Loading...
DSAC Agenda 09/03/2025• ,,e, Collier County Growth Management Community Development Department Development Services Advisory Committee Meeting Wednesday, September 03, 2025 3:00 pm 2800 N. Horseshoe Dr. Naples, FL 34104 Growth Management Community Development Department Conference Room 609/610 Please contact Heather Cartwright-Yilmaz at (239) 252-8389 if you have any questions or wish to meet with staff. Collier County GROWTH MANAGEMENT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Development Services Advisory Committee Agenda Wednesday, September 03, 2025 3:00 pm 2800 N. Horseshoe Dr., Naples, FL 34104 Growth Management Community Development, Conference Rooms 609/610 NOTICE: Persons wishing to speak on any Agenda item will receive up to three (3) minutes unless the Chairman adjusts the time. Speakers are required to fill out a "Speaker Registration Form", list the topic they wish to address, and hand it to the Staff member before the meeting begins. Please wait to be recognized by the Chairman and speak into a microphone. State your name and affiliation before commenting. During the discussion, Committee Members may direct questions to the speaker. Please silence cell phones and digital devices. There may not be a break in this meeting. Please leave the room to conduct any personal business. All parties participating in the public meeting are to observe Roberts Rules of Order and wait to be recognized by the Chairman. Please speak one at a time and into the microphone so the Hearing Reporter can record all statements being made. 1. Call to order — Chairman 2. Approval of Agenda 3. Approval of Minutes: a. DSAC-IFR:07.16.2025 (Page: 04) b. DSAC:08.06.2025 (Page: 09) 4. Public Speakers For more information, please contact Heather Cartwright-Yilmaz at (239) 252-8389 or at Heather.Yilmaz@colliercountvfl.gov Collier County GROWTH MANAGEMENT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 5. Staff Announcements/Updates a. Zoning Division — [Mike Bosi] b. Community Planning & Resiliency Division — [Christopher Mason] c. Housing Policy & Economic Development Division — [Cormac Giblin] d. Development Review Division — [Jaime Cook] e. Operations & Regulatory Mgmt. Division — [Michael Stark] f. Building Review & Permitting Division — [John McCormick] g. Collier County Fire Review — [Michael Cruz, Captain] h. North Collier Fire Review — [Chief Sean Lintz or designee] i. Code Enforcement Division — [Thomas landimarino] j. Public Utilities Department — [Matt McLean or designee] k. Transportation Management Services Transportation Engineering Division — [Jay Ahmad or designee] 6. New Business a. PL20250009062 - Reasonable Accommodation for Certified Recovery Residencies LDCA b. PL20250005385 - Scrivener's Errors and Cross -Reference Corrections LDCA c. PL20250006145 - Removal of Prohibited Exotic Vegetation LDCA d. PL20250007882 - Administrative Plat Approval LDCA e. PL20250008677 - Plat, Replat and Construction Documents, Code of Law Amendment (Informational Item Only) 7. Old Business a. Review Impact Fee Recommendations — Corporate Financial & Management Services [Gino Santabarbara] 8. Committee Member Comments 9. Adjourn FUTURE MEETING DATES: October 01, 2025 — 3:00 PM November 05, 2025 — 3:00 PM December 03, 2025 — 3:00 PM For more information, please contact Heather Cartwright-Yilmaz at (239) 252-8389 or at•1eather.Yilmaz@colliercountyfl.gov MINUTES OF THE COLLIER COUNTY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE IMPACT FEE REVIEW SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING Naples, Florida July 16, 2025 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, the Collier County Development Services Advisory Committee Meeting and Collier County, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 3:00 PM in REGULAR SESSION at Growth Management Community Development Department Room 609/610 2800 N. Horseshoe DR with the following members present. Chairman: Nick Kouloheras (Interim) Mario Valle (Excused) Clay Brooker Robert Mulhere Bill Varian (Excused) The following County Staff were in attendance: Gino Santabarbara, Manager, Impact Fees — Corporate Financial & Management Services Heather Cartwright-Yilmaz, Management Analyst / Staff Liaison, GMCD Any person who decides to appeal a decision of This Board you will need a record of the proceedings pertaining thereto and therefore may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based, Neither Collier County nor This Board shall be responsible for providing this record. 1. CALL TO ORDER — Chairman Chairman - Nick Kouloheras Development Service Advisory Committee — Impact Fee Review Subcommittee, Wednesday, 161h July 2025 was called to order at 3:00 PM a. Selection of Committee Chairman and Vice Chairman • Nick Kouloheras- Interim Chairman • Bill Varian- Vice Chairman 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Nick Kouloheras - Interim Chair made the motion. Robert Mulhere - Seconded 3. Old Business a. Collier School Impact Fee Update Study — DRAFT Report 04-25-2025 • Did not discuss at this meeting. b. Collier County Correctional Facilities Impact Fee Study — DRAFT Report 10-31- 2024 • Level of Service is 2.7 Beds per 1000 residents • New mental health facility being built on Golden Gate Parkway will help with housing some individuals vs Jail that will help with capacity issues • Single family home increase is 16% based on the study • Board referenced price of land and stated majority of growth will be East of 951 Lower land cost needs to be considered in study • Board questioned methodology for study. Benesch will clarify during presentation c. Collier County Emergency Medical Services Impact Fee Update Study — DRAFT Report 10-31-2024 • Did not discuss at this meeting. d. Collier County General Government Buildings Impact Fee Update Study — DRAFT Report 10-31-2024 • Single family homes increased 60% but hit the CAP at 50% • Multifamily increase of 61 % • Cost of Government buildings is significantly higher in Collier County than any other county in the state. Based on Land Cost, construction costs, Land value being the highest contributor. 2 • Impact fees are highest in the state, but Collier County still has the lowest millage rate in the state. • Board again referenced majority of growth will be East of 951. Lower land cost needs to be considered in study. • Impact fees are very restricted. Can only be used to add not repair. No O&M on existing buildings. • Anticipated over the next 5 years- 8-10 Villages and 3 towns out East of 951. Will need to consider additional government buildings for level of service. Villages are required to provide 15sgft and Towns need to provide 53sgft of civic space. e. Collier County Law Enforcement Impact Fee Update Study —DRAFT Report 10-31- 2024 • Both single family and multifamily rates decreased. • 30% Below level of service, board questioned why fees decreased if we are deficient in Level of Service. • Board is holding on vote until Bill Varian returns. f. Collier County Library Facilities Impact Fee Update Study —DRAFT Report 10-31- 2024 • Libraries are being used more for community centers with current generation • Discussed combining Library with Parks and Recreation in the future. • Calculated fees in the study are going down. g. Collier County Parks and Recreation Impact Fee Update Study — DRAFT Report 10- 31-2024 • Regional Parks had significant decreases. • Land costs east of 951 need to be considered for this study. h. Collier County Road Impact Fee Update Study — DRAFT Report 10-31-2024 • Did not discuss at this meeting. 4. New Business i. Zoom Presentation by Benesch for open questions with board. • Unavailable for this meeting. Will reschedule for next meeting. 5. PUBLIC SPEAKERS None 6. UPCOMING DSAC-LDR SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING DATES DISCUSSION: a. Wednesday, August 27th, 2025 - TBD b. Wednesday, September 17, 2025 c. Wednesday, October 22, 2025 Nick Kouloheras — Interim Chair • Made a motion to adjourn the meeting. 7. ADJOURN There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by the order of the chairman at 4:08 p.m. 0 COLLIER COUNTY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW SUBCOMMITTEE Nick Kouloheras, Chairman These minutes were approved by the Committee/Chairman on (check one) as submitted or as amended MINUTES OF THE COLLIER COUNTY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING Naples, Florida August 6, 2025 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, the Collier County Development Services Advisory Committee and Collier County, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 3:00 PM in REGULAR SESSION at the Collier County Growth Management Community Department Building, Conference Room #609/610, 2800 N. Horseshoe Dr., Naples, Florida, 34102 with the following members present: Chairman: William J. Varian Vice Chairman: Blair Foley James Boughton Clay Brooker Jeffrey Curl Laura Spurgeon DeJohn John English Marco Espinar Norm Gentry Nicholas Kouloheras Mark McLean Chris Mitchell Robert Mulhere Hannah Roberts—AHAC—Non-Voting Jeremy Sterk Mario Valle The following County staff were in attendance: Mike Bosi — Director, Zoning Division, GMCD Christopher Mason — Director, Community Planning & Resiliency Division, GMCD (Not in Attendance) Jaime Cook — Director, Development Review Division, GMCD Michael Stark — Director, Operations & Regulatory Management Division, GMCD John McCormick — Director, Building Review & Permitting Division, GMCD Thomas Iandimarino — Director, Code Enforcement, GMCD Claudia Vargas — Project Manager I, Engineering & Project Management, PUD Cormac Giblin — Director, Housing Policy & Economic Development Division, GMCD Jay Ahmed — Director, Transportation Management Services, Transportation Engineering Division James French — Department Head, GMCD (Not in Attendance) Heather Cartwright-Yilmaz — Management Analyst/Staff Liaison, GMCD Captain Michael Cruz — Collier County Fire Review Captain Bryan Horbal — North Collier Fire Review Any person who decides to appeal a decision of This Board you will need a record of the proceedings pertaining thereto, and therefore may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based, neither Collier County nor This Board shall be responsible for providing this record. 1. CALL TO ORDER— Chairman Chairman Varian Development Service Advisory Committee, Wednesday, August 6, 2025, was called to order at 3:00 PM. 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Blair Foley motioned to approve the agenda as presented. Mario Valle seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES a. DSAC-LDR Subcommittee Meeting: 05.20.2025 Clay Brooker motioned to approve the minutes with corrections (replace "Mr. Brooker" with correct names and "sees" with "wants" on page 5). Robert Mulhere seconded. Motion passed unanimously. b. DSAC Meeting: 06.04.2025 Nicholas Kouloheras motioned to approve the minutes. Norm Gentry seconded. Motion passed unanimously. c. DSAC-IFR Subcommittee Meeting: 06.19.2025 Mario Valle motioned to approve the minutes. Chris Mitchell seconded. Motion passed unanimously. d. DSAC-ROW Subcommittee Meeting: 07.23.2025 Motion passed unanimously. 4. PUBLIC SPEAKERS None 5. STAFF ANNOUNCEMENTS a. Zoning Division — [Mike Bosi, Director] • Staffing Shortages: Down two staff members, with efforts to fill positions ongoing. • Land Use Petitions: 27 petitions scheduled for September and October Board of County Commissioners (BCC) meetings, including Costco ASW PDI (September 18 and October 14). Some petitions may be delayed due to agenda constraints. • Planning Commission: 25 petitions between August and October, following a summer hiatus. Fall meetings expected to be intensive. 2 • Legislation: County must adopt a certified recovery residents reasonable accommodation ordinance by January 1, 2026. A draft is being prepared for DSAC review in September, with a 60-day decision -making process for applications. Robert Mulhere: Clarified Costco ASW PDI dates (September 18 for market study, October 14 for full hearing). b. Community Planning & Resiliency Division — [Christopher Mason, Director] • No updates provided (Mason absent). c. Housing Policy & Economic Development — [Cormac Giblin, Director] • Affordable Housing: Board approved 640 units. LDC amendments for housing plan flexibility rescheduled to September 28 due to cancellation of September 12 BCC meeting. • Economic Development: Contract executed with Failing Family Brands for Texas Tony's at North Collier Regional Park. Invitations to negotiate for concessionaires at Barefoot Beach and Tigertail in progress. d. Development Review Division — [Jaime Cook, Director] • Plat Approvals: Effective July 1, 2025, subdivision plats can be administratively approved, signed by Cook, eliminating BCC review. Construction maintenance agreements and bonds still required for pre -recording permits. e. Operations & Regulatory Management Division — [Michael Stark, Director] • Permit Applications: July saw 4,338 applications (24 Hurricane Ian, 39 Hurricane Milton). • Zoning Front Desk: Resolved 1,012 survey conditions, processed 28 short-term vacation rentals, hosted 33 pre -application meetings, and welcomed 1,035 customers at the business center and 128 at satellite offices. • Call Volume: 7,791 calls answered, up significantly. IT team analyzing call drivers to improve website navigation and reduce volume. • Staffing: 623.5 department -wide positions, 59 in hiring pipeline, many due to promotions. Recruitment event on May 28 targeted reviewers/inspectors, with plans for broader events. • Fee Study: Progressing, with solutions to be presented at next DSAC meeting. Focus on aligning fees with operational costs. • HR Challenges: Two dedicated HR staff (Stephanie Abreu, Sandra Delgado) addressing bottlenecks in application processing. Previously, only 8 of 52 code enforcement applications were forwarded due to cursory downtown HR reviews. Now receiving all applications. • Initiatives: Exploring pay raises, incentives (e.g., $5,000—$10,000 for certifications), remote work, and internship programs. Partnerships with FGCU and Lorenzo Walker for recruitment, including paid internships. Chairman Varian: Expressed concern over high call volume, suggesting website improvements. Criticized prolonged review times (e.g., structural reviews), staffing 3 shortages, and HR inefficiencies. Noted $500 early work authorizations as an additional taxpayer cost due to delays. Blair Foley: Highlighted competitive labor market and HR structural issues, questioning reliance on downtown HR for specialized roles. Robert Mulhere: Suggested a sit-down with HR to discuss incentives (e.g., sign -on bonuses) and enterprise fund considerations. Mario Valle: Emphasized frustration with lack of progress on staffing and review delays, impacting business operations. E Building Review & Permitting Division — [John McCormick, Director] • Staffing Crisis: Structural plan review team at 50% capacity after losing another reviewer. Overtime authorized, but shortages drive delays. No PEs or architects remain (previously had four PEs and one architect). • Fee Study: Critical for funding competitive wages. Current rates unchanged for 10 years, leading to reserve depletion. • Review Process: Batch review system causes delays as plans move between trades. Exploring continuous flow model and AI for intake checklists to improve efficiency. • Pay Disparity: Regulatory staff earn 30% less than general fund staff (e.g., facilities PMs). Equity pay rules limit hiring at competitive rates. • Training: Supports internship and mentoring programs but stresses need for competitive wages to attract/retain talent. Last reviewer left for a $20,000 higher salary elsewhere. Chairman Varian: Criticized inconsistent reviews (e.g., missed items leading to additional submittals) and requested trade -specific review time data. Mario Valle: Noted non -compliant competitors bypassing permits due to delays, harming compliant businesses. Blair Foley: Suggested professionalizing staff through training and certifications, questioning current training scope. g. Collier County Fire Review — [Michael Cruz, Captain] No report. h. North Collier Fire Review — [Bryan Horbal, Captain] • Plan Reviews: 200 additional reviews this month, totaling 820 permits. Two-day turnaround maintained. • Inspections: 1,400 new construction inspections in May. Nine projects on TCO awaiting CO paperwork. • Staffing: Three new hires planned to address upcoming retirements. Existing building inspections up to date. i. Code Enforcement Division — [Thomas Iandimarino, Director] • Hosting FACE fundamentals class in July at Heritage Bay for 35 staff (11 from Collier), saving $8,000—$12,000 in travel costs. j. Public Utilities Department — [Claudia Vargas] No updates. 0 k. Transportation Management Services — [Jay Ahmed, Director] • Access Management: Presented to BCC on July 8. • FDOT Projects: Public hearing for I-75 PD&E (Golden Gate Parkway to Corkscrew Road) and DDI at I-75/Immokalee (August 14). • Golden Gate Parkway: Congestion study public meeting on August 21. • Tiger Complete Street: 20 miles of sidewalks completed. 6. NEW BUSINESS None 7. OLD BUSINESS None 8. COMMITTEE MEMBER COMMENTS • Chairman Varian: Urged faster permit processing to avoid economic impacts (e.g., delayed Publix, EMS stations). Criticized CAPTCHA on City View portal for signed -in users. • Mario Valle: Highlighted competitive disadvantage for compliant businesses due to permit delays. • Blair Foley: Suggested HR overhaul and targeted recruitment (e.g., headhunters) for specialized roles. 9. ADJOURN There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned at 3:45 p.m. 5 COLLIER COUNTY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE William Varian, Chairman These minutes were approved by the Committee/Chairman on , (check one) as submitted or as amended 1.1 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK ...,)Collier County LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT PETITION SUMMARY OF AMENDMENT PL20250009062 To establish formal procedures and standards for reasonable ORIGIN accommodation requests submitted by certified recovery residences, in Growth Management accordance with Florida Statutes 397.487. LDC amendments are reviewed Community Department by the Board of County Commissioners (Board), Collier County Planning (GMCD) Commission (CCPC), Development Services Advisory Committee (DSAC), and the Land Development Review Subcommittee of the DSAC (DSAC-LDR). HEARING DATES LDC SECTION TO BE AMENDED Board TBD 9.05.00 Reasonable Accommodation for Certified Recovery Residences CCPC TBD (New Section) DSAC 09/03/2025 DSAC-LDR N/A ADVISORY BOARD RECOMMENDATIONS DSAC-LDR DSAC CCPC N/A TBD TBD BACKGROUND Chapter 2025-182, Laws of Florida, which was formerly known as Senate Bill 954, establishes new regulatory requirements for certified recovery residences in Florida, effective July 1, 2025. Pursuant to Section 397.487, Florida Statutes, "By January 1, 2026, the governing body of each county or municipality shall adopt an ordinance establishing procedures for the review and approval of certified recovery residences within its jurisdiction. The ordinance must include a process for requesting reasonable accommodation from any local land use regulation that serves to prohibit the establishment of a certified recovery residence." These facilities, commonly known as sober homes, offer structured, supportive living environments for individuals recovering from substance use disorders. Typically operated as group living arrangements, recovery residences can present zoning and land use challenges related to occupancy limits, neighborhood compatibility, and use classifications. In the 2025 legislative session, the Florida Legislature passed Senate Bill 954, which requires local governments to adopt an ordinance to establish a process for applicants seeking reasonable accommodations from land use regulations that serve to prohibit the establishment of a certified recovery residence. On June 25, 2025, Governor DeSantis approved Senate Bill 954, and Senate Bill 954 was codified into law as Chapter 2025-182. The proposed LDC amendment complies with the statutory requirements of Section 397.487, Florida Statutes. FISCAL & OPERATIONAL IMPACTS GMP CONSISTENCY No fiscal impacts are anticipated. To be provided by Comprehensive Planning Staff after first review. EXHIBITS: A) Chapter 2025-182 G:\LDC Amendments\Advisory Boards and Public Hearings\DSAC\2025\Sep 03\Materials\PL20250009062 Reasonable Accommodation Certified Recovery Residencies - LDCA (08-20-2025) .docx DRAFT Text underlined is new text to be added Text str'Lethrn nh 'c currono text to he deleted Amend the LDC as follows: 1 2 9.05.00 — Reasonable Accommodation for Certified Recovery Residences 3 4 A. Requests for reasonable accommodation by certified recovery residences. This section 5 implements the policy of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County for 6 processing and considering requests for reasonable accommodation to its zoning and land 7 use ordinances, rules, policies, practices and/or procedures for certified recovery 8 residences in compliance with Section 397.487, Florida Statutes. For purposes of this 9 section, "Certified recovery residence" means a recovery residence that holds a valid 10 certificate of compliance and is actively managed by a certified recovery residence 11 administrator. A certified recovery residence may request a reasonable accommodation 12 with respect to the county's land use or zoning laws, rules, policies, practices and/or 13 procedures pursuant to the procedures and standards set out in this section. 