Agenda 07/08/2025 Item #16F 8 (School Impact Fee calculations for the Teale Project)7/8/2025
Item # 16.F.8
ID# 2025-2181
Executive Summary
Recommendation to approve the use of a blended Student Generation Rate (SGR) of 0.016 for school impact fee
calculations for the Teale Project, based on the findings of an alternative school impact fee study submitted by The Teale
Golden Gate, LLC, (Developer), in accordance with Section 74-204 of the Collier County Code of Ordinances and to
authorize the Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners to execute a developer agreement between Collier
County and the Developer, which establishes the application of the blended SGR and a post-occupancy monitoring and
reconciliation process to verify actual student generation and ensure school impact fees collected are proportionate to the
development’s impact.
OBJECTIVE: To authorize the use of a blended Student Generation Rate (SGR) of 0.016 for calculating school impact
fees for The Teale Project, formerly the Quality Inn, in accordance with Section 74-204 of the Collier County Code of
Ordinances; and to approve a developer agreement that formalizes the application of the blended rate and establishes a
post-occupancy monitoring and reconciliation process based on actual student generation.
CONSIDERATIONS:
Section 74-204 of the Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances permits any person commencing in development
the ability to submit an alternative impact fee study to determine if a proposed project is expected to result in lower
infrastructure impacts than those within the standard fee schedule.
The Teale Project involves the redevelopment of the former Quality Inn into a 215-unit multifamily residential complex
composed of studio apartments ranging from 307 to 456 square feet.
The developer submitted an alternative school impact fee study, supported by relevant data and statistics, which was
reviewed by County staff, the County Attorney’s Office, and the County’s external consultant, Alfred Benesch &
Company. Based on this study and comparable project analyses, a blended Student Generation Rate (SGR) of 0.016 has
been proposed for interim use in calculating school impact fees under the developer agreement.
As specified in the developer agreement, the interim SGR of 0.016 will apply until all four buildings achieve 92%
stabilization, triggering a one-year post-stabilization monitoring period. This phase allows the project to reach
operational maturity and generate reliable data. At the end of this period, the actual SGR will be calculated and
reconciled with the interim rate to ensure the final school impact fee accurately reflects the development’s true impact
on the public school system.
If the final SGR exceeds the interim rate of 0.016, the developer will be required to pay the County the difference in
fees. Conversely, if the final SGR is lower than 0.016, the County will refund the developer the difference.
As part of the review process, the County has collaborated with the Collier County Public School District to evaluate the
study’s methodology, assumptions, and proposed terms. The School District has reviewed the agreement and is
agreeable to the terms and provisions set forth, including the use of the interim blended SGR and the proposed
monitoring and reconciliation process.
This action supports the County’s Strategic Plan by ensuring that new development pays its fair share toward
infrastructure needs. The use of a localized, data-supported Student Generation Rate (SGR) promotes fiscal
responsibility and ensures that school impact fees are calculated based on the actual expected impact of the
development.
FISCAL IMPACT: Application of the blended SGR of 0.016 reduces the school impact fee from $2,844.19 per unit to
$413.00 per unit, resulting in a reduction in the initial school impact fee assessment. Final impact fee liability will be
determined following the post-occupancy monitoring period.
GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: This action is consistent with Objective 2 of the Capital Improvement
Page 3685 of 4096
7/8/2025
Item # 16.F.8
ID# 2025-2181
Element of the Growth Management Plan, which ensures that new development pays its fair share toward infrastructure
needs. The use of a localized, data-supported SGR ensures fees are calculated based on the actual expected impact of the
development.
LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS: This item has been reviewed by the County Attorney, is approved as to form and
legality and requires a majority vote for approval.--JAK
RECOMMENDATIONS: To authorize the use of a blended Student Generation Rate (SGR) of 0.016 for calculating
school impact fees for The Teale Project, and to approve a developer agreement that formalizes the application of the
blended rate and establishes a post-occupancy monitoring and reconciliation process based on actual student generation.
PREPARED BY: Gino Santabarbara, Impact Fee Manager
Corporate Financial & Management Services
ATTACHMENTS:
1. School Impact fee Alternative Study Teale Project
2. Teale GG Schools & Parks IF Alt Study Review - Final 1-14-25
3. TealeGoldenGateDeveloperAgreementFINAL
Page 3686 of 4096
Alternative Impact Fee Analysis for The Teale Golden Gate August 2024 -1-
Alternative Impact Fee Analysis
The Teale Golden Gate
I. Executive Summary
II. Impact Fees in Collier County
A. Fee calculations for schools and parks in Collier County
B. Ordinance provisions allowing alternative impact fee calculation
C. Submitting an alternative impact fee analysis for schools and parks
III. Project Description
IV. School Impact Fees
A. Analysis of Census data
B. Other studies using census data
C. Comparison to similar developments
D. Demographic and economic comparison of Collier and Osceola
E. Enforcement of occupancy restrictions
V. Park Impact Fees
VI. Conclusion
VII. Appendices
A. The Teale-Golden Gate Adaptive Re-Use Project—Floorplans and Unit Sizes
B. Letter of Endorsement from the Collier County Affordable Housing Advisory Committee
C. Impact fee studies that use Census data
D. Economic and demographic proflles, Collier and Osceola counties
E. Florida Impact Fee Act, Ch. 163.31801
F. HUD Fair Housing Enforcement—Occupancy Standards Statement of Policy
G. Photos of The Teale Kissimmee
Page 3687 of 4096
-2- Alternative Impact Fee Analysis for The Teale Golden Gate August 2024
I. Executive Summary
This is an alternative impact fee analysis for Parcel 2 (Golden Gate Inn, 4100 Golden Gate Parkway) of the
Government Public Services, Residential Tourist and Commercial Subdistrict and Residential Tourist Tract
of the Golden Gate Golf Course Mixed Use Planned Unit Development (MPUD). This proposed development
will convert the Golden Gate Inn into 215 studio apartments ranging in size from 307 to 456 square feet. This
analysis covers both school and park impact fees.
The developer proposing this project has been converting motels in Florida to multifamily residential for the
past several years. The majority of these redevelopments retain the motel room footprint (as will this
project), converting the units into studio apartments. The resulting apartments generally are considerably
smaller than studio apartments constructed in new multifamily developments. Studio apartments in general
are designed for one- or two-person households and therefore tend to have a lower impact on systems and
facilities.
Impact fees are one-time charges for new development to cover a portion of the anticipated cost of
additional infrastructure and public facilities needed to support that development. Local governments that
adopt impact fees must follow requirements laid out in the Florida Impact Fee Act, including conducting
regularly scheduled studies to estimate the appropriate fees, as well as ensuring the fees are reasonably
connected and proportional to the need for additional capital facilities and the increased impact generated
by the new development.
Collier charges impact fees for a number of facilities, including schools and parks. School impact fees are
charged based on the cost of facilities needed for new students and the estimated average number of
students living in different types of homes. Parks impact fees are based on the cost of park facilities and
estimated average household sizes.
Collier’s impact fee ordinance allows for an alternative calculation to these general assessments, if the
nature of the development can be shown to have a disparate impact. In the case of this proposed
development, the units’ small size and their conflguration as one-room apartments means the average
household size will be smaller, and fewer students per household will live in the development.
The total school impact fees for this 215-apartment development were estimated by the County as
$611,500.85. The alternative analysis presented here estimates a total fee of $28,238.10, which is more
representative of the project’s actual student generation rate. For parks, the fee estimate provided by the
County was $362,369.60—this analysis estimates the appropriate fee as $302,343.75, based upon smaller
average household size.
To be consistent with impact fee requirements in Florida Statutes, there must be a rational nexus between
development impact and the fees charged. This alternative analysis uses Census data to show a lower
impact for both schools and parks. Other analyses using similar data (summarized in Section IV.B.) also
have established that studio apartments have a much lower impact on these facilities. Recent similar hotel
conversions in Florida have provided data on household sizes and presence of children that show lower
impact (Section IV.C.). Accordingly, this analysis provides the necessary justiflcation for decreasing school
and park impact fees.
Page 3688 of 4096
Alternative Impact Fee Analysis for The Teale Golden Gate August 2024 -3-
II. Impact Fees in Collier County
A. Fee calculation for schools and parks in Collier County.
Many jurisdictions in Florida assess impact fees for new development and redevelopment. The fees are
based on the need for new facilities resulting from the development, and the funds are used for construction
of those facilities necessitated by the development. Collier County assesses impact fees for a number of
facilities, including parks and schools. The County has hired consultants to complete impact fee studies for
these government services and has adopted an impact fee ordinance based on those studies. Both the
school and parks impact fee studies were last completed in 2015.
School impact fees. School impact fees are assessed based on the cost of facilities and the student
generation rate of households. Collier County’s student generation rate (SGR) is calculated through a
common methodology. It uses GIS to link student addresses to parcels in the Property Appraiser database,
generating students per unit by unit type: single family, multi-family, and mobile home. Table 1 shows the
resulting student generation rates.
While this methodology recognizes that student generation rate differs by unit type, it doesn’t address how
unit size, number of bedrooms, or occupancy restrictions might affect the generation rate. With a bit more
data (correlating number of bedrooms with Parcel ID and student addresses), the methodology potentially
could calculate SGR based on size and/or number of bedrooms for single family homes. For multifamily the
calculation still would not be possible, because generally property appraiser data show all multifamily units
in an apartment complex as one parcel. Data on individual units by bedroom size and student occupants
can’t be correlated without information about the speciflc unit in which each student lives and background
data (size and/or bedroom count) on each multifamily unit. (Some jurisdictions have recently started
collecting this level of data at permitting.)
Park impact fees. Collier County’s park impact fees are estimated for two types of parks, community and
regional. Community parks provide a variety of facilities and serve an area generally within a four-mile radius.
Regional parks generally offer destination-based opportunities for people to spend time in natural areas.
Impact fees are assessed separately for these two types of parks—community parks based on the
unincorporated parts of Collier, regional parks based on the entire county. They are assessed based on
household type (single family, multi family, and mobile home/RV). Single family housing is divided into tiers
based on size, but multifamily housing and mobile homes are not. Table 2 shows estimated household sizes
by unit type.
Table 1. Student Generation Rates, Collier County
Residential Land Use
Number of
Students(1)
Number of
Units(2)
Students per
Unit(3)
Single Family 27,341 81,016 0.34
Multi-Family 11,228 101,818 0.11
Mobile Home 2,632 9,483 0.28
Total 41,201 192,317 0.21
(1) Source: Collier County School District
(2) Source: Collier County Property Appraiser database
(3) Number of Students (Item 1) divided by number of units (Item 2)
Source: Tindale Oliver, Collier County School Impact Fee Study June 2015, page 23
Page 3689 of 4096
-4- Alternative Impact Fee Analysis for The Teale Golden Gate August 2024
B. Ordinance provisions allowing alternative impact fee calculation.
Collier County allows an alternative fee calculation of a development’s impact on public facilities if an
applicant can demonstrate that the nature, timing, or location of the proposed development make it likely to
generate lower impacts than the amount of the impact fee generated by application of section 74-204 and the
impact fee rate calculation in sections 74-304 (parks and recreation) and 74-307 (educational facilities). This
alternative impact fee calculation is based on the consideration that the permanent physical characteristics
of the dwelling units within the Golden Gate Inn residential conversion will result in smaller household sizes
and therefore lower student generation rates and park usage.
C. Submitting an alternative impact fee analysis for schools and parks.
This alternative impact fee analysis for educational facilities and parks was prepared for The Teale Golden
Gate, LLC consistent with the requirements of Section 74-204 (Alternative fee calculation) of the Collier
County Code of Ordinances. The reason for the analysis is that the nature of this proposed development (size
and single-room unit conflguration) makes it likely to generate lower impacts than those estimated in the
impact fee studies below:
Schools: Collier County School Impact Fee Update Study Final Report, June 23, 2015
Parks: Collier County Parks and Recreation Impact Fee Update Study Final Report, September 25, 2015
The issue of school impact fees has been raised because the multi-family impact fee of $2,844.19 per unit is
based on a student generation rate that is not representative of a studio apartment. This alternative analysis
estimates a rate that more closely refiects the impact studio apartments would have on the school system.
Census data, consultant studies, and occupancy information from similar motel conversions in Florida have
shown that student generation in studio apartments is a fraction of what it is in other multi-family
developments.
Parks impact fees are assessed per unit based on average household size. Single family units are tiered by
square footage, however multifamily units are not. The same analysis contained in this alternative study for
schools can be applied to parks impact fees, because household size can be estimated with Census data for
single room units. Occupancy data from similar motel conversions show that overall household size (persons
per unit) is lower in these units, which reduces the impact on parks.
Analysis of these issues relative to the Golden Gate Inn property will provide justiflcation for alternative
impact fees for those public facilities.
Table 2. Average Household Size by Unit Type, Collier County
Housing Type
Community Parks
Unincorporated County
residents per unit
Regional Parks
Countywide residents per
unit
Single Family Detached
Less than 4,000 sf 2.79 2.65
4,000 sf or greater 3.19 3.03
Multifamily 1.36 1.21
Mobile Home/RV (tied down) 2.14 2.11
Source: Collier County Parks and Recreation Impact Fee Update Study Final Report,
Tables 9 and 10.
Page 3690 of 4096
Alternative Impact Fee Analysis for The Teale Golden Gate August 2024 -5-
III. Project Description
Built in 1977, the Golden Gate Inn (4100 Golden Gate Parkway,
Naples) is a four-story hotel with 215 rooms of various sizes
(see Table 3). An application (App. No. PL20230017913) was
submitted to Collier County to convert the property to
multifamily residential—speciflcally to change the land use and
zoning and to convert the hotel rooms to studio apartments.
The Teale Golden Gate is an adaptive reuse project that will
convert the units to studio apartments, retaining the original
size of all 215 units. Floor plans of the unit types listed in Table
3 are shown in Appendix A.
