6.2 gallons per mile based on the 2009 Collier County Mines Trip Characteristics Study, Tindale Oliver      ITE LUC Land Use Unit Trip Rate Trip Rate SourceAssessableTrip LengthTrip Length Adjustment FactorAdjustedTrip LengthTotal Trip LengthTrip Length SourcePercentNew Trips % New Trips SourceNet VMT(1) TotalImpact CostAnnualGas TaxGas Tax CreditNet Road Impact FeeCurrent Road Impact Fee(2)% ChangeSERVICES:n/a Luxury Auto Sales 1,000 sf 16.30 Independent Studies 4.80 0.71 3.41 3.91 Independent Studies 85% Independent Studies 20.22 $14,286 $71 $1,109$13,177$10,947 20%INDUSTRIAL:110 General Light Industrial 1,000 sf 4.96 ITE 10th Edition 5.38 0.713.82 4.32 Same as LUC 770 92% Same as LUC 710 7.46 $5,271 $26 $406$4,865$5,700 ‐15%140 Manufacturing 1,000 sf 3.93 ITE 10th Edition 5.38 0.71 3.82 4.32 Same as LUC 770 92% Same as LUC 710 5.91 $4,176 $20 $312$3,864$3,122 24%150 Warehousing 1,000 sf 1.74 ITE 10th Edition 5.38 0.71 3.82 4.32 Same as LUC 770 92% Same as LUC 710 2.62 $1,849 $9 $141$1,708$2,904 ‐41%151 Mini‐Warehouse 1,000 sf 1.49 Appendix A: LUC 151 3.51 0.71 2.49 2.99Midpoint of LUC 710 & LUC 820 (<25k sq ft) 92% Same as LUC 710 1.46 $1,032 $5 $78$954$999 ‐5%n/a Mine(9)1,000 cy 0.01 Local Studies 14.82 0.71 10.52 11.02 Local Studies 97% Local Studies 0.04 $26 ‐ $12$14$8 75% DRAFT   Tindale Oliver Collier County October 2019 D‐5 Road Impact Fee Update Study Table D‐2 Collier County – Calculated Road Impact Fee Schedule (Including Sales Tax Credit)  Gasoline TaxUnit Cost per Lane Mile: $6,005,000 Interstate/Toll Facility Adjustment Factor: 14.4%$$ per gallon to capital: $0.231Average VMC per Lane Mile: 8,500 Cost per PMC: $706.47Facility life (years): 25Fuel Efficiency: 18.74 mpgInterest rate: 4.00%Effectivedays per year: 365ITE LUC Land Use Unit Trip Rate Trip Rate SourceAssessableTrip LengthTrip Length Adjustment FactorAdjustedTrip LengthTotal Trip LengthTrip Length SourcePercentNew Trips % New Trips SourceNet VMT(1) TotalImpact CostAnnualGas TaxGas Tax CreditNet Road Impact FeeCurrent Road Impact Fee(2)% ChangeRESIDENTIAL:Single Family (Detached) ‐ Less than 4,000 sf du 7.37 Appendix A: Table A‐5 5.88 0.71 4.17 4.67 Appendix A: LUC 210 100% n/a 13.15 $9,293 $77 $1,203$8,090$7,444 9%Single Family (Detached) ‐ 4,000 sf and greater du 9.00 Appendix A: Table A‐5 5.88 0.71 4.17 4.67 Appendix A: LUC 210 100% n/a 16.06 $11,348 $95 $1,484$9,864$8,959 10%220 Multi‐Family Housing (Low‐Rise, 1‐2 floors) du 7.32 ITE 10th Edition 5.10 0.71 3.62 4.12Appendix A:LUC 220/221/222 100% n/a 11.34 $8,012 $68 $1,062$6,950$5,542 25%221 Multi‐Family Housing (Mid‐Rise, 3‐10 floors) du 5.44 ITE 10th Edition 5.10 0.71 3.62 4.12Appendix A:LUC 220/221/222 100% n/a 8.43 $5,955 $50 $781$5,174$5,542 ‐7%222 Multi‐Family Housing (High‐Rise, >10 floors) du 4.45 ITE 10th Edition 5.10 0.71 3.62 4.12Appendix A:LUC 220/221/222 100% n/a 6.89 $4,871 $41 $641$4,230$3,532 20%231 Mid‐Rise Residential w/1st floor Commercial du 3.44 ITE 10th Edition 5.10 0.71 3.62 4.12 Same as LUC 220 100% n/a 5.33 $3,765 $32 $500$3,265n/a n/a232 High‐Rise Residential w/1st floor Commercial(3)du 2.01ITE 10th Edition(Adjusted) 5.10 0.71 3.62 4.12 Same as LUC 220 100% n/a 3.11 $2,200 $19 $297$1,903n/a n/a240 Mobile Home Park du 4.17 Appendix A: LUC 240 4.60 0.71 3.27 3.77 Appendix A: LUC 240 100% n/a 5.84 $4,123 $35 $547$3,576$3,146 14%251 Retirement Community (detached) du 3.50 Appendix A: LUC 251 5.420.71 3.85 4.35 Appendix A: LUC 251 100% n/a 5.77 $4,074 $34 $531$3,543$2,788 27%252 Retirement Community (attached) du 3.33 Appendix A: LUC 252 3.280.71 2.33 2.83 Appendix A: LUC 252 100% n/a 3.32 $2,346 $21 $328$2,018$2,788 ‐28%254 Assisted Living bed 2.60 ITE 10th Edition 2.59 0.71 1.84 2.34 Same as LUC 620 72% Appendix A: LUC 253 1.47 $1,042 $10 $156$886n/a n/aLODGING:310 Hotel room 5.55 Appendix A: LUC 310 5.42 0.71 3.85 4.35Appendix A:LUC 310/320 66% Appendix A: LUC 310 6.04 $4,264 $36 $562$3,702$3,760 ‐2%311 All Suites Hotel room 4.46 ITE 10th Edition 5.42 0.71 3.85 4.35 Same as LUC 310 66% Same as LUC 310 4.85 $3,427 $29 $453$2,974$2,900 3%320 Motel room 3.35 ITE 10th Edition 4.34 0.71 3.08 3.58 Appendix A: LUC 320 77% Appendix A: LUC 320 3.40 $2,402 $21 $328$2,074$3,086 ‐33%RECREATION:416 Campground/RV Park(4)site 1.62ITE 10th Edition(Adjusted) 4.60 0.71 3.27 3.77 Same as LUC 240 100%Same as Residential Land Uses 2.27 $1,602 $14 $219$1,383$1,226 13%420 Marina boat berth 2.41 ITE 10th Edition 5.88 0.71 4.17 4.67 Same as LUC 210 90% Based on LUC 710 3.87 $2,735 $23 $359$2,376$2,593 ‐8%430 Golf Course 18 holes 546.84ITE 10th Edition(Adjusted) 2.22 0.71 1.58 2.08 Same as LUC 444 90% Based on LUC 710 332.82 $235,124 $2,303 $35,978$199,146$205,266 ‐3%n/a Bundled Golf Course(5)18 holes 164.05Same as LUC 430 (Adjusted to 30%) 2.22 0.71 1.58 2.08 Same as LUC 444 90% Based on LUC 710 99.84 $70,536 $691 $10,795$59,741$61,587 ‐3%444 Movie Theater screen 114.83Blend ITE 10th &Florida Studies 2.22 0.71 1.58 2.08 Appendix A: LUC 444 88% Appendix A: LUC 444 68.33 $48,276 $473 $7,389$40,887$33,271 23%n/a Dance Studios/Gym 1,000 sf 21.33Appendix A: LUC N/A Dance Studio 2.97 0.71 2.11 2.61Appendix A: LUC N/A Specialty Retail 80%Appendix A: LUC N/A Specialty Retail 15.41 $10,887 $100 $1,562$9,325$8,204 14%INSTITUTIONS:520 Elementary School (Private) student 1.89 ITE 10th Edition 2.94 0.71 2.09 2.5950% of LUC 210 based on Transp. Modeling 80%Based on LUC 710(adjusted)(5)1.35 $956 $9 $141$815$729 12%522 Middle/Junior High School (Private) student 2.13 ITE 10th Edition 2.94 0.71 2.09 2.5950% of LUC 210 based on Transp. Modeling 80%Based on LUC 710(adjusted)(5)1.52 $1,077 $10 $156$921$1,028 ‐10%530 High School (Private) student 2.03 ITE 10th Edition 2.94 0.71 2.092.5950% of LUC 210 based on Transp. Modeling 90% Based on LUC 710 1.63 $1,155 $11 $172$983$1,085 ‐9%University/Junior College (7,500 or fewer students)(Private) student 2.00ITE RegressionAnalysis 5.88 0.71 4.17 4.67 Same as LUC 210 90% Based on LUC 710 3.21 $2,270 $19 $297$1,973$1,748 13%University/Junior College (more than 7,500 students) (Private) student 1.50ITE RegressionAnalysis 5.88 0.71 4.17 4.67 Same as LUC 210 90% Based on LUC 710 2.41 $1,702 $14 $219$1,483$1,311 13%560 Church seat 0.44 ITE 10th Edition 3.91 0.71 2.78 3.28Midpoint of LUC 710 & LUC 820 (App. A) 90% Based on LUC 710 0.47 $333 $3 $47$286$348 ‐18%565 Day Care Center student 4.09 ITE 10th Edition 2.03 0.71 1.44 1.94 Appendix A: LUC 565 73% Appendix A: LUC 565 1.84 $1,300 $13 $203$1,097$1,026 7%210540/550 DRAFT   Tindale Oliver Collier County October 2019 D‐6 Road Impact Fee Update Study Table D‐2 (continued) Collier County – Calculated Road Impact Fee Schedule (Including Sales Tax Credit)  ITE LUC Land Use Unit Trip Rate Trip Rate SourceAssessableTrip LengthTrip Length Adjustment FactorAdjustedTrip LengthTotal Trip LengthTrip Length SourcePercentNew Trips % New Trips SourceNet VMT(1) TotalImpact CostAnnualGas TaxGas Tax CreditNet Road Impact FeeCurrent Road Impact Fee(2)% ChangeMEDICAL:610 Hospital 1,000 sf 10.72 ITE 10th Edition 5.88 0.71 4.17 4.67 Same as LUC 210 78%Midpoint ofLUC 310 & LUC 720 14.92 $10,543 $88 $1,375$9,168$9,889 ‐7%620 Nursing Home bed 3.02 Appendix A: LUC 620 2.59 0.71 1.84 2.34 Appendix A: LUC 620 89% Appendix A: LUC 620 2.12 $1,495 $14 $219$1,276$1,031 24%OFFICE:710 General Office 1,000 sf 9.74 ITE 10th Edition 5.15 0.71 3.66 4.16 Appendix A: LUC 710 92% Appendix A: LUC 710 14.04 $9,917 $84 $1,312$8,605$10,249 ‐16%Medical Office/Clinic 10,000 sq ft or less 1,000 sf 23.83Appendix A: LUC 720Small Medical/Dental 5.55 0.71 3.94 4.44 Appendix A: LUC 720 89% Appendix A: LUC 720 35.76 $25,267 $212 $3,312$21,955$19,443 13%Medical Office/Clinic greater than 10,000 sq ft 1,000 sf 34.12 Appendix A: LUC 720 5.55 0.71 3.94 4.44 Appendix A: LUC 720 89% Appendix A: LUC 720 51.21 $36,177 $303 $4,733$31,444$28,313 11%770 Business Park (Flex‐Space) 1,000 sf 12.65 Appendix A: LUC 770 5.38 0.71 3.82 4.32 Appendix A: LUC 770 89% Appendix A: LUC 770 18.41 $13,004 $109 $1,703$11,301$9,989 13%RETAIL:Retail 6,000 sfgla or less(6)1,000 sfgla 75.05 ITE 10th equation 1.12 0.71 0.80 1.30Appendix A: Fig. A‐1(6k sq ft) 39%Appendix A: Fig. A‐2(6k sq ft) 