14 15 B. Submission of request for reasonable accommodation. A request for reasonable 16 accommodation under this section shall be made in writing by completion of a reasonable 17 accommodation request form, which form is maintained by (and shall be submitted to) the 18 County Manager, or designee. The reasonable accommodation form shall contain such 19 questions and requests for information as are necessary for processing the reasonable 20 accommodation request. The reasonable accommodation request form shall be 21 substantially in the form set forth in LDC subsection 9.05.00 K. 22 23 C. Confidentiality of medical information or records. Should information provided to the 24 county by the certified recovery residence include any medical information or records, 25 including records indicating the medical condition, diagnosis or medical history of a 26 resident, such certified recovery center may, at the time of submitting such medical 27 information, request that the county, to the extent allowed by law, treat such medical 28 information as confidential information of the resident. The county shall thereafter 29 endeavor to provide written notice to the certified recovery residence (and/or their 30 representative) of any request received by the county for disclosure of the medical 31 information or records which the certified recovery center has previously requested be 32 treated as confidential by the county. The county will defer to the certified recovery 33 residence, to the extent allowed by law, in actions initiated by such certified recovery 34 residence (and/or their representative) to oppose the disclosure of such medical 35 information or records, but the county shall have no obligation to initiate, prosecute or 36 pursue any such action, or to incur any legal or other expenses (whether by retention of 37 outside counsel or allocation of internal resources) in connection therewith, and may 38 comply with any judicial order without prior notice to the certified recovery residence. 39 Notwithstanding, the foregoing shall not limit the county's ability to request and review 40 information and documentation relevant to a certified recovery residence's eligibility for a 41 reasonable accommodation as set forth in LDC subsection 9.05.00 E. 42 43 D. Processinq of request for reasonable accommodation; request by county for additional 44 information. 45 46 1. When a reasonable accommodation request form has been completed and 47 submitted to the County Manager, or designee, it will be referred to the County 48 Manaaer. or desianee. for review. The reasonable accommodation reauest form K, G:\LDC Amendments\Advisory Boards and Public Hearings\DSAC\2025\Sep 03\Materials\PL20250009062 Reasonable Accommodation Certified Recovery Residencies - LDCA (08-20-2025) .docx DRAFT Text underlined is new text to be added 1 will be date -stamped upon receipt. The County Manager, or designee, shall render 2 a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners within thirty (30) days 3 of receipt of the request for reasonable accommodation. The Board of County 4 Commissioners has the authority to consider and render the final determination on 5 requests for reasonable accommodation at a duly noticed public meeting. The 6 Board of County Commissioners, in their sole discretion, may also elect to have 7 the Hearing Examiner render the final determination on the request for reasonable 8 accommodation at a duly noticed public hearing. The county shall inform the 9 applicant in writing of the date and time of the meeting at least ten (10) days prior 10 to said meeting. In addition, mailed notice shall be sent to property owners at least 11 10 days prior to the hearing in accordance with LDC section 10.03.06 F.2.a. 12 Notwithstanding LDC section 9.05.00 D.2, the county shall issue the written 13 determination of the Board of County Commissioners, or the Hearing Examiner, 14 within sixty (60) days of the date of receipt of a completed application in 15 accordance with LDC section 9.05.00 F. 16 17 2. If reasonably necessary to reach a determination on the request for reasonable 18 accommodation, the County Manager, or designee, may request additional 19 information from the certified recovery residence, specifying in sufficient detail 20 what information is required. If additional information is required, the County 21 Manager, or designee, shall notify the applicant in writing within the first 30 days 22 after receipt of the application and allow the applicant at least 30 days to respond. 23 If the applicant fails to provide the requested additional information within said 30- 24 day period, the County Manager, or designee, shall issue a written notice advising 25 that the applicant failed to timely submit the additional information, and therefore 26 the request for reasonable accommodation shall be deemed abandoned and/or 27 withdrawn and no further action by the county with regard to said reasonable 28 accommodation request shall be required. In the event additional information is 29 requested by the County Manager, or designee, the 60-day time frame for issuing 30 a written determination shall be extended by 30 days. 31 32 3. If a written determination is not issued within 60 days after receipt of a completed 33 application, the request is deemed approved unless the parties agree in writing to 34 a reasonable extension of time or the time period is extended under LDC section 35 9.05.00 D.2. The time periods specified herein may be extended by the mutual 36 agreement of the county and certified recovery residence, with such extension 37 confirmed in writing. 38 39 E. Consideration of request for reasonable accommodation. In connection with a request for 40 reasonable accommodation, the County Manager, or designee, shall consider, among 41 other relevant factors, the following: 42 43 1. Eligibility of certified recovery residence. The applicant shall be required to 44 establish that the operator and/or administrator of the certified recovery residence 45 is qualified to provide such services and/or housing to qualifying individuals. An 46 operator and/or administrator may establish its qualification by demonstrating that 47 they are certified by the Florida Association of Recovery Residences, National 48 Alliance for Recovery Residences, or other similar nationally recognized 49 accreditina aaencv for recovery residences. K G:\LDC Amendments\Advisory Boards and Public Hearings\DSAC\2025\Sep 03\Materials\PL20250009062 Reasonable Accommodation Certified Recovery Residencies - LDCA (08-20-2025) .docx 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 DRAFT Text underlined is new text to be added Text str'Lethrn nh 'c currono text to he deleted 2. Demonstration that requested accommodation is both reasonable and necessary. The applicant shall demonstrate that the requested accommodation is both reasonable and necessary (as interpreted by the courts) and, if the request is with regard to housing, reasonable and necessary to afford the qualifying residents with an equal opportunity to use and enjoy the certified recovery residence that is the subject of the request, including the following factors: a. Therapeutic necessity. The applicant shall demonstrate that the proposed accommodation is therapeutically necessary for sobriety. If the accommodation does not directly aid in sobriety (or if the request exceeds the demonstrated need), then the accommodation shall not be deemed therapeutically necessary. Further, the applicant shall demonstrate that the specific accommodation request constitutes the minimum necessary accommodation to achieve the stated therapeutic purposes. Lastly, if the request for reasonable accommodation is with regard to housing, the applicant shall provide a site -specific assessment with regard to the particular property for which the accommodation is requested. General statements of therapeutic necessity shall not be sufficient to satisfy the reauirements of this subsection. b. Fundamental alteration. The applicant shall demonstrate that the proposed accommodation does not constitute a fundamental alteration of the county's zoning scheme and/or other county programs/policies. An accommodation amounts to a fundamental alteration if it would eliminate an essential aspect of the relevant Code provision or policy. Factors to be considered in determining whether the proposed accommodation would result in a fundamental alteration of the county's zoning scheme include, but are not limited to. whether the accommodation is: Compatible with surrounding uses and structures in the zoning district; and ii. Substantially similar to surrounding uses and structures expressly permitted in the zoning district. An aDDlicant shall not be entitled to a reasonable accommodation if the requested accommodation is incompatible with surrounding uses and structures in the zoning district, is not substantially similar to surrounding uses and structures expressly permitted in the zoning district, and the county has not otherwise routinely waived the applicable ordinance, rule, policy, practice or procedure. A requested increase in density shall not be considered a reasonable accommodation. C. Undue financial or administrative burden. The applicant shall demonstrate that the proposed accommodation does not impose an undue financial or administrative burden on the county. d. Over -concentration of recovery residences. If the request for reasonable accommodation is with regard to housing described in LDC subsection 4 G:\LDC Amendments\Advisory Boards and Public Hearings\DSAC\2025\Sep 03\Materials\PL20250009062 Reasonable Accommodation Certified Recovery Residencies - LDCA (08-20-2025) .docx DRAFT Text underlined is new text to be added Text str'Lethrn nh 'c currono text to he deleted 1 9.05.00 E.2.b, the applicant shall demonstrate that the proposed 2 accommodation will not result in an over -concentration of such housing 3 located in close proximity. 4 5 e. Economic viability. There is a limited alternative to the establishment of 6 therapeutic necessity in accordance with LDC subsection 9.05.00 E.2.a 7 based upon economic viability. Although difficult to establish, to qualify 8 under this limited alternative the applicant shall present documentation, 9 reports, data, statistics and/or other objective evidence specifically 10 demonstrating that the requested accommodation is necessary for the 11 continued economic viability of the facility, residence or operator, as 12 applicable. Underscoring the limited nature of this alternative, the following 13 shall not be sufficient to establish that the proposed accommodation is 14 necessary for continued economic viability: 15 16 i. A decrease in the share of expenses and costs allocated per 17 individual; 18 19 ii. An increase in income or economic advantage to the certified 20 recovery residence; or 21 22 iii. A generalized statement regarding economic viability that is not 23 supported by objective evidence in accordance with this 24 subsection. 25 26 Further, the applicant shall be required to demonstrate that it could not 27 continue to operate with a smaller facility or residence serving fewer 28 qualifying residents. 29 30 F. Rendition of written determination on request for reasonable accommodation. The written 31 determination on a request for reasonable accommodation shall be sent to the certified 32 recovery residence by certified mail. In the written determination, the Board of County 33 Commissioners, or the Hearing Examiner, may: 34 35 1. Grant the request for reasonable accommodation; 36 37 2. Grant a portion of the request and deny a portion of the request, and/or impose 38 conditions upon the grant of the request; or 39 40 3. Deny the request for accommodation stating with specificity the objective, 41 evidence -based reasons for denial and identifying any deficiencies or actions 42 necessary for reconsideration. 43 44 G. Appeal of written determination. Within 30 days of a written determination, any aggrieved 45 person may appeal the decision to the circuit court having jurisdiction in the county for 46 judicial relief. 47 48 H. Waiver of fees and costs. There shall be no fee imposed by the county upon a certified 49 recovery residence in connection with a reauest for reasonable accommodation under this 41 G:\LDC Amendments\Advisory Boards and Public Hearings\DSAC\2025\Sep 03\Materials\PL20250009062 Reasonable Accommodation Certified Recovery Residencies - LDCA (08-20-2025) .docx DRAFT Text underlined is new text to be added Text otr-kethreu gh is er.t text to he deleted 1 section, and the county shall have no obligation to pay any aggrieved person's attorneys' 2 fees or costs (or any other fees or costs) in connection with the request, or appeal, as 3 applicable. n 5 I. Code enforcement. No certified recovery residence shall violate any ordinance, rule, 6 policy, practice and/or procedure of the county until the certified recovery residence has 7 requested and obtained a reasonable accommodation. The county shall not be prohibited 8 from enforcing its ordinances, rules, policies, practices and/or procedures in the event of 9 a violation by a certified recovery residence; provided, however, if a certified recovery 10 residence requests a reasonable accommodation, then any order of the special magistrate 11 imposing a fine and/or costs, pursuant to section 2-2030 of the Code of Laws, shall only 12 become effective if such request for accommodation has been denied or withdrawn. 13 14 J. General provisions. The following general provisions shall be applicable: 15 16 1. A certified recovery residence may apply for a reasonable accommodation on its 17 own behalf or may be represented at all stages of the reasonable accommodation 18 process by a person designated by the certified recovery residence. 19 20 2. The contents of the county's official records regarding a request for reasonable 21 accommodation (and other official records containing information regarding the 22 request), including any documents presented and/or received at a public hearing, 23 shall be deemed part of the record before the county without any action. 24 25 3. The County Manager, or designee, shall reject an application for a reasonable 26 accommodation if a similar request by the certified recovery residence has been 27 considered by the County Manager, or designee, and denied at any time within 28 twelve (12) calendar months immediately prior to the date the application is 29 submitted. 30 31 4. The county may revoke the granted reasonable accommodation for cause, 32 including but not limited to, a violation of the conditions of approval or the lapse, 33 revocation, or failure to maintain certification or licensure required under this 34 section, if not reinstated within 180 days. 35 36 5. In the event the certified recovery residence's certification or licensure is lapsed or 37 revoked, the certified recovery residence must notify the County Manager, or 38 designee, within three (3) days of said lapse or revocation. 39 40 K. Reasonable accommodation request form. A request for a reasonable accommodation 41 shall be on a form prescribed by the county and shall contain, at a minimum, the following 42 information: 43 44 1. Name of applicant: 45 46 2. Telephone number: 47 48 3. Address: 49 6 G:\LDC Amendments\Advisory Boards and Public Hearings\DSAC\2025\Sep 03\Materials\PL20250009062 Reasonable Accommodation Certified Recovery Residencies - LDCA (08-20-2025) .docx 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 DRAFT Text underlined is new text to be added Text otr'Lethre nh is ono text to he deleted 4. Address of housina or other location at which accommodation is reauested if applicable: 5. Describe the accommodation and the specific regulation(s) and or procedure(s) from which accommodation is souaht: 6. Describe the reasons the reauested accommodation is reasonable and necess 7. Name address and telephone number of applicant's representative, if applicable: 8. Signature of the operator and/or administrator of the certified recovery residence, as applicable: # # # # # # # # # # # # # 7 G:\LDC Amendments\Advisory Boards and Public Hearings\DSAC\2025\Sep 03\Materials\PL20250009062 Reasonable Accommodation Certified Recovery Residencies - LDCA (08-20-2025) .docx Exhibit A — Chapter 2025-182 CHAPTER 2025-182 Committee Substitute for Committee Substitute for Committee Substitute for Senate Bill No. 954 An act relating to certified recovery residences; amending s. 397.487, F.5.; requiring, by a specified date, the governing body of each county or municipality to adopt an ordinance to establish procedures far the review and approval of certified recovery residences; requiring that such ordinance include a process for requesting reasonable accommodations from any local land use regulation that serves to prohibit the establish- ment of a certified recovery residence; specifying criteria for the ordinance; providing that the ordinance may establish additional requirements for the review and approval of reasonable accommodation requests; requiring that such additional requirements be consistent with federal law and not conflict with the act; prohibiting the ordinance from requiring public hearings beyond the minimum required by law; providing that the ordinance may include provisions for revocation of a granted accommoda- tion for cause, if the accommodation is not reinstated within a specified timeframe; providing construction; amending s. 397.4871, F.S.; providing that the personnel -to -resident ratio for a certified recovery residence must be met: only when the residents are at the residence; providing that a certified recovery residence administrator for Level IV certified recovery residences which maintains a specified personnel -to -patient ratio has a limitation on the number of residents it may manage; providing an effective date. Be It Enacted by the Legislature of the State of Florida: Section L Subsections (15) and (16) are added to section 397_487, Florida Statutes, to read: 397.487 Voluntary certification of recovery residences.— (15)(a) By January 1,.. 2026, the governing body of each county . Qr municipality shall adopt an ordinance establishing procedures for the review and approval of certified recovery -residences withiudt jurisdiction, The ordinance must include a process for requesting reasonable accommn- dations from any local I d use regulation .that .serves to prohibit . bg establishment of a certified. recovery residence. (b) At a minimum, the ordinance must: j,__j59 C4nsi5tent with the Fair Housing Arnerl. Fair Act of 1988, 42 U.S.C. ss. 3601 et seg., and Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. ss. 12131 et set, 1 CODING: Wards ctFiPkPiR are deletions; words underlined are additions. V G:\LDC Amend ments\Advisory Boards and Public Hearings\DSAC\2025\Sep 03\Materials\PL20250009062 Reasonable Accommodation Certified Recovery Residencies - LDCA (08-20-2025) .docx Exhibit A — Chapter 2025-182 Ch. 2025-182 LAWS OF FLORIDA Ch. 202 r-182 2. Establish.. _written] application prooess._�,equesting a reaso able. accommodation for the establishment of a certified recovery residence, which application must be submitted to the appropriate local government office. 3. Require the local government to date -stamp each application upon receipt. If additional information is. required,._ the local government must notify the applicant in writing within the first 30 days after receipt of the application and allow the applicant at least 30 days to respond. 4. Require the local government to issue a final written determination on the application within 60 days after receipt of a completed application. The determination must: a. Approve the request in whole or in part, with or without conditions: or b. Deny the request, stating with specificity the objective, evidence - based reasons for denial and identifying any deficiencies or actions necessary for reconsideration. 