This developer has been converting hotels and motels to
multifamily residential in Florida for the past several years.
These conversions also have retained the motel room footprint
and converted the units into studio apartments. The resulting
apartments in these cases generally are smaller than studio
apartments constructed in new multifamily developments, and
considerably less expensive. Studio apartments typically are
designed for one, or at the most two, persons per unit.
The Teale Golden Gate adaptive reuse project was presented to
the Collier County Affordable Housing Committee, which
offered a full endorsement of support to the Collier County
Board of Commissioners (Appendix B). The Board of
Commissioners recognized the need for smaller dwelling units
as an accommodation to workforce housing, and amended the
properties governing zoning and County housing codes to allow
for the redevelopment to happen.
The developer has entered into an agreement with Collier County to restrict rental rates and income levels for the
redevelopment. The community will offer rent and income restrictions on 11% of the units at or below 80% of Area
Median income, 12% of units will be income and rent restricted at 100% of Area Median income, and the
remaining 23% will be rent restricted at 120% of Area Median Income. The developer also has committed to
Collier County to offer an exclusive preleasing period to anyone currently employed within the limits of Collier
County for a period of 90 days prior to accepting applications from anyone employed outside of the County.
Table 3. Hotel Rooms by Size, Golden Gate Inn
BUILDING A SIZE ROOMS
TYPICAL UNIT A 292 SF 32
TYPICAL UNIT A.1 323 SF 23
TYPICAL UNIT B 382 SF 20
TYPICAL UNIT B.1 445 SF 12
TYPICAL UNIT C 284 SF 1
TOTAL 88
BUILDING B SIZE ROOMS
TYPICAL UNIT A 294 SF 31
TYPICAL UNIT A.1 324 SF 38
TYPICAL UNIT B 385 SF 7
TYPICAL UNIT B.1 445 SF 24
TYPICAL UNIT C N/A
TYPICAL UNIT D 284 SF 2
TYPICAL UNIT D.1 335 SF 1
TYPICAL UNIT E 285 SF 1
TOTAL 104
BUILDING C SIZE ROOMS
TYPICAL UNIT A 317 SF 3
TYPICAL UNIT B 329 SF 4
TYPICAL UNIT C 296 SF 3
TYPICAL UNIT D 270 SF 1
TOTAL 11
BUILDING D SIZE ROOMS
TYPICAL UNIT A 311 SF 12
TOTAL 12
SITE TOTAL 215
Page 3691 of 4096
-6- Alternative Impact Fee Analysis for The Teale Golden Gate August 2024
IV. School Impact Fees
A. Analysis of Census data for Collier County
Studio apartments have a unique characteristic that allows the application of certain Census data to
individual units. The Census Bureau has been compiling data on overcrowding for well over a century, initially
for tracking of overcrowded housing conditions in tenements. For our purposes, the data used to estimate
overcrowding—number of rooms in a unit (Table 4) and number of persons per room in a household (Table 5)
—can be combined to estimate occupancy of studio apartments, because a studio apartment generally
comprises one room with a kitchenette along one wall, or two rooms if the kitchen is separated. (See fioor
plans for The Teale Golden Gate Adaptive Reuse Project in Appendix A.)
The Census Bureau releases these correlated data as a variable called Occupants per room. In Collier
County, 96.1% of occupied housing units have 1 or fewer occupants per room, while 3.2% have 1 to 1.5
occupants per room, and 0.8% have 1.51 or more. This tracks closely with Osceola County (with Osceola’s
persons per room overall being slightly higher). In Osceola, 95.4% have 1 or fewer occupants per room, 3.3%
have 1 to 1.5 occupants per room, and 1.3% have 1.51 or more. (Table 5.)
Estimate of students in studio units. The Occupants Per Room variable can be used to provide an estimate
of studio apartment occupancy. This same calculation cannot be done for larger units (primarily because
those units have rooms that are not bedrooms but would be counted toward occupancy). Knowing number
of occupants per room allows us to make an assumption about the percentage of households living in these
units that are single-person households, two-person households, or more. It is safe to assume that it is
Table 4. Rooms per Housing Unit
Housing Units Collier Osceola
Total 229,814 156,976
1 room 2,870 1.2% 3,111 2.0%
2 rooms 6,962 3.0% 3,375 2.2%
3 rooms 33,046 14.4% 10,824 6.9%
4 rooms 50,607 22.0% 28,273 18.0%
5 rooms 52,304 22.8% 36,714 23.4%
6 rooms 38,593 16.8% 31,836 20.3%
7 rooms 21,327 9.3% 18,683 11.9%
8 rooms 11,538 5.0% 11,993 7.6%
9 or more rooms 12,567 5.5% 12,167 7.8%
Source: US Census, ACS, B25017, 2022
Table 5. Occupants Per Room
Occupied housing units (households)
Collier Osceola
156,768 119,817
0.50 or less occupants per room 118,607 75.7% 75,404 62.9%
0.51 to 1.00 occupants per room 31,905 20.4% 38,909 32.5%
1.01 to 1.50 occupants per room 4,950 3.2% 3,962 3.3%
1.51 to 2.00 occupants per room 1,142 0.7% 1,075 0.9%
2.01 or more occupants per room 164 0.1% 467 0.4%
Source: US Census American Community Survey, B25014, 2022.
Page 3692 of 4096
Alternative Impact Fee Analysis for The Teale Golden Gate August 2024 -7-
extremely unlikely people in single-person households are school-aged children, and the percentage of
school-aged children in two-person households living in these units also is likely to be small.
Studio housing units represent 1.2% of the total County inventory of 229,814 units. As mentioned above,
96.1% of Collier’s dwelling units have one or fewer persons per room. (This is calculated by adding up all
rooms in a dwelling unit and dividing by the number of people in the unit, so a three-bedroom house with a
living room, dining room, and kitchen occupied by three people would have six rooms, three people – 0.5
people per room.) Based on occupants per room, Table 6 shows an estimate of the number of people in the
County’s 2,870 one-room units. In each case, the upper end of the range was used to estimate persons in the
unit, with the exception of the three units with more than two persons, which was estimated at two persons.
The resulting estimate is 2,757 people in one-person households and 228 people in 114 two-person
households.
Table 6. Occupants in Studio Housing Units, Collier County 2022
People per room
% of total
units
Studios
Units
People per
unit People
0.5 or less 75.7% 2,171 1 2,171
0.51 to 1 20.4% 585 1 585
1-person households 2,756 2,756
1.01 to 1.5 3.2% 91 2 182
1.51 to 2 0.7% 20 2 40
More than 2 0.1% 3 2 6
2-person households 114 228
Total 2,870 2,984
Source: US Census American Community Survey, B25014, 2022; Table 3.
Notes:
1. People per unit were rounded up to eliminate 1/2 persons.
2. The “More than 2” category was held at 2, generally the maximum occupancy for a studio unit.
Page 3693 of 4096
-8- Alternative Impact Fee Analysis for The Teale Golden Gate August 2024
How many occupants are school-aged children. Even if a studio unit has more than one occupant, the
likelihood that one of those occupants is a school-aged child is small. For those households that may have
children, the other occupant is most likely a single parent.
In Collier County, single-parent households with children under 18 (which would include school-aged and
preschool-aged children) comprise 4.7% (7,867) of all households (Table 7).
To provide a conservative estimate of studio units occupied by parents with school-aged children, we
assume here that 4.7% of the two-person households in studio apartments comprise a parent with a school-
aged child. (The estimate is conservative because the likelihood that studio units would have the same
percentage of families with children as the general household population is small.) Consequently, the
number of multi-person households (from Table 6) with school-aged children is estimated to be 11 (4.7% of
228 households). Given these assumptions, the estimated number of children in these units is 11.
Student generation rate. The above calculations result in an estimate of 11 children for 2,870 studio
apartments, for a student generation rate of 0.004, far lower than the overall multi-family student generation
rate of 0.11 in the Collier impact fee study. Using the $32,835 net impact cost per Table 10 of the impact fee
study, for the Golden Gate Inn the impact fee per unit would be $32,835 x 0.004 = $131.34 per unit. For 215
units, the total fee would be $28,238.10. (Note: this analysis includes all children, not just students, whereas
the impact fee study done in 2015 counts only students. Because it is not possible at this time to narrow
down this count to school-aged children, all children have been left in the count.)
B. Other studies using Census data.
Several studies have been completed in Florida in recent years to address the relative impact of smaller units
on student generation. Additionally, impact fee analyses using Census data have been completed for many
jurisdictions over the past two decades, with the consistent result being that smaller units, as well as units
with fewer bedrooms, have a much lower student generation rate.
The Florida studies are summarized below and included in Appendix C.
2018. The analysis above is similar to an analysis completed by the Osceola County Community
Development Department in 2018. That analysis resulted in an SGR for studios of 0.019, signiflcantly lower
than the multifamily SGR of 0.391, with the resulting impact fee being reduced from $11,362 to $552.
Table 7. Household Type and Size, Collier County 2022
Subject
Total
Households
Family Households
Nonfamily
Households
Married
couple
Male
householder,
no wife
present
Female
householder,
no husband
present
Total households 166,206 91,691 7,496 11,855 55,164
Average household size 2.36 2.82 3.28 3.63 1.21
FAMILIES
Total families 111,042 91,691 7,496 11,855 (X)
Average family size 2.87 2.8 2.86 3.39 (X)
With own children under 18 29,852 21,985 2,701 5,166 (X)
Source: US Census Bureau, American Community Survey, S1101, 2022.
Page 3694 of 4096
Alternative Impact Fee Analysis for The Teale Golden Gate August 2024 -9-
2021. When the School District of Osceola County updated their education impact fees in 2021, they
requested their consultant complete an analysis using Census data. The consultant used Public Use
Microdata Sample (PUMS) Census data, which allowed them to estimate SGR not only for studio units but
one-bedroom units as well. Their analysis estimated SGR for studios and one-bedroom units at 0.011, again
a much lower rate that the overall multifamily rate of 0.354. This resulted in a proposed fee of $326, as
compared to the overall multifamily fee of $11,225. (This fee subsequently was increased slightly to account
for higher construction costs.)
2023. In March 2023, Florida Economic Advisors (FEA) completed an alternative impact fee analysis for a
speciflc development in Osceola County. FEA calculated a student generation rate for studio units in a range
of 0.017-0.029 and a maximum permissible per-unit fee of $152.
C. Proportional impact fees in Florida.
Eight counties in Florida currently adjust impact fees based on unit size, underscoring the idea that smaller
units exert less pressure on public infrastructure compared to larger ones. Seven of the eight use square
footage as the measure, while Broward County adjusts impact fees based on the number of bedrooms. For
example, studios or one-bedroom units incur a school impact fee that is just 8% of what is charged for a
three-bedroom unit (see Table 8). For the seven counties that categorize units based on size, the minimum
size ranges from 750 to 900 square feet (or less). Since the units at The Teale Golden Gate will be
approximately half this size, this further supports the rationale for these alternative fee calculations.
D. Comparison to similar developments.
Osceola County conversions. A number of hotels in Osceola County have been converted within the past
flve years. (Osceola has had more conversions than other parts of the state because Osceola’s tourist
corridor, W. Irlo Bronson Memorial Highway, has over 100 hotels in a 15-mile stretch, many of them older and
no longer viable as hotels. Additionally, the corridor is zoned Tourist Commercial, a category that allows both
hotel and residential uses, making rezoning unnecessary.) A Freedom of Information Act request to the
Osceola County School District in 2023 provided the following student counts for the conversions (Table 9).
The Teale Kissimmee comprises two property conversions, with a total of 299 studio units ranging in size
from 201 to 287 square feet. Phase 1 of the development (101 units) has been open since August 2021. Phase
2 (198 units) opened in April 2022. An occupancy audit on the property completed in June 2024 indicated that
two children lived in the development, one of school age.
Table 8. Proportional Impact Fees in Florida
Parks Impact Fees School Impact Fees Size Thresholds (Square Feet)
Jurisdiction Smallest SF Largest SF Percent Smallest SF Largest SF Percent Minimum Maximum
Lake $129 $185 70% $2,504 $7,976 31% Up to 800 SF 2,500 or more
Seminole N/A N/A N/A $4,900 $8,700 56% Up to 800 SF 2,301 or more
Martin $540 $2,609 21% $3,609 $5,756 63% Up to 800 SF 2,301 or more
Manatee $484 $1,621 30% $2,218 $6,893 32% Up to 750 SF 2,201 or more
Palm Beach $214 $492 43% $2,804 $6,077 46% Up to 800 SF 3,600 or more
St. Johns $1,092 $2,373 46% $1,777 $8,707 20% Up to 800 SF 5,000 or more
Hillsborough $777 $2,742 28% $1,645 $10,976 15% Up to 900 SF 3,400 or more
Broward $239 $370 65% $480 $5,901 8% 1 bdrm or less 3 bdrms or more
Average 43% Average 34%
Source:
Page 3695 of 4096
-10- Alternative Impact Fee Analysis for The Teale Golden Gate August 2024
E. Demographic and economic comparison of Collier to Osceola.
Demographic profile. Data from the 2022 US Census American Community Survey compare Collier County
to Osceola County, where The Teale Kissimmee is located. Table 10 summarizes certain demographic
characteristics. Osceola has a larger average family size. The average age in Osceola is 37.3, while in Collier
it’s a much older 53.2 years. Not surprisingly, Collier has a lower percentage of households with children,
19.4% compared to 32.8% in Osceola.
Population and housing growth is shown in Table 11. Osceola’s housing construction is not keeping pace
with its rapid population growth, which between 2010 and 2020 resulted in an increase in household size, a
trend contrary to most of the country.