10.02 $7,080 $86 $1,343$5,737$5,697 1%Retail 6,001‐25,000 sfgla(6)1,000 sfgla 75.05 ITE 10th equation 1.58 0.71 1.12 1.62Appendix A: Fig. A‐1(25k sq ft) 50%Appendix A: Fig. A‐2(25k sq ft) 17.99 $12,708 $137 $2,140$10,568$10,676 ‐1%Retail greated than 25,000 sfgla(6)1,000 sfgla 37.75 ITE 10th edition 2.69 0.71 1.91 2.41Appendix A: Fig. A‐1(450k sq ft) 74%Appendix A: Fig. A‐2(450k sq ft) 22.84 $16,133 $151 $2,359$13,774$14,354 ‐4%840/ 841 New/Used Auto Sales 1,000 sf 24.58Appendix A:LUC 840/841 4.60 0.71 3.27 3.77Appendix A:LUC 840/841 79%Appendix A:LUC 840/841 27.18 $19,200 $165 $2,578$16,622$16,878 ‐2%849 Tire Superstore service bay 30.55 ITE 10th Edition 2.32 0.71 1.65 2.15Mid‐Point of LUC 944 and LUC 942 (App. A) 72%Same as LUC 942(Appendix A) 15.53 $10,974 $106 $1,656$9,318$8,178 14%850 Supermarket 1,000 sf 106.64 Appendix A: LUC 850 2.08 0.71 1.48 1.98Appendix A: LUC 850 56% Appendix A: LUC 850 37.83 $26,724 $266 $4,155$22,569$19,163 18%851 Convenience Market (24 hour) 1,000 sf 739.50 Appendix A: LUC 851 1.52 0.71 1.08 1.58 Appendix A: LUC 851 41% Appendix A: LUC 851 140.15 $99,011 $1,078 $16,841$82,170$69,707 18%862 Home Improvement Superstore 1,000 sf 30.74 ITE 10th Edition 2.340.71 1.66 2.16Appendix A: Fig. A‐1(150k sq ft) 65%Appendix A: Fig. A‐2(150k sq ft) 14.20 $10,029 $97 $1,515$8,514$7,483 14%880/881 Pharmacy with & without Drive‐Thru 1,000 sf 104.37Appendix A:LUC 880/881 2.08 0.71 1.48 1.98Appendix A:LUC 880/881 32%Appendix A:LUC 880/881 21.16 $14,946 $149 $2,328$12,618$10,165 24%890 Furniture Store 1,000 sf 6.26 Appendix A: LUC 890 4.05 0.71 2.88 3.38 Appendix A: LUC 890 78% Appendix A: LUC 890 6.02 $4,252 $37 $578$3,674$2,706 36%SERVICES:911 Bank/Savings Walk‐In(7)1,000 sf 59.39ITE 10th Edition(Adjusted) 2.46 0.71 1.75 2.25 Same as LUC 912 46% Same as LUC 912 20.46 $14,456 $138 $2,156$12,300$22,038 ‐44%912 Bank/Savings Drive‐In 1,000 sf 102.66 Appendix A: LUC 912 2.46 0.71 1.75 2.25 Appendix A: LUC 912 46% Appendix A: LUC 912 35.37 $24,988$239 $3,734$21,254$28,961 ‐27%930 Fast Casual Restaurant 1,000 sf 315.17 ITE 10th Edition 2.05 0.711.46 1.96 Same as LUC 934 58% Same as LUC 934 114.23 $80,698 $806 $12,591$68,107n/a n/a931 Low‐Turnover Restaurant seat 2.60 ITE 10th Edition 3.14 0.71 2.23 2.73 Appendix A: LUC 931 77% Appendix A: LUC 931 1.91 $1,350 $12 $187$1,163$1,130 3%932 High‐Turnover Restaurant seat 4.37 ITE 10th Edition 3.17 0.71 2.252.75 Appendix A: LUC 932 71% Appendix A: LUC 932 2.99 $2,111 $19 $297$1,814$1,758 3%934 Fast Food Restaurant w/Drive‐Thru 1,000 sf 482.53 Appendix A: LUC 934 2.05 0.71 1.46 1.96 Appendix A: LUC 934 58% Appendix A: LUC 934174.88 $123,550 $1,234 $19,278$104,272$96,567 8%934.1 Fast Food w/Drive‐Thru with Two Meals 1,000 sf 409.25 Local Studies (2011) 2.19 0.71 1.55 2.05 Local Studies (2011) 59% Local Studies (2011) 160.18 $113,165 $1,114 $17,403$95,762n/a n/a941 Quick Lube service bay 40.00 ITE 10th Edition 2.32 0.71 1.65 2.15Mid‐Point of LUC 944 & LUC 942 (App. A) 72%Same as LUC 942(Appendix A) 20.34 $14,369 $139 $2,171$12,198$10,697 14%944 Gas Station w/Convenience Market <2,000 sq ft fuel pos. 172.01ITE 10th Edition 1.01 0.71 0.72 1.22Appendix A:LUC 944/945 23%Appendix A:LUC 944/945 12.19 $8,613 $109 $1,703$6,910n/a n/a945 Gas Station w/Convenience Market 2,000‐2,999 sq ft fuel pos. 205.36 ITE 10th Edition 1.01 0.71 0.72 1.22Appendix A:LUC 944/945 23%Appendix A:LUC 944/945 14.56 $10,283 $130 $2,031$8,252n/a n/a960 Gas Station w/Convenience Market 3,000+ sq ft fuel pos. 230.52ITE 10th Edition 1.01 0.71 0.72 1.22 Same as LUC 945 23% Same as LUC 945 16.34 $11,543 $146 $2,281$9,262n/a n/a947 Self‐Service Car Wash service bay 43.94 Appendix A: LUC 947 2.180.71 1.55 2.05 Appendix A: LUC 947 68% Appendix A: LUC 947 19.82 $14,004 $138 $2,156$11,848$10,395 14%948 Automated Car Wash(8)1,000 sf 142.00ITE 10th Edition(Adjusted) 2.18 0.71 1.55 2.05 Same as LUC 947 68% Same as LUC 947 64.06 $45,255 $445 $6,952$38,303$33,398 15%720820 DRAFT   Tindale Oliver Collier County October 2019 D‐7 Road Impact Fee Update Study Table D‐2 (continued) Collier County – Calculated Road Impact Fee Schedule (Including Sales Tax Credit)  1) Net VMT calculated as ((Trip Generation Rate* Trip Length* % New Trips)*(1‐Interstate/Toll Facility Adjustment Factor)/2).  This reflects the unit of vehicle‐miles of capacity consumed per unit of development and is multiplied by the cost per vehicle 2) Source: Collier County Capital Project Planning, Impact Fees, and Program Management Division.  Residential Condo/Townhouse rate shown for LUC 231; High‐Rise Condo (3+ stories) rate shown for LUC 232; Retirement Community/Age‐Restricted Single Family rate shown for LUC 215 and LUC 252; Office 6,001‐100,000 sf rate shown for LUC 710; Retail 100,001‐150,000 sfgla rate shown for LUC 820 greater than 25,000 sfgla; Gas/Service Station with or w/o Car Wash rate shown for LUC 944, LUC 945, and LUC 960 3) The ITE 10th Edition trip generation rate for PM Peak Hour of Adjacent traffic was adjusted by the ratio of Daily to PM Peak Hour for LUC 231 to approximate a daily TGR  4) The ITE 10th Edition trip generation rate was adjusted to reflect the average occupancy rate of 60 percent based on data provided by the Florida Association of RV Parks and Campgrounds 5) The TGR for bundled golf course is estimated at 30 percent of the TGR for LUC 430 6) The trip generation rates recommended for retail are based off a 50,000 sfgla development for tiers 0‐6,000 and 6,001‐25,000 and based on 450,000 sfgla for the >25,000 sfgla option 7) The ITE 10th Edition trip generation rate for PM Peak Hour of Adjacent traffic was adjusted by the ratio of Daily to PM Peak Hour for LUC 912 to approximate a daily TGR 8) The ITE 10th Edition trip generation rate for PM Peak Hour of Adjacent traffic was adjusted by a factor of 10 to approximate the Daily TGR 9) The mines land use impact fee rate was calculated using and I/T adjustment factor if 27.3% and a fuel efficiency value of 6.2 gallons per mile based on the 2009 Collier County Mines Trip Characteristics Study, Tindale Oliver ITE LUC Land Use Unit Trip Rate Trip Rate SourceAssessableTrip LengthTrip Length Adjustment FactorAdjustedTrip LengthTotal Trip LengthTrip Length SourcePercentNew Trips % New Trips SourceNet VMT(1) TotalImpact CostAnnualGas TaxGas Tax CreditNet Road Impact FeeCurrent Road Impact Fee(2)% ChangeSERVICES:n/a Luxury Auto Sales 1,000 sf 16.30 Independent Studies 4.80 0.71 3.41 3.91 Independent Studies 85% Independent Studies 20.22 $14,286 $122 $1,906$12,380$10,947 13%INDUSTRIAL:110 General Light Industrial 1,000 sf 4.96 ITE 10th Edition 5.38 0.713.82 4.32 Same as LUC 770 92% Same as LUC 710 7.46 $5,271 $44 $687$4,584$5,700 ‐20%140 Manufacturing 1,000 sf 3.93 ITE 10th Edition 5.38 0.71 3.82 4.32 Same as LUC 770 92% Same as LUC 710 5.91 $4,176 $35 $547$3,629$3,122 16%150 Warehousing 1,000 sf 1.74 ITE 10th Edition 5.38 0.71 3.82 4.32 Same as LUC 770 92% Same as LUC 710 2.62 $1,849 $16 $250$1,599$2,904 ‐45%151 Mini‐Warehouse 1,000 sf 1.49 Appendix A: LUC 151 3.51 0.71 2.49 2.99Midpoint of LUC 710 & LUC 820 (<25k sq ft) 92% Same as LUC 710 1.46 $1,032 $9 $141$891$999 ‐11%n/a Mine(9)1,000 cy 0.01 Local Studies 14.82 0.71 10.52 11.02 Local Studies 97% Local Studies 0.04 $26 ‐ $12$14$8 75% Memorandum To: Development Services Advisory Committee (DSAC) From: Jeremy Frantz, LDC Manager Date: October 29, 2019 Re: Item VIII.B: Residential Lighting Land Development Code (LDC) amendment update The attached LDC amendment was previously reviewed by DSAC on February 6, 2019 and received a recommendation of denial. The Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) reviewed it twice; but no recommendation was made at either meeting. Since the last time DSAC reviewed this LDC amendment, staff revised the language to better address comments raised by stakeholders, the public, and the concerns expressed at the CCPC meetings. Additional outreach efforts that have occurred since the last time DSAC reviewed this LDC amendment included communication between staff and several community associations, with presentations made by staff to the Presidents Council and the Golden Gate Estates Area Civic Association. Feedback gained from these additional outreach efforts resulted in several key changes to the amendment, including but not limited to the following: using measurements that are easier to apply; restricting the applicability of the LDC amendment to the Estates (E) Zoning District only; addressing the safety concerns lighting can have if oriented towards traveling vehicles on abutting rights-of-way; and defining a maximum height for the lighting fixtures. Due to the significant changes that were made to the language since February, staff is providing this revised LDC amendment to DSAC, as a formal update and to allow for additional comment, if need be, to the CCPC and Board. The amendment is scheduled for re-review by the CCPC on November 21, 2019. 