5. Provide that if a final written determination is not issued within 60 days after receipt of a completed application, the request is deemed approved unless the parties agree in writing to a reasonable extension of time. 6. Require that the application include. at a minimum: a. The name and contact information of the applicant or the applicant's authorized representative; b. The property address and parcel identification number; and c. A description of the accommodation requested and the specific regulation or policy from which relief is sought_ (c) The ordinance may establish additional requirements for the review or approval of reasonable accommodation requests far establishing a certified recovery residence, provided such requirements are consistent with federal law and do not conflict with this subsctinn. (d) The ordinance may not require public hearings beyond the minimum required by law to grant the requested accommodation. (e) The ordinance may include provisions for the revocation of a granted accommodation of a certified recovery residence for cause, including, but not limited to, a violation of the conditions of approval or the lapse, revocation, or failure to maintain certification or licensure required under this section, if not reinstated within 180 days. (f) The M'dipa Qg_ and e..stablishment a rea*,en0le accommodation proc"s does not relieve the local government from its obligations under the Fair Housing Amendments Act of 198S, 42 U.S.C. ss. 3601 et seg., and Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act,._42 U S.C. ss. 12131 et seq. The CODING: Words ske PkPF; are deletions; words underlined are additions. G:\LDC Amend ments\Advisory Boards and Public Hearings\DSAC\2025\Sep 03\Materials\PL20250009062 Reasonable Accommodation Certified Recovery Residencies - LDCA (08-20-2025) .docx Exhibit A — Chapter 2025-182 Ch. 2025-182 LAWS OF MORIDA Ch. 2025-182 regulation for which the applicant is seeking a reasonable accommodation must not facially discriminate against or otherwise disparately impact the applicant. (16) The application of this section does not supersede any current or future declaration or declaration of condominium adopted pursuant to chapter 718x any cooperative document. adopted_ Rursuant to chapter 719;or any declaration or declaration of covenant ad.o..pted pursuant to chapter.' Section 2. Paragraph (c) of subsection (8) of section 397.4871, Florida Statutes, is amended to read: 397.4871 Recovery residence administrator certification.-- (8) (c) Notwithstanding paragraph (b), a Level N certified recovery resi- dence operating as community housing as defined in s. 397.311(9), which residence is actively managed by a certified recovery residence adminis- trator approved for 100 residents under this section and is wholly owned or controlled by a licensed service provider, may_ 1. Actively manage up to 150 residents so long as the licensed service provider maintains a service provider personnel -to -patient ratio of 1 to 8 and maintains onsite supervision at the residence during times when residents are at the residence 24 hwars a day, 7 days a Teeki with a personnel -to - resident ratio of 1 to 10. 2. Actively manage up to 300 residents, so long as the licensed service prmdprrma;ntains a service.provider personnel -to -patient ratio ot~],to 8 and maintains onsite supervision at the residence during tunes when residents are at the residence with a personnel -to -resident ratio of 1 to 6. A certified recovery residence administrator who has been removed by a certified recovery residence due to termination, resignation, or any other reason may not continue to actively manage more than 50 residents for another service provider or certified recovery residence without being approved by the credentialing entity. Section 3. This act shall take effect July 1, 2025, Approved by the Governor June 25, 2025, Filed in Office Secretary of State June 25, 2025. 3 CODING: Wards stFipkpiR are deletions; words underlined are additions. .%F G:\LDC Amend ments\Advisory Boards and Public Hearings\DSAC\2025\Sep 03\Materials\PL20250009062 Reasonable Accommodation Certified Recovery Residencies - LDCA (08-20-2025) .docx THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK ..,)Collier County LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT PETITION PL20250005385 ORIGIN Growth Management Community Development Department (GMCDD) HEARING DATES BCC TBD CCPC TBD DSAC 09/03/2025 DSAC-LDR 08/19/2025 SUMMARY OF AMENDMENT This amendment corrects the scrivener's errors and updates cross-references related to various Land Development Code (LDC). LDC amendments are reviewed by the Board of County Commissioners (BCC), Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC), Development Services Advisory Committee (DSAC), and the Land Development Review Subcommittee of the DSAC (DSAC-LDR). LDC SECTION TO BE AMENDED 1.08.01 Abbreviations 1.08.02 Definitions 2.01.03 Essential Services 2.03.07 Overlay Zoning Districts 2.03.08 Rural Fringe Zoning Districts 3.05.07 Preservation Standards 3.05.10 Littoral Shelf Planting Area (LSPA) 4.02.14 Design Standards for Development in the ST and ACSC-ST Districts 4.02.16 Design Standards for Development in the Bayshore Gateway Triangle Community Redevelopment Area 4.03.03 Subdivisions Exemptions 4.03.04 Lot Line Adjustment and Lot Split 4.06.05 General Landscaping Requirements 4.08.05 Baseline Standards 5.04.05 Temporary Events 5.05.04 Group Housing 5.05.08 Architectural and Site Design Standards 5.05.12 Specific Standards for Public Utility Ancillary Systems in Collier County 5.06.04 Development Standards for Signs in Nonresidential Districts 6.06.03 Streetlights 10.02.03 Requirements for Site Development, Site Improvement Plans and Amendments thereof 10.02.08 Requirements for Amendments to the Official Zoning Atlas APPENDIX STANDARD PERFORMANCE SECURITY DOCUMENTS FOR A REQUIRED IMPROVEMENTS APPENDIX FINAL SUBDIVISION PLAT REQUIRED CERTIFICATIONS AND C SUGGESTED TEXT AND FORMATS FOR OTHER REQUIRED INFORMATION ADVISORY BOARD RECOMMENDATIONS DSAC-LDR DSAC CCPC Approval TBD TBD BACKGROUND This LDC amendment corrects scrivener's errors and updates various citations/references throughout the LDC. This staff -led effort required collaboration between the GMCDD Zoning and Development Review divisions. These changes are necessary to keep citations current and text appropriate. Research into relevant codes was applied for validity. This amendment proposes corrections in the following LDC sections: GALDC Amendments\Advisory Boards and Public Hearings\DSAC\2025\Sep 03\Materials\PL20250005385 Scrivener's Errors - LDCA (08-20- 2025).docx ..,)Collier County Agency Name Updates: Department of Community Affairs "DCA" to Department of Commerce "DOC" (aka FloridaCommerce)" • LDC sections 1.08.01: 2.01.03 B.£: and 4.02.14 D. Invasive Species Council Agency Name Updates (FLEPPC to FISC) • LDC section 1.08.01.: Addition of "Florida Invasive Species Council (FISC)". • LDC section 1.08.02.: Removal of 2003 Florida Exotic Pest Plant Council's List. • LDC section 3.05.07.F.3.£vi. • LDC section 3.05.07.F.3.g.i.d. • LDC section 4.02.16.E.3.6. • LDC section 4.06.05.F1.a.: (3 updates: name, website, acronym) • LDC section 4.08.05.M.8.c. Department Name Update: Growth Management to Growth Management Community Development Department • LDC section 2.03.08.A. La. • LDC section 4.03.04.B. • LDC section 4.03.04.C.4. • LDC section 5.04.05.A.5.c.i. Zoning District Name Update: GTMUD to GTZO LDC section 4.02.016.C.13.b.i Section Reference Corrections • LDC section 2.01.03.B.1.: 4.08.08 C to 4.08.01 • LDC section 3.05.10: 3.05.07 F.4.b to 3.05.07 F.3.g.ii • LDC section 4.06.05.B.4. to 4.06.05.0 • LDC section 5.05.08.B.4.d.ii: to 4.06.05.0 • LDC section 5.05.12.G: to 4.06.05.0 • LDC sections 2.03.07.P.3.a,: 2.04.03 to 2.03.02.F.I & 4.02.14 • LDC sections 10.02.03: 10.02.03.A.3.a to 10.02.03.A.5 • LDC section Appendix A: update Development Services to "Development Review" Spelling/Typographical Corrections • LDC section 2.03.07.G5.c.11.: Correct the word "forgoing" to "foregoing" • LDC section 5.04.05.A.5.c.ii: Correct the word "Sherriff s" to "Sheriff's" • LDC section 5.05.04.D: Correct the phrase "aging -in -pace" to "aging -in -place" • LDC section 5.06.04.F.2.a: Correct the word "by" to "be" • LDC section 10.02.08.I.2.a.: Correct the word "dependant" to "dependent" • LDC section Appendix A: Correct the word "assure" to "ensure" • LDC section Appendix C: Correct the word "RESPONSIBILTY" to "RESPONSIBILITY" Technical Standard Updates • LDC section 6.06.03.A and 6.06.03.C: the lighting design guide "IESNA RP 8.00 and IESNA RP-8.00." to "ANSUIES RP-8-22" DSAC-LDR Subcommittee Recommendation: On August 19, 2025, the DSAC-LDR Subcommittee unanimously recommended approval of the LDC amendment without conditions. FISCAL & OPERATIONAL IMPACTS GMP CONSISTENCY There are no anticipated fiscal or operational The proposed LDC amendment has been reviewed by the impacts associated with this amendment. Comprehensive Planning staff and may be deemed consistent with the GMP. EXHIBITS: None 2 GALDC Amendments\Advisory Boards and Public Hearings\DSAC\2025\Sep 03\Materials\PL20250005385 Scrivener's Errors - LDCA (08-20- 2025).docx DRAFT Amend the LDC as follows: 1 2 1.08.01 — Abbreviations 3 4 5 6 7 8 Text underlined is new text to be added Text str'Lethrn nh 'c currono text to he deleted 9GA Department Of GOMM Rity l # i - DEP Department of Environmental Protection DO Development Order DOC Department of Commerce FISC Florida Invasive Species Council 9 10 11 # # # # # # # # # # # # # 12 13 1.08.02 — Definitions 14 15 16 17 Vegetation, Category 1 Invasive Exotic: Invasive exotic vegetation that alters native 18 vegetation communities by: displacing native plant species, changing the structure or ecological 19 functions of native plant communities, or hybridizing with native species; which includes all 20 species of vegetation listed on the 2-003 latest Florida EXGtiG Pest Rant Ge RGOI's Lost of Invasive 21 SpeG FISC List of Invasive Plant Species, under Category I. 22 23 24 # # # # # # # # # # # # # 25 26 2.01.03 Essential Services 27 28 29 30 B. Permitted essential services in CON districts, RFMU sending lands, NRPAs, HSAs, and 31 FSAs. 32 33 1. Within CON districts, Sending Lands in the RFMU district, NRPAs, and within 34 designated Habitat Stewardship Areas (HSA) and Flow way Stewardship Areas 35 (FSA) within the RLSA overlay district subject to the limitations set forth in LDC 36 section 4.08 08 5 4.08.00, the following essential services are permitted: 37 38 3 GALDC Amendments\Advisory Boards and Public Hearings\DSAC\2025\Sep 03\Materials\PL20250005385 Scrivener's Errors - LDCA (08-20-2025).docx 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 DRAFT Text underlined is new text to be added Text str'Lethrn nh 'c currono text to he deleted f. Aviation related uses as approved in the September 11, 2001 Memorandum of Understanding between Collier County Airport Authority and the Intervenor Signatories to the Deltona Settlement Agreement (July 20, 1982), including The Conservancy of Southwest Florida, The National Audubon Society, The Florida Audubon Society, The Environmental Defense Fund, Izaak Walton League, Florida Division, The Florida Department of Environmental Protection, The South Florida Water Management District, The Florida Department of Commerce r^t Affairs, The Deltona Corporation, and Collier County. * * * * * * * * * * * * * # # # # # # # # # # # # # 2.03.07 - Overlay Zoning Districts * * * * * * * * * * * * * G. Immokalee Urban Overlay District. To create the Immokalee Urban Overlay District with distinct subdistricts for the purpose of establishing development criteria suitable for the unique land use needs of the Immokalee Community. The boundaries of the Immokalee Urban Overlay District are delineated on the maps below. * * * * * * * * * * * * * 5. Main Street Overlay Subdistrict. Special conditions for the properties identified in the Immokalee Area Master Plan; referenced on Map 7; and further identified by the designation "MSOSD" on the applicable official Collier County Zoning Atlas Maps. The purpose of this designation is to encourage development and redevelopment by enhancing and beautifying the downtown Main Street area through flexible design and development standards. * * * * * * * * * * * * * C. Prohibited uses. All uses prohibited within the underlying residential and commercial zoning districts contained within this Subdistrict, and the following uses, shall be prohibited on properties with frontage on Main Street in between First Street and Ninth Street in the Main Street Overlay Subdistrict: * * * * * * * * * * * * * 11. Any other heavy commercial use which is comparable in nature with the foregoing uses and is deemed inconsistent with the intent of this Subdistrict shall be prohibited. * * * * * * * * * * * * * P. Copeland Zoning Overlay (CZO). 4 GALDC Amendments\Advisory Boards and Public Hearings\DSAC\2025\Sep 03\Materials\PL20250005385 Scrivener's Errors - LDCA (08-20-2025).docx 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 DRAFT Text underlined is new text to be added Text str'Lethrn nh 'c currono text to he deleted 1. Purpose. To create development standards which address the unique community characteristics of the Copeland community. 2. Applicability. The Copeland Zoning Overlay (CZO) boundary is delineated on the map below, and these standards apply to those portions of the Copeland Community, which are in private ownership and located within the urban designated lands on the Collier County Future Land Use Map. 3. Permitted uses. a. All principal and accessory uses permitted by zoning district as identified in LDC sections 4.02.14 of the LDC as Of ... be. 26, 2006. arise between the underlying zoning district contained in the Copeland Zoning Overlay, Copeland Zoning Overlay shall supersede requirements. right in the VR-ACSC/ST 2.04.03 2.03.02.F.1 and In the event any conflicts requirements and those the requirements of the the underlying zoning # # # # # # # # # # # # # 2.03.08 - Rural Fringe Zoning Districts * * * * * * * * * * * * * A. Rural Fringe Mixed -Use District (RFMU District). Purpose and scope. The purpose and intent of the RFMU District is to provide a transition between the Urban and Estates Designated lands and between the Urban and Agricultural/Rural and Conservation designated lands farther to the east. The RFMU District employs a balanced approach, including both regulations and incentives, to protect natural resources and private property rights, providing for large areas of open space, and allowing, in designated areas, appropriate types, density and intensity of development. The RFMU District allows for a mixture of urban and rural levels of service, including limited extension of central water and sewer, schools, recreational facilities, commercial uses, and essential services deemed necessary to serve the residents of the RFMU District. The innovative planning and development techniques which are required and/or encouraged within the RFMU District were developed to preserve existing natural resources, including habitat for listed species, to retain a rural, pastoral, or park -like appearance from the major public rights -of -way, and to protect private property rights. a. Establishment of RFMU Zoning Overlay District. In order to implement the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District (RFMUD) designation in the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) of the GMP, the RFMU District shall be designated as "RFMUD" on the Official Zoning Atlas and is hereby established. The RFMU District replaces the underlying zoning district where that underlying zoning district is A, Rural Agricultural, except where development 41 GALDC Amendments\Advisory Boards and Public Hearings\DSAC\2025\Sep 03\Materials\PL20250005385 Scrivener's Errors - LDCA (08-20-2025).docx 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 DRAFT Text underlined is new text to be added Text str'Lethre nh is currono text to he deleted standards are omitted in the RFMU District. The County -wide Future Land Use Map is located in the Future Land Use Element of the GMP or can be obtained from the Growth Management Community Development Department, located at 2800 N. Horseshoe Drive, Naples, FL 34104. The lands included in the RFMU District and to which LDC section 2.03.08 apply are depicted by the following map: * * * * * * * * * * * * * # # # # # # # # # # # # # 3.05.07 - Preservation Standards * * * * * * * * * * * * * F. Wetland preservation and conservation. * * * * * * * * * * * * * 3. RFMU district. Direct impacts of development within wetlands shall be limited by directing such impacts away from high quality wetlands having functionality scores of at least 0.65 WRAP or 0.7 UMAM. This shall be accomplished by adherence to the vegetation retention requirements of LDC section 3.05.07 C above and the following standards: * * * * * * * * * * * * * f. Preserved wetlands shall be buffered from other land uses as follows: * * * * * * * * * * * * * vi. The buffer shall be maintained free of Category I invasive exotic plants, as defined by the Florida EXetiG Door Plant GEHinnil Florida Invasive Species Council. * * * * * * * * * * * * * g. Mitigation. Mitigation shall be required for direct impacts to wetlands in order to result in no net loss of wetland functions, in adherence with the following requirements and conditions: i. Mitigation Requirements: * * * * * * * * * * * * * d) Preserved or created wetland or upland vegetative communities offered as mitigation shall be placed in a conservation easement in accordance with LDC section 3.05.07 H.1.d, provide for initial removal of Category I Invasive Exotic Vegetation as defined by the Florida Exet!G 6 GALDC Amendments\Advisory Boards and Public Hearings\DSAC\2025\Sep 03\Materials\PL20250005385 Scrivener's Errors - LDCA (08-20-2025).docx 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 DRAFT Text underlined is new text to be added Text otr'Lethre nh is ono text to he deleted Doc+ PlaRt GO RGil Florida Invasive Species Council and provide for continual removal of exotic vegetation. * * * * * * * * * * * * * # # # # # # # # # # # # # 3.05.10 — Littoral Shelf Planting Area (LSPA) * * * * * * * * * * * * * A. Design requirements. 1. Area requirements. The total area of the LSPA shall be calculated as a percentage of the total area of the lake at control elevation. Area requirements vary within the County and are as follows: a. Rural Fringe Mixed Use District - 30 percent. This requirement may be reduced subject to the Mitigation Incentives identified in section 3..05.07 FAIT 3.05.07 F.3.q.11.; * * * * * * * * * * * * * # # # # # # # # # # # # # 4.02.14 — Design Standards for Development in the ST and ACSC-ST Districts * * * * * * * * * * * * * D. Port of the Islands, Copeland, and Plantation Island. Port of the Islands, Copeland, and Plantation Island are developments located within the Urban Designated Area, but are also located within the Big Cypress Area of Critical State Concern. A portion of the Port of the Islands development was determined "vested" by the State of Florida, thus exempting it from the requirements of Ch. 380, F.S. There is an existing development agreement between Port of the Islands, Inc., and the State of Florida, Department of Gemmunity A##a+rs Commerce, dated July 2, 1985, which regulates land uses at Port of the Islands. Development within Port of the Islands shall be regulated by the development agreement and the residential density and commercial intensities shall not exceed that permitted under zoning at time of adoption of the GMP. Development within the Urban Designated Areas of Copeland and Plantation Island shall be reviewed and approved administratively by the County Manager or designee for compliance with Area of Critical State Concern regulations. Development within the Urban Designated Areas of Copeland and Plantation Island shall not be required to go through the process of filing a petition for site alteration or site development plan approval, pursuant to LDC section 4.02.14 G, and not be required to follow the procedures for site alteration plan or site development plan approval pursuant to LDC sections 4.02.14 E, 4.02.14 F.2 and 4.02.14 F.3. This does not exempt development orders required pursuant to Chapter 10 of the Code. There is also an agreement for Plantation Island, between the Board of County Commissioners and the Florida Department of Community Affairs Commerce, to allow site alteration, including dredging and filling of up to 2,500 square feet, regardless of the predevelopment vegetation. This Agreement is recorded in the Official Records, Book 3788, Page 3788, in the public records of Collier County. 7 GALDC Amendments\Advisory Boards and Public Hearings\DSAC\2025\Sep 03\Materials\PL20250005385 Scrivener's Errors - LDCA (08-20-2025).docx DRAFT Text underlined is new text to be added 1 2 # # # # # # # # # # # # # 3 4 4.02.16 - Design Standards for Development in the Bayshore Gateway Triangle Community 5 Redevelopment Area 6 7 8 9 C. Additional Standards for Specific Uses. Certain uses may be established, constructed, 10 continued, and/or expanded provided they meet certain mitigating standards specific to 11 their design and/or operation. These conditions ensure compatibility between land uses 12 and building types and minimize adverse impacts to surrounding properties. 13 14 15 16 13. Limited Density Bonus Pool Allocation (LDBPA) for multi -family or mixed use 17 developments on two contiguous acres or less. 18 19 20 21 b. Eligibility. Up to two additional dwelling units per acre are allowed to be 22 allocated to a multi -family or mixed use development through an LDBPA, 23 subject to the following requirements and procedures: 24 25 i. The project must comply with the dimensional and design standards 26 of the BZO or G-TMUD GTZO as applicable. 27 28 29 30 E. Landscaping and Buffer Requirements 31 32 33 34 6. Plant Materials: Landscaping in the BZO and GTZO shall utilize tree and shrub 35 plants that are identified in the Collier County Native Plant List in order to minimize 36 maintenance and water demands after establishment. Ornamental plantings 37 should be drought -tolerant in nature, consistent with Florida Yards & 38 Neighborhoods Program, and cross-referenced with the latest Florida EXCA . post 39 plant GE) RGil (F EFlorida Invasive Species Council listing of invasive 40 species (Categories I and 11). 