With its larger family size, lower median income, higher percentage of households with children, rapidly
growing population, and relative shortage of housing units, Osceola should be far more likely to have
multiple people, including school-aged children, living in studio apartments than Collier would. Given the
low student generation at Osceola’s hotel conversions, it is reasonable to expect that Collier would
experience a similar low student generation rate, and this is shown by the Census data.
Table 11. Population and Housing Growth, Collier and Osceola, 2010 to 2020
Collier Osceola
2010 2020 Change % 2010 2020 Change %
Population 316,931 379,345 62,414 19.7% 258,531 363,666 105,135 40.7%
Housing Units 194,529 218,348 23,819 12.2% 122,823 155,925 33,102 27.0%
Source: US Census ACS, Table DP05, 2010 and 2020
Table 9. Hotel to Apartment Conversions, Osceola County
Name Address
Number
of Units
Number of
Children
Student
Generation
Rate
The Teale Orlando Ph 1 4970 Kyngs Heath Road Kissimmee 101 61 0.02 The Teale Orlando Ph 2 4978 W Irlo Bronson Memorial Hwy Kissimmee 198
Vivo Living Kissimmee 1 4018 W Vine Street Kissimmee 223 5 0.022
West Bay Village 3010 West Bay Circle Kissimmee 252 1 0.004
774 12 0.016 Total Units and Children—Average SGR
1 An occupancy audit conducted in June 2024 showed one school aged child at the Teale.
2 Vivo Living currently is working on Phase 2, 129 units at 4156 W Irlo Bronson Memorial Highway Kissimmee
Sources: Osceola County Property Appraiser, School District of Osceola County, 2023.
Table 10. Demographic Characteristics, Collier and Osceola, 2022
Collier Osceola
Average family size 2.87 3.35
Households with one or more people under 18 years 19.4% 32.8%
Median age (years) 53.2 37.3
Selected age categories as a percentage of total population
5 to 14 years 9.2% 13.5%
15 to 17 years 3.1% 4.3%
Under 18 years 16.2% 23.8%
Median household income $80,815 $63,271
Source: US Census ACS S1101, 2022
Page 3696 of 4096
Alternative Impact Fee Analysis for The Teale Golden Gate August 2024 -11-
Economic profile. The Florida Office of Economic and Demographic Research prepares area proflles for
Florida counties. Proflle data for Collier, Osceola, and Florida are shown summarized in the chart below. (The
full proflles are included in Appendix D.) In both jurisdictions, the Education and Health Services; Leisure and
Hospitality; and Trade, Transportation and Utilities sectors comprise more than half of employment. (Table
12.) These sectors include service sector jobs such as hotels, tourist attractions, restaurants, and retail
establishments, which tend to pay lower wages. Employees in these sectors can have difficulty flnding
affordable housing, but in many parts of Florida, even teachers and healthcare workers are having difficulty
flnding housing they can afford. In both Collier and Osceola, this is creating recruiting challenges for schools
and hospitals.
Access to affordable housing was the number one concern in the latest Collier County Community
Assessment. According to the report, high housing costs are “driving out the workforce from the community.”
At The Teale Kissimmee, nearly three in flve residents work in the tourist, retail, and restaurant sectors,
including approximately 50 Disney employees. Residents also include teachers, health care workers, and
employees of local law enforcement.
Employment Profile, Residents of The Teale Kissimmee, 2024
Table 12. Average Annual Employment Percentage of All Industries, 2022
Industry Collier Osceola Florida
All Industries 159,940 107,141 9,359,143
Natural Resource and Mining 1.6% 0.3% 0.8%
Construction 12.0% 6.0% 6.4%
Manufacturing 3.2% 2.1% 4.4%
Trade, Transportation and Utilities 18.4% 21.3% 20.5%
Information 0.7% 0.6% 1.7%
Financial Activities 5.9% 4.4% 7.0%
Professional and Business Services 12.0% 13.0% 16.9%
Education and Health Services 15.2% 16.5% 14.8%
Leisure and Hospitality 18.2% 20.4% 13.2%
Other Services 4.4% 2.6% 3.0%
Government 8.2% 12.5% 11.2%
Page 3697 of 4096
-12- Alternative Impact Fee Analysis for The Teale Golden Gate August 2024
F. Occupancy restrictions
The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) has released occupancy guidance of the Fair
Housing Act (42 U.S.C. §§ 3601-19), which states that an occupancy policy of two occupants per
bedroom is reasonable under Fair Housing. The Teale follows this guidance across each of its properties,
thereby restricting occupancy in all studio units to two persons. (See Appendix F, Fair Housing
Enforcement—Occupancy Standards Statement of Policy.)
The Teale Kissimmee has a standing policy limiting tenants to two per unit—it is a requirement included in
the lease agreement with all tenants. They require all residents to undergo screening, including people
who move in with an established tenant. If more than two people were to be found to occupy an
apartment, they would be in violation of their lease and would face eviction. Given the small size of the
units, this has not been an issue for The Teale—it simply is not feasible to flt more than two people in a
unit. (Photos in Appendix G show the size and layout of a typical unit in The Teale Kissimmee.)
Page 3698 of 4096
Alternative Impact Fee Analysis for The Teale Golden Gate August 2024 -13-
V. Park Impact Fees
Collier County’s park impact fees are estimated for two types of parks, community and regional. Fees for
community parks are based on the unincorporated parts of the County, while regional parks are based on the
Countywide population. They are assessed based on household type (single family, multi family, and mobile
home/RV). Single family housing is divided into tiers based on size, but the other housing types are not. Table
2 on page 4 shows estimated average household sizes by unit type for both community (1.36 persons per
household) and regional (1.21 persons per household) parks.
Table 6 (on page 7) estimated occupants in studio housing units based on Census data on persons per room.
The result was 2,984 persons for the County’s 2,870 studio units, for an average household size of 1.04
persons. Based upon this smaller average household size, an alternative fee was estimated as shown in
Table 13. The fee is based on a straight mathematical calculation, assuming the 2024 fee was an increase
allowed by the indexing provision of the ordinance. The resulting is to lower the total fee from $362,369.60 to
$302,343.75.
Table 13. Estimate of Park Impact Fees for Studio Apartments
Assessed Fee—
Park Type
Avg hh size
Countywide
Net Cost
Per
Resident
Total
Impact Fee
(per 2015
Study)
2024 Fee per
unit estimate
provided by
County Units Calculated Fee
Community Parks 1.36 $314.28 $427.42 $455.20 215 $97,868.00
Regional Parks 1.21 $919.28 $1,112.33 $1,230.24 215 $264,501.60
TOTAL FEE $362,369.60
Alternative Fee—
Park Type
Estimated
average hh
size of
studios
Net Cost
per
Resident
Alternative
Impact Fee
(based on
2015 Study)
Alternative fee
per unit Units Alternative fee
Community Parks 1.04 $314.28 $327.57 $348.86 215 $75,004.90
Regional Parks 1.04 $919.28 $956.05 $1,057.39 215 $227,338.85
TOTAL FEE $302,343.75
Page 3699 of 4096
-14- Alternative Impact Fee Analysis for The Teale Golden Gate August 2024
VI. Conclusion
The intent of impact fees is to cover a portion of the anticipated cost of additional infrastructure and public
facilities needed to support new development. Impact fees must meet the criteria of the dual rational nexus
test, meaning that the fees must have a reasonable connection between: 1. the proposed new development
and the need for additional capital facilities, and 2. the expenditure of funds and the beneflts accruing to the
proposed new development. This requirement was validated by the U.S. Supreme Court as recently as April
2024. In Sheetz v. El Dorado County, the Court reiterated this two-part requirement:
“First, the permit conditions must have an ‘essential nexus’ to the government’s land use interest,
ensuring that the government is acting to further its stated purpose, not leveraging its permitting
monopoly to exact private property without paying for it,” wrote Justice Amy Coney Barrett for the
court. “Second, permit conditions must have ‘rough proportionality’ to the development’s impact
on the land-use interest and may not require a landowner to give up (or pay) more than is
necessary to mitigate harms resulting from new development.”
The Teale Golden Gate will comprise 215 studio apartments. This analysis shows that studio apartments
generate a small fraction of impacts compared to other residential development. The analysis uses widely
accepted data sources and a methodology for educational impacts that has been declared adequate by a
consultant specializing in impact fee analysis. An analysis by a second consultant using similar data
validated these results. These data also are more recent than the data that informed the County’s 2015
study. Charging a studio apartment the same fees as a three-bedroom, two-bath, 1,400 square foot
apartment (which would rent for upwards of $3,500 per month in the Collier County market ) is not refiective
of the studio’s actual impact, according to the analysis in this report. It also serves to discourage smaller,
more affordable units in Collier County.
While the beneflts of this development may not be legally relevant when it comes to impact fees, adaptive
reuse projects such as this do beneflt the County by providing affordable housing for the County’s workforce
and by increasing property values and therefore property taxes paid, including school taxes (as shown in
Table 14). The value of the surrounding area also is likely to beneflt from redevelopment of an underutilized
property.
More than a quarter of Collier’s households have only one person, and another half of households have two
people. Smaller studio units, which could provide an adequate and less expensive housing alternative,
comprise less than 2% of the County’s housing units. Acknowledging the disparate impact these units have,
and adjusting the fees accordingly, could result in an increase in this housing type in the County. In this
Table 14. Property Taxes for The Teale Kissimmee, 4970 Kyngs Heath Road,
Kissimmee
Year
Taxable
Value Total Taxes
School taxes
State Local Total
2019 $1,980,800 $29,263 $7,907 $4,453 $12,360
2024 $7,149,040 $98,684 $22,126 $16,071 $38,197
Increase $5,168,240 $69,421 $14,219 $11,618 $25,837
%Inc 261% 237% 180% 261% 209%
Source: 2019 and 2024 TRIM notices, Osceola County Property Appraiser.
Page 3700 of 4096
Alternative Impact Fee Analysis for The Teale Golden Gate August 2024 -15-
country homeownership has been emphasized as the preferred model, but people at different stages of their
lives have different housing needs. One thing that makes it easier for household to progress to homeownership
is a stable and affordable rent. Projects such as this provide that. They pay increased school property taxes
post-redevelopment, while having a negligible impact on school facilities. Similarly, they pay increased
property taxes that pay for parks, but their impact on those parks is small.
In Osceola County, hotels that have been underutilized for many years and have become eyesores on the
tourist corridor have now been renovated to become attractive facilities (as well as the only affordable housing
in the County being provided without subsidy). They have low entry costs for renters, offer affordable rents for
tourist workers, and they are located in proximity to the jobs on Osceola ’s main tourist corridor. These
conversions have resulted in attractive facilities that enhance the corridor and add to its value.
The Teale Golden Gate will be redeveloped into an attractive place to live for Collier’s workers who need
affordable housing. Impact fees can be looked at as de facto land use policy—high fees can discourage
development of certain types of property, and fees adjusted to refiect actual impact can make such
development flnancially viable. Given that smaller household sizes and fewer children per household in these
studio conversions justify lower impact fees for both schools and parks, adjusting impact fees to encourage
this type of development represents a win-win for the County—it provides affordable housing, increased tax
base, and minimal impact on public facilities.