1 L:\LDC Amendments\Current Work\Residential Lighting (PL20180002632)\4.02.08 Outside Lighting Requirements 10-23-19.docx LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT PETITION PL20180002632 SUMMARY OF AMENDMENT This amendment establishes standards for new outdoor lighting associated with single-family dwelling units. These standards are intended to prevent high-intensity outdoor lighting from negatively impacting neighboring residential properties. LDC SECTION TO BE AMENDED 4.02.08 Outside Lighting Requirements ORIGIN Growth Management Department (GMD) HEARING DATES BCC TBD CCPC 11/21/2019 03/07/2019 02/07/2019 DSAC 11/06/2019 02/06/2019 DSAC-LDR 12/18/2018 10/16/2018 ADVISORY BOARD RECOMMENDATIONS DSAC-LDR Approval DSAC Denial CCPC TBD BACKGROUND Currently, there are no limitations in the Land Development Code with respect to outdoor lighting on residential properties with single-family dwellings. However, homeowners can purchase a variety of high intensity lighting fixtures at retail outlets which could have negative impact surrounding residential properties. The GMD has been unable to resolve complaints received by the Code Enforcement Division regarding outdoor residential lights shining toward neighboring homes. At the Board of County Commissioners (Board) meeting on March 13, 2018, a member of t he public requested an ordinance to address nuisance lighting on single-family properties (See Agenda Item 7). At the June 21, 2018, Budget Workshop, one Commissioner noted an awareness of lighting problems on residential properties, suggesting a need for County staff to address the issue. As a remedy, this amendment creates standards applicable to single-family homes in the Estates Zoning District. The amendment requires that outdoor lights that exceed certain wattage or lumens be oriented away from abutting properties and roadways. Additional performance standards are included to ensure that lighting orientation avoids direct impacts on neighboring properties or roadways, including a maximum lighting height of 20 feet. Several exemptions are also included to account for common but unobtrusive lighting scenarios. These standards represent a combination of lighting standards from nearby communities, including the City of Bonita Springs (See Exhibit A) and the Joint IDA-IES Model Lighting Ordinance (See excerpts in Exhibit B). Additionally, the amendment does not apply to commercial or multi-family residential development (three or more units). 2 L:\LDC Amendments\Current Work\Residential Lighting (PL20180002632)\4.02.08 Outside Lighting Requirements 10-23-19.docx Since a building permit is not typically required to install lighting fixtures for single-family dwellings, the proposed standards will be implemented through the code enforcement process when a complaint is issued. If a code violation is reported, homeowners could remedy a potential violation by repositioning the lights, using shielding, or installing new lighting fixtures that comply with the proposed standard. Examples of shielded fixtures are provided in Exhibit B. Other lighting requirements for single-family and multi-family development are provided for informational purposes in Exhibit C. Figure 1. Comparison of efficacy by power (Joint IDA-IES Model Lighting Ordinance, pg. 19) An explanation of all advisory board recommendations is provided in Exhibit D. FISCAL & OPERATIONAL IMPACTS This amendment could result in additional unexpected costs for homeowners by requiring them to replace light bulbs with lower lumens or to replace fixtures altogether. There are no anticipated fiscal impacts to the County associated with this amendment. The amendment will help the Code Enforcement Division to resolve some of the complaints regarding outdoor lighting. GMP CONSISTENCY In the limited areas where the Growth Management Plan (GMP) does address outdoor lighting, there is no specificity provided. Only the Conservation and Coastal Management Element (CCME) policies pertaining to wildlife protection, e.g. Policies 7.3.1 and 7.3.2 regarding sea turtles, may have applicability to the dwelling unit types addressed in this LDC amendment but, again, there is no specificity provided. Further, such lighting would have to comply with both this new LDC provision and the CCME policies. EXHIBITS: A) Lighting Standards in Other Communities, B) Excerpts from Joint IDA-IES Model Lighting Ordinance, C) Residential Lighting Standards, D) Advisory Board Recommendations DRAFT Text underlined is new text to be added Text strikethrough is current text to be deleted 3 L:\LDC Amendments\Current Work\Residential Lighting (PL20180002632)\4.02.08 Outside Lighting Requirements 10-23-19.docx Amend the LDC as follows: 4.02.08 - Outside Lighting Requirements 1 2 A. Lights on golf courses shall be located and designed so that no light is aimed directly 3 toward property designated residential, which is located within 200 feet of the source of 4 the light. 5 6 B. Specific height requirements in zoning districts. 7 8 1. GC—Twenty-five (25) feet 9 10 2. C-1—Twenty-five (25) feet 11 12 3. CF—Twenty-five (25) feet 13 14 C. Outdoor lights on Estates zoned lots with single-family dwellings. 15 16 1. Each outdoor light or fixture having an aggregate of more than 100 watts for 17 incandescent bulb types, 26 watts for compact fluorescent bulb types, or 18 watts 18 for LED bulb types shall be fully shielded, mounted, or aimed so that: 19 20 a) Light from luminaires does not enter the eye directly when viewed from 21 abutting properties or roadways; 22 23 b) The luminaire or fixture does not produce direct uplight (no light is emitted 24 above the horizontal plane of the light fixture); 25 26 c) The cone of light, including light from reflected surfaces, does not project 27 onto a neighboring property; and 28 29 d) The maximum height of lighting fixtures, whether mounted on poles, walls, 30 or by other means, shall be 20 feet as measured from the adjacent grade. 31 32 2. Exemptions. 33 34 a. Motion activated lighting that extinguishes the lights no more than five 35 minutes after the area is vacated. 36 37 b. Security lighting activated on a temporary basis for no more than 30 38 minutes. 39 40 c. Seasonal holiday lighting from November 15 through January 15 and not 41 more than 30 days use in any one calendar year for other times. 42 43 d. Underwater lighting in swimming pools and other water features. 