41 42 43 # # # # # # # # # # # # # 44 45 4.03.03 -Subdivision Exemptions 46 47 G. Rural area subdivision requirements. 48 49 8 GALDC Amendments\Advisory Boards and Public Hearings\DSAC\2025\Sep 03\Materials\PL20250005385 Scrivener's Errors - LDCA (08-20-2025).docx 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 DRAFT Text underlined is new text to be added Text str'Lethrn nh 'c currono text to he deleted 3. Access agreement. The owner of property applying for a building permit shall execute a release and waiver agreement which shall be executed and recorded at the applicant's expense in the official records of Collier County. The release and waiver agreement shall be in a form approved by the county attorney or designee, and shall include, at a minimum, the following provisions and a copy of the recorded agreement submitted with the property owner's building permit application: * * * * * * * * * * * * * k. An acknowledgment that the Department of EGGROMIG 9PP914WRity Commerce rn� may review and appeal any development order issued by Collier County within the Big Cypress Area of Critical State Concern. Also, confirmation that the applicant will execute, prior to issuance of any development order by Collier County, a statement of understanding of the PE-0- partment of Commerce review requirements in the form approved by the B€9 Department of Commerce; and * * * * * * * * * * * * * # # # # # # # # # # # # # 4.03.04 - Lot Line Adjustment and Lot Split * * * * * * * * * * * * * B. Lot Line Adjustment. An adjustment of a lot line between contiguous lots or parcels which may be platted or unplatted and which are under separate ownership: or the same ownership shall be exempt from this section if all of the following conditions are met. The lot line adjustment shall be recorded with the Clerk of Courts within 12 months of approval by the County Manager or designee, and a copy of the recorded document shall be provided to the Growth Management Community Development Department. * * * * * * * * * * * * * C. Lot Split. All lots must have frontage on a public or private right-of-way, with the exception of one division of a single platted lot or otherwise established lot of record into two lots. Any such lot split may utilize an access easement to satisfy access, and frontage requirements for the lot which would not otherwise have street frontage. * * * * * * * * * * * * * 4. The further split or division of a lot, parcel, or any lot of record into two proposed parcels must be reviewed and approved by the County prior to any subsequent development orders or development permits issued or approved. Evidence of the County approved lot split shall be provided to the Property Appraiser or Clerk of Courts for their consideration and record -keeping. The lot split shall be recorded with the Clerk of Courts within 12 months of approval by the County Manager or designee, and a copy of the recorded document shall be provided to the Growth Management Community Development Department. 9 GALDC Amendments\Advisory Boards and Public Hearings\DSAC\2025\Sep 03\Materials\PL20250005385 Scrivener's Errors - LDCA (08-20-2025).docx 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 DRAFT Text underlined is new text to be added Text str'Lethrn nh 'c currono text to he deleted # # # # # # # # # # # # # 4.06.05 - General Landscaping Requirements A. Landscaping requirements for residential development. Landscaping for all new development, including single-family, two-family, multifamily and mobile home dwelling unit, shall include, at a minimum, the number of trees set forth below. Areas dedicated as preserves and conservation areas shall not be counted to meet the requirements of this section. Existing trees and other minimum code required landscaping may be credited to meet these requirements pursuant to LDC section 4.06.05 € F.1. Trees shall meet the requirements of LDC section 4.06.05 G D.2. Existing residential development that does not meet the minimum landscaping requirements of this Code shall be required to install the required landscaping before a certificate of occupancy is granted for any improvements to the property. B. Landscaping requirements for industrial and commercial development. For projects subject to architectural design standards, see LDC section 5.05.08 F. for related provisions. Industrial and commercial developments. One canopy tree per 3,000 square feet of pervious site area, or one canopy tree per lot, whichever is greater. 2. Wireless communication facilities. See LDC section 5.05.09 for landscape requirements that are specific to wireless communication facilities. 3. Littoral shelf planting area (LSPA). All developments that create lake areas shall provide a littoral shelf planting area in accordance with LDC section 3.05.10. 4. C. Public utility ancillary system landscaping requirements. Screening and buffering requirements are to be limited to the area surrounding the public utility ancillary system. Ancillary systems that are physically located on a water or wastewater treatment property are not required to be individually fenced and landscaped. Existing, previously permitted public utility ancillary systems are not required to meet the landscaping requirements of this section if an SDPI application is required for modifications. A public utility ancillary system requiring an SDPA will need to meet the landscaping requirements of LDC S section 4.06.00. Canopy trees as described in LDC section 4.06.05 B.1., will not be required. Projections visible above the fence or wall shall be screened from view by sabal palms with a minimum clear trunk height of 8 to 12 feet. Palms may be replaced or supplemented with native trees to enhance screening. Each palm shall be planted 10 feet on center around the perimeter of the fence or wall. Surrounding fences or walls must have at a minimum, ten-gallon shrubs, 5 feet tall at the time of planting, placed 4 feet on center along the exterior perimeter of the surrounding fence or wall. Public utility ancillary systems enclosed in buildings without perimeter fences or walls must have, at a minimum, 2 rows of three -gallon shrubs, 2 feet tall at the time of planting, placed 3 feet on center and offset between rows. In all cases, mature vegetation must provide 10 GALDC Amendments\Advisory Boards and Public Hearings\DSAC\2025\Sep 03\Materials\PL20250005385 Scrivener's Errors - LDCA (08-20-2025).docx 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 DRAFT Text underlined is new text to be added Text otr'Lethre nh is ono text to he deleted an 80 percent sight -obscuring screen equal to 75 percent of the height of the fence or wall, as applicable. �1. Native plant materials shall be used, to the maximum extent practicable, to meet the screening and buffering requirements of this sub -section and the chosen plant materials shall be consistent with the existing native vegetation found on or near the public utility ancillary system site, with the following exceptions: a. for any disturbed area required to construct a public utility ancillary system that is equal to or greater than 15 feet from the edge of a building or other structure, the disturbed area may be planted with a drought resistant sod such as Bahia; or i� b for any disturbed area required to construct a public utility ancillary system that is less than 15 feet from the edge of a well house or other structure, the disturbed area may be covered with a sufficient depth of ground cover such as organic mulch, shell, or similar pervious material. Table 4.06.05 SD. Building Foundation Planting Requirements * * * * * * * * * * * * * SD. Building foundation plantings. All commercial buildings, residential buildings with 3 or more units, and retail and office uses in industrial buildings shall provide building foundation plantings in the amount set forth in table 4.06.05.SD. and illustration 4.06.05 SD. These planting areas shall be located adjacent to building entrance(s), primary fagades, and/or along fagades facing a street. For projects subject to architectural design standards, see LDC sections 5.05.08 E.—F. for related provisions. * * * * * * * * * * * * * 9. All projects may use the following alternatives to meet the requirements of table 4.06.05 DS.: * * * * * * * * * * * * * C. Vine planted arbors, wall planters, and trellis structures may be used to meet up to 15 percent of the required building foundation planting area. Illustration 4.06.05.DS. 11 GALDC Amendments\Advisory Boards and Public Hearings\DSAC\2025\Sep 03\Materials\PL20250005385 Scrivener's Errors - LDCA (08-20-2025).docx DRAFT 1 Text underlined is new text to be added Text otrikethrei gh is GUFFono text to he rleleterl RgCq�� C �NGTh Building Foundation Planting Area 2 3 4 DE. Plant Material Standards. 5 6 1. Quality. Plant materials used to meet the requirements of this section shall meet 7 the standards for Florida No. 1 or better, as set out in Grades and Standards for 8 Nursery Plants, part I and part 11, Department of Agricultural, State of Florida (as 9 amended). Root ball sizes on all transplanted plant materials shall also meet state 10 standards. 11 12 13 14 C. Where xeric plants are to be utilized, use the South Florida Water 15 Management District, Xeriscape Plant Guide (as amended) as a reference. 16 17 12 G:\LDC Amendments\Advisory Boards and Public Hearings\DSAC\2025\Sep 03\Materials\PL20250005385 Scrivener's Errors - LDCA (08-20-2025).docx 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 DRAFT Text underlined is new text to be added Text strikethro gh is GLIFFeRt teXt to he deleted Plant Material Cold N Tolerance �a4�r and Native Planting Map immO AL-EF RD" INLAND ZONE MID ZONE a sse COASTAL ZONE Ro w�E --te�Caa CbTlier County a 25 5 Mii� Figure 4.06.05 ED. * * * * * * * * * * * * * €F. Existing Plant Communities. Existing plant communities and ecosystems shall be maintained in a natural state and shall not be required to be irrigated. Native plant areas that are supplements to an existing plant community or newly installed by the applicant shall be irrigated on a temporary basis only during the period of establishment from a temporary irrigation system, water truck, or by hand watering with a hose. 1. Existing plant material. In meeting the requirements of landscaping, the planning services director may permit the use of healthy native plant material existing on - site. In so doing, the planning services director may adjust the application of the standards of these regulations to allow credit for such existing plant material, provided, he may not permit the reduction of required percentages of a landscaped area or reduction in numbers of trees or shrubs required, unless otherwise allowed pursuant to LDC section 4.06.05 F€. Removal of vegetation is subject to the vegetation removal, protection, and preservation section (contained in this section). * * * * * * * * * * * * * FG. Prohibited Plant Materials. 1. Prohibited species. The following plant species shall not be planted: a. All Category I Invasive Exotics as listed on the FIE)Fida EXE)tiG Pest Plant G^t s Elorida Invasive Species Council website: [ 13 GALDC Amendments\Advisory Boards and Public Hearings\DSAC\2025\Sep 03\Materials\PL20250005385 Scrivener's Errors - LDCA (08-20-2025).docx 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 DRAFT GH Text underlined is new text to be added Text otr'Lethre nh is ono text to he deleted www.floridainvasives.org] This list is routinely monitored and updated by the �', �o FISC. Plus the following species: * * * * * * * * * * * 2. Prohibited exotic species. In addition to the prohibitions outlined in LDC section 4.06.05 €F. above, the species enumerated in LDC section 3.05.08 or seeds thereof shall not be grown, offered for sale, or transported inter -county or intra- county. * * * * * * * * * * * * Requirements to remove prohibited plant materials. For these requirements, see LDC section 3.05.08 of th+s Cede. #I. Installation and selection requirements for plant materials. 1. Prior to the issuance of any certificate of occupancy for a use required to provide landscaping and irrigation in accordance with this section, all required landscaping and irrigation shall be installed and in place as set out in the plans approved under Chapter 10 of the Code. All plant materials must be installed in accordance with accepted landscape practices in the area and meet the plant material standards contained in LDC Ssection 4.06.05 DS. Plant materials shall be installed in soil conditions that are conducive to the proper growth of the plant material. 2. Limerock located within planting areas shall be removed and replaced with native or growing quality soil before planting. A plant's growth habit shall be considered in advance of conflicts which might arise (i.e. views, signage, overhead power lines, lighting, sidewalks, buildings, circulation, etc.). Trees shall not be placed where they interfere with site drainage, subsurface utilities, or where they shall require frequent pruning in order to avoid interferences with overhead power lines and buildings. a. An approved root barrier system shall be installed when the following occurs: Large canopy trees are planted closer than 15,ft.; to a building.-; or ii. Large canopy trees are planted closer than 10,ft_; to a sidewalk, underground utility, or paved area with no curbing or curbing which extends less than 18;inches; below grade (see Figure 4.06.05 IH.A. below). 14 GALDC Amendments\Advisory Boards and Public Hearings\DSAC\2025\Sep 03\Materials\PL20250005385 Scrivener's Errors - LDCA (08-20-2025).docx DRAFT 10' OR LESS TO CURB 10' OR LESS TO SIDEWALK, PAVED AREA OR UNDERGROUND UTILITY "I" DEEP I N I I CURB ROOT BARRIER DETAIL,,.Ts. TREES PLANTED WITHIN 10' OF A PAVED AREA OR UTILITY ROOT BARRIER 111 �PR MUN BY-OFFICEOFGRAPHICSANp TECHNICALSIIPPOATBY-OFFICECFGRAPHICSANp TECHNICALSIIPAOAT COMMUNITY pEYELOPMENT ANp ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES pIVLSION pATeiw�oos Fz�e Roorenrr�erperowe 1 2 Figure 4.06.054.06.05 I.A. 3 4 b. 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Text underlined is new text to be added Text strikethrei gh is GLIFFeRt teXt to he deleted AREA CONTAINING SIDEWALK, PAVED AREA,OR UNDERGROUND UTILITY DE MIN. DD I � - i DEPTH —ROOT BARRIER INSTALLED PER MANUFACTURER'S SPECIFICATION FOR A MININUM DISTANCE OF 20 L.F. 15' FROM EDGE OF BUILDING ROOT BARRIER ZONE ALL BUILDING, SIDEWALK, OR f PAVED EDGES OCCURRING WITHIN THIS ZONE SHALL BE PROTECTED FROM TREE ROOTS BY THE PLACEMENT OF A ROOT BARRIER. ROOT BARRIERS SHALL NOT BE USED TO "BOX -IN" TREE ROOTS. PLAN ROOT BARRIER DETAIL N.T.S. Tree and parking lot/pole lighting locations shall be designed so as not to conflict with one another. i. Parking lot/pole lighting shall not be located in landscape islands with trees. ii. Parking lot/pole lighting shall be located a minimum of 12.5 feet from the trunk of a tree (see Figure 4.06.05 I.B. below) 15 G:\LDC Amendments\Advisory Boards and Public Hearings\DSAC\2025\Sep 03\Materials\PL20250005385 Scrivener's Errors - LDCA (08-20-2025).docx I 2 3 4 5 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 DRAFT Site Light Pole (typ. Text underlined is new text to be added Text str'Lethrn nh 'c currono text to he deleted Don't \-�� CIO this COMPATIBLE TREE AND LIGHTING DESIGN Figure 4.06.05 1-4.B. * * * * * * * * * * * * * W. Location requirements for signage adjacent to landscape buffer. 1. Signage located within/adjacent to landscape buffer area. All trees and shrubs located within the landscape buffer shall be located so as not to block the view of signage as shown in Figure 4.06.05 W.1. below, Signage adjacent to landscape buffer. Sign locations shall be shown on the landscape plan and 100 square feet of landscaping shall be provided as required by LDC section 5.06.04 F. Figure 4.06.051 J.1. - Signage adjacent to landscape buffer JK. Treatment of slopes. The landscape and engineering standards in Slope Table 4.06.05 JK and Slope Cross Sections 4.06.05 JK. shall apply to all landscape areas, except the following: 1. Single family lots, however, this exception shall not apply to berms or swales within platted easements; 16 GALDC Amendments\Advisory Boards and Public Hearings\DSAC\2025\Sep 03\Materials\PL20250005385 Scrivener's Errors - LDCA (08-20-2025).docx DRAFT 1 2 3 Slope Table 4.06.05 K 4 Text underlined is new text to be added Text otr-kethreu gh is er.t text to he deleted Slope Ratio Slope Treatment. See a. below. No Steeper Than 4:1 (4 Grass. See Figure 3 below. horizontal to 1 vertical) Trees, Ground Covers, Ornamental Grasses, and Shrubs. No Steeper Than 3:1 (3 Trees, Ground Covers, Grass, Ornamental Grasses, and Shrubs. horizontal to 1 vertical) See Figure 2 below. Requires 50 percent surface coverage at time of installation and 80 percent coverage within 1 year and avoid soil erosion Toe of slope shall be set back a minimum of 2 feet from sidewalks and paved surfaces. No Steeper Than 2:1 (2 Rip -rap or other forms of erosion and scour protection. See Figure horizontal to 1 vertical) 1 below. When used for water management systems within a required buffer pursuant to LDC section 4.06.02 D, rip -rap or other forms of erosion and scour protection are permitted only in concentrated, rapid flow water management areas or sloped areas less than 200 square feet with a maximum height of 30 inches. Slopes requiring stabilization with ground covers or vines shall provide 80 percent coverage within 1 year. No Steeper Than 1:1 (1 Permanent slope stabilization systems are required on all slopes horizontal to 1 vertical) steeper than 2:1 and no steeper than 1:1. Stabilization systems shall require engineered plans signed and sealed by a Professional Engineer, Architect, or Landscape Architect registered in the State of Florida. Stabilization systems if visible from any road, access, or residence shall be set back from property line a minimum of 2 feet and be landscaped to provide 80 percent opacity within 1 year. In addition when a system is located within a landscape buffer all buffer plantings shall be located on the high or elevated side in a minimum 5 foot wide planting area with a slope no greater than 10:1. Stabilization systems shall not exceed 3 feet in height and shall not be located on lake banks or in lake maintenance easements. Set back requirements from sidewalks or paved surfaces shall be a minimum of 2 feet. Steeper Than 1:1 Vertical Retaining Walls. See b, c, and d. below, See Also Alternative A & B below. Walls over 30 inches in height shall require engineered plans signed and sealed by a Professional Engineer, Architect, or Landscape Architect registered in the State of Florida. Wall shall be architecturally finished or provide a natural appearance. See e. below. Walls if visible from any road, access, or residence shall be set back from property line a minimum of 2 feet and be landscaped to provide 80 percent opacity within 1 year. In addition when a wall is located within a landscape buffer all buffer plantings shall be located on the 17 GALDC Amendments\Advisory Boards and Public Hearings\DSAC\2025\Sep 03\Materials\PL20250005385 Scrivener's Errors - LDCA (08-20-2025).docx DRAFT Text underlined is new text to be added Text str'Lethre nh is currono text to he deleted high or elevated side of the wall in a minimum 5 foot wide planting area with a slope no greater than 10:1. 1 2 Slope Table 4.06.05 4K. Notes: 3 4 a. Slopes adjacent to required preserve areas shall be planted with 100% Florida 5 native species, shall provide swales to direct water flow away from preserves, and 6 meet setbacks as required by LDC section 3.05.07.H.3. 7 8 9 10 e. Architectural finish requires color, texture, and materials that are in common with 11 those used on surrounding structures. Exposed concrete walls are prohibited. 12 Natural appearance requires color, texture, and materials that mimic or occur in 13 nature. 14 15 Slope Cross Sections 4.06.05- Kd. 16 17 18 19 14L. Maintenance of landscaping. 20 21 22 23 LM. Irrigation system requirements. 24 25 26 27 MN. Post -installation landscape certificate of compliance. 28 29 30 31 NO. Water management areas. 32 33 34 # # # # # # # # # # # # # 35 36 4.08.05 - Baseline Standards 37 38 39 40 M. Standards applicable to wetlands outside of FSAs, HSAs, WRAs, and the ACSC. 41 Wetlands located outside of FSAs, HSAs, WRAs, and the ACSC shall be preserved in 42 accord with the following criteria: 43 44 45 46 8. Mitigation Requirements. Mitigation shall be required for direct impacts to 47 wetlands, such that the wetland functional score of the mitigation equals or 48 exceeds the wetland functional score of the impacted wetlands. 