Page 3701 of 4096
-16- Alternative Impact Fee Analysis for The Teale Golden Gate August 2024
VI. Appendices
APPENDIX A. THE TEALE GOLDEN GATE ADAPTIVE REUSE PROJECT—FLOORPLANS AND UNIT SIZES
APPENDIX B. LETTER OF ENDORSEMENT FROM THE COLLIER AFFORDABLE HOUSING ADVISORY COMMITTEE
APPENDIX C. IMPACT FEE STUDIES THAT USE CENSUS DATA
APPENDIX D. ECONOMIC AND DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILES, COLLIER AND OSCEOLA COUNTIES
APPENDIX E. FLORIDA IMPACT FEE ACT, CH. 163.31801
APPENDIX F. HUD FAIR HOUSING ENFORCEMENT—OCCUPANCY STANDARDS STATEMENT OF POLICY
APPENDIX G. PHOTOS OF THE TEALE KISSIMMEE
Page 3702 of 4096
4 1 0 0 G O L D E N G A T E P A R K W A Y N A P L E S F L O R I D A
T H E T E A L E - G O L D E N G A T E
W O R K F O R C E H O U S I N G A D A P T I V E R E -U S E
DEVELOPMENT SUMMARY
TYPICAL UNIT A
BUILDING A
292 SF 32
SF TOTAL UNITS
TYPICAL UNIT A.1 323 SF 23
TYPICAL UNIT B 382 SF 20
TYPICAL UNIT B.1 445 SF 12
TYPICAL UNIT C 284 SF 1
TYPICAL UNIT A 294 SF 31
TYPICAL UNIT A.1 324 SF 38
TYPICAL UNIT B 385 SF 7
TYPICAL UNIT B.1 445 SF 24
TYPICAL UNIT C NOT USED
TYPICAL UNIT D 284 SF 2
TYPICAL UNIT D.1 335 SF 1
TYPICAL UNIT E 285 SF 1
88 TOTAL UNITS
BUILDING B
104 TOTAL UNITS
TYPICAL UNIT A 317 SF 3
TYPICAL UNIT B 329 SF 4
TYPICAL UNIT C 296 SF 3
TYPICAL UNIT D 270 SF 1
BUILDING C
11 TOTAL UNITS
TYPICAL UNIT A 311 SF 12
BUILDING D
12 TOTAL UNITS
215 TOTAL UNITSSITE
Page 3703 of 4096
4 1 0 0 G O L D E N G A T E P A R K W A Y N A P L E S F L O R I D A
T H E T E A L E - G O L D E N G A T E B U I L D I N G A
W O R K F O R C E H O U S I N G A D A P T I V E R E -U S E
TYPICAL UNIT A
SCALE: 1/4"=1'-0" @ 8-1/2"x11"1
UNIT SUMMARY
TYPICAL UNIT A
BUILDING A
292 SF 32
SF TOTAL UNITS
Page 3704 of 4096
4 1 0 0 G O L D E N G A T E P A R K W A Y N A P L E S F L O R I D A
T H E T E A L E - G O L D E N G A T E B U I L D I N G A
W O R K F O R C E H O U S I N G A D A P T I V E R E -U S E
TYPICAL UNIT A.1
SCALE: 1/4"=1'-0" @ 8-1/2"x11"1
UNIT SUMMARY
TYPICAL UNIT A.1
BUILDING A
323 SF 23
SF TOTAL UNITS
Page 3705 of 4096
4 1 0 0 G O L D E N G A T E P A R K W A Y N A P L E S F L O R I D A
T H E T E A L E - G O L D E N G A T E B U I L D I N G A
W O R K F O R C E H O U S I N G A D A P T I V E R E -U S E
TYPICAL UNIT B
SCALE: 1/4"=1'-0" @ 8-1/2"x11"1
UNIT SUMMARY
TYPICAL UNIT B
BUILDING A
382 SF 20
SF TOTAL UNITS
Page 3706 of 4096
4 1 0 0 G O L D E N G A T E P A R K W A Y N A P L E S F L O R I D A
T H E T E A L E - G O L D E N G A T E B U I L D I N G A
W O R K F O R C E H O U S I N G A D A P T I V E R E -U S E
TYPICAL UNIT B.1
SCALE: 1/4"=1'-0" @ 8-1/2"x11"1
UNIT SUMMARY
TYPICAL UNIT B.1
BUILDING A
445 SF 12
SF TOTAL UNITS
Page 3707 of 4096
4 1 0 0 G O L D E N G A T E P A R K W A Y N A P L E S F L O R I D A
T H E T E A L E - G O L D E N G A T E B U I L D I N G A
W O R K F O R C E H O U S I N G A D A P T I V E R E -U S E
TYPICAL UNIT C
SCALE: 1/4"=1'-0" @ 8-1/2"x11"1
UNIT SUMMARY
TYPICAL UNIT C
BUILDING A
284 SF 1
SF TOTAL UNITS
Page 3708 of 4096
4 1 0 0 G O L D E N G A T E P A R K W A Y N A P L E S F L O R I D A
T H E T E A L E - G O L D E N G A T E B U I L D I N G B
W O R K F O R C E H O U S I N G A D A P T I V E R E -U S E
TYPICAL UNIT A
SCALE: 1/4"=1'-0" @ 8-1/2"x11"1
UNIT SUMMARY
TYPICAL UNIT A
BUILDING B
294 SF 31
SF TOTAL UNITS
Page 3709 of 4096
4 1 0 0 G O L D E N G A T E P A R K W A Y N A P L E S F L O R I D A
T H E T E A L E - G O L D E N G A T E B U I L D I N G B
W O R K F O R C E H O U S I N G A D A P T I V E R E -U S E
TYPICAL UNIT A.1
SCALE: 1/4"=1'-0" @ 8-1/2"x11"1
UNIT SUMMARY
TYPICAL UNIT A.1
BUILDING B
324 SF 38
SF TOTAL UNITS
Page 3710 of 4096
4 1 0 0 G O L D E N G A T E P A R K W A Y N A P L E S F L O R I D A
T H E T E A L E - G O L D E N G A T E B U I L D I N G B
W O R K F O R C E H O U S I N G A D A P T I V E R E -U S E
TYPICAL UNIT B
SCALE: 1/4"=1'-0" @ 8-1/2"x11"1
UNIT SUMMARY
TYPICAL UNIT B
BUILDING B
385 SF 7
SF TOTAL UNITS
Page 3711 of 4096
4 1 0 0 G O L D E N G A T E P A R K W A Y N A P L E S F L O R I D A
T H E T E A L E - G O L D E N G A T E B U I L D I N G B
W O R K F O R C E H O U S I N G A D A P T I V E R E -U S E
TYPICAL UNIT B.1
SCALE: 1/4"=1'-0" @ 8-1/2"x11"1
UNIT SUMMARY
TYPICAL UNIT B.1
BUILDING B
445 SF 24
SF TOTAL UNITS
Page 3712 of 4096
4 1 0 0 G O L D E N G A T E P A R K W A Y N A P L E S F L O R I D A
T H E T E A L E - G O L D E N G A T E B U I L D I N G B
W O R K F O R C E H O U S I N G A D A P T I V E R E -U S E
TYPICAL UNIT D
SCALE: 1/4"=1'-0" @ 8-1/2"x11"1
UNIT SUMMARY
TYPICAL UNIT D
BUILDING B
284 SF 2
SF TOTAL UNITS
Page 3713 of 4096
4 1 0 0 G O L D E N G A T E P A R K W A Y N A P L E S F L O R I D A
T H E T E A L E - G O L D E N G A T E B U I L D I N G B
W O R K F O R C E H O U S I N G A D A P T I V E R E -U S E
TYPICAL UNIT D.1
SCALE: 1/4"=1'-0" @ 8-1/2"x11"1
UNIT SUMMARY
TYPICAL UNIT D.1
BUILDING B
335 SF 1
SF TOTAL UNITS
Page 3714 of 4096
4 1 0 0 G O L D E N G A T E P A R K W A Y N A P L E S F L O R I D A
T H E T E A L E - G O L D E N G A T E B U I L D I N G B
W O R K F O R C E H O U S I N G A D A P T I V E R E -U S E
TYPICAL UNIT E
SCALE: 1/4"=1'-0" @ 8-1/2"x11"1
UNIT SUMMARY
TYPICAL UNIT E
BUILDING B
285 SF 1
SF TOTAL UNITS
Page 3715 of 4096
4 1 0 0 G O L D E N G A T E P A R K W A Y N A P L E S F L O R I D A
T H E T E A L E - G O L D E N G A T E B U I L D I N G C
W O R K F O R C E H O U S I N G A D A P T I V E R E -U S E
TYPICAL UNIT A
SCALE: 1/4"=1'-0" @ 8-1/2"x11"1
UNIT SUMMARY
TYPICAL UNIT A
BUILDING C
317 SF 3
SF TOTAL UNITS
Page 3716 of 4096
4 1 0 0 G O L D E N G A T E P A R K W A Y N A P L E S F L O R I D A
T H E T E A L E - G O L D E N G A T E B U I L D I N G C
W O R K F O R C E H O U S I N G A D A P T I V E R E -U S E
TYPICAL UNIT B
SCALE: 1/4"=1'-0" @ 8-1/2"x11"1
UNIT SUMMARY
TYPICAL UNIT B
BUILDING C
329 SF 4
SF TOTAL UNITS
Page 3717 of 4096
4 1 0 0 G O L D E N G A T E P A R K W A Y N A P L E S F L O R I D A
T H E T E A L E - G O L D E N G A T E B U I L D I N G C
W O R K F O R C E H O U S I N G A D A P T I V E R E -U S E
TYPICAL UNIT C
SCALE: 1/4"=1'-0" @ 8-1/2"x11"1
UNIT SUMMARY
TYPICAL UNIT C
BUILDING C
296 SF 3
SF TOTAL UNITS
Page 3718 of 4096
4 1 0 0 G O L D E N G A T E P A R K W A Y N A P L E S F L O R I D A
T H E T E A L E - G O L D E N G A T E B U I L D I N G C
W O R K F O R C E H O U S I N G A D A P T I V E R E -U S E
TYPICAL UNIT D
SCALE: 1/4"=1'-0" @ 8-1/2"x11"1
UNIT SUMMARY
TYPICAL UNIT D
BUILDING C
270 SF 1
SF TOTAL UNITS
Page 3719 of 4096
4 1 0 0 G O L D E N G A T E P A R K W A Y N A P L E S F L O R I D A
T H E T E A L E - G O L D E N G A T E B U I L D I N G D
W O R K F O R C E H O U S I N G A D A P T I V E R E -U S E
TYPICAL UNIT A
SCALE: 1/4"=1'-0" @ 8-1/2"x11"1
UNIT SUMMARY
TYPICAL UNIT A
BUILDING D
311 SF 12
SF TOTAL UNITS
Page 3720 of 4096
Alternative Impact Fee Analysis for The Teale Golden Gate August 2024
APPENDIX B. LETTER OF ENDORSEMENT FROM THE COLLIER AFFORDABLE HOUSING ADVISORY
COMMITTEE
Page 3721 of 4096
Page 3722 of 4096
Alternative Impact Fee Analysis for The Teale Golden Gate August 2024
APPENDIX C. IMPACT FEE STUDIES THAT USE CENSUS DATA
SCHOOL IMPACT FEE STUDIES
Village of Schaumburg, Illimois
Impact Fee Study Technical Report
December 2022
https://schaumburg.novusagenda.com/AgendaPublic/AttachmentViewer.ashx?
AttachmentID=47092&ItemID=23691
SCHOOL IMPACT FEE UPDATE
Town of Barrington, New Hampshire
January 2016
http://www.barrington.nh.gov/sites/g/flles/vyhlif2766/f/uploads/2016_update_report_barrington_schlfees1.pdf
EDUCATIONAL SYSTEM IMPACT FEE STUDY
Clay County, Florida District Schools
November 2022
https://agenda.oneclay.net/content/flles/impact-fee-resolution-1523_1.pdf
SOUTH BURLINGTON SCHOOL DISTRICT IMPACT FEE STUDY
City of South Burlington, Vermont
November 2022
https://cms6.revize.com/revize/southburlington/Planning/Project%20Docs/SoBurl%20School%20Dist%
20Impact%20Fee%20Studyv2_9Nov22.pdf
FACILITY FEE STUDY
Raleigh, North Carolina
Prepared by Duncan Associates in association with Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. and Dr. James C. Nicholas
April 2006
https://cityofraleigh0drupal.blob.core.usgovcloudapi.net/drupal-prod/COR28/
FacilityFeeReportPhaseIIFINAL.pdf
Page 3723 of 4096
Alternative Impact Fee Analysis for The Teale Golden Gate August 2024
The Office of Economic and Demographic Research (EDR) is a research arm of the Legislature principally concerned with
forecasting economic and social trends that affect policy making, revenues, and appropriations. EDR provides objective
information to committee staffs and members of the legislature in support of the policy making process. EDR publishes all of
the official economic, demographic, revenue, and agency workload forecasts that are developed by Consensus Estimating
Conferences and makes them available to the Legislature, state agencies, universities, research organizations, and the
general public. EDR, through a contract with the University of Florida, arranges for annual estimates of population of each
city and county in Florida, which provide the basis for revenue sharing programs.
http://edr.state.fi.us/Content/index.cfm
APPENDIX D. ECONOMIC AND DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILES, COLLIER AND OSCEOLA COUNTIES
Page 3724 of 4096
Census Population Osceola County Florida
Real GDP
(Thousands of Chained 2017 Dollars)Osceola County Florida
1980 Census 49,287 9,746,961 2017 GDP 10,505,768 1,014,866,863
1990 Census 107,728 12,938,071 Percent of the State 1.0%
2000 Census 172,493 15,982,824 2018 GDP 10,833,526 1,050,433,812
2010 Census 268,685 18,801,332 Percent of the State 1.0%
2020 Census 388,656 21,538,187 2019 GDP 11,594,422 1,079,271,045
% change 2010-2020 44.7%14.6%Percent of the State 1.1%
Age 2020 GDP 11,253,659 1,068,377,540
% Under 18 years of age 23.4%19.5%Percent of the State 1.1%
% Aged 65 and over 14.1%21.2%2021 GDP 12,407,249 1,164,778,182
% Median age 37.6 43.0 Percent of the State 1.1%
Gender 2022 GDP 13,276,516 1,218,430,197
% Male 48.4%48.6%Percent of the State 1.1%
% Female 51.6%51.4%
Race (alone) & Ethnicity
% Not Hispanic-White 29.2%51.5%
% Not Hispanic-Black or African American 9.0%14.5%
% Not Hispanic-American Indian and Alaska Native 0.1%0.2%
% Not Hispanic-Asian 2.9%2.9%Osceola County Florida
% Not Hispanic-Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific
Islander 0.1%0.1%Household Population 385,751 21,073,604
% Not Hispanic-Some Other Race 1.1%0.6%Household Population per Occupied Housing Unit 2.95 2.47
% Not Hispanic-Two or More Races 3.3%3.7%Group Quarters Population 2,905 464,583
% Hispanic or Latino (of any race)54.3%26.5%
Osceola County Florida Housing Counts Osceola County Florida
2021 Estimate 406,460 21,898,945 Housing units, 2020 Census 154,680 9,865,350
% change 2020-2021 4.6%1.7%Occupied 130,574 8,529,067
2022 Estimate 424,946 22,276,132 Vacant 24,106 1,336,283
% change 2020-2022 9.3%3.4%
2023 Estimate 439,225 22,634,867
% change 2020-2023 13.0%5.1%
Based on 2023 Estimate Units Permitted Osceola County Florida
2025 469,033 23,292,200 2000 5,035 155,269
2030 531,640 24,698,545 2010 892 38,679
2035 582,273 25,814,954 2020 5,848 164,074
2040 623,795 26,682,030 2021 10,003 213,494
2045 660,452 27,409,376 2022 7,383 211,962
2050 694,969 28,065,018 2023 8,255 193,788
Osceola County Florida Persons per square mile Osceola County Florida
Language Spoken at home
(% of total persons aged 5 and over)2000 130.5 296.4
Speak only English 45.2%70.1%2010 202.4 350.6
Speak a language other than English 54.8%29.9%2020 292.8 401.4
Speak English "very well"33.8%18.1%2023 330.9 421.9
Place of birth
Foreign born 23.7%21.1%
Veteran status
Civilian population 18 and over 6.1%7.9%Households Osceola County Florida
Total households, 2000 Census 60,977 6,338,075
Family households, 2000 Census 45,077 4,210,760
% with own children under 18 49.3%42.3%
Residence 1 Year Ago
Persons aged 1 and over Osceola County Florida Total households, 2010 Census 90,603 7,420,802
Same house 86.6%85.6%Family households, 2010 Census 68,547 4,835,475
Different house in the U.S.11.8%13.5%% with own children under 18 47.6%40.0%
Same county in Florida 4.5%7.4%Average Household Size, 2010 Census 2.93 2.48
Different county in Florida 4.8%3.1%Average Family Size, 2010 Census 3.30 3.01
Different county in another state 2.5%3.0%Total households, 2020 Census 130,574 8,529,067
Abroad 1.6%0.9%Family households, 2020 Census 99,031 5,571,482
% with own children under 18 42.9%36.0%
According to Census definitions, a household includes all of the people who occupy a housing unit. The occupants may be a single family, one person living alone, two or more families living together, or any other group of related or unrelated people who share living quarters. A family includes a householder and one or more other people living in the same
household who are related to the householder by birth, marriage, or adoption.