44 45 # # # # # # # # # # # # #46 Exhibit A – Lighting Standards in Other Communities 4 L:\LDC Amendments\Current Work\Residential Lighting (PL20180002632)\4.02.08 Outside Lighting Requirements 10-23-19.docx Community Standard Citation City of Bonita Springs “1. Existing Outdoor Lighting. The following standards apply to existing outdoor lighting installed and in existence as of February 1, 2008. a. Luminaire Standards. The following standards apply to luminaire designs. i. All light fixtures shall have bulbs that are fully recessed within the fixture and may not emit light above horizontal plane; ii. The cone of light shall not project on to a neighboring property. … 2. New Outdoor Lighting. The following standards apply to new outdoor lighting installed after February 1, 2008, between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. a. Luminaire Standards. The following standards apply to luminaire designs. i. All light fixtures shall have bulbs that are fully recessed within the fixture and may not emit light above horizontal plane; ii. The cone of light shall not project on to a neighboring property; iii. All luminaires shall have a maximum lamp wattage of 100 watts for incandescent bulb types and 26 watts for compact fluorescent bulb types; iv. Solar lights are encouraged. v. Light from a luminaire that projects on to roadways that causes glare, annoyance, discomfort, or loss of visual ability shall not be permitted; vi. Lighting that is directed in such a manner as to shine light rays above the horizontal plane shall not be permitted; vii. Flashing or moving lights that change at intervals more frequently than once each six seconds shall not be permitted with the exception of low wattage decorative lighting fixtures (comprised by incandescent bulbs of less than 8 watts each or other lamps of output less than 100 lumens each) used for decoration; viii. Luminaires activated by motion detectors shall not remain on for more than 5 minutes and may not be activated by movement that occurs outside property boundaries.” Chapter 10 Art. III. Div. 3 Sec. 10-102 (d)(1)-(2) Exhibit A – Lighting Standards in Other Communities 5 L:\LDC Amendments\Current Work\Residential Lighting (PL20180002632)\4.02.08 Outside Lighting Requirements 10-23-19.docx City of Naples “(a) Permitted exterior lighting. Exterior lighting or light fixtures may be utilized at grade and at the 1st habitable floor of multifamily structures, provided that: (1) The lighting is confined to a front yard facing a public street, or to that portion of the facade facing a public street; and (2) The light source is directed only at the facade of the building. Lighting may also be utilized at grade to enhance landscape features. Exterior lighting shall be designed, arranged or shielded in such manner that all adjacent properties and the public roadways are protected from direct glare. (b) Prohibited lighting. The use of exterior lighting or light fixtures on any portion of the facade or roof of a multifamily structure above the 1st habitable floor shall not be permitted. (c) Exemptions. Warning lights, as required by state or federal agencies, and exterior lights used exclusively for and associated with outdoor walkways, stairs, hallways, pool areas, and living spaces such as balconies, terraces, screened porches, and similar spaces shall be exempt from the requirement as listed in subsection (b) of this section. Nonpermanent lighting, used exclusively during the holiday period from November 15 to January 15, is also excluded from this prohibition. (d) Nonconforming lighting. Nonconforming multifamily structures shall be brought into conformance with this section by April 30, 1998.” Chapter 56 Art. III Sec. 56-89 Exhibit A – Lighting Standards in Other Communities 6 L:\LDC Amendments\Current Work\Residential Lighting (PL20180002632)\4.02.08 Outside Lighting Requirements 10-23-19.docx City of St. Augustine Beach Sec. 4. - Wall treatments, applied decoration. (a) Window area. The maximum window area pervious to interior lighting shall be ten (10) percent of exterior wall area. (b) Wall treatment. Wall treatment shall generally be lusterless and shall not contain areas illuminated by neon or similar lighting, murals, paintings, reflective surfaces, or other areas designed or intended to attract attention to the structure, provided that temporary seasonal holiday signs or lights may be permitted consistent with the requirements of the "Nights of Lights" celebration of the City of St. Augustine or emphasizing historic American holidays, meaning those days made a public holiday by the laws of Florida, the laws of the United States or by resolution of the city commission. (c) Lighting. The maximum height for all site lighting shall be eighteen (18) feet. All exterior lighting fixtures shall be oriented and designed so as not to interfere or distract attention of the drivers of vehicles upon adjacent streets or highways. All exterior lighting fixtures shall be shielded so as not to allow a direct light source to be visible on any adjacent residential property. Light spillage from within a building or reflected from surfaces of building shall be fully buffered by landscape so as not to impact adjacent residential properties. Article XIII Appendix A. Sec. 4 Lee County (Upper Captiva Planning Area) “All outdoor lighting, including lighting on docks and bulkheads, must be designed, installed, located, and maintained to be hooded, shielded, and/or aimed downward.” Art. XI Division 4 Sec. 33-1736 City of Sanibel “All exterior lighting shall be designed and installed to prevent glare and light trespass. Light shall not be allowed to cause glare affecting motorists, bicyclists, or other users of roads, driveways and bicycle paths. Light shall not trespass over property lines.” (More detailed standards follow this section) Art. XIV Div. 4 Sec. 12-997 (c) Marco Island “(a) Regulation of the intensity and glare of outdoor lighting shall be as follows: (1) No lighting source shall cause more than 1.0 footcandle of illumination to fall on adjoining residential single-family (RSF) zoned property.” (Additional shielding standards follow this section) Chapter 6 Art. V Sec. 6-145 Exhibit A – Lighting Standards in Other Communities 7 L:\LDC Amendments\Current Work\Residential Lighting (PL20180002632)\4.02.08 Outside Lighting Requirements 10-23-19.docx Volusia County No person may install, construct, erect, maintain, or control any outdoor lighting or outdoor lighting fixture on a residential structure, or on its surrounding premises, which directly illuminates beyond the adjacent residential structure's property line, between sunset and sunrise. For the purposes of this section, adjacent property shall include all property within 360 degrees of the subject property, notwithstanding an intervening right-of-way. For the purposes of this section, property line shall be an invisible plane extending vertically at a 90-degree angle from ground level to a point above the height of the highest structure on either the subject property or the adjacent property. Sec. 50-480 Exhibit B – Excerpts from Joint IDA-IES Model Lighting Ordinance 8 L:\LDC Amendments\Current Work\Residential Lighting (PL20180002632)\4.02.08 Outside Lighting Requirements 10-23-19.docx Exhibit B – Excerpts from Joint IDA-IES Model Lighting Ordinance 9 L:\LDC Amendments\Current Work\Residential Lighting (PL20180002632)\4.02.08 Outside Lighting Requirements 10-23-19.docx Exhibit B – Excerpts from Joint IDA-IES Model Lighting Ordinance 10 L:\LDC Amendments\Current Work\Residential Lighting (PL20180002632)\4.02.08 Outside Lighting Requirements 10-23-19.docx Exhibit B – Excerpts from Joint IDA-IES Model Lighting Ordinance 11 L:\LDC Amendments\Current Work\Residential Lighting (PL20180002632)\4.02.08 Outside Lighting Requirements 10-23-19.docx Exhibit B – Excerpts from Joint IDA-IES Model Lighting Ordinance 12 L:\LDC Amendments\Current Work\Residential Lighting (PL20180002632)\4.02.08 Outside Lighting Requirements 10-23-19.docx Exhibit B – Excerpts from Joint IDA-IES Model Lighting Ordinance 13 L:\LDC Amendments\Current Work\Residential Lighting (PL20180002632)\4.02.08 Outside Lighting Requirements 10-23-19.docx Exhibit B – Excerpts from Joint IDA-IES Model Lighting Ordinance 14 L:\LDC Amendments\Current Work\Residential Lighting (PL20180002632)\4.02.08 Outside Lighting Requirements 10-23-19.docx Exhibit B – Excerpts from Joint IDA-IES Model Lighting Ordinance 15 L:\LDC Amendments\Current Work\Residential Lighting (PL20180002632)\4.02.08 Outside Lighting Requirements 10-23-19.docx Exhibit C – Residential Lighting Standards 16 L:\LDC Amendments\Current Work\Residential Lighting (PL20180002632)\4.02.08 Outside Lighting Requirements 10-23-19.docx National Electrical Code- Article 210 Branch Circuits (Applicable to single- and multi-family development) 210.70 – Lighting Outlets Required (A) Dwelling Units (2) Additional Locations. Additional lighting outlets shall be installed in accordance with (A)(2)(a), (A)(2)(b) and (A)(2)(c). (a) (not applicable) (b) For dwelling units, attached garages, and detached garages with electrical power, at least one wall switch-controlled lighting outlet shall be installed to provide illumination on the exterior side of outdoor entrances or exits with grade level access. A vehicle door in a garage shall not be considered as an outdoor entrance or exit. (c) Where one or more lighting outlet(s) are installed for interior stairways, there shall be a wall switch at each floor level, and landing level that includes an entryway, to control the lighting outlet(s) where the stairway between floor levels has six risers or more. * * * * * * * * * * * * * Collier County LDC 4.05.02 D. – Design Standards (Off-Street Parking and Loading) (Applicable to residential development with off-street parking) Parking lots shall be so lighted, if lighted, as to shield streets and all adjacent properties from direct glare, excessive light, and hazardous interference with automotive and pedestrian traffic. For projects subject to architectural design standards, see LDC section 5.05.08 F. for related provisions. * * * * * * * * * * * * * 6.06.03 – Streetlights (Applicable to streetlights only) A. Streetlights shall be designed and installed utilizing the IES standards for each street, intersection at required intervals along each street and at the end of each cul-de-sac. The IES standards for this street lighting are per IESNA RP 8.00, except as below: B. At the entry/exit of any residential or commercial development approved through a SDP, SDPA, or PPL located on a public collector or arterial street, the following additional standards shall apply. For projects subject to architectural design standards, see LDC section 5.05.08 F. for related provisions. 1. At the points where the edges of pavement of the entrance road meet the intersecting right-of-way line, the illumination level shall be at or between, a minimum of 2.0 foot candles and maximum of 5.0 foot candles. In cases when this Code may conflict with any other lighting codes, requirements, policies, or recommendations relating to the Exhibit C – Residential Lighting Standards 17 L:\LDC Amendments\Current Work\Residential Lighting (PL20180002632)\4.02.08 Outside Lighting Requirements 10-23-19.docx spillover of light outside of project boundaries, public safety needs shall be evaluated by staff and shall take precedence in the required placement of fixtures. 1. A full cutoff fixture is required on both sides of each entry or exit outside of the intersecting public right-of-way except when located at a single-lane one-way driveway. In such case, one (1) fixture will be allowed but it shall meet minimum required foot- candle values. If the applicant can show the existing illumination levels from existing roadway lighting meet the required foot candles through a photometric lighting plan (calculated or by field measurement) certified by an engineer, licensed in the State of Florida, the county manager or designee may waive or modify the requirement for additional lighting at the point where the entry road intersects the public right-of-way. C. All sidewalks not directly lighted by street lighting that interconnect developments must be lighted to pedestrian level standards per IESNA RP-8-00. D. Wherever, in the opinion of the County Manager or designee, based on an engineer's determination, a dangerous condition is created by sharp curves, irregularities in street alignment, or other similar circumstances, additional lights may be required. Streetlights and mounting poles shall be wired for underground service. All conduits and casing to be placed under the roadway required for the lights must be installed during each construction phase prior to roadway subbase completion. Streetlights shall be designed and installed in either of 2 ways: 1. Where streetlights are to be installed on private streets, the developer, through an electrical engineer registered in the State of Florida, shall design and install the street lighting system subject to the approval of the County Manager or designee. Upon completion of the streetlights, they shall be owned, operated, and maintained by the property owners' association, a condominium association, cooperative association, or other similar entity, or the public utility furnishing the electric service. 2. Where the streetlights are to be installed on public streets, the developer may elect to initiate a municipal services benefit or taxing unit in coordination with the County Manager or designee in order to provide street lighting. If the municipal services benefit or taxing unit is approved by the BCC, the County Manager or designee shall authorize the public utility to design, install, and maintain the street lighting system at no cost to the County's general fund. If no municipal services benefit or taxing unit is created for public streets, the provision of this section shall govern the design, construction, and maintenance of streetlights. Exhibit D – Advisory Board Recommendations 18 L:\LDC Amendments\Current Work\Residential Lighting (PL20180002632)\4.02.08 Outside Lighting Requirements 10-23-19.docx DSAC-LDR Subcommittee Recommendation The DSAC-LDR Subcommittee reviewed a previous version of this amendment on October 16, and December 18, 2018, and recommended approval with no changes to the amendment. DSAC Recommendation The DSAC reviewed a previous version of this amendment on February 6, 2019, and recommended denial but indicated it was amenable to several changes to the amendment, including: • Increasing the wattage of lighting to which the provision is applicable, • Clarifying the ambiguity regarding the direction of lights, and • Allowing timers and motion sensors to be used to comply with the new standards. CCPC Recommendation The CCPC reviewed the amendment on February 7, 2019, and recommended modifying the standards to address higher lighting levels and provide foot-candle standards that will be easier to enforce. Additionally, the CCPC suggested requiring shielding and to consider the differences in ambient lighting in urban and rural settings when establishing maximum light levels. The CCPC reviewed the amendment again on March 7, 2019, however, it was determined that a footcandle standard may not be effective on small sites. Staff requested additional time to revise the amendment and the CCPC recommended using standards from other communities and the Joint IDA-IES Model Lighting Ordinance. Page 1 of 1 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE AGENDA November 6, 2019 3:00 p.m. Conference Room 610 NOTICE: Persons wishing to speak on any Agenda item will receive up to three (3) minutes unless the Chairman adjusts the time. Speakers are required to fill out a “Speaker Request Form,” list the topic they wish to address and hand it to the Staff member seated at the table before the meeting begins. Please wait to be recognized by the Chairman and speak into a microphone. State your name and affiliation before commenting. During the discussion, Committee Members may direct questions to the speaker. Please silence cell phones and digital devices. There may not be a break in this meeting. Please leave the room to conduct any personal business. All parties participating in the public meeting are to observe Roberts Rules of Order and wait to be recognized by the Chairman. Please speak one at a time and into the microphone so the Hearing Reporter can record all statements being made. I. Call to Order – Chairman II. Approval of Agenda III. Approval of Minutes from October 2, 2019 IV. DSAC Position Vacancy Review & Vote 1. Laura DeJohn Category: Land Planner 2. Blair Foley Category: Civil Engineer 3. John English Category: Civil Engineer 4. Norman Gentry Category: General Contractor 5. Mario Valle Category: Residential/Commercial Construction 6. Marco Espinar Category: Consultant/Biologist V. Public Speakers VI. Staff Announcements/Updates A. Code Enforcement Division update – [Mike Ossorio] B. Public Utilities Department update – [Eric Fey or designee] C. Growth Management Department Transportation Engineering