18 GALDC Amendments\Advisory Boards and Public Hearings\DSAC\2025\Sep 03\Materials\PL20250005385 Scrivener's Errors - LDCA (08-20-2025).docx 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 DRAFT Text underlined is new text to be added Text str'Lethrn nh 'c currono text to he deleted C. Protection shall be provided for preserved or created wetland or upland vegetative communities offered as mitigation by placing a conservation easement over the land in perpetuity, providing for initial exotic plant removal (Class I invasive exotic plants defined by the Florida EXE)tiG Sian+ COURe+4 Florida Invasive Species Council) and continuing exotic plant maintenance, or by appropriate ownership transfer to a state or federal agency along with sufficient funding for perpetual management activities. * * * * * * * * * * * * * # # # # # # # # # # # # # 5.04.05 - Temporary Events A. Special Events. This section establishes the location and development standards for special events, including temporary market events, sales and promotional events, and sports, religious, community events, and events in County right-of-way. * * * * * * * * * * * * * 5. Events in County Right -of -Way. * * * * * * * * * * * * * C. At a minimum, temporary use permit applications for events shall be reviewed by the following Collier County departments, divisions, and outside agencies: i. Collier County Growth Management Community Development Department shall determine compliance with all applicable requirements. ii. Collier County Sherriff's Office shall determine whether any additional security or police service is necessary. * * * * * * * * * * * * * # # # # # # # # # # # # # 5.05.04 - Group Housing * * * * * * * * * * * * * D. All other care housing environments as defined in this Code, including, but not limited to, care units, assisted living units, continuing care retirement communities, nursing homes, and dwelling units that are part of an aging -in -place living environment, shall adhere to the following standards in addition to those established by the underlying zoning district. * * * * * * * * * * * * * 19 GALDC Amendments\Advisory Boards and Public Hearings\DSAC\2025\Sep 03\Materials\PL20250005385 Scrivener's Errors - LDCA (08-20-2025).docx DRAFT Text underlined is new text to be added 1 # # # # # # # # # # # # # 2 3 5.05.08 - Architectural and Site Design Standards 4 5 6 7 B. Applicability. The provisions of LDC section 5.05.08 shall apply to the zoning districts, 8 locations, and to existing buildings as established below. 9 10 11 12 4. Exceptions 13 14 15 16 d. The following shall be exempt from the standards of LDC section 5.05.08, 17 but shall comply with the exterior building color standards identified in LDC 18 section 5.05.08 D.13.b. 19 20 i. Routine repairs and maintenance of an existing building. 21 22 ii. Public utility ancillary systems provided that a building shall not 23 have any wall planes exceeding 35 feet in length, excluding storage 24 tanks, or have an actual building height greater than eighteen (18) 25 feet, excluding storage tanks and communications equipment. See 26 LDC section 4.06.05 C9.4 for screening requirements of fences and 27 walls surrounding public utility ancillary systems. 28 29 30 # # # # # # # # # # # # # 31 32 5.05.12 - Specific Standards for Public Utility Ancillary Systems in Collier County. 33 34 35 36 G. Landscaping and buffering shall conform to the requirements of LDC section 4.06.05 37 CB-4. 38 39 5.06.04 - Development Standards for Signs in Nonresidential Districts. 40 41 42 43 F. On -premise signs. On -premises pole signs, ground signs, projecting signs, wall signs, and 44 mansard signs shall be allowed in all nonresidential zoning districts subject to the 45 restrictions below: 46 47 48 49 2. Outparcels. In addition to the above requirements, signs for outparcels, regardless 50 of the size of an outparcel, shall be limited to the following: 20 GALDC Amendments\Advisory Boards and Public Hearings\DSAC\2025\Sep 03\Materials\PL20250005385 Scrivener's Errors - LDCA (08-20-2025).docx 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 DRAFT Text underlined is new text to be added Text str'Lethrn nh 'c currono text to he deleted a. In addition to any wall signs permitted by this Code, outparcels may by be allowed 1 additional 60 square foot wall sign facing the shopping center if the additional sign is not oriented towards any public right-of-way. In no case shall the number of wall signs for an outparcel exceed 2 signs; and, * * * * * * * * * * * * * # # # # # # # # # # # # # 6.06.03 — Streetlights A. Streetlights shall be designed and installed utilizing the IES standards for each street, intersection at required intervals along each street and at the end of each cul-de-sac. The IES standards for this street lighting are per ANSWES RP-8-22 IESNA RR sz nn except as below: * * * * * * * * * * * * * C. All sidewalks not directly lighted by street lighting that interconnect developments must be lighted to pedestrian level standards per ANSUIES RP-8-22 IESNA RR 8 nn * * * * * * * * * * * * * # # # # # # # # # # # # # 10.02.03 Requirements for Site Development, Site Improvement Plans and Amendments Thereof A. Generally. * * * * * * * * * * * * * 5. School Board Review Exemption. a. School board review("SBR') application contents. The SBR application submittal will be in accordance with LDC section 10.02.03 of the Code, but will be accorded an expedited process as outlined in the Manual for County Consistency and Site Plan Reviews of educational facilities and ancillary plants, as may be amended by agreement between the Board of County Commissioners and the Collier County School Board. This dOGUrnent is b. The expedited site plan for school board review, as referenced in LDC section 10.02.03 A.--3-5.a. of the Land Development Code, will consist of the following areas of review: i. Collier County Utilities Standards and Procedures, Ordinance No. 04-341, as may be amended. In accordance with this Ordinance, the following requirements must be met: 21 GALDC Amendments\Advisory Boards and Public Hearings\DSAC\2025\Sep 03\Materials\PL20250005385 Scrivener's Errors - LDCA (08-20-2025).docx 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 DRAFT Text underlined is new text to be added Text str'Lethrn nh 'c currono text to he deleted * fY * k ii. Compatibility review. The County will conduct a compatibility review that will take into account the Architectural and Site Design Standards contained within Section 5.05.08 of the LDC in effect at the time a SBR Letter of Compliance is requested and that pertain to issues of compatibility with surrounding uses, complementary patterns of development and mitigation of negative impacts, limited to compatibility issues, external sidewalks and pathway connections, lighting, dumpster location and screening and orientation of buildings and ancillary facilities. In addition, The Utility Billing and Customer Service ("UBCS") Department shall ascertain that there is ample space for the trash dumpster(s) or compactor(s) and for the trash collection franchisee to maneuver trucks in and out of the space allowed for the dumpster(s) or compactor(s). With the exception of high school facilities, this compatibility review will be a courtesy review. For high school facilities, this will be a formal review process and is subject to the appeal process set forth in this section 10.02.03(A)(35 )(c) of the Code in the event that the County denies the application based on non-compliance with the items listed in this paragraph. * * * * * * * * * * * * * C. School board review ("SBR") process. The SBR for School Board projects shall be reviewed under the following expedited process: The SBR application will be reviewed only as to the criteria set forth in LDC section 10.02.03 A.-35.a. ii. The SBR application submittal must be in accordance with section 10.02.03 of the Code, but only as to those submittal requirements which are consistent with the review criteria set out in LDC section 10.02.03 A.-35. * * * * * * * * * * * * d. Consistency review. The following process will be followed with respect to future educational plant and ancillary plant sites, prior to acquisition, for both the determination of consistency with the Collier County GMP locational criteria and whether the Plant is a permitted use, conditional use, or prohibited use in the zoning district on the site. Consistency with all other Elements of the GMP will be reviewed during the aforementioned SBR process. 22 GALDC Amendments\Advisory Boards and Public Hearings\DSAC\2025\Sep 03\Materials\PL20250005385 Scrivener's Errors - LDCA (08-20-2025).docx 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 DRAFT Text underlined is new text to be added Text str'Lethrn nh 'c currono text to he deleted i. The consistency review will be conducted as follows: * * * * * * * * * * * (d) Within 45 days of the submission of the information outlined in LDC Section 10.02.03 A.3-5.d.i.(c) of this Code, the County will provide written comments and recommendations to the School District along with a determination of the site's consistency with the GMP locational criteria and LDC zoning districts. Necessary on - site and off -site improvements will be identified for these sites and the parties responsible for these improvements to the extent this can be determined during this locational consistency review. (e) Letter of Consistency. After the County review, the County Manager or his designee, or his designee, shall issue a Letter of Consistency for the GMP locational criteria and whether the Plant is a permitted use, conditional use or prohibited use in the zoning district on the site, which shall evidence the County's determination of consistency as required by Section 1013.33(4�6) Florida Statutes. (f) After the County has determined that the site is consistent with the GMP locational criteria and LDC zoning districts, the School District shall have up to 1 year to acquire the site. Once the site is acquired, the site shall be deemed to remain consistent regardless of later changes to either the GMP or LDC. (g) After the School District acquires the site and provides the necessary documentation for the County to initiate an amendment to the GMP, the County and School District will enter into a written agreement as part of the pre -application process detailed in section 10.02.03 A. 3-5.c.iv.(6) of the code, as to the timing and location, and the entity or entities responsible for construction, operation and maintenance of the required improvements. * * * * * * * * * * * * * # # # # # # # # # # # # # 10.02.08 - Requirements for Amendments to the Official Zoning Atlas 23 GALDC Amendments\Advisory Boards and Public Hearings\DSAC\2025\Sep 03\Materials\PL20250005385 Scrivener's Errors - LDCA (08-20-2025).docx 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 DRAFT Text underlined is new text to be added Text str'Lethrn nh 'c currono text to he deleted * fY k k Restrictions, stipulations and safeguards. The Planning Commission may recommend that a petition to amend, supplement or establish a zoning district be approved subject to stipulations, including, but not limited to limiting the use of the property to certain uses provided for in the requested zoning district. The governing body, after receiving the recommendation from the Planning Commission on a request to amend, supplement or establish a zoning district, may grant or deny such amendment or supplement and may make the granting conditional upon such restrictions, stipulations and safeguards as it may deem necessary to ensure compliance with the intent and purposes of the Growth Management Plan. * * * * * * * * * * * * * 2. Dedication of public facilities and development of prescribed amenities. a. Public facility dedication. The Board of County Commissioners may, as a condition of approval and adoption of the rezoning required that suitable areas for streets, public rights -of -way, schools, parks, and other public facilities be set aside, improved, and/or dedicated for public use. Where impact fees are levied for 1 or more such public facilities, the market value of the land set aside for the public purpose shall be credited towards impact fees to the extent authorized by the County's Consolidated Impact Fee Ordinance. Said credit shall be based on a negotiated amount not greater than the market value of the set aside land prior to the rezoning action, as determined by an accredited appraiser from a list approved by Collier County. Said appraisal shall be submitted to the County Attorney's office and the real property office within 90 days of the date of approval of the rezone, or as otherwise extended in writing by Collier County, so as to establish the amount of any impact fee credits resulting from said dedication. Failure to provide said appraisal within this 90-day time frame shall automatically authorize the county to determine the market value of the property. Impact fee credits shall only be effective after recordation of the conveyance document conveying the dedicated property to Collier County. Where the term Collier County is used in this section, it shall be construed to include the Collier County Water and Sewer District or other agency or dependent dependant district of Collier County Government. * * * * * * * * * * * * * # # # # # # # # # # # # # APPENDIX A - STANDARD PERFORMANCE SECURITY DOCUMENTS FOR REQUIRED IMPROVEMENTS The following specimen forms are to be used as a guide for preparation of bonding instruments which will be submitted to the Collier County Board of County Commissioners for guaranteeing the completion of required improvements with respect to this Code. Adherence to the forms will ensure assure an expeditious review by the Development Review comes Division and the Collier County Attorney's Office. Deviation in substance or form from the suggested specimen 24 GALDC Amendments\Advisory Boards and Public Hearings\DSAC\2025\Sep 03\Materials\PL20250005385 Scrivener's Errors - LDCA (08-20-2025).docx 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 DRAFT Text underlined is new text to be added Text str'Lethrn nh 'c currono text to he deleted forms may result in a substantial delay or disapproval of the bonding provisions for Required Improvements by the Development Review SeR�iGes Division or the County Attorney's Office. These specimen forms may be revised from time to time by resolution of the Board of County Commissioners. * * * * * * * * * * * * * # # # # # # # # # # # # # APPENDIX C — FINAL SUBDIVISION PLAT, REQUIRED CERTIFICATIONS AND SUGGESTED TEXT AND FORMATS FOR OTHER REQUIRED INFORMATION * * * * * * * * * * * * * B. DEDICATE TO COLLIER COUNTY: 1. The public rights -of -way (insert name) or depicted streets, roads, or access, as follows: TRACT "A" AS A PUBLIC ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY (R.O.W.) SUBJECT TO THE EASEMENTS DEDICATED AND DEPICTED HEREON (list all ROW easements) WHICH EASEMENTS ARE SUBORDINATE TO, AND MAY NOT BE USED INCONSISTENT WITH, THE USE OF THE RIGHTS -OF -WAY BY COLLIER COUNTY FOR ROADWAY PURPOSES INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PAVEMENT, ROADWAY DRAINAGE, BIKE LANES, SIDEWALKS, AND PATHWAYS. ALL (CONSERVATION or PRESERVE) (TRACTS or EASEMENTS) WITHOUT RESPONSIBILITY FOR MAINTENANCE AND SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS OF THE DEDICATION IN PARAGRAPH A. 7. (name of appropriate paragraph) ABOVE. * * * * * * * * * * * * * # # # # # # # # # # # # # 25 GALDC Amendments\Advisory Boards and Public Hearings\DSAC\2025\Sep 03\Materials\PL20250005385 Scrivener's Errors - LDCA (08-20-2025).docx THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK ..,)Collier County LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT PETITION PL20250006145 ORIGIN Growth Management Community Development Department (GMCDD) SUMMARY OF AMENDMENT This amendment updates the provisions related to the removal of prohibited exotic vegetation in the Land Development Code (LDC) by identifying additional site improvements that may occur without initiating the removal requirements. LDC amendments are reviewed by the Board of County Commissioners (Board), Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC), Development Services Advisory Committee (DSAC), and the Land Development Review Subcommittee of the DSAC (DSAC-LDR Subcommittee). HEARING DATES LDC SECTION TO BE AMENDED Board TBD 03.05.08 Requirement for Removal of Prohibited Exotic Vegetation CCPC TBD DSAC 09/03/2025 DSAC-LDR 08/19/2025 ADVISORY BOARD RECOMMENDATIONS DSAC-LDR DSAC CCPC Denial TBD TBD BACKGROUND The first tree protection ordinance was adopted by the County as Ord. No. 1973-23. It included provisions for a tree removal permit process, and it identified a short list of tree species that were exempted from protection. The ordinance was amended in 1974 and then repealed/replaced twice; once in 1975 and again in 1976, the latter of which represents the time when the County adopted comprehensive zoning regulations for the Coastal Area Planning District (i.e., Ord. No. 1976-30). When Ord. No. 1979-73 was adopted, the County started requiring the removal of exotic plants on properties where improvements were proposed, except on land used for agricultural purposes or on properties zoned and platted for single-family residential homes. In January 1982, the County adopted a new zoning ordinance (Ord. No. 1982-2); however, this new ordinance inadvertently omitted the Exotic Vegetation Section and was corrected in May 1982 with the adoption of Ord. No. 1982-37, reinstituting the requirement that exotics be removed on all lands, except for single-family residential use or agriculturally zoned lands. Additional changes to the code would be made over the years, notably with the adoption of Ord. No. 2004-08, which introduced the requirement for preserve management plans and the removal of exotic vegetation within the first 75 feet of the outer edge of every preserve; however, single family residences were specifically exempted. When the code was comprehensively updated again with the passage of Ord. No. 2004-41, the requirement for removing exotic vegetation prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy was extended to include new principal and accessory structures on single- and two-family lots. However, tents, awnings, cabanas, utility storage sheds, and screen enclosures were not exempted until the adoption of Ord. No. 2005-27. Subsequent amendments to LDC section 3.05.08 occurred in 2008 and 2015. At the Board hearing on December 12, 2023, under Staff and Commission General Communications, Commissioner Hall requested that staff update the LDC as it pertains to the removal of exotic vegetation. LDC amendments are reviewed by the Board, Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC), Development Services Advisory Committee (DSAC), and the Land Development Review Subcommittee of the DSAC (DSAC-LDR Subcommittee). To address the Board's concern, an LDC amendment was drafted (i.e., PL20230018350), which proposed to exempt new structures and additions GALDC Amendments\Advisory Boards and Public Hearings\DSAC\2025\Sep 03\Materials\PL20250006145 Removal of Prohibited Exotic Vegetation - LDCA (08-19-2025).docx ..,)Collier County on Estate (E)-zoned lots from being required to remove exotics within the cleared areas of the lot, plus 7.5 feet around the perimeter of the property. This amendment was presented to the DSAC-LDR Subcommittee, who recommended approval but with changes. On February 7, 2024, the DSAC reviewed PL20230018350 but recommended denial. On March 7, 2024, the CCPC also reviewed the earlier iteration of this amendment and unanimously voted to deny it. On March 12, 2024, staff requested direction from the Board to advertise the draft Ordinance; however, the Board voted to continue the item. This earlier iteration, including the relevant minutes from the Board hearing, is provided in Exhibit A. After PL20230018350 was continued by the Board, staff drafted a newer version to emphasize that that a certificate of occupancy must have been previously issued on E-zoned lots, and that applicants involving permits submitted on or after December 12, 2023, for additions or modifications of structures, shall only be responsible for removing exotics within 30 feet of the improved area described on such permit. Unlike the previous version, a permit application will no longer initiate the removal of exotics along the perimeter of the property. The new version also exempts permit applications involving fences and small sheds (under 60 square feet) but makes it necessary to remove exotics when constructing a cabana. DSAC-LDR Subcommittee Recommendation: On August 19, 2025, the DSAC-LDR Subcommittee reviewed PL20250006145 and voted (3-2) to deny the amendment, citing concerns for the continued propagation of exotics as well as the role exotics play in acting as fuel for wildfires in the Estates area. Before the vote was taken, the discussion included an acknowledgement from the prevailing view that it is customary for owners to bear the financial burden when developing property in the County, including the removal of exotics. A suggestion was made to increase the size of a proposed shed that would be exempted from the removal of exotics, but the Subcommittee could not come to full agreement. FISCAL & OPERATIONAL IMPACTS GMP CONSISTENCY There are no anticipated fiscal or operational The proposed LDC amendment has been reviewed by impacts associated with this amendment. Comprehensive Planning staff and may be deemed consistent with the GMP. EXHIBITS: Exhibit A — PL20230018350 Previous Iteration and Board Minutes 03/12/2024 2 GALDC Amendments\Advisory Boards and Public Hearings\DSAC\2025\Sep 03\Materials\PL20250006145 Removal of Prohibited Exotic Vegetation - LDCA (08-19-2025).docx 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 Amend the LDC as follows: 3.05.08 — Requirements for Removal of Prohibited Exotic Vegetation Prohibited exotic vegetation specifically includes the following: Earleaf acacia (Acacia auriculiformis) Australian pine (Casuarina spp.) Melaleuca (Melaleuca spp.) Catclaw mimose (Minosa pigra) Downy rosemyrtle (Rhodomyrtus tomentosa) Brazilian pepper (Schinus terebinthifolius) Java plum (Syzygium cumini) Women's tongue (Albizia lebbeck) Climbing fern (Lygodium spp.) Air potato (Dioscorea bulbifera) Lather leaf (Colubrina asiatica) Carrotwood (Cupaniopsis anacardioides) A. General. Prohibited exotic vegetation removal and methods of removal shall be conducted in accordance with the specific provisions of each local development order. 