Census counts may be corrected for Census Count Question Resolution (CQR).
Osceola County
Florida's 15th most populous county
with 1.9% of Florida's population
Real Gross Domestic ProductPopulation
Population by Housing Type
Population Characteristics
Population Estimates
Migration
Housing
Building Permits
Density
Households and Family Households
Page 3725 of 4096
Osceola County
Establishments
2022 Osceola County Florida
Establishments
% of All Industries, 2022 Osceola County Florida
All industries 9,804 851,793 All industries 9,804 851,793
Natural Resource & Mining 49 5,563 Natural Resource & Mining 0.5%0.7%
Construction 1,142 80,911 Construction 11.6%9.5%
Manufacturing 194 24,106 Manufacturing 2.0%2.8%
Trade, Transportation and Utilities 1,875 150,714 Trade, Transportation and Utilities 19.1%17.7%
Information 148 17,691 Information 1.5%2.1%
Financial Activities 1,166 92,973 Financial Activities 11.9%10.9%
Professional & Business Services 1,923 215,872 Professional & Business Services 19.6%25.3%
Education & Health Services 1,190 95,774 Education & Health Services 12.1%11.2%
Leisure and Hospitality 1,003 64,512 Leisure and Hospitality 10.2%7.6%
Other Services 663 58,508 Other Services 6.8%6.9%
Government 55 5,903 Government 0.6%0.7%
Average Annual Employment
% of All Industries, 2022 Osceola County Florida
Average Annual Wage
2022 Osceola County Florida
All industries 107,141 9,359,143 All industries $48,457 $63,770
Natural Resource & Mining 0.3%0.8%Natural Resource & Mining $44,404 $43,504
Construction 6.0%6.4%Construction $53,957 $63,021
Manufacturing 2.1%4.4%Manufacturing $60,810 $74,590
Trade, Transportation and Utilities 21.3%20.5%Trade, Transportation and Utilities $37,955 $56,618
Information 0.6%1.7%Information $78,543 $109,068
Financial Activities 4.4%7.0%Financial Activities $61,374 $97,914
Professional & Business Services 13.0%16.9%Professional & Business Services $63,393 $79,380
Education & Health Services 16.5%14.8%Education & Health Services $59,324 $62,057
Leisure and Hospitality 20.4%13.2%Leisure and Hospitality $32,158 $33,766
Other Services 2.6%3.0%Other Services $39,663 $47,178
Government 12.5%11.2%Government $54,332 $64,666
Industries may not add to the total due to confidentiality and unclassified.
Labor Force as Percent of Population
Aged 18 and Older Osceola County Florida Unemployment Rate Osceola County Florida
2000 70.9%63.7%2000 3.3%3.7%
2010 68.7%61.8%2010 12.1%10.8%
2020 64.8%58.5%2020 14.1%8.1%
2021 60.4%59.1%2021 6.2%4.7%
2022 60.6%59.8%2022 3.5%3.0%
2023 60.4%60.5%2023 3.4%2.9%
Personal Income ($000s)Osceola County Florida Per Capita Personal Income Osceola County Florida
2000 $3,609,580 $471,588,082 2000 $20,727 $29,387
2010 $7,318,403 $730,690,145 2010 $27,111 $38,778
% change 2000-2010 102.7%54.9%% change 2000-2010 30.8%32.0%
2020 $15,360,005 $1,221,121,559 2020 $39,272 $56,561
% change 2010-2020 109.9%67.1%% change 2010-2020 44.9%45.9%
2021 $17,782,078 $1,376,879,460 2021 $44,013 $63,078
% change 2020-2021 15.8%12.8%% change 2020-2021 12.1%11.5%
2022 $18,737,344 $1,441,598,918 2022 $44,344 $64,806
% change 2021-2022 5.4%4.7%% change 2021-2022 0.8%2.7%
Earnings by Place of Work ($000s)Median Income
2000 $1,853,729 $308,751,767 Median Household Income $64,312 $67,917
2010 $3,510,776 $439,036,383 Median Family Income $71,239 $81,514
% change 2000-2010 89.4%42.2%
2020 $6,093,045 $683,698,267 Percent in Poverty, 2022
% change 2010-2020 73.6%55.7%All ages in poverty 12.9%12.7%
2021 $7,114,606 $768,399,192 Under age 18 in poverty 18.4%17.3%
% change 2020-2021 16.8%12.4%Related children age 5-17 in families in poverty 17.6%16.1%
2022 $8,173,447 $844,048,879
% change 2021-2022 14.9%9.8%
Workers Aged 16 and Over Osceola County Florida
Place of Work in Florida
Worked outside county of residence 48.0%17.3%12-Month Period Ending September 30, 2022 1.48 1.14
Travel Time to Work 12-Month Period Ending September 30, 2023 1.44 1.16
Mean travel time to work (minutes)35.1 27.9 State Rank 4 NA
Page 2
Income and Financial Health
NonBusiness Chapter 7 & Chapter 13
Employment and Labor Force
Osceola County Florida
Personal Bankruptcy Filing Rate
(per 1,000 population)
Page 3726 of 4096
Osceola County
Revenue 2020-21 Osceola County Florida*Expenditures 2020-21 Osceola County Florida*
Total - All Revenue Account Codes
($000s)$1,592,120.5 $81,512,347.2
Total - All Expenditure Account Codes
($000s)$1,506,077.91 $77,064,319.71
Per Capita $$3,917.04 $3,903.45 Per Capita $$3,705.35 $3,690.44
% of Total 100.0%100.0%% of Total 100.0%100.0%
Taxes
($000s)$367,045.7 $28,700,395.9
General Government Services**
($000s)$851,952.81 $30,930,327.83
Per Capita $$903.03 $1,374.40 Per Capita $$2,096.03 $1,481.19
% of Total 23.1%35.2%% of Total 56.6%40.1%
Permits, Fee, and Special Assessments
($000s)$246,476.5 $3,079,751.7
Public Safety
($000s)$241,509.46 $13,640,661.35
Per Capita $$606.40 $147.48 Per Capita $$594.18 $653.22
% of Total 15.5%3.8%% of Total 16.0%17.7%
Intergovernmental Revenues
($000s)$116,442.4 $9,164,789.4
Physical Environment
($000s)$26,924.08 $5,265,524.83
Per Capita $$286.48 $438.88 Per Capita $$66.24 $252.15
% of Total 7.3%11.2%% of Total 1.8%6.8%
Charges for Services
($000s)$712,184.0 $23,760,013.8
Transportation
($000s)$112,362.43 $5,650,946.87
Per Capita $$1,752.16 $1,137.82 Per Capita $$276.44 $270.61
% of Total 44.7%29.1%% of Total 7.5%7.3%
Judgments, Fines, and Forfeits
($000s)$2,266.2 $338,738.4
Economic Environment
($000s)$53,745.10 $1,975,239.15
Per Capita $$5.58 $16.22 Per Capita $$132.23 $94.59
% of Total 0.1%0.4%% of Total 3.6%2.6%
Miscellaneous Revenues
($000s)$25,263.1 $4,467,076.4
Human Services
($000s)$20,036.08 $4,694,300.07
Per Capita $$62.15 $213.92 Per Capita $$49.29 $224.80
% of Total 1.6%5.5%% of Total 1.3%6.1%
Other Sources
($000s)$122,442.7 $12,001,581.6
Culture / Recreation
($000s)$30,833.89 $1,794,823.73
Per Capita $$301.24 $574.73 Per Capita $$75.86 $85.95
% of Total 7.7%14.7%% of Total 2.0%2.3%
Other Uses and Non-Operating
($000s)$117,288.01 $10,103,703.21
Per Capita $$288.56 $483.84
% of Total 7.8%13.1%
** (Not Court-Related)
Court-Related Expenditures
($000s)$51,426.06 $3,008,792.67
Per Capita $$126.52 $144.08
% of Total 3.4%3.9%
Crime Osceola County Florida Percent Insured by Age Group Osceola County Florida
Crime rate, 2020
(index crimes per 100,000 population)1,920.4 2,158.0 Under 65 years 84.7%84.9%
Admissions to prison FY 2022-23 281 27,209 Under 19 years 93.6%92.7%
18 to 64 years 81.2%82.2%
64.0 120.2
Transportation Osceola County Florida 2023
State Highway County-Wide Not County-Wide*
Centerline Miles 202.6 12,123.4 County 6.8626 0.8564
Lane Miles 762.5 45,337.5 School 5.5040
State Bridges Municipal 1.0659
Number 146 7,079 Special Districts 0.3000 0.4541
*MSTU included in Not County-Wide "County" category
State Facilities
Buildings/Facilities (min. 300 Square Feet)
Number 49 9,426
Square Footage 156,816 65,539,144
Total (state total includes special districts)75 3,787
Conservation Land (land acres only)Elementary 30 1,877
State-Owned (includes partially-owned)196,187 5,689,323 Middle 10 565
% of Total Conservation Land (CL)95.5%54.9%Senior High 17 729
% of Total Area Land 23.1%16.6%Combination 18 616
% of Florida State-Owned CL 3.4%
% HS graduate or higher 87.7%89.3%
% bachelor's degree or higher 26.5%32.3%
Other County Profiles
Criminal Justice County Profiles
School District Profiles
Prepared by:
Florida Legislature
Office of Economic and Demographic Research
111 W. Madison Street, Suite 574
Tallahassee, FL 32399-6588
(850) 487-1402 http://edr.state.fl.us
Health Insurance Status
May 2024
State and Local Taxation
Florida
Page 3
Educational attainment
Persons aged 25 and older Osceola County Florida
Education
Osceola County
School District
Osceola County
Public Education Schools
Traditional Setting (2023-24)
Reported County Government Revenues and Expenditures
* All County Governments Except Duval - The consolidated City of Jacksonville / Duval County figures are included in
municipal totals rather than county government totals.
Quality of Life
Admissions to prison per 100,000
population FY 2022-23
State Infrastructure
Page 3727 of 4096
Census Population Collier County Florida
Real GDP
(Thousands of Chained 2017 Dollars)Collier County Florida
1980 Census 85,971 9,746,961 2017 GDP 18,972,217 1,014,866,863
1990 Census 152,099 12,938,071 Percent of the State 1.9%
2000 Census 251,377 15,982,824 2018 GDP 19,603,770 1,050,433,812
2010 Census 321,520 18,801,332 Percent of the State 1.9%
2020 Census 375,752 21,538,187 2019 GDP 20,295,361 1,079,271,045
% change 2010-2020 16.9%14.6%Percent of the State 1.9%
Age 2020 GDP 20,239,264 1,068,377,540
% Under 18 years of age 16.7%19.5%Percent of the State 1.9%
% Aged 65 and over 32.6%21.2%2021 GDP 22,806,993 1,164,778,182
% Median age 52.9 43.0 Percent of the State 2.0%
Gender 2022 GDP 23,677,213 1,218,430,197
% Male 48.7%48.6%Percent of the State 1.9%
% Female 51.3%51.4%
Race (alone) & Ethnicity
% Not Hispanic-White 62.7%51.5%
% Not Hispanic-Black or African American 6.0%14.5%
% Not Hispanic-American Indian and Alaska Native 0.1%0.2%
% Not Hispanic-Asian 1.4%2.9%Collier County Florida
% Not Hispanic-Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific
Islander 0.0%0.1%Household Population 370,914 21,073,604
% Not Hispanic-Some Other Race 0.4%0.6%Household Population per Occupied Housing Unit 2.35 2.47
% Not Hispanic-Two or More Races 2.1%3.7%Group Quarters Population 4,838 464,583
% Hispanic or Latino (of any race)27.2%26.5%
Collier County Florida Housing Counts Collier County Florida
2021 Estimate 382,680 21,898,945 Housing units, 2020 Census 228,390 9,865,350
% change 2020-2021 1.8%1.7%Occupied 157,921 8,529,067
2022 Estimate 390,912 22,276,132 Vacant 70,469 1,336,283
% change 2020-2022 4.0%3.4%
2023 Estimate 399,480 22,634,867
% change 2020-2023 6.3%5.1%
Based on 2023 Estimate Units Permitted Collier County Florida
2025 413,299 23,292,200 2000 7,970 155,269
2030 443,006 24,698,545 2010 1,259 38,679
2035 466,039 25,814,954 2020 4,473 164,074
2040 484,064 26,682,030 2021 6,766 213,494
2045 499,308 27,409,376 2022 5,517 211,962
2050 512,716 28,065,018 2023 3,618 193,788
Collier County Florida Persons per square mile Collier County Florida
Language Spoken at home
(% of total persons aged 5 and over)2000 124.1 296.4
Speak only English 66.8%70.1%2010 160.9 350.6
Speak a language other than English 33.2%29.9%2020 188.2 401.4
Speak English "very well"20.7%18.1%2023 200.0 421.9
Place of birth
Foreign born 24.9%21.1%
Veteran status
Civilian population 18 and over 6.9%7.9%Households Collier County Florida
Total households, 2000 Census 102,973 6,338,075
Family households, 2000 Census 71,264 4,210,760
% with own children under 18 32.8%42.3%
Residence 1 Year Ago
Persons aged 1 and over Collier County Florida Total households, 2010 Census 133,179 7,420,802
Same house 85.2%85.6%Family households, 2010 Census 89,276 4,835,475
Different house in the U.S.13.7%13.5%% with own children under 18 33.0%40.0%
Same county in Florida 7.0%7.4%Average Household Size, 2010 Census 2.38 2.48
Different county in Florida 2.2%3.1%Average Family Size, 2010 Census 2.84 3.01
Different county in another state 4.5%3.0%Total households, 2020 Census 157,921 8,529,067
Abroad 1.1%0.9%Family households, 2020 Census 106,877 5,571,482
% with own children under 18 27.8%36.0%
Migration
Housing
Building Permits
Density
Households and Family Households
Population Characteristics
According to Census definitions, a household includes all of the people who occupy a housing unit. The occupants may be a single family, one person living alone, two or more families living together, or any other group of related or unrelated people who share living quarters. A family includes a householder and one or more other people living in the same
household who are related to the householder by birth, marriage, or adoption.