Division & Planning Division updates – [Jay Ahmad or designee] D. Collier County Fire Review update – [Shar Beddow or Shawn Hanson] E. North Collier Fire Review update – [Capt. Sean Lintz or Daniel Zunzunegui] F. Operations & Regulatory Mgmt. Division update – [Ken Kovensky] G. Development Review Division update – [Matt McLean] VII. New Business VIII. Old Business A. Review Transportation Impact Fee Update Study [Amy Patterson] B. Residential Lighting LDC amendment update [Jeremy Frantz] IX. Committee Member Comments X. Adjourn Next Meeting Dates: December 4, 2019 GMD conference Room 610 – 3:00 pm January 1, 2020 “Cancel” County offices closed February 5, 2020 GMD conference Room 610 – 3:00 pm March 4, 2020 GMD conference Room 610 – 3:00 pm Memorandum To: Development Services Advisory Committee (DSAC) From: Jeremy Frantz, LDC Manager Date: October 29, 2019 Re: Item VIII.B: Residential Lighting Land Development Code (LDC) amendment update The attached LDC amendment was previously reviewed by DSAC on February 6, 2019 and received a recommendation of denial. The Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) reviewed it twice; but no recommendation was made at either meeting. Since the last time DSAC reviewed this LDC amendment, staff revised the language to better address comments raised by stakeholders, the public, and the concerns expressed at the CCPC meetings. Additional outreach efforts that have occurred since the last time DSAC reviewed this LDC amendment included communication between staff and several community associations, with presentations made by staff to the Presidents Council and the Golden Gate Estates Area Civic Association. Feedback gained from these additional outreach efforts resulted in several key changes to the amendment, including but not limited to the following: using measurements that are easier to apply; restricting the applicability of the LDC amendment to the Estates (E) Zoning District only; addressing the safety concerns lighting can have if oriented towards traveling vehicles on abutting rights-of-way; and defining a maximum height for the lighting fixtures. Due to the significant changes that were made to the language since February, staff is providing this revised LDC amendment to DSAC, as a formal update and to allow for additional comment, if need be, to the CCPC and Board. The amendment is scheduled for re-review by the CCPC on November 21, 2019. 1 L:\LDC Amendments\Current Work\Residential Lighting (PL20180002632)\4.02.08 Outside Lighting Requirements 10-23-19.docx LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT PETITION PL20180002632 SUMMARY OF AMENDMENT This amendment establishes standards for new outdoor lighting associated with single-family dwelling units. These standards are intended to prevent high-intensity outdoor lighting from negatively impacting neighboring residential properties. LDC SECTION TO BE AMENDED 4.02.08 Outside Lighting Requirements ORIGIN Growth Management Department (GMD) HEARING DATES BCC TBD CCPC 11/21/2019 03/07/2019 02/07/2019 DSAC 11/06/2019 02/06/2019 DSAC-LDR 12/18/2018 10/16/2018 ADVISORY BOARD RECOMMENDATIONS DSAC-LDR Approval DSAC Denial CCPC TBD BACKGROUND Currently, there are no limitations in the Land Development Code with respect to outdoor lighting on residential properties with single-family dwellings. However, homeowners can purchase a variety of high intensity lighting fixtures at retail outlets which could have negative impact surrounding residential properties. The GMD has been unable to resolve complaints received by the Code Enforcement Division regarding outdoor residential lights shining toward neighboring homes. At the Board of County Commissioners (Board) meeting on March 13, 2018, a member of t he public requested an ordinance to address nuisance lighting on single-family properties (See Agenda Item 7). At the June 21, 2018, Budget Workshop, one Commissioner noted an awareness of lighting problems on residential properties, suggesting a need for County staff to address the issue. As a remedy, this amendment creates standards applicable to single-family homes in the Estates Zoning District. The amendment requires that outdoor lights that exceed certain wattage or lumens be oriented away from abutting properties and roadways. Additional performance standards are included to ensure that lighting orientation avoids direct impacts on neighboring properties or roadways, including a maximum lighting height of 20 feet. Several exemptions are also included to account for common but unobtrusive lighting scenarios. These standards represent a combination of lighting standards from nearby communities, including the City of Bonita Springs (See Exhibit A) and the Joint IDA-IES Model Lighting Ordinance (See excerpts in Exhibit B). Additionally, the amendment does not apply to commercial or multi-family residential development (three or more units). 2 L:\LDC Amendments\Current Work\Residential Lighting (PL20180002632)\4.02.08 Outside Lighting Requirements 10-23-19.docx Since a building permit is not typically required to install lighting fixtures for single-family dwellings, the proposed standards will be implemented through the code enforcement process when a complaint is issued. If a code violation is reported, homeowners could remedy a potential violation by repositioning the lights, using shielding, or installing new lighting fixtures that comply with the proposed standard. Examples of shielded fixtures are provided in Exhibit B. Other lighting requirements for single-family and multi-family development are provided for informational purposes in Exhibit C. Figure 1. Comparison of efficacy by power (Joint IDA-IES Model Lighting Ordinance, pg. 19) An explanation of all advisory board recommendations is provided in Exhibit D. FISCAL & OPERATIONAL IMPACTS This amendment could result in additional unexpected costs for homeowners by requiring them to replace light bulbs with lower lumens or to replace fixtures altogether. There are no anticipated fiscal impacts to the County associated with this amendment. The amendment will help the Code Enforcement Division to resolve some of the complaints regarding outdoor lighting. GMP CONSISTENCY In the limited areas where the Growth Management Plan (GMP) does address outdoor lighting, there is no specificity provided. Only the Conservation and Coastal Management Element (CCME) policies pertaining to wildlife protection, e.g. Policies 7.3.1 and 7.3.2 regarding sea turtles, may have applicability to the dwelling unit types addressed in this LDC amendment but, again, there is no specificity provided. Further, such lighting would have to comply with both this new LDC provision and the CCME policies. EXHIBITS: A) Lighting Standards in Other Communities, B) Excerpts from Joint IDA-IES Model Lighting Ordinance, C) Residential Lighting Standards, D) Advisory Board Recommendations DRAFT Text underlined is new text to be added Text strikethrough is current text to be deleted 3 L:\LDC Amendments\Current Work\Residential Lighting (PL20180002632)\4.02.08 Outside Lighting Requirements 10-23-19.docx Amend the LDC as follows: 4.02.08 - Outside Lighting Requirements 1 2 A. Lights on golf courses shall be located and designed so that no light is aimed directly 3 toward property designated residential, which is located within 200 feet of the source of 4 the light. 5 6 B. Specific height requirements in zoning districts. 7 8 1. GC—Twenty-five (25) feet 9 10 2. C-1—Twenty-five (25) feet 11 12 3. CF—Twenty-five (25) feet 13 14 C. Outdoor lights on Estates zoned lots with single-family dwellings. 15 16 1. Each outdoor light or fixture having an aggregate of more than 100 watts for 17 incandescent bulb types, 26 watts for compact fluorescent bulb types, or 18 watts 18 for LED bulb types shall be fully shielded, mounted, or aimed so that: 19 20 a) Light from luminaires does not enter the eye directly when viewed from 21 abutting properties or roadways; 22 23 b) The luminaire or fixture does not produce direct uplight (no light is emitted 24 above the horizontal plane of the light fixture); 25 26 c) The cone of light, including light from reflected surfaces, does not project 27 onto a neighboring property; and 28 29 d) The maximum height of lighting fixtures, whether mounted on poles, walls, 30 or by other means, shall be 20 feet as measured from the adjacent grade. 