2. Native vegetation shall be protected during the process of removing prohibited exotic vegetation, in accord with the provisions of LDC section 3.05.04. 3. Prohibited exotic vegetation shall be removed from the following locations, and within the following timeframes: a. From all rights -of -way, common area tracts not proposed for development, and easements prior to preliminary acceptance of each phase of the required subdivision improvements. b. From each phase of a site development plan prior to the issuance of the certificate of occupancy for that phase. 3 GALDC Amendments\Advisory Boards and Public Hearings\DSAC\2025\Sep 03\Materials\PL20250006145 Removal of Prohibited Exotic Vegetation - LDCA (08-19-2025).docx 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 C. From all golf course fairways, roughs, and adjacent open space/natural preserve areas prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the first permitted structure associated with the golf course facility. d. From property proposing any enlargement of existing interior floor space, paved parking area, or substantial site improvement prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. 4. In the case of the discontinuance of use or occupation of land or water or structure for a period of 90 consecutive days or more, property owners shall, prior to subsequent use of such land or water or structure, conform to the regulations specified by this section. 5. Verification of prohibited exotic vegetation removal shall be performed by the County Manager or designee. 6.Herbicides utilized in the removal of prohibited exotic vegetation shall have been approved by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Any person who supervises up to eight (8) people in the application of pesticides and herbicides in the chemical maintenance of exotic vegetation in preserves, required retained native vegetation areas, wetlands, or LSPA shall maintain the Florida Dept. of Agriculture and Consumer Services certifications for Natural Areas Pesticide Applicators or Aquatic Herbicide Applicators dependent upon the specific area to be treated. When prohibited exotic vegetation is removed, but the base of the vegetation remains, the base shall be treated with an U.S. Environmental Protection Agency approved herbicide and a visual tracer dye shall be applied. B. Exotic vegetation maintenance plan. A maintenance plan shall be submitted to the County Manager or designee for review on sites which require prohibited exotic vegetation removal prior to the issuance of the local development order. This maintenance plan shall describe specific techniques to prevent reinvasion by prohibited exotic vegetation of the site in perpetuity. This maintenance plan shall be implemented on a yearly basis at a minimum. Issuance of the local development order shall be contingent upon approval of the maintenance plan. Noncompliance with this plan shall constitute violation of this section. The County Manager or designee shall inspect sites periodically after issuance of the certificate of occupancy, or other final acceptance, for compliance with this section. C. Applicability to new structures and to additions on single-family and two-family lots. In addition to the other requirements of this section, the applicant shall be required to remove all prohibited exotic vegetation before a certificate of occupancy is granted on any new principal or accessory structure and aRy additions to the swine feetage ref the nrORG'pal er'caccesseri-y StrLIGtccHres on single-family or two- family lots. For lots zoned Estate District (E) that have been issued a certificate of occupancy, the applicant shall only be responsible for removing prohibited exotic vegetation within 30 feet of the addition or modification of structure(s) described in any permit application submitted for principal or accessory structures on or after December 12, 2023. 2. The requirement to remove prohibited exotic vegetation This shall not apply to tents, awnings, fences, Eabanas, utility storage sheds under 60 square feet, or 4 GALDC Amendments\Advisory Boards and Public Hearings\DSAC\2025\Sep 03\Materials\PL20250006145 Removal of Prohibited Exotic Vegetation - LDCA (08-19-2025).docx 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 screened enclosures not having a roof impervious to weather. This shall not apply to interior remodeling of any existing structure. 3. The removal of prohibited exotic vegetation shall be required in perpetuity. Upon issuance of a vegetation removal permit, subject to the provisions in LDC section 3.05.02 F. and G., prohibited exotic vegetation may be removed prior to issuance of a building permit. D. Exceptions. Prohibited exotic vegetation may remain on property when the County Manager or designee receives a request from the property owner to retain the vegetation. The County Manager or designee shall approve such a request upon finding that at least one of the following criteria has been met. The prohibited exotic vegetation has been previously approved through the County development review process and planted in accordance with the landscape requirements at the time of final local development order approval. 2. The subject lot is developed with, or proposed to be developed with, a single family dwelling unit, and: a. is not within the RFMU Sending Lands overlay district; and is not within a NRPA overlay district; and C. is not located on a undeveloped coastal barrier island; and d. the vegetation requested to be retained is an existing Java plum tree(s) that has attained a single -trunk diameter at breast height (DBH) of 18 inches or more. 3. The prohibited exotic vegetation contains a nest of a bald eagle. Where such vegetation occurs within a bald eagle nest protection zone, removal shall be in accordance with the FWC Bald Eagle Management Plan and FWC Bald Eagle Management Guidelines, or as otherwise permitted by the FWC and/or USFWS. Where a bald eagle nest is determined to be "lost" as defined by the FWC, such vegetation shall be removed as required by LDC section 3.05.08. 5 GALDC Amendments\Advisory Boards and Public Hearings\DSAC\2025\Sep 03\Materials\PL20250006145 Removal of Prohibited Exotic Vegetation - LDCA (08-19-2025).docx Proposed Agenda Changes Board of County Commissioners Meeting March 12, 2024 Add -on Item 16114: Proclamation designating March 21 — 31, 2024, as the 48th Anniversary of the Collier Fair. The proclamation will be mailed to Rhonda Ward, Collier Fair Manager. (Commissioner McDaniel's Request) Move Item 3C1 to the March 26, 2024, BCC Meeting: Recognizing Nolan Sapp for his 46 years of dedicated public safety service upon retirement. (Staff Request) Move Item 17A to 9A: This item requires the Commission members to provide ex-parte disclosure. Should a hearing be held on this item, all participants are required to be sworn in. Recommendation to approve a rezoning ordinance for the NBC RV Mixed -Use Planned Unit Development, a portion of which remains in the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District -Receiving Lands Zoning Overlay, to allow up to 356,000 square feet of commercial and industrial uses and 75 Travel -Trailer -Recreational Vehicle campground units on property located 450f feet northeast of the intersection of Basik Drive and Tamiami Trail East, 5 miles east of Collier Boulevard in Section 18, Township 51 South, Range 27 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 34± acres; and by providing an effective date. (Companion to Item 17B) (Commissioner LoCastro's Request) Move Item 17B to 9B: Recommendation to approve an ordinance amending the Future Land Use Element and Future Land Use Map and map series of the Growth Management Plan to create the East Tamiami Trail Mixed Use Subdistrict, to allow up to 356,000 square feet of gross floor area of heavy commercial and industrial uses, and up to 75 travel trailer -recreational vehicle campground units. The subject property is located 450± feet northeast of the intersection of Basik Drive and Tamiami Trail East, 5 miles east of Collier Boulevard, in section 18, township 51 south, range 27 east, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 33.523± acres. (Companion to Item 17A) (Commissioner LoCastro's Request) Move Item 16A14 to 11F: Recommendation to direct staff to advertise and bring back an Ordinance amending the Land Development Code to update the regulations relating to the removal of prohibited exotic vegetation. (By separate requests of Commissioners LoCastro, Kowal, and Hall) Move Item 16F7 to 11G: Recommendation to award Construction Invitation to Bid ("ITB") No. 23-8182, the "Caxambas Park and Boat Rehabilitation Project" to Kelly Brothers, Inc., in the amount of $2,735,926.67, authorize the Chairman to sign the attached Agreement, and approve the necessary Budget Amendment. (Project No. 50280). (By separate requests of Commissioners LoCastro and Kowal) Notes: Item 16B7 should be corrected to read as follows: Recommendation to authorize electronic submission by staff the Coun , Manager or designee of a Small County Outreach Program for Rural Areas of Opportunities application with the Florida Department of Transportation to fund the construction of a paved shoulder to improve safety on a segment of Immokalee Road (CR 846E) in the amount of $999,855.21. Item 17A, Attachment A — Revised Ordinance, Exhibit F, under "VI. HOURS OF OPERATION" the following language should be added: "B. Every 5 years from the date of adoption of the Ordinance, staff will provide a report to the Collier County Board of County Commissioners on the hours of operation for loading and crushing of concrete, the impacts to owners and whether any complaints have been made to the County. Upon a finding of public purpose, the Board reserves the right to modify the hours of operation to 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. at such meeting without an advertised hearing." TIME CERTAIN ITEMS: Item 10A to be heard 9:30 AM: Recommendation to submit a Community Project Funding application to Congressman Mario Diaz-Balart for $6 million to construct a Collier County Veterans Services Center and Museum. Exhibit A Item 11A to be heard at 10:30 AM: Recommendation to review a proposed amendment to Ordinance 2002-63, which established the Conservation Collier Program, which will be advertised for a future Board meeting. Item 11B to be heard at 1 PM: After -action report for the 2024 Florida legislative session. Item 11C to be heard no sooner than 1:30 PM: Recommendation to accept a project update on the Collier County Behavioral Health Center and proceed with the design for 87 total beds. 3/12/2024 3:53 PM Exhibit A 16.A.14 03/12/2024 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Recommendation to direct staff to advertise and bring back an Ordinance amending the Land Development Code to update the regulations relating to the removal of prohibited exotic vegetation. OBJECTIVE: To direct staff to advertise and bring back an Ordinance amending the Land Development Code (LDC) to direct staff to advertise and bring back an Ordinance amending the Land Development Code to update the regulations relating to the removal of prohibited exotic vegetation. CONSIDERATIONS: The first tree protection ordinance was adopted by the County as Ord. No. 1973-23. It included provisions for a tree removal permit process and identified a short list of tree species that were exempted from protection. The ordinance was amended in 1974 and then repealed/replaced twice, once in 1975 and again in 1976, the latter of which represents the time when the County adopted comprehensive zoning regulations for the Coastal Area Planning District (Ord. No. 1976-30). When Ord. No. 1979-73 was adopted, and the County started requiring the removal of exotic plants on properties where improvements were proposed, except on lands used for agricultural purposes or on properties zoned and platted for single-family residential homes. In January 1982, the County adopted a new zoning ordinance (Ord. No. 1982-2); however, this new ordinance inadvertently omitted the Exotic Vegetation Section and was corrected in May 1982 with the adoption of Ord. No. 1982-37, reinstituting the requirement that exotics be removed on all lands, except for single-family residential use or agriculturally zoned lands. Additional changes to the code would be made over the years, notably with the adoption of Ord. No. 2004-08 introduced the requirement for preserve management plans and the removal of exotic vegetation within the first 75 feet of the outer edge of every preserve; however, single family residences were specifically exempted. When the code was comprehensively updated again with the passage of Ord. No. 2004-41, the requirement for removing exotic vegetation prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy was extended to include new principal and accessory structures on single and two family lots. However, tents, awnings, cabanas, utility storage sheds, and screen enclosures were not exempted until the adoption of Ord. No. 2005-27. Subsequent amendments to LDC section 3.05.08 occurred in 2008 and 2015. At the Board hearing on December 12, 2023, under Staff and Commission General Communications, Commissioner Hall requested that staff update the LDC as it pertains to the removal of exotic vegetation. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION (CCPQ RECOMMENDATION: The CCPC will review this Land Development Code amendment on March 7, 2024. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE (DSAQ RECOMMENDATION: On February 7, 2024, the DSAC recommended denial of the proposed LDC amendment. Prior to voting, some members of the DSAC expressed the following concerns: 1. The LDC amendment is unfair, because developers will incur the cost of removing exotics on their own property when the seed -source (of prohibited exotic plant material) will be from neighboring properties, and that a cleared area of 7.5 feet is insufficient. Most of the damage from hurricanes occurs from the exotic vegetation flying around during high winds. 2. Understands the removal of exotic plants is for the betterment of the whole community. The requirement to remove exotics is a good requirement. The LDC amendment would perpetuate the spreading of exotics, as noted by observing the presence of pepper hedge on vacant lots along the rights -of -way. Packet Pg. 451 Exhibit A 16.A.14 03/12/2024 4. The LDC amendment is unfair in that it exempts residential but not commercial. 5. Will create confusion with respect to the lots in Golden Gate (Estates), as many have wetlands and are required to remove exotics for their DEP and federal permitting (County species vs. State and Federal species). On January 16, 2024, the DSAC- Land Development Review Subcommittee (DSAC-LDR Subcommittee) recommended approval of the LDC amendment, contingent upon eliminating the proposed text on page 4, lines 39- 40 ("within the approved cleared area and within seven and one-half (7.5) feet from all property lines") and the similar text on page 4, lines 48-49. FISCAL IMPACT: There are no anticipated fiscal impacts to the County, except for the cost of advertising an ordinance amending the LDC. The cost associated with advertising the Ordinance is estimated at $1,008.00. Funds are available within the Unincorporated Area General Fund (1011) and Zoning & Land Development Cost Center (138319). LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS: This item is approved as to form and legality and requires a majority vote. -DDP GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: No growth management impact is associated with this action. RECOMMENDATION: To direct staff to advertise and bring back an Ordinance amending the LDC for a public hearing. Prepared by: Eric L. Johnson, AICP, CFM, LDC Planning Manager, Zoning Division ATTACHMENT(S) 1. PL20230018350 - Updates to Removal of Exotics LDCA (03-05-2024) (PDF) Packet Pg. 452 Exhibit A 16.A.14 03/12/2024 COLLIER COUNTY Board of County Commissioners Item Number: 16.A.14 Doe ID: 27826 Item Summary: Recommendation to direct staff to advertise and bring back an Ordinance amending the Land Development Code to update the regulations relating to the removal of prohibited exotic vegetation. Meeting Date: 03/12/2024 Prepared by: Title: Planner, Principal — Zoning Name: Eric Johnson 02/09/2024 3:21 PM Submitted by: Title: Zoning Director — Zoning Name: Mike Bosi 02/09/2024 3:21 PM Approved By: Review: Building Plan Review & Inspections Diane Lynch GMCDD Reviewer Zoning Mike Bosi Division Director Operations & Regulatory Management Michael Stark Additional Reviewer Transportation Management Operations Support Evelyn Trimino Growth Management Community Development Department Diane Lynch Unknown Jaime Cook Additional Reviewer Growth Management Community Development Department James C French County Attorney's Office Office of Management and Budget Office of Management and Budget County Attorney's Office County Manager's Office Board of County Commissioners Derek D. Perry CAO Reviewer Laura Zautcke Additional Reviewer Debra Windsor Level 3 OMB Gatekeeper Review Jeffrey A. Klatzkow Level 3 County Attorney's Office Review Amy Patterson Level 4 County Manager Review Geoffrey Willig Meeting Pending Skipped 02/12/2024 1:20 PM Completed 02/13/2024 10:59 AM Completed 02/21/2024 5:15 PM Additional Reviewer Completed 02/26/2024 9:09 AM Department review Completed 02/27/2024 4:36 PM Completed 03/04/2024 1:22 PM Growth Management Completed 03/04/2024 2:35 PM Completed 03/06/2024 8:30 AM Completed 03/06/2024 8:44 AM Completed 03/06/2024 9:22 AM Completed 03/06/2024 11:16 AM Completed 03/06/2024 12:33 PM 03/12/2024 9:00 AM Packet Pg. 453 C�© 7eY GC1LRTlty Exhibit A I 16.A.14.a Growth Management O Community Development Department a� Zoning Division LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT PETITION SUMMARY OF AMENDMENT PL20230018350 This amendment updates the provisions related to the removal of prohibited ORIGIN exotic vegetation in the Land Development Code (LDC) by identifying Board of County additional site improvements that may occur without initiating the removal Commissioners (Board) requirements. LDC amendments are reviewed by the Board, Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC), Development Services Advisory Committee (DSAC), and the Land Development Review Subcommittee of the DSAC (DSAC-LDR Subcommittee). HEARING DATES LDC SECTION TO BE AMENDED BCC 03/12/2024 03.05.08 Requirement for Removal of Prohibited Exotic Vegetation CCPC 03/07/2024 02/15/2024 DSAC 02/07/2024 DSAC-LDR 01/16/2024 ADVISORY BOARD RECOMMENDATIONS DSAC-LDR DSAC CCPC Approval with Recommendations Denial TBD BACKGROUND The first tree protection ordinance was adopted by the County as Ord. No. 1973-23. It included provisions for a tree removal permit process, and it identified a short list of tree species that were exempted from protection. The ordinance was amended in 1974 and then repealed/replaced twice; once in 1975 and again in 1976, the latter of which representing the time when the County adopted comprehensive zoning regulations for the Coastal Area Planning District (i.e., Ord. No. 1976-30). When Ord. No. 1979-73 was adopted, the County started requiring the removal of exotic plants on properties where improvements were proposed, except on lands used for agricultural purposes or on properties zoned and platted for single-family residential homes. In January 1982, the County adopted a new zoning ordinance (Ord. No. 1982-2); however, this new ordinance inadvertently omitted the Exotic Vegetation Section and was corrected in May 1982 with the adoption of Ord. No. 1982-37, reinstituting the requirement that exotics be removed on all lands, except for single-family residential use or agriculturally zoned lands. Additional changes to the code would be made over the years, notably with the adoption of Ord. No. 2004-08, which introduced the requirement for preserve management plans and the removal of exotic vegetation within the first 75 feet of the outer edge of every preserve; however, single family residences were specifically exempted When the code was comprehensively updated again with the passage of Ord. No. 2004-41, the requirement for removing exotic vegetation prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy was extended to include new principal and accessory structures on single and two family lots. However, tents, awnings, cabanas, utility storage sheds, and screen enclosures were not exempted until the adoption of Ord. No. 2005-27. Subsequent amendments to LDC section 3.05.08 occurred in 2008 and 2015. At the Board hearing on December G:\LDC Amend ments\Adviso ry Boards and Public Hea6ngs\BCC\2024\03-12\Materials\PL20230018350 - Updates to Removal of Exotics LDCA (03-05-2024).docx Packet Pg. 454 C�© 7eY GC1LRTlty Exhibit A I 16.A.14.a Growth Management O Community Development Department a� Zoning Division 12, 2023, under Staff and Commission General Communications, Commissioner Hall requested that staff update the LDC as it pertains to the removal of exotic vegetation. DSAC-LDR Subcommittee Recommendation: On January 16, 2024, the DSAC-LDR Subcommittee recommended approval of the LDC amendment, contingent upon eliminating the proposed text on page 4, lines 39-40 ("within the approved cleared area and within seven and one-half (7.5) feet from all property lines") and the similar text on page 4, lines 48-49. Staff did not incorporate any of the changes recommended by the DSAC-LDR Subcommittee. DSAC-Recommendation: On February 7, 2024, the DSAC recommended denial of the proposed LDC amendment. Prior to voting, some members of the DSAC expressed the following concerns: 1. The LDC amendment is unfair, because developers will incur the cost of removing exotics on their own property when the seed -source (of prohibited exotic plant material) will be from neighboring properties, and that a cleared area of 7.5 feet is insufficient. Most of the damage from hurricanes occur from the exotic vegetation flying around during high winds. 