Census counts may be corrected for Census Count Question Resolution (CQR).
Collier County
Florida's 19th most populous county
with 1.8% of Florida's population
Population Real Gross Domestic Product
Population by Housing Type
Population Estimates
Page 3728 of 4096
Collier County
Establishments
2022 Collier County Florida
Establishments
% of All Industries, 2022 Collier County Florida
All industries 17,638 851,793 All industries 17,638 851,793
Natural Resource & Mining 109 5,563 Natural Resource & Mining 0.6%0.7%
Construction 2,410 80,911 Construction 13.7%9.5%
Manufacturing 382 24,106 Manufacturing 2.2%2.8%
Trade, Transportation and Utilities 2,568 150,714 Trade, Transportation and Utilities 14.6%17.7%
Information 250 17,691 Information 1.4%2.1%
Financial Activities 2,507 92,973 Financial Activities 14.2%10.9%
Professional & Business Services 4,504 215,872 Professional & Business Services 25.5%25.3%
Education & Health Services 1,609 95,774 Education & Health Services 9.1%11.2%
Leisure and Hospitality 1,309 64,512 Leisure and Hospitality 7.4%7.6%
Other Services 1,428 58,508 Other Services 8.1%6.9%
Government 82 5,903 Government 0.5%0.7%
Average Annual Employment
% of All Industries, 2022 Collier County Florida
Average Annual Wage
2022 Collier County Florida
All industries 159,940 9,359,143 All industries $63,085 $63,770
Natural Resource & Mining 1.6%0.8%Natural Resource & Mining $38,608 $43,504
Construction 12.0%6.4%Construction $61,061 $63,021
Manufacturing 3.2%4.4%Manufacturing $68,733 $74,590
Trade, Transportation and Utilities 18.4%20.5%Trade, Transportation and Utilities $58,124 $56,618
Information 0.7%1.7%Information $98,461 $109,068
Financial Activities 5.9%7.0%Financial Activities $123,678 $97,914
Professional & Business Services 12.0%16.9%Professional & Business Services $78,745 $79,380
Education & Health Services 15.2%14.8%Education & Health Services $65,208 $62,057
Leisure and Hospitality 18.2%13.2%Leisure and Hospitality $39,060 $33,766
Other Services 4.4%3.0%Other Services $44,866 $47,178
Government 8.2%11.2%Government $67,842 $64,666
Industries may not add to the total due to confidentiality and unclassified.
Labor Force as Percent of Population
Aged 18 and Older Collier County Florida Unemployment Rate Collier County Florida
2000 57.6%63.7%2000 3.7%3.7%
2010 55.6%61.8%2010 11.3%10.8%
2020 55.5%58.5%2020 7.3%8.1%
2021 57.3%59.1%2021 3.8%4.7%
2022 57.7%59.8%2022 2.9%3.0%
2023 58.3%60.5%2023 2.9%2.9%
Personal Income ($000s)Collier County Florida Per Capita Personal Income Collier County Florida
2000 $10,777,335 $471,588,082 2000 $42,428 $29,387
2010 $20,306,964 $730,690,145 2010 $63,015 $38,778
% change 2000-2010 88.4%54.9%% change 2000-2010 48.5%32.0%
2020 $41,877,033 $1,221,121,559 2020 $110,993 $56,561
% change 2010-2020 106.2%67.1%% change 2010-2020 76.1%45.9%
2021 $48,804,286 $1,376,879,460 2021 $126,031 $63,078
% change 2020-2021 16.5%12.8%% change 2020-2021 13.5%11.5%
2022 $52,200,912 $1,441,598,918 2022 $131,160 $64,806
% change 2021-2022 7.0%4.7%% change 2021-2022 4.1%2.7%
Earnings by Place of Work ($000s)Median Income
2000 $4,880,690 $308,751,767 Median Household Income $82,011 $67,917
2010 $7,524,614 $439,036,383 Median Family Income $98,919 $81,514
% change 2000-2010 54.2%42.2%
2020 $12,874,669 $683,698,267 Percent in Poverty, 2022
% change 2010-2020 71.1%55.7%All ages in poverty 10.3%12.7%
2021 $14,850,809 $768,399,192 Under age 18 in poverty 16.6%17.3%
% change 2020-2021 15.3%12.4%Related children age 5-17 in families in poverty 15.8%16.1%
2022 $16,361,276 $844,048,879
% change 2021-2022 10.2%9.8%
Workers Aged 16 and Over Collier County Florida
Place of Work in Florida
Worked outside county of residence 8.3%17.3%12-Month Period Ending September 30, 2022 0.60 1.14
Travel Time to Work 12-Month Period Ending September 30, 2023 0.63 1.16
Mean travel time to work (minutes)25.5 27.9 State Rank 56 NA
NonBusiness Chapter 7 & Chapter 13
Personal Bankruptcy Filing Rate
(per 1,000 population)Collier County Florida
Income and Financial Health
Employment and Labor Force
Page 2
Page 3729 of 4096
Collier County
Revenue 2020-21 Collier County Florida*Expenditures 2020-21 Collier County Florida*
Total - All Revenue Account Codes
($000s)$1,689,533.3 $81,512,347.2
Total - All Expenditure Account Codes
($000s)$1,412,928.26 $77,064,319.71
Per Capita $$4,415.00 $3,903.45 Per Capita $$3,692.19 $3,690.44
% of Total 100.0%100.0%% of Total 100.0%100.0%
Taxes
($000s)$557,278.9 $28,700,395.9
General Government Services**
($000s)$261,973.90 $30,930,327.83
Per Capita $$1,456.25 $1,374.40 Per Capita $$684.58 $1,481.19
% of Total 33.0%35.2%% of Total 18.5%40.1%
Permits, Fee, and Special Assessments
($000s)$101,321.6 $3,079,751.7
Public Safety
($000s)$314,500.22 $13,640,661.35
Per Capita $$264.77 $147.48 Per Capita $$821.84 $653.22
% of Total 6.0%3.8%% of Total 22.3%17.7%
Intergovernmental Revenues
($000s)$208,646.5 $9,164,789.4
Physical Environment
($000s)$248,520.17 $5,265,524.83
Per Capita $$545.22 $438.88 Per Capita $$649.42 $252.15
% of Total 12.3%11.2%% of Total 17.6%6.8%
Charges for Services
($000s)$401,214.3 $23,760,013.8
Transportation
($000s)$118,875.88 $5,650,946.87
Per Capita $$1,048.43 $1,137.82 Per Capita $$310.64 $270.61
% of Total 23.7%29.1%% of Total 8.4%7.3%
Judgments, Fines, and Forfeits
($000s)$2,567.2 $338,738.4
Economic Environment
($000s)$17,701.47 $1,975,239.15
Per Capita $$6.71 $16.22 Per Capita $$46.26 $94.59
% of Total 0.2%0.4%% of Total 1.3%2.6%
Miscellaneous Revenues
($000s)$21,246.7 $4,467,076.4
Human Services
($000s)$78,553.18 $4,694,300.07
Per Capita $$55.52 $213.92 Per Capita $$205.27 $224.80
% of Total 1.3%5.5%% of Total 5.6%6.1%
Other Sources
($000s)$397,258.0 $12,001,581.6
Culture / Recreation
($000s)$91,757.94 $1,794,823.73
Per Capita $$1,038.09 $574.73 Per Capita $$239.78 $85.95
% of Total 23.5%14.7%% of Total 6.5%2.3%
Other Uses and Non-Operating
($000s)$270,248.85 $10,103,703.21
Per Capita $$706.20 $483.84
% of Total 19.1%13.1%
** (Not Court-Related)
Court-Related Expenditures
($000s)$10,796.64 $3,008,792.67
Per Capita $$28.21 $144.08
% of Total 0.8%3.9%
Crime Collier County Florida Percent Insured by Age Group Collier County Florida
Crime rate, 2020
(index crimes per 100,000 population)1,208.4 2,158.0 Under 65 years 82.5%84.9%
Admissions to prison FY 2022-23 315 27,209 Under 19 years 88.7%92.7%
18 to 64 years 80.4%82.2%
78.9 120.2
Transportation Collier County Florida 2023
State Highway County-Wide Not County-Wide*
Centerline Miles 206.2 12,123.4 County 3.4285 0.5452
Lane Miles 701.5 45,337.5 School 4.2920
State Bridges Municipal 0.4647
Number 218 7,079 Special Districts 0.2189 1.0082
*MSTU included in Not County-Wide "County" category
State Facilities
Buildings/Facilities (min. 300 Square Feet)
Number 75 9,426
Square Footage 431,464 65,539,144
Total (state total includes special districts)65 3,787
Conservation Land (land acres only)Elementary 31 1,877
State-Owned (includes partially-owned)221,187 5,689,323 Middle 11 565
% of Total Conservation Land (CL)25.4%54.9%Senior High 10 729
% of Total Area Land 17.3%16.6%Combination 13 616
% of Florida State-Owned CL 3.9%
% HS graduate or higher 89.5%89.3%
% bachelor's degree or higher 38.7%32.3%
Other County Profiles
Criminal Justice County Profiles
School District Profiles
Prepared by:
Florida Legislature
Office of Economic and Demographic Research
111 W. Madison Street, Suite 574
Tallahassee, FL 32399-6588
(850) 487-1402 http://edr.state.fl.us May 2024
Page 3
Education
Public Education Schools
Traditional Setting (2023-24)
Collier County
School District Florida
Educational attainment
Persons aged 25 and older Collier County Florida
Health Insurance Status
* All County Governments Except Duval - The consolidated City of Jacksonville / Duval County figures are included in
municipal totals rather than county government totals.
Reported County Government Revenues and Expenditures
State Infrastructure State and Local Taxation
Collier County
Quality of Life
Admissions to prison per 100,000
population FY 2022-23
Page 3730 of 4096
Alternative Impact Fee Analysis for The Teale Golden Gate August 2024
APPENDIX E. FLORIDA IMPACT FEE ACT, CH. 163.31801
The 2024 Florida Statutes
Chapter 163 INTERGOVERNMENTAL PROGRAMS
163.31801 Impact fees; short title; intent; minimum requirements; audits; challenges.—
(1)This section may be cited as the “Florida Impact Fee Act.”
(2)The Legislature flnds that impact fees are an important source of revenue for a local government to use in
funding the infrastructure necessitated by new growth. The Legislature further flnds that impact fees are an
outgrowth of the home rule power of a local government to provide certain services within its jurisdiction. Due to
the growth of impact fee collections and local governments’ reliance on impact fees, it is the intent of the
Legislature to ensure that, when a county or municipality adopts an impact fee by ordinance or a special district
adopts an impact fee by resolution, the governing authority complies with this section.
(3)For purposes of this section, the term:
(a)“Infrastructure” means a flxed capital expenditure or flxed capital outlay, excluding the cost of repairs or
maintenance, associated with the construction, reconstruction, or improvement of public facilities that have
a life expectancy of at least 5 years; related land acquisition, land improvement, design, engineering, and
permitting costs; and other related construction costs required to bring the public facility into service. The
term also includes a flre department vehicle, an emergency medical service vehicle, a sheriff’s office
vehicle, a police department vehicle, a school bus as deflned in s. 1006.25, and the equipment necessary to
outflt the vehicle or bus for its official use. For independent special flre control districts, the term includes
new facilities as deflned in s. 191.009(4).
(b)“Public facilities” has the same meaning as in s. 163.3164 and includes emergency medical, flre, and
law enforcement facilities.
(4)At a minimum, each local government that adopts and collects an impact fee by ordinance and each special
district that adopts, collects, and administers an impact fee by resolution must:
(a)Ensure that the calculation of the impact fee is based on a study using the most recent and localized
data available within 4 years of the current impact fee update. The new study must be adopted by the local
government within 12 months of the initiation of the new impact fee study if the local government increases
the impact fee.
(b)Provide for accounting and reporting of impact fee collections and expenditures and account for the
revenues and expenditures of such impact fee in a separate accounting fund.
(c)Limit administrative charges for the collection of impact fees to actual costs.
(d)Provide notice at least 90 days before the effective date of an ordinance or resolution imposing a new or
increased impact fee. A local government is not required to wait 90 days to decrease, suspend, or eliminate
an impact fee. Unless the result is to reduce the total mitigation costs or impact fees imposed on an
applicant, new or increased impact fees may not apply to current or pending permit applications submitted
before the effective date of a new or increased impact fee.
(e)Ensure that collection of the impact fee may not be required to occur earlier than the date of issuance of
the building permit for the property that is subject to the fee.
(f)Ensure that the impact fee is proportional and reasonably connected to, or has a rational nexus with, the
need for additional capital facilities and the increased impact generated by the new residential or
commercial construction.