31 32 2. Exemptions. 33 34 a. Motion activated lighting that extinguishes the lights no more than five 35 minutes after the area is vacated. 36 37 b. Security lighting activated on a temporary basis for no more than 30 38 minutes. 39 40 c. Seasonal holiday lighting from November 15 through January 15 and not 41 more than 30 days use in any one calendar year for other times. 42 43 d. Underwater lighting in swimming pools and other water features. 44 45 # # # # # # # # # # # # #46 Exhibit A – Lighting Standards in Other Communities 4 L:\LDC Amendments\Current Work\Residential Lighting (PL20180002632)\4.02.08 Outside Lighting Requirements 10-23-19.docx Community Standard Citation City of Bonita Springs “1. Existing Outdoor Lighting. The following standards apply to existing outdoor lighting installed and in existence as of February 1, 2008. a. Luminaire Standards. The following standards apply to luminaire designs. i. All light fixtures shall have bulbs that are fully recessed within the fixture and may not emit light above horizontal plane; ii. The cone of light shall not project on to a neighboring property. … 2. New Outdoor Lighting. The following standards apply to new outdoor lighting installed after February 1, 2008, between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. a. Luminaire Standards. The following standards apply to luminaire designs. i. All light fixtures shall have bulbs that are fully recessed within the fixture and may not emit light above horizontal plane; ii. The cone of light shall not project on to a neighboring property; iii. All luminaires shall have a maximum lamp wattage of 100 watts for incandescent bulb types and 26 watts for compact fluorescent bulb types; iv. Solar lights are encouraged. v. Light from a luminaire that projects on to roadways that causes glare, annoyance, discomfort, or loss of visual ability shall not be permitted; vi. Lighting that is directed in such a manner as to shine light rays above the horizontal plane shall not be permitted; vii. Flashing or moving lights that change at intervals more frequently than once each six seconds shall not be permitted with the exception of low wattage decorative lighting fixtures (comprised by incandescent bulbs of less than 8 watts each or other lamps of output less than 100 lumens each) used for decoration; viii. Luminaires activated by motion detectors shall not remain on for more than 5 minutes and may not be activated by movement that occurs outside property boundaries.” Chapter 10 Art. III. Div. 3 Sec. 10-102 (d)(1)-(2) Exhibit A – Lighting Standards in Other Communities 5 L:\LDC Amendments\Current Work\Residential Lighting (PL20180002632)\4.02.08 Outside Lighting Requirements 10-23-19.docx City of Naples “(a) Permitted exterior lighting. Exterior lighting or light fixtures may be utilized at grade and at the 1st habitable floor of multifamily structures, provided that: (1) The lighting is confined to a front yard facing a public street, or to that portion of the facade facing a public street; and (2) The light source is directed only at the facade of the building. Lighting may also be utilized at grade to enhance landscape features. Exterior lighting shall be designed, arranged or shielded in such manner that all adjacent properties and the public roadways are protected from direct glare. (b) Prohibited lighting. The use of exterior lighting or light fixtures on any portion of the facade or roof of a multifamily structure above the 1st habitable floor shall not be permitted. (c) Exemptions. Warning lights, as required by state or federal agencies, and exterior lights used exclusively for and associated with outdoor walkways, stairs, hallways, pool areas, and living spaces such as balconies, terraces, screened porches, and similar spaces shall be exempt from the requirement as listed in subsection (b) of this section. Nonpermanent lighting, used exclusively during the holiday period from November 15 to January 15, is also excluded from this prohibition. (d) Nonconforming lighting. Nonconforming multifamily structures shall be brought into conformance with this section by April 30, 1998.” Chapter 56 Art. III Sec. 56-89 Exhibit A – Lighting Standards in Other Communities 6 L:\LDC Amendments\Current Work\Residential Lighting (PL20180002632)\4.02.08 Outside Lighting Requirements 10-23-19.docx City of St. Augustine Beach Sec. 4. - Wall treatments, applied decoration. (a) Window area. The maximum window area pervious to interior lighting shall be ten (10) percent of exterior wall area. (b) Wall treatment. Wall treatment shall generally be lusterless and shall not contain areas illuminated by neon or similar lighting, murals, paintings, reflective surfaces, or other areas designed or intended to attract attention to the structure, provided that temporary seasonal holiday signs or lights may be permitted consistent with the requirements of the "Nights of Lights" celebration of the City of St. Augustine or emphasizing historic American holidays, meaning those days made a public holiday by the laws of Florida, the laws of the United States or by resolution of the city commission. (c) Lighting. The maximum height for all site lighting shall be eighteen (18) feet. All exterior lighting fixtures shall be oriented and designed so as not to interfere or distract attention of the drivers of vehicles upon adjacent streets or highways. All exterior lighting fixtures shall be shielded so as not to allow a direct light source to be visible on any adjacent residential property. Light spillage from within a building or reflected from surfaces of building shall be fully buffered by landscape so as not to impact adjacent residential properties. Article XIII Appendix A. Sec. 4 Lee County (Upper Captiva Planning Area) “All outdoor lighting, including lighting on docks and bulkheads, must be designed, installed, located, and maintained to be hooded, shielded, and/or aimed downward.” Art. XI Division 4 Sec. 33-1736 City of Sanibel “All exterior lighting shall be designed and installed to prevent glare and light trespass. Light shall not be allowed to cause glare affecting motorists, bicyclists, or other users of roads, driveways and bicycle paths. Light shall not trespass over property lines.” (More detailed standards follow this section) Art. XIV Div. 4 Sec. 12-997 (c) Marco Island “(a) Regulation of the intensity and glare of outdoor lighting shall be as follows: (1) No lighting source shall cause more than 1.0 footcandle of illumination to fall on adjoining residential single-family (RSF) zoned property.” (Additional shielding standards follow this section) Chapter 6 Art. V Sec. 6-145 Exhibit A – Lighting Standards in Other Communities 7 L:\LDC Amendments\Current Work\Residential Lighting (PL20180002632)\4.02.08 Outside Lighting Requirements 10-23-19.docx Volusia County No person may install, construct, erect, maintain, or control any outdoor lighting or outdoor lighting fixture on a residential structure, or on its surrounding premises, which directly illuminates beyond the adjacent residential structure's property line, between sunset and sunrise. For the purposes of this section, adjacent property shall include all property within 360 degrees of the subject property, notwithstanding an intervening right-of-way. For the purposes of this section, property line shall be an invisible plane extending vertically at a 90-degree angle from ground level to a point above the height of the highest structure on either the subject property or the adjacent property. Sec. 50-480 Exhibit B – Excerpts from Joint IDA-IES Model Lighting Ordinance 8 L:\LDC Amendments\Current Work\Residential Lighting (PL20180002632)\4.02.08 Outside Lighting Requirements 10-23-19.docx Exhibit B – Excerpts from Joint IDA-IES Model Lighting Ordinance 9 L:\LDC Amendments\Current Work\Residential