(g)Ensure that the impact fee is proportional and reasonably connected to, or has a rational nexus with, the
expenditures of the funds collected and the beneflts accruing to the new residential or nonresidential
construction.
Page 3731 of 4096
Alternative Impact Fee Analysis for The Teale Golden Gate August 2024
(h)Speciflcally earmark funds collected under the impact fee for use in acquiring, constructing, or
improving capital facilities to beneflt new users.
(i)Ensure that revenues generated by the impact fee are not used, in whole or in part, to pay existing debt
or 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 or nonresidential construction.
(5)(a) Notwithstanding any charter provision, comprehensive plan policy, ordinance, development order,
development permit, or resolution, the local government or special district that requires any improvement
or contribution must credit against the collection of the impact fee any contribution, whether identifled in
a development order, proportionate share agreement, or any form of exaction related to public facilities or
infrastructure, including monetary contributions, land dedication, site planning and design, or
construction. Any contribution must be applied on a dollar-for-dollar basis at fair market value to reduce
any impact fee collected for the general category or class of public facilities or infrastructure for which the
contribution was made.
(b)If a local government or special district does not charge and collect an impact fee for the general
category or class of public facilities or infrastructure contributed, a credit may not be applied under
paragraph (a).
(6)A local government, school district, or special district may increase an impact fee only as provided in this
subsection.
(a)An impact fee may be increased only pursuant to a plan for the imposition, collection, and use of the
increased impact fees which complies with this section.
(b)An increase to a current impact fee rate of not more than 25 percent of the current rate must be
implemented in two equal annual increments beginning with the date on which the increased fee is
adopted.
(c)An increase to a current impact fee rate which exceeds 25 percent but is not more than 50 percent of
the current rate must be implemented in four equal installments beginning with the date the increased fee
is adopted.
(d)An impact fee increase may not exceed 50 percent of the current impact fee rate.
(e)An impact fee may not be increased more than once every 4 years.
(f)An impact fee may not be increased retroactively for a previous or current flscal or calendar year.
(g)A local government, school district, or special district may increase an impact fee rate beyond the
phase-in limitations established under paragraph (b), paragraph (c), paragraph (d), or paragraph (e) by
establishing the need for such increase in full compliance with the requirements of subsection (4),
provided the following criteria are met:
1.A demonstrated-need study justifying any increase in excess of those authorized in paragraph (b),
paragraph (c), paragraph (d), or paragraph (e) has been completed within the 12 months before the
adoption of the impact fee increase and expressly demonstrates the extraordinary circumstances
necessitating the need to exceed the phase-in limitations.
2.The local government jurisdiction has held not less than two publicly noticed workshops dedicated
to the extraordinary circumstances necessitating the need to exceed the phase-in limitations set forth
in paragraph (b), paragraph (c), paragraph (d), or paragraph (e).
3.The impact fee increase ordinance is approved by at least a two-thirds vote of the governing body.
(h)This subsection operates retroactively to January 1, 2021.
(7)If an impact fee is increased, the holder of any impact fee credits, whether such credits are granted under
s.163.3180, s. 380.06, or otherwise, which were in existence before the increase, is entitled to the full beneflt
of the intensity or density prepaid by the credit balance as of the date it was flrst established. If a local
government adopts an alternative transportation system pursuant to s. 163.3180(5)(i), the holder of any
Page 3732 of 4096
Alternative Impact Fee Analysis for The Teale Golden Gate August 2024
transportation or road impact fee credits granted under s. 163.3180 or s. 380.06 or otherwise that were in
existence before the adoption of the alternative transportation system is entitled to the full beneflt of the intensity
and density prepaid by the credit balance as of the date the alternative transportation system was flrst
established.
(8)A local government, school district, or special district must submit with its annual flnancial report required
under s. 218.32 or its flnancial audit report required under s. 218.39 a separate affidavit signed by its chief
flnancial officer or, if there is no chief flnancial officer, its executive officer attesting, to the best of his or her
knowledge, that all impact fees were collected and expended by the local government, school district, or special
district, or were collected and expended on its behalf, in full compliance with the spending period provision in the
local ordinance or resolution, and that funds expended from each impact fee account were used only to acquire,
construct, or improve speciflc infrastructure needs.
(9)In any action challenging an impact fee or the government’s failure to provide required dollar-for-dollar
credits for the payment of impact fees as provided in s. 163.3180(6)(h)2.b., the government has the burden of
proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the imposition or amount of the fee or credit meets the
requirements of state legal precedent and this section. The court may not use a deferential standard for the
beneflt of the government.
(10)Impact fee credits are assignable and transferable at any time after establishment from one development
or parcel to any other that is within the same impact fee zone or impact fee district or that is within an adjoining
impact fee zone or impact fee district within the same local government jurisdiction and which receives beneflts
from the improvement or contribution that generated the credits. This subsection applies to all impact fee credits
regardless of whether the credits were established before or after June 4, 2021.
(11)A county, municipality, or special district may provide an exception or waiver for an impact fee for the
development or construction of housing that is affordable, as deflned in s. 420.9071. If a county, municipality, or
special district provides such an exception or waiver, it is not required to use any revenues to offset the impact.
(12)This section does not apply to water and sewer connection fees.
(13)In addition to the items that must be reported in the annual flnancial reports under s. 218.32, a local
government, school district, or special district must report all of the following information on all impact fees
charged:
(a)The speciflc purpose of the impact fee, including the speciflc infrastructure needs to be met, including,
but not limited to, transportation, parks, water, sewer, and schools.
(b)The impact fee schedule policy describing the method of calculating impact fees, such as fiat fees,
tiered scales based on number of bedrooms, or tiered scales based on square footage.
(c)The amount assessed for each purpose and for each type of dwelling.
(d)The total amount of impact fees charged by type of dwelling.
(e)Each exception and waiver provided for construction or development of housing that is affordable.
Page 3733 of 4096
Alternative Impact Fee Analysis for The Teale Golden Gate August 2024
APPENDIX F. HUD FAIR HOUSING ENFORCEMENT—OCCUPANCY STANDARDS STATEMENT OF POLICY
Page 3734 of 4096
federal register70255
Friday
December 18, 1998
Part IV
Department of
Housing and Urban
Development
Fair Housing Enforcement—Occupancy
Standards Statement of Policy; Notice
Page 3735 of 4096
70256 Federal Register /Vol. 63, No. 243 /Friday, December 18, 1998 /Notices
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND
URBAN DEVELOPMENT
[Docket No. FR–4405–N–01]
Fair Housing Enforcement—
Occupancy Standards Notice of
Statement of Policy
AGENCY: Office of the Assistant
Secretary for Fair Housing and Equal
Opportunity, HUD.
ACTION: Notice of statement of policy.
SUMMARY: This statement of policy
advises the public of the factors that
HUD will consider when evaluating a
housing provider’s occupancy policies
to determine whether actions under the
provider’s policies may constitute
discriminatory conduct under the Fair
Housing Act on the basis of familial
status (the presence of children in a
family). Publication of this notice meets
the requirements of the Quality Housing
and Work Responsibility Act of 1998.
DATES: Effective date: December 18,
1998.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Sara Pratt, Director, Office of
Investigations, Office of Fair Housing
and Equal Opportunity, Room 5204, 451
Seventh Street, SW, Washington, DC
20410, telephone (202) 708–2290 (not a
toll-free number). For hearing- and
speech-impaired persons, this telephone
number may be accessed via TTY (text
telephone) by calling the Federal
Information Relay Service at 1–800–
877–8339 (toll-free).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Statutory and Regulatory Background
Section 589 of the Quality Housing
and Work Responsibility Act of 1998
(Pub. L. 105–276, 112 Stat. 2461,
approved October 21, 1998, ‘‘QHWRA’’)
requires HUD to publish a notice in the
Federal Register that advises the public
of the occupancy standards that HUD
uses for enforcement purposes under
the Fair Housing Act (42 U.S.C. 3601–
3619). Section 589 requires HUD to
publish this notice within 60 days of
enactment of the QHWRA, and states
that the notice will be effective upon
publication. Specifically, section 589
states, in relevant part, that:
[T]he specific and unmodified standards
provided in the March 20, 1991,
Memorandum from the General Counsel of
[HUD] to all Regional Counsel shall be the
policy of [HUD] with respect to complaints
of discrimination under the Fair Housing Act
. .. on the basis of familial status which
involve an occupancy standard established
by a housing provider.
The Fair Housing Act prohibits
discrimination in any aspect of the sale,
rental, financing or advertising of
dwellings on the basis of race, color,
religion, national origin, sex or familial
status (the presence of children in the
family). The Fair Housing Act also
provides that nothing in the Act ‘‘limits
the applicability of any reasonable local,
State or Federal restrictions regarding
the maximum number of occupants
permitted to occupy a dwelling.’’ The
Fair Housing Act gave HUD
responsibility for implementation and
enforcement of the Act’s requirements.
The Fair Housing Act authorizes HUD to
receive complaints alleging
discrimination in violation of the Act, to
investigate these complaints, and to
engage in efforts to resolve informally
matters raised in the complaint. In cases
where the complaint is not resolved, the
Fair Housing Act authorizes HUD to
make a determination of whether or not
there is reasonable cause to believe that
discrimination has occurred. HUD’s
regulations, implementing the Fair
Housing Act (42 U.S.C. 3614) are found
in 24 CFR part 100.
In 1991, HUD’s General Counsel,
Frank Keating, determined that some
confusion existed because of the
absence of more detailed guidance
regarding what occupancy restrictions
are reasonable under the Act. To
address this confusion, General Counsel
Keating issued internal guidance to
HUD Regional Counsel on factors that
they should consider when examining
complaints filed with HUD under the
Fair Housing Act, to determine whether
or not there is reasonable cause to
believe discrimination has occurred.
This Notice
Through this notice HUD implements
section 589 of the QHWRA by adopting
as its policy on occupancy standards,
for purposes of enforcement actions
under the Fair Housing Act, the
standards provided in the Memorandum
of General Counsel Frank Keating to
Regional Counsel dated March 20, 1991,
attached as Appendix A.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 3535(d), 112 Stat.
2461.
Dated: December 14, 1998.
Eva M. Plaza,
Assistant Secretary for Fair Housing and
Equal Opportunity.
Appendix A.
March 20, 1991.
MEMORANDUM FOR: All Regional Counsel
FROM: Frank Keating, G
SUBJECT: Fair Housing Enforcement Policy:
Occupancy Cases
On February 21, 1991, I issued a
memorandum designed to facilitate your
review of cases involving occupancy policies
under the Fair Housing Act. The
memorandum was based on my review of a
significant number of such cases and was
intended to constitute internal guidance to be
used by Regional Counsel in reviewing cases
involving occupancy restrictions. It was not
intended to create a definitive test for
whether a landlord or manager would be
liable in a particular case, nor was it
intended to establish occupancy policies or
requirements for any particular type of
housing.
However, in discussions within the
Department, and with the Department of
Justice and the public, it is clear that the
February 21 memorandum has resulted in a
significant misunderstanding of the
Department’s position on the question of
occupancy policies which would be
reasonable under the Fair Housing Act. In
this respect, many people mistakenly viewed
the February 21 memorandum as indicating
that the Department was establishing an
occupancy policy which it would consider
reasonable in any fair housing case, rather
than providing guidance to Regional Counsel
on the evaluation of evidence in familial
status cases which involve the use of an
occupancy policy adopted by a housing
provider.
For example, there is a HUD Handbook
provision regarding the size of the unit
needed for public housing tenants. See
Handbook 7465.1 REV–2, Public Housing
Occupancy Handbook: Admission, revised
section 5–1 (issued February 12, 1991). While
that Handbook provision states that HUD
does not specify the number of persons who
may live in public housing units of various
sizes, it provides guidance about the factors
public housing agencies may consider in
establishing reasonable occupancy policies.
Neither this memorandum nor the
memorandum of February 21, 1991 overrides
the guidance that Handbook provides about
program requirements.
As you know, assuring Fair Housing for all
is one of Secretary Kemp’s top priorities.
Prompt and vigorous enforcement of all the
provisions of the Fair Housing Act, including
the protections in the Act for families with
children, is a critical responsibility of mine
and every person in the Office of General
Counsel. I expect Headquarters and Regional
Office staff to continue their vigilant efforts
to proceed to formal enforcement in all cases
in which there is reasonable cause to believe
that a discriminatory housing practice under
the Act has occurred or is about to occur.
This is particularly important in cases where
occupancy restrictions are used to exclude
families with children or to unreasonably
limit the ability of families with children to
obtain housing.
In order to assure that the Department’s
position in the area of occupancy policies is
fully understood, I believe that it is
imperative to articulate more fully the
Department’s position on reasonable
occupancy policies and to describe the
approach that the Department takes in its
review of occupancy cases.
Specifically, the Department believes that
an occupancy policy of two persons in a
bedroom, as a general rule, is reasonable
under the Fair Housing Act. The Department
of Justice has advised us that this is the
Page 3736 of 4096
70257Federal Register /Vol. 63, No. 243 /Friday, December 18, 1998 /Notices
general policy it has incorporated in consent
decrees and proposed orders, and such a
general policy also is consistent with the
guidance provided to housing providers in
the HUD handbook referenced above.
However, the reasonableness of any
occupancy policy is rebuttable, and neither
the February 21 memorandum nor this
memorandum implies that the Department
will determine compliance with the Fair
Housing Act based solely on the number of
people permitted in each bedroom. Indeed,
as we stated in the final rule implementing
the Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988,
the Department’s position is as follows:
[T]here is nothing in the legislative history
which indicates any intent on the part of
Congress to provide for the development of
a national occupancy code. ** *
On the other hand, there is no basis to
conclude that Congress intended that an
owner or manager of dwellings would be
unable to restrict the number of occupants
who could reside in a dwelling. Thus, the
Department believes that in appropriate
circumstances, owners and managers may
develop and implement reasonable
occupancy requirements based on factors
such as the number and size of sleeping areas
or bedrooms and the overall size of the
dwelling unit. In this regard, it must be noted
that, in connection with a complaint alleging
discrimination on the basis of familial status,
the Department will carefully examine any
such nongovernmental restriction to
determine whether it operates unreasonably
to limit or exclude families with children.
24 C.F.R. Chapter I, Subchapter A.
Appendix I at 566–67 (1990).
Thus, in reviewing occupancy cases, HUD
will consider the size and number of
bedrooms and other special circumstances.
The following principles and hypothetical
examples should assist you in determining
whether the size of the bedrooms or special
circumstances would make an occupancy
policy unreasonable.
Size of bedrooms and unit
Consider two theoretical situations in
which a housing provider refused to permit
a family of five to rent a two-bedroom
dwelling based on a ‘‘two people per
bedroom’’ policy. In the first, the
complainants are a family of five who
applied to rent an apartment with two large
bedrooms and spacious living areas. In the
second, the complainants are a family of five
who applied to rent a mobile home space on
which they planned to live in a small two-
bedroom mobile home. Depending on the
other facts, issuance of a charge might be
warranted in the first situation, but not in the
second.
The size of the bedrooms also can be a
factor suggesting that a determination of no
reasonable cause is appropriate. For example,
if a mobile home is advertised as a ‘‘two-
bedroom’’ home, but one bedroom is
extremely small, depending on all the facts,
it could be reasonable for the park manager
to limit occupancy of the home of two
people.
Age of children
The following hypotheticals involving two
housing providers who refused to permit
three people to share a bedroom illustrate
this principle. In the first, the complainants
are two adult parents who applied to rent a
one-bedroom apartment with their infant
child, and both the bedroom and the
apartment were large. In the second, the
complainants are a family of two adult
parents and one teenager who applied to rent
a one-bedroom apartment. Depending on the
other facts, issuance of a charge might be
warranted in the first hypothetical, but not in
the second.
Configuration of unit
The following imaginary situations
illustrate special circumstances involving
unit configuration. Two condominium
associations each reject a purchase by a
family of two adults and three children based
on a rule limiting sales to buyers who satisfy
a ‘‘two people per bedroom’’ occupancy
policy. The first association manages a
building in which the family of the five
sought to purchase a unit consisting of two
bedrooms plus a den or study. The second
manages a building in which the family of
five sought to purchase a two-bedroom unit
which did not have a study or den.
Depending on the other facts, a charge might
be warranted in the first situation, but not in
the second.
Other physical limitations of housing
In addition to physical considerations such
as the size of each bedroom and the overall
size and configuration of the dwelling, the
Department will consider limiting factors
identified by housing providers, such as the
capacity of the septic, sewer, or other
building systems.
State and local law
If a dwelling is governed by State or local
governmental occupancy requirements, and
the housing provider’s occupancy policies
reflect those requirements, HUD would
consider the governmental requirements as a
special circumstance tending to indicate that
the housing provider’s occupancy policies
are reasonable.
Other relevant factors
Other relevant factors supporting a
reasonable cause recommendation based on
the conclusion that the occupancy policies
are pretextual would include evidence that
the housing provider has: (1) made
discriminatory statements; (2) adopted
discriminatory rules governing the use of
common facilities; (3) taken other steps to
discourage families with children from living
in its housing; or (4) enforced its occupancy
policies only against families with children.
For example, the fact that a development was
previously marketed as an ‘‘adults only’’
development would militate in favor of
issuing a charge. This is an especially strong
factor if there is other evidence suggesting
that the occupancy policies are a pretext for
excluding families with children.
An occupancy policy which limits the
number of children per unit is less likely to
be reasonable than one which limits the
number of people per unit.
Special circumstances also may be found
where the housing provider limits the total
number of dwellings he or she is willing to
rent to families with children. For example,
assume a landlord owns a building of two-
bedroom units, in which a policy of four
people per unit is reasonable. If the landlord
adopts a four person per unit policy, but
refuses to rent to a family of two adults and
two children because twenty of the thirty
units already are occupied by families with
children, a reasonable cause recommendation
would be warranted.
If your review of the evidence indicates
that these or other special circumstances are
present, making application of a ‘‘two people
per bedroom’’ policy unreasonably
restrictive, you should prepare a reasonable
cause determination. The Executive
Summary should explain the special
circumstances which support your
recommendation.
[FR Doc. 98–33568 Filed 12–17–98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4210–28–M
Page 3737 of 4096
Alternative Impact Fee Analysis for The Teale Golden Gate August 2024
APPENDIX G. PHOTOS OF THE TEALE KISSIMMEE
The Teale Kissimmee
•Exterior—improved facades, re-landscaped
•Lobby area also serves as a place to hold social events
•Pool area includes bbq grills, seating
•Apartments equipped with full kitchens, built in shelving
•Units completely renovated—new flxtures and flnishes
•On-site laundry includes an app to notify residents when
wash/dry cycles are completed
•Amenities not pictured: fltness room, daily valet trash
pickup
Page 3738 of 4096
1000 N. Ashley Drive, Suite 400
Tampa, FL 33602
www.benesch.com
P 813-224-8862
January 14, 2025
Mr. Gino Santabarbara, PMP
Principal Planner
Capital Projects Planning, Impact Fees & Program Management Division
2685 South Horseshoe Drive, Suite 103
Naples, Florida 34104
RE: The Teale Golden Gate Alternative Impact Fee Analysis
Dear Mr. Santabarbara:
Collier County received an alternative impact fee study from the Teale Golden Gate, LLC (the applicant or the
developer) for a proposed development located at 4100 Golden Gate Parkway. The study calculated lower
school and parks impact fee rates for the proposed development. The County retained Benesch to review the
alternative study and this letter-memorandum summarizes the findings of this review.
Project Description
The proposed development is part of a Mixed Use Planned Unit Development (MPUD) and will convert Golden
Gate Inn into 215 studio apartments, ranging in size from 307 square feet to 456 square feet. Under Collier
County’s current impact fee structure, these units would be charged at the multi-family rate. As part of the
approval process, the developer entered into an agreement to restrict rental rates and income levels for the
development. The community will offer rent and income restrictions on 11% of the units at or below 80% of
Area Median income (AMI), 12% units at 100% of AMI, and 23% at 120% of AMI. In addition, the development
restricts occupancy in all studio units to two persons through its lease agreements.
The alternative impact fee study completed by the applicant suggests that hotel/motel conversions that result in
studio apartments tend to generate fewer students and/or are occupied by fewer persons and therefore, are
not represented by the current residential categories included in the County’s school and parks impact fee
schedules.
The developer has converted other motels in Florida to multi-family residential units; however, none of these
conversions is in Collier County. In addition, to the best of our knowledge, there are no other similar
developments in Collier County at this point. Alternative studies are preferred to be conducted at mature sites
within the same jurisdiction. However, as Collier County has no hotel conversions, the applicant utilized
secondary data sources, such as US Census, to calculate alternative fee levels and supported its findings through
practices of other Florida jurisdictions and sites in Osceola County.
Page 3739 of 4096
Mr. Gino Santabarbara
Page | 2
Methodology Review
School Impact Fee
The alternative study methodology includes three primary approaches, with the final SGR proposed by the study
being developed under Approach 1.
Approach 1: This method compares Collier County’s demographic characteristics to those of Osceola County
and concludes the following:
• Collier County is similar to Osceola County in terms of distribution of occupants per room with 96.1% of
occupied housing units having 1 or fewer occupants per room. The study then uses this information
along with other Census data on household size and persons per housing unit to develop an estimate
for the proposed development’s occupancy levels.
• The study suggests that school-age kids will need to be limited to students with a single parent at the
proposed development. This is supported by the commitment from the development that rental
agreements will ensure limiting the occupancy levels to no more than two people per unit.
• The study shows that only 4.7% of households are single-parent households with children under the age
of 18, which, along with data on number of studios occupied by more than one person, would suggest a
student generation rate (SGR) of 0.004 per studio apartment.
• The study uses this SGR estimate to calculate the school impact fee that should be paid by the proposed
development.
Approach 2: The study provides data from other jurisdictions that tier their student generation rates by square
footage of housing units. It compares the SGR of smallest tiers to the largest tiers, which results in an average
ratio of 34% for the jurisdictions included in the study. This comparison does not provide the ratio to the
average SGR of all multi-family units; however, even applying this ratio of 34% to the average multi-family SGR
of 0.11 used in Collier County would suggest a student generation rate of 0.04, a rate ten times higher than that
calculated under Approach 1.
Approach 3: Finally, the alternative study provides data from four similar developments in Osceola County,
where the SGR ranges from 0.004 students per unit to 0.022 students per unit, with an average of 0.016
students per unit, four times higher than the estimate obtained under Approach 1 (0.004). Benesch (formerly
Tindale Oliver) assisted Osceola County School District in the review of similar developments in 2019. At that
time, the School District collected data on students attending public schools, which resulted in a range from
0.208 students per unit to 0.276 students per unit. This range is significantly higher than the estimate obtained
under Approach 1.
The alternative study also draws the conclusion that because Osceola County has larger family size, lower
median income, higher percentage of households with children, fast growth and relative shortage of housing
units, it is more likely to have multiple people, including school-aged children, living in studio apartments
compared to Collier County, and therefore, it is likely that the SGR for studio apartments will be lower in Collier
Page 3740 of 4096
Mr. Gino Santabarbara
Page | 3
County. However, given that Collier County’s housing and rental costs are higher than those of Osceola County,
there will be fewer affordable units available, providing a higher incentive for single parent families to rent units
from the proposed development. In addition, 4100 Golden Gate Parkway is zoned for Golden Gate Terrace
Elementary, Golden Gate Middle, and Golden Gate High Schools. Golden Gate Elementary and Middle have
letter grades of B, and Golden Gate High School has a grade of A, providing further incentive for families with
school age children to live in the area.
Parks Impact Fee
The demand component of the parks impact fees is measured in terms of persons per housing unit. Unlike
school impact fees, the parks impact fees are availability-based fees since there is not sufficient data on use of
parks by different residential categories.
The alternative study calculates a lower figure for persons per household. While the demand for school impact
fees is tied to a certain age-group, parks are available to all age groups. In addition, the calculation of demand
component for parks is based on all housing units, including vacant units, again because parks are available to all
housing and their occupants over the life of a home. Given these differences, we do not believe the proposed
development is significantly different in its impact on the parks and recreational facility infrastructure and we do
not recommend discounting the fee.
Summary & Recommendations
Benesch reviewed and verified the data used in the alternative fee study and provides the following
recommendations:
• Impact fees are designed to measure new development’s cost on a given infrastructure. The demand
component of the impact fees ensures that the fees are roughly proportional to each land use/category’s
burden on the infrastructure. Case law indicates that it is important to charge all new development
generating the need to ensure those who pay their fair share receive the associated benefit through the
construction of additional facilities.
• An alternative fee should be accepted only when the differential demand is tied to physical characteristics
of the building or when a building is deed restricted for certain types of occupants. For example, in the
case of school impact fees, the type of structures that can easily house families and happen to have a low
student generation rate due to the current occupants should not be eligible for a differential fee. In the
case of studio apartments that are hotel/motel conversions, the lack of bedrooms and size of units (up to
456 square feet), and rental agreements that restrict the occupancy to no more than 2 people would
provide the necessary physical characteristics. If Collier County decides to develop a separate category
for the hotel/motel conversions, the characteristics listed above should be used as required physical and
use characteristics to be categorized under this category.
Page 3741 of 4096
Mr. Gino Santabarbara
Page | 4
• For accurate results, the alternative studies should be based on similar developments within the same
jurisdiction. However, given that there are not any comparable developments in Collier County, the
alternative study relied on Census data, supplemented by data from other Florida jurisdictions and sites
in Osceola County.
• The alternative study for the school impact fee introduced multiple approaches to support its conclusions.
This analysis was supplemented by prior data utilized by Benesch. The following table provides a summary
of SGR estimates obtained from these sources. As presented, there is a large variation in the generation
rates from different sources/analyses.
(1) The ratio of 34% provided by the alternative study multiplied by 0.11. See section
on Approach 2 for further explanation.
Given this variation, we recommend that the County enter into an agreement with the applicant to
measure the student generation rate of the proposed development approximately five years after it
receives the Certificate of Occupancy. This will allow for the development to reach a mature stage, and
its SGR will be documented more accurately.
• In the case of parks impact fee, renters of the proposed development are likely to use parks just like any
other development. Given that the persons per housing unit calculation are based on all housing units,
including vacant ones, the figures account for homes with fewer people. We do not recommend
providing any discount for the parks impact fee.
• Finally, the information provided by the applicant suggested that most, if not all, of the units are likely to
be leased at a level to qualify for Collier County’s Affordable Housing Impact Fee Deferral Program. This
option would defer all impact fees for the applicant.
Methodology Estimated SGR
Current Adopted School Impact Fee -- Collier County 0.11
Census Data Analysis - Occupancy & HH Size 0.004
Data from Other Florida Counties (1)0.037
Osceola County Developments (4 Sites - 2024)0.004 - 0.022
Osceola County Developments (4 Sites - 2019)0.208 - 0.276
Page 3742 of 4096
Mr. Gino Santabarbara
Page | 5
Please let us know if you have any questions on this review.
Sincerely,
Nilgün Kamp, AICP
Director of Public Finance
Page 3743 of 4096
Page 3744 of 4096
Page 3745 of 4096
Page 3746 of 4096
Charles Ryan HylerAuthorized ManagerEvelyn Marlene QuiamALVARO EDMUNDO NIEVESJune17thCharles Ryan HylerAuthorized ManagerDRIVER LICENSEAmber Riggs12/15/2026Notarized remotely online using communication technology via Proof.Page 3747 of 4096