Lighting (PL20180002632)\4.02.08 Outside Lighting Requirements 10-23-19.docx Exhibit B – Excerpts from Joint IDA-IES Model Lighting Ordinance 10 L:\LDC Amendments\Current Work\Residential Lighting (PL20180002632)\4.02.08 Outside Lighting Requirements 10-23-19.docx Exhibit B – Excerpts from Joint IDA-IES Model Lighting Ordinance 11 L:\LDC Amendments\Current Work\Residential Lighting (PL20180002632)\4.02.08 Outside Lighting Requirements 10-23-19.docx Exhibit B – Excerpts from Joint IDA-IES Model Lighting Ordinance 12 L:\LDC Amendments\Current Work\Residential Lighting (PL20180002632)\4.02.08 Outside Lighting Requirements 10-23-19.docx Exhibit B – Excerpts from Joint IDA-IES Model Lighting Ordinance 13 L:\LDC Amendments\Current Work\Residential Lighting (PL20180002632)\4.02.08 Outside Lighting Requirements 10-23-19.docx Exhibit B – Excerpts from Joint IDA-IES Model Lighting Ordinance 14 L:\LDC Amendments\Current Work\Residential Lighting (PL20180002632)\4.02.08 Outside Lighting Requirements 10-23-19.docx Exhibit B – Excerpts from Joint IDA-IES Model Lighting Ordinance 15 L:\LDC Amendments\Current Work\Residential Lighting (PL20180002632)\4.02.08 Outside Lighting Requirements 10-23-19.docx Exhibit C – Residential Lighting Standards 16 L:\LDC Amendments\Current Work\Residential Lighting (PL20180002632)\4.02.08 Outside Lighting Requirements 10-23-19.docx National Electrical Code- Article 210 Branch Circuits (Applicable to single- and multi-family development) 210.70 – Lighting Outlets Required (A) Dwelling Units (2) Additional Locations. Additional lighting outlets shall be installed in accordance with (A)(2)(a), (A)(2)(b) and (A)(2)(c). (a) (not applicable) (b) For dwelling units, attached garages, and detached garages with electrical power, at least one wall switch-controlled lighting outlet shall be installed to provide illumination on the exterior side of outdoor entrances or exits with grade level access. A vehicle door in a garage shall not be considered as an outdoor entrance or exit. (c) Where one or more lighting outlet(s) are installed for interior stairways, there shall be a wall switch at each floor level, and landing level that includes an entryway, to control the lighting outlet(s) where the stairway between floor levels has six risers or more. * * * * * * * * * * * * * Collier County LDC 4.05.02 D. – Design Standards (Off-Street Parking and Loading) (Applicable to residential development with off-street parking) Parking lots shall be so lighted, if lighted, as to shield streets and all adjacent properties from direct glare, excessive light, and hazardous interference with automotive and pedestrian traffic. For projects subject to architectural design standards, see LDC section 5.05.08 F. for related provisions. * * * * * * * * * * * * * 6.06.03 – Streetlights (Applicable to streetlights only) A. Streetlights shall be designed and installed utilizing the IES standards for each street, intersection at required intervals along each street and at the end of each cul-de-sac. The IES standards for this street lighting are per IESNA RP 8.00, except as below: B. At the entry/exit of any residential or commercial development approved through a SDP, SDPA, or PPL located on a public collector or arterial street, the following additional standards shall apply. For projects subject to architectural design standards, see LDC section 5.05.08 F. for related provisions. 1. At the points where the edges of pavement of the entrance road meet the intersecting right-of-way line, the illumination level shall be at or between, a minimum of 2.0 foot candles and maximum of 5.0 foot candles. In cases when this Code may conflict with any other lighting codes, requirements, policies, or recommendations relating to the Exhibit C – Residential Lighting Standards 17 L:\LDC Amendments\Current Work\Residential Lighting (PL20180002632)\4.02.08 Outside Lighting Requirements 10-23-19.docx spillover of light outside of project boundaries, public safety needs shall be evaluated by staff and shall take precedence in the required placement of fixtures. 1. A full cutoff fixture is required on both sides of each entry or exit outside of the intersecting public right-of-way except when located at a single-lane one-way driveway. In such case, one (1) fixture will be allowed but it shall meet minimum required foot- candle values. If the applicant can show the existing illumination levels from existing roadway lighting meet the required foot candles through a photometric lighting plan (calculated or by field measurement) certified by an engineer, licensed in the State of Florida, the county manager or designee may waive or modify the requirement for additional lighting at the point where the entry road intersects the public right-of-way. C. All sidewalks not directly lighted by street lighting that interconnect developments must be lighted to pedestrian level standards per IESNA RP-8-00. D. Wherever, in the opinion of the County Manager or designee, based on an engineer's determination, a dangerous condition is created by sharp curves, irregularities in street alignment, or other similar circumstances, additional lights may be required. Streetlights and mounting poles shall be wired for underground service. All conduits and casing to be placed under the roadway required for the lights must be installed during each construction phase prior to roadway subbase completion. Streetlights shall be designed and installed in either of 2 ways: 1. Where streetlights are to be installed on private streets, the developer, through an electrical engineer registered in the State of Florida, shall design and install the street lighting system subject to the approval of the County Manager or designee. Upon completion of the streetlights, they shall be owned, operated, and maintained by the property owners' association, a condominium association, cooperative association, or other similar entity, or the public utility furnishing the electric service. 2. Where the streetlights are to be installed on public streets, the developer may elect to initiate a municipal services benefit or taxing unit in coordination with the County Manager or designee in order to provide street lighting. If the municipal services benefit or taxing unit is approved by the BCC, the County Manager or designee shall authorize the public utility to design, install, and maintain the street lighting system at no cost to the County's general fund. If no municipal services benefit or taxing unit is created for public streets, the provision of this section shall govern the design, construction, and maintenance of streetlights. Exhibit D – Advisory Board Recommendations 18 L:\LDC Amendments\Current Work\Residential Lighting (PL20180002632)\4.02.08 Outside Lighting Requirements 10-23-19.docx DSAC-LDR Subcommittee Recommendation The DSAC-LDR Subcommittee reviewed a previous version of this amendment on October 16, and December 18, 2018, and recommended approval with no changes to the amendment. DSAC Recommendation The DSAC reviewed a previous version of this amendment on February 6, 2019, and recommended denial but indicated it was amenable to several changes to the amendment, including: • Increasing the wattage of lighting to which the provision is applicable, • Clarifying the ambiguity regarding the direction of lights, and • Allowing timers and motion sensors to be used to comply with the new standards. CCPC Recommendation The CCPC reviewed the amendment on February 7, 2019, and recommended modifying the standards to address higher lighting levels and provide foot-candle standards that will be easier to enforce. Additionally, the CCPC suggested requiring shielding and to consider the differences in ambient lighting in urban and rural settings when establishing maximum light levels. The CCPC reviewed the amendment again on March 7, 2019, however, it was determined that a footcandle standard may not be effective on small sites. Staff requested additional time to revise the amendment and the CCPC recommended using standards from other communities and the Joint IDA-IES Model Lighting Ordinance.