2. Understands the removal of exotic plants is for the betterment of the whole community. The requirement to remove exotics is a good requirement. 3. The LDC amendment would perpetuate the spreading of exotics, as noted by observing the presence of pepper hedge on vacant lots along the rights -of -way. 4. The LDC amendment is unfair in that it exempts residential but not commercial. 5. Will create confusion with respect to the lots in Golden Gate (Estates), as many have wetlands and are required to remove exotics for their DEP and federal permitting (County species vs. State and Federal species). FISCAL & OPERATIONAL IMPACTS There are no anticipated fiscal or operational impacts associated with this amendment. EXHIBITS: None GMP CONSISTENCY The proposed LDC amendment has been reveiwed by Comprehensive Planning staff and may be deemed consistent with the GMP. 2 G:\LDC Amend ments\Adviso ry Boards and Public Hea6ngs\BCC\2024\03-12\Materials\PL20230018350 - Updates to Removal of Exotics LDCA (03-05-2024).docx Packet Pg. 455 Exhibit A 16.A.14.a 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 Amend the LDC as follows: 3.05.08 — Requirements for Removal of Prohibited Exotic Vegetation Prohibited exotic vegetation specifically includes the following: Earleaf acacia (Acacia auriculiformis) Australian pine (Casuarina spp.) Melaleuca (Melaleuca spp.) Catclaw mimose (Minosa pigra) Downy rosemyrtle (Rhodomyrtus tomentosa) Brazilian pepper (Schinus terebinthifolius) Java plum (Syzygium cumini) Women's tongue (Albizia lebbeck) Climbing fern (Lygodium spp.) Air potato (Dioscorea bulbifera) Lather leaf (Colubrina asiatica) Carrotwood (Cupaniopsis anacardioides) A. General. Prohibited exotic vegetation removal and methods of removal shall be conducted in accordance with the specific provisions of each local development order. 2. Native vegetation shall be protected during the process of removing prohibited exotic vegetation, in accord with the provisions of LDC section 3.05.04. 3. Except for Estates (E) zoned lots as described in LDC section 3.05.08 C., pP-rohibited exotic vegetation shall be removed from the following locations, and within the following timeframes: a. From all rights -of -way, common area tracts not proposed for development, and easements prior to preliminary acceptance of each phase of the required subdivision improvements. b. From each phase of a site development plan prior to the issuance of the certificate of occupancy for that phase. 3 G:\LDC Amendments\Advisory Boards and Public Head ngs\BCC\2024\03-12\Materials\PL20230018350 - Updates to Removal of Exotics LDCA (03-05-2024).docx Packet Pg. 456 Exhibit A 16.A.14.a 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 C. From all golf course fairways, roughs, and adjacent open space/natural preserve areas prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the first permitted structure associated with the golf course facility. d. From property proposing any enlargement of existing interior floor space, paved parking area, or substantial site improvement prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. 4. In the case of the discontinuance of use or occupation of land or water or structure for a period of 90 consecutive days or more, property owners shall, prior to subsequent use of such land or water or structure, conform to the regulations specified by this section. 5. Verification of prohibited exotic vegetation removal shall be performed by the County Manager or designee.6.Herbicides utilized in the removal of prohibited exotic vegetation shall have been approved by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Any person who supervises up to eight (8) people in the application of pesticides and herbicides in the chemical maintenance of exotic vegetation in preserves, required retained native vegetation areas, wetlands, or LSPA shall maintain the Florida Dept. of Agriculture and Consumer Services certifications for Natural Areas Pesticide Applicators or Aquatic Herbicide Applicators dependent upon the specific area to be treated. When prohibited exotic vegetation is removed, but the base of the vegetation remains, the base shall be treated with an U.S. Environmental Protection Agency approved herbicide and a visual tracer dye shall be applied. B. Exotic vegetation maintenance plan. A maintenance plan shall be submitted to the County Manager or designee for review on sites which require prohibited exotic vegetation removal prior to the issuance of the local development order. This maintenance plan shall describe specific techniques to prevent reinvasion by prohibited exotic vegetation of the site in perpetuity. This maintenance plan shall be implemented on a yearly basis at a minimum. Issuance of the local development order shall be contingent upon approval of the maintenance plan. Noncompliance with this plan shall constitute violation of this section. The County Manager or designee shall inspect sites periodically after issuance of the certificate of occupancy, or other final acceptance, for compliance with this section. C. Applicability to new structures and to additions on single-family and two-family lots. In addition to the other requirements of this section, the applicant shall be required to remove all prohibited exotic vegetation before a certificate of occupancy is granted on any new principal or accessory structure and any additions to the square footage of the principal or accessory structures on single-family or two-family lots. For new structures and additions on Estates (E) zoned lots after reffective date of Ordinancel. Drohibited exotic veaetation shall be removed only from County approved cleared areas and also within seven and one-half (7.5) feet from all property lines, excluding rear yard electric service utility easements. This subsection C shall not apply to tents, awnings, cabanas, utility storage sheds, or screened enclosures not having a roof impervious to weather. This shall not apply to interior remodeling of any existing structure. 4 G:\LDC Amendments\Advisory Boards and Public Head ngs\BCC\2024\03-12\Materials\PL20230018350 - Updates to Removal of Exotics LDCA (03-05-2024).docx Packet Pg. 457 Exhibit A 16.A.14.a 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 The removal of prohibited exotic vegetation shall be required in perpetuity. Upon issuance of a vegetation removal permit, subject to the provisions in LDC section 3.05.02 F. and G., prohibited exotic vegetation may be removed prior to issuance of a building permit. D. Exceptions. Prohibited exotic vegetation may remain on property when the County Manager or designee receives a request from the property owner to retain the vegetation. The County Manager or designee shall approve such a request upon finding that at least one of the following criteria has been met. The prohibited exotic vegetation has been previously approved through the County development review process and planted in accordance with the landscape requirements at the time of final local development order approval. 2. The subject lot is developed with, or proposed to be developed with, a single family dwelling unit, and: a. is not within the RFMU Sending Lands overlay district; and b. is not within a NRPA overlay district; and C. is not located on a undeveloped coastal barrier island; and d. the vegetation requested to be retained is an existing Java plum tree(s) that has attained a single -trunk diameter at breast height (DBH) of 18 inches or more. 3. The prohibited exotic vegetation contains a nest of a bald eagle. Where such vegetation occurs within a bald eagle nest protection zone, removal shall be in accordance with the FWC Bald Eagle Management Plan and FWC Bald Eagle Management Guidelines, or as otherwise permitted by the FWC and/or USFWS. Where a bald eagle nest is determined to be 'lost" as defined by the FWC, such vegetation shall be removed as required by LDC section 3.05.08. # # # # # # # # # # # # # 5 G:\LDC Amendments\Advisory Boards and Public Head ngs\BCC\2024\03-12\Materials\PL20230018350 - Updates to Removal of Exotics LDCA (03-05-2024).docx Packet Pg. 458 Exhibit A March 12, 2024 MS. PATTERSON: Commissioners, with your indulgence, we have two items that were pulled off of the consent agenda by Commissioner LoCastro and a couple of others, probably quick items that we could take before we got -- we're going to spend a little time on the budget policy, if you would be okay with that. Item # 11 F DIRECT STAFF TO ADVERTISE AND BRING BACK AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE TO UPDATE THE REGULATIONS RELATING TO THE REMOVAL OF PROHIBITED EXOTIC VEGETATION. (ALL DISTRICTS) - MOTION TO CONTINUE TO A FUTURE MEETING BY COMMISSIONER LOCASTRO; SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MCDANIEL — APPROVED MS. PATTERSON: The first item is now Item 11 F, formerly -- hold on. I've got to get organized. Ha -- formerly 16A 14. This is a recommendation to direct staff to advertise and bring back an ordinance amending the Land Development Code to update the regulations relating to the removal of prohibited exotic vegetation. Ms. Jaime Cook is back again to answer questions or present. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Mr. Chairman, I'll just say these two items are -- they're good -news things. So this is another example of where let's not let it get buried in the consent or summary agenda. You know, these are things we had previously talked about and, you know, you leave it in the consent or summary agenda and it gets passed, and maybe it doesn't get the spotlight it deserves, especially from the hard work from the staff here. So give us some good -news stories on 11F, and then also we'll Page 200 Exhibit A March 12, 2024 get a good update on what's actually going on at Caxambas. You know, a lot of misinformation out there as well, so... MS. COOK: Jaime Cook, your director of Development Review. So in 1979 the first exotic vegetation removal ordinances were passed in Collier County except for lots that are platted single-family and ag-zoned properties. Between 1979 and 2004, there were various iterations. Sometimes those requirements were removed; sometimes they were put back in. But, ultimately, in 2004 the requirement for exotic removal for new principal and accessory structures was required prior to a certificate of occupancy. In 2005, an exemption was added specifically for certain accessory structures, including screen enclosures, tents, awning, and other similar smaller structures. Back in December during your board meeting, during the commissioner comments toward the end of the meeting, I believe, Commissioner Hall, you raised this issue, and all of you had various circumstances that you brought forward of homeowners with this situation where they were being required to remove exotics, mostly for accessory structures, and directed us to take a look at the language and provide you with some potential updates. We've worked through that process and presented our proposed changes to the DSAC subcommittee in January, the full DSAC in February, and the Planning Commission last week. DCA recommended approval as long as we approved the proposed language, and both DCA and the Planning Commission recommended denial mostly because they felt that removal of exotics was for betterment of the community as well as that it created confusion in the instances where the homeowners may have to get state or federal permits for impacts to wetlands or other things where they're being required to remove exotics. Page 201 Exhibit A March 12, 2024 So the proposed language that we were presenting to you today is in Section 3.05.08 of the Land Development Code. And in Section A, staff is proposing to add that "except for Estates -zoned lots as described further below," which I'll get to in a minute, "prohibited exotic vegetation is required to be removed." And this section of code specifically refers to subdivisions or commercial developments. So we were making it clear so that there was no confusion that these requirements would not apply to Estates -zoned properties. But the meat of the change is that in 3.05.08.0 -- and the new additional language is highlighted in blue for you -- that for new structures and additions on Estates -zoned lots, after the effective date of this ordinance, which we're proposing to bring back to you the next meeting, prohibited exotic vegetation shall be removed only from the county -approved cleared areas and also within seven and a half feet from all property lines excluding rear yard electric service utility easements. And, again, it would not apply to some of those structures that were exempted back from 2005. So what staff is trying to envision, if you look on this aerial, the property on the top is one that has a house. It's been permitted. They've cleared about a half an acre. They haven't cleared a full acre, but they've requested to clear about a half an acre. So staff would recommend that exotics within that half acre, that shaded red area, would remain clear of exotic vegetation as well as the highlighted blue, which is about seven and a half feet around that property line. The property below has not been developed yet, but if it were to move forward with a building permit of some kind, that purple area is about one acre of clearing that they could do under their building permit as well as the seven and a half feet around the property, which is highlighted in yellow. Page 202 Exhibit A March 12, 2024 And the reason staff is recommending this seven and a half feet is because smaller zoned Estates lots, which are a little over an acre in size, their minimum setback from their property lines is seven and a half feet for all of their structures. This seven and a half feet on all property lines would give Fire the ability to get through in the event of a fire. For example, if there was a fire in the rear of the property, you can see that to the left of the screen, those properties are also vegetated in the rear, so that would make it difficult for Fire to get through. Additionally, it provides a fire break, that if there is a fire, there is some sort of break -- break line that fire would not necessarily be able to jump and impact any existing structures. Additionally, staff considered that these homeowners are able to put fences on their property lines. Most put it right at their property line. And if their neighbor isn't required to remove their exotics from their property line as well, it could impact their fence, potentially damaging it and costing that homeowner money to replace or repair their own fence. So with that, staff is recommending that you direct us to advertise the ordinance amending the Land Development Code with these changes, but I will turn it over to you for any questions or comments. CHAIRMAN HALL: Thank you, Ms. Cook. When I brought this up, I felt like this ordinance was onerous and cumbersome for the landowners, especially if they just wanted to add something. And my intention was if you want to build a new house, you've got to clear your exotics, clear them out in the beginning. We've had this -- we've had this ordinance 30 years, and it has not helped the exotics at all. They're still out there growing like wildfire. Page 203 Exhibit A March 12, 2024 But to require someone -- when would the s even- and -a -half- foot buffer -- that would come -- if we pass this like it is, people would be required to remove their exotics seven and a half feet on their property all the way around? MS. COOK: With the -- with this effective date, yes. But for -- but this -- the way the language was written, it would apply to -- for new structures and additions. CHAIRMAN HALL: And additions would be an addition to their home and not -- MS. COOK: So accessory structures; a garage or pool or something like that. CHAIRMAN HALL: So if somebody wanted to put a tool shed, they'd have to clear their exotics? MS. COOK: Only in the approved cleared area as well as the seven and a half feet, yes. CHAIRMAN HALL: Okay. I don't like it. I don't like it because I think it's not -- it's not doing what we want to do. We want to get out of the way for people. This is only the Estates. And if we approve this, I want to add Pine Ridge Estates in there as well. I don't want -- I mean, I take care of my exotics, and it's a lot of work, and I don't want to put that on people that don't want to do that. My neighbors, they don't take care of anything, and that's their business. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: They're listening. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: You've got to move to a new hood. CHAIRMAN HALL: They're not listening. Trust me, they're not listening. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: I love my neighbors, by the way. I just want to go on the record. Page 204 Exhibit A March 12, 2024 CHAIRMAN HALL: Commissioner LoCastro. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: I agree with Commissioner Hall. You know, when this came to us, he brought up an example that I had cross my path a couple times, too. And I don't want to oversummarize, but someone's trying to build a shed, the shed's -- and I'm just making up numbers. The shed's $2,000. Removing all the exotics is 10,000 or -- there was some crazy example. And I was hopeful that we would update a dated, dusty ordinance and have the legal authority -- you know, I realize that there are some standards when it comes to exotics and things, but I remember the open conversation was, let's do a deep dive. Let's blow the dust off this. Let's have, you know, government get out of the way. Let's let somebody buy a shed and not have the greatest expense be the removal of the exotics, and it's four times the price of the cost of the shed. You know, there was a couple of weird examples out there, and I can't remember if it was you, Ms. Cook, or somebody from the podium that said, yeah, that example pops up more often than you think. And our direction was, do we have the ability to fix it? Come back to us with something that fixes it. I don't think this does. It's got some new verbiage in it now. If the answer is, Commissioner, you really can't do -- you can't just make stuff go away, okay, well, then that's what I was expecting to hear, that, you know, we had a great idea, but it wasn't doable due to state statute something that governs exotics. But I was looking for something much more robust that would, you know, help the average citizen who wanted to put a shed in their backyard and not have to overly pay, you know, to remove exotics. I didn't know what the answer was, but I was hoping the answer would come to us and it would be aggressively different and more Page 205 Exhibit A March 12, 2024 supportive of the average citizen who was trying to do something and didn't have to go above and beyond and excessively pay for something. I don't think this does it either. So I concur with, you know, Commissioner Hall. CHAIRMAN HALL: Commissioner McDaniel. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Is there a statute that requires us to impose exotic removal on the private sector? MS. COOK: Wetlands. Properties that have wetlands on them. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Only on wetlands. This isn't -- this doesn't have to do with that, because that's a separate permit for exotic removal in a wetland area. So this has to do with new construction. MS. COOK: Correct. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Well, I agree, this doesn't help. I have struggled with exotic removal on the private sector all my life -- in the private sector. I actually shared with you, and I'll say it out loud, it would be my -- it would be my wish to stop this imposition at all on the private sector until the government actually takes care of its own. I can drive up and down any right-of-way that's managed by the Florida Department of Transportation, the federal highway systems, even so far as our park system at the federal and state level that are fraught with exotics. And so this -- I consider this an imposition on the private sector far and above. I mean, I'll say it as well. We've just come off of this last legislative session, but one of my hopes is to convene a study to actually have a look at the environmental impacts that the existence of exotics have contributed to habitat, because we all know that the birds and the bears and panthers live in these pepper hedges. I use pepper as the primary example. CHAIRMAN HALL: That's the primary. Page 206 Exhibit A March 12, 2024 COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: But I don't think this gets us to where we want to go. I mean, it's -- even though there's consideration given for a firebreak, exotic removal is not a clearing of the entire seven and a half foot so that a truck could get down that fence line to be able to fight a fire in the back. There's still going to be natural vegetation that's still in that seven and a half feet, even if the -- even if the exotics are removed. My thought would be -- if you go back to where you had the picture up here -- if we eliminated the seven- and- a -half- foot perimeter and just asked for the clearing of the exotics out of the area where the home was going to be, I'm just -- I'm just throwing that out as something. CHAIRMAN HALL: I guess my point was, just to make it simple, that if you're going to build a new home, if you're going to tear down a house and rebuild another one, you've got to clear your exotics. That's a one-time deal. You've got equipment out there. It's a no-brainer. But if you're existing and you've lived there for 30 years and you want to put -- you've got your mom that you want to move in and you're going to add a bedroom on, leave the shade. You know, just -- that's cumbersome and onerous to add a bedroom and have to remove all exotics again. So it's just -- for new construction or a new lot, I can see it's beneficial, and it's known, it's known what's expected, and there's no surprises in the end if you want to do something -- if you want to put a tool shed on it. So that would just be my plain and simple. I understand the rationale, I really do, and the rationale's worthy. But for what I want to accomplish, it's just getting us out of the way and it not being ownersome [sic]. And I understand DSAC, and I understand the Planning Commission, because for new construction that's going to be on the builders, and that's going to be an expense Page 207 Exhibit A March 12, 2024 that they're going to have to -- but that's what they get paid the big bucks for. Commissioner Saunders. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Thank you. I live in the Urban Estates, and I go around cutting some of the pepper plants and things like that, and two years later they've all grown back. So it doesn't really help to clear the property line and then -- because you've got to keep doing it year after year, and people aren't going to do that. And I would think even for new construction, to clear the whole property line, that would be a -- I think would be a rather expensive proposition. CHAIRMAN HALL: No, it's just the acre or half acre. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Yeah. So I would agree that clearing the exotics out of -- either the acre or the half acre, that makes all the sense. But I would eliminate all of the other clearing, and -- because I just don't think it's effective, and even if you do it, it's going to -- they grow back pretty fast. CHAIRMAN HALL: Yep. Commissioner Kowal. COMMISSIONER KOWAL: Thank you, Chairman. Yeah, I was under the impression that this was going to the drawing board, and you guys were going to come -- something back with us. It was going to be like -- you know, this was more on the lines that, you know, the gentleman that wanted to put the tool shed on his property. He had a $2,000 tool shed and spent $8,000 to clear the exotics before he's allowed to go out there and cut some wood or hammer some nails. You know, I was assuming you were going to come back with something saying, all right, well, if you're going to put a structure like a lanai, a fenced -in or an extra garage on the property, it would be certain buffer around that that would be required to clear the exotics, Exhibit A March 12, 2024 because now it's a new structure, and keep a little fire barrier away from it, but not 600 feet down one side, 600 feet down the other side, and 140 feet across the back and a 7-foot swath. And, you know, it just seemed like a lot more than I thought that we were really looking for or trying to achieve with the whole idea of going to the drawing board with this. And -- so that's what I was more or less looking for, you guys coming back saying, yeah, it makes sense. You've got a structure, you want to add a structure, we'll figure out a ratio how far out you've got to take the exotics and clear it, and then we're good to go. You get your occupancy permit. You're not clearing the 600 feet to the back, like it was before. You know, you've got to clear the whole lot every time you apply for the permit. But how ironic it is that we just spent hours today with Conservation Collier and about the Maintenance Fund and how important it is to have, and the first things we do is we go in and clear the exotics. It's our biggest expense of the Maintenance Fund is clearing exotics on property that we buy with that money, and we maintain it on a yearly basis. We revisit it and cut it out again and cut it out again and cut it out again, but then we're talking about here we don't want to, you know, put that burden on the citizens, but then we don't have the problem putting the burden on the overall taxpayers. So, I mean, sometimes we need to re -think the game here, you know. So... CHAIRMAN HALL: Commissioner McDaniel. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Which part of the game do you want to re -think? COMMISSIONER KOWAL: I'm just saying, we just talked how much money we're going to need for maintenance into perpetuity, and the biggest part of that money we talk about is the clearing the exotics. That's the biggest part of the maintenance -- Page 209 Exhibit A March 12, 2024 COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I'm aware. COMMISSIONER KOWAL: -- is clearing the exotics. But then you're saying they like to hide in the pepper bushes. I don't know. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Well -- and that is a fact. COMMISSIONER KOWAL: So... COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: There's no magic wand for this. I mean, if -- you know, I'm sure at the beginning of time when pepper bushes and Melaleucas were first introduced, there was a reason for them to be here, but now they're everywhere, and they've actually become a part of our ecosystem from a habitat standpoint for the wildlife. I think if we were -- to accomplish what we're looking to do, if we go back to the language portion of the suggestion here, if we make it for new structures, not additions, make it for the whole county, not just the Estates, and eliminate the s even- and -a -half- foot perimeter buffer, we at least get a start on relief on the community from the imposition of the clearing. I see the two gentlemen standing up. MR. BOSI: Mike Bosi, Planning and Zoning director. Just a clarification. So you're talking Estates -zoned lots, single-family lots, any residential properties would be exempt from what we were proposing, and PUDs? COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Residential and commercial. I don't think it's -- I don't think -- I mean, if you need to have two acres for a commercial building, then you clear the two acres. If you need a half an acre for your house, you clear the half an acre. If you want to put an addition on a home that's already there, you shouldn't have an additional imposition of a s even- and -a -half -foot perimeter clearing that as -- I shared with Commissioner Saunders, I spent -- I spent four hours on the wrong Page 210 Exhibit A March 12, 2024 end of a chainsaw Sunday taking care of exotics at my house and didn't even touch them, so -- because it's a never -- it's a no -- it's a zero -sum game. There's -- there's no beating them. Because if I live next to Commissioner Saunders, my cardinals fly over and eat his pepper berries and then come over and go to the bathroom on my property, and I'm propagated because you weren't cleaning your pepper bushes. CHAIRMAN HALL: You got fresh peppers. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yeah, I get fresh pepper berries. So -- and I don't know -- if the goal here for us is to lift the imposition on the private sector with regard to this, then let's minimize the exposure they have for -- to whatever it is that they're looking to actually build and let them be, both residential and commercial. MR. BOSI: Residential and commercial. Industrial as well? I mean, all -- COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yes. MR. BOSI: All land uses. All land uses, they are only to clear the exotics from their clear area for where their proposed buildings are and not along the perimeter. CHAIRMAN HALL: On brand-new construction. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: And additions. CHAIRMAN HALL: So if I want to add a bedroom so my mom can move in, now I've got to redo all my exotics? COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: No. Just on the area that you're going to build on. CHAIRMAN HALL: So if I have a half acre and lived there for 30 years and I got exotics that are on the side of me now -- COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: On the back 40. CHAIRMAN HALL: Backyard, front yard, whatever, and now Page 211 Exhibit A March 12, 2024 I want to add a bedroom for my mom to move in, now I've got to turn around and remove all the exotics again? COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: No, sir. That's what I'm saying is eliminate that provision. CHAIRMAN HALL: Oh, okay. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: The example that I cited last year when we were talking about this was with a young lady that works for me lives in the Estates in a Jim Walters home that was built back in the '80. They put a mother-in-law quarter on the house, on a 75-foot tract, and it cost them $4500 because we required -- Environmental Services required exotic removal on the entire property before they could get a CO and legally occupy that addition that they put on their home. And so my thoughts were, only require the exotic removal on the new structure for the area that they're actually going to use and eliminate the buffer, and include the entire county, and not the perimeter clearing. CHAIRMAN HALL: Troy, we have a comment? COMMISSIONER KOWAL: Could I just say one more thing? CHAIRMAN HALL: Sure. Go ahead. COMMISSIONER KOWAL: Just for understanding that, you know, if you are going to put this additional structure or this addition onto the home, I think there should be some sort of ratio out so far the exotics need to be cleared, just because you want to have that buffer for your own protection. But I don't want to see the whole lot having to get, you know, redone again, because I think that's senseless. Because you go out, and four, five years down the road, everything's back again. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Right. COMMISSIONER KOWAL: It's the same exact condition it was when you originally built your house. But if you're adding a structure or you're adding something on the property, I think there Page 212 Exhibit A March 12, 2024 should be some sort of ratio figured out how far out from that new structure, that new footprint you should clear it, you know, but not the whole perimeter around the edges of the lot and all that stuff. So I'm just trying to just -- you know, you don't want to build it right up to, you know, a fire hazard. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: If I may, the recommendation is 30 feet from your structure on the perimeter of your home. That should be -- COMMISSIONER KOWAL: Suffice. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: That is what the fire departments recommend, that you have that 30-foot buffer on the perimeter of your home. That allows them to safely get in, park a truck between your house and the fire and be able to fight the fire off your home. So that 30-foot perimeter from the home is what the fire department recommends. And I'm not necess- -- I'm not proposing that today unless we -- unless we can devise some sort of an incentive program to incentivize people to actually partake in that. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: So you assemble a $2,000 shed, and you'd have to go 30 feet? I mean, that's one of the examples, you know -- okay, yeah. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: If you don't want it to burn. CHAIRMAN HALL: I'm going to make the motion here to just have this say, "Exotic removals are required on new construction for the county cleared area," and other than that, we're good to go. Countywide. MR. BOSI: It's countywide. CHAIRMAN HALL: Industrial, residential and -- MR. BOSI: The clear area for new construction. CHAIRMAN HALL: For new construction only, if you need a half acre, you clear your half acre. Page 213 Exhibit A March 12, 2024 MR. BOSI: So if that addition was going on, that addition would not be subject to -- only -- only your -- the principal structure. CHAIRMAN HALL: Only on new construction on brand-new structures. MS. COOK: So just for a point of clarification, we have another section of our code, 3.05.07, that deals specifically with preserves and conservation easements that if we do countywide, this may conflict with that if we're not going to require exotic removal in Conservation Collier easements and preserves, which would also conflict with the state. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: We do want to do that. MS. COOK: So I just want to be sure that -- CHAIRMAN HALL: I'm just talking about for homeowners who are building stuff. MS. COOK: Got it. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: We're talking about new construction. We're not talking about another section of the -- CHAIRMAN HALL: Correct. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Excuse me, sir. I can hit my light. I jumped in front of Commissioner LoCastro, so... CHAIRMAN HALL: He's full of grace this afternoon. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Go ahead, please. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: No. I was just going to say -- and not in the interest of time, but in the interest of getting this right, I think you've heard all of our concerns here. I'd make the motion that you guys go back to the drawing board, that this does not meet our requirement, because the other thing here is, we're brainstorming a lot of stuff up here, and I was just about to say that I bet this conflicts with something, and then you said it does. So I think this is the time to take a pause and go, thanks for doing a dive, but it's not a deep enough dive. Keep us out of trouble. Page 214 Exhibit A March 12, 2024 We don't want to put something in writing that then, you know, conflicts with something else. And we want to make sure also, too, that all the -- all the right examples are covered. You know, the new construction sounds great, but then, you know, it might leave a loophole that, okay, so then if somebody wants to add a mother-in-law bedroom, then they don't have to do anything. But then, Commissioner McDaniel says, yeah, but then there could be a fire hazard, and, you know -- and so it's like I don't want to sit here and dissect this thing in this meeting. It's already not what I want. And I just think that this is -- you've gotten enough input from us to go back and bring us something that you can explain better that meets our -- the criteria we originally had said, or you tell us why it's impossible and give us something that at least is as aggressive as possible to meet, you know, what our intention is, and it's something that's also enforceable. We could say -- we could pat ourselves on the back here and pass something, and then in the end it is a whole lot of nothing. So I don't think we're ready to talk -- you know, wordsmithing this thing on the fly isn't something I'm ever hugely supportive of unless it's something, you know, a happy to glad or something really small. But I don't think this is close to what we would like, and there's also other moving parts that you just brought up with other ordinances out there that I think make this whole thing a little bit sloppy. So my recommendation would be, come back at the next meeting. And it also gives you a chance to talk to us all one-on-one between now and then, too, to make sure that we're all paddling in the same direction. I don't think we are right now. CHAIRMAN HALL: Commissioner McDaniel. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I'm okay with that. Page 215 10211:1[i_1 March 12, 2024 CHAIRMAN HALL: Me, too. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Let's continue it. CHAIRMAN HALL: You get the point. You know what we want. MS. COOK: We got it. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Do we have to make a motion to continue it? CHAIRMAN HALL: Yes. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Yep. I make a motion we continue it to -- MR. MILLER: Mr. Chair, I'm sorry. I don't believe this gentleman's here, but I don't know. Steve Matteau. (No response.) MR. MILLER: Just had to do that for the record. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HALL: Okay. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Make a motion to continue and bring it back at your earliest convenience. I don't even know if we have to set a date, because we've got kind of a complicated agenda coming up over the next couple, but, you know, this is one that -- sooner than later, but we'll let you figure out the date. So that's my motion. Do I have a second? COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Second. CHAIRMAN HALL: All right. Motion and second to postpone it. All in favor, say aye. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Aye. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Aye. CHAIRMAN HALL: Aye. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOWAL: Aye. CHAIRMAN HALL: All opposed? (No response.) Page 216 Exhibit A March 12, 2024 MS. COOK: Thank you. CHAIRMAN HALL: Can we bring it back on the consent? COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: If we get it right. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I'd suggest that sometime in 2028 will be a good time to bring it back. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: With the what? COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Sometime in 2028 would be a good time to bring it back. MS. PATTERSON: Commissioners -- COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Could I just say one thing, though? Commissioner Kowal really did bring up a really important point, that we sat here and we dissected this thing for sheds and mother-in-law homes, but we are paying through the nose on property in Conservation Collier. So maybe that's a separate thing, and maybe I'll just let it sit there, but that resonated with me, and I think it's very -- it's a very astute observation that you made. And, you know, we want to make sure that we're consistent. So here we are, you know, helping the taxpayer with their shed and their mother-in-law home, but then, you know, it's a much bigger number on lots that aren't really infringing on anything that we bought under Conservation Collier. So, you know, maybe that's for another day, another time, but not 2028, so... CHAIRMAN HALL: Brazilian peppers puts a new perspective on "in perpetuity." COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Yeah, absolutely. So maybe -- Commissioner Kowal, maybe that's something that, you know, you champion or talk with the County Manager, but I think bringing that back and seeing what we could really do to save -- and anything we save from Conservation Collier allows us to buy more properties, which is -- you know, when I made the motion to say, let's negotiate with some of these property owners, and then Page 217 Exhibit A March 12, 2024 what, the next 10 properties, most of them we bought under the appraised value saving money. This now -- now we're talking really significant dollars if we made some sort of aggressive change. And, you know, lastly, to Commissioner McDaniel's point, drive down any part of I-75 or anywhere in the county, right, they're everywhere, you know, so -- COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: U.S. 41. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: -- anyway, I'll just end with that, but that was a -- I hadn't really made that connection until he mentioned it, and then I started, you know, adding up the dollar figures, and that's a significant amount. So maybe we can combine the two, and when it comes back to us, it talks about both. Just a thought. MS. PATTERSON: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER KOWAL: We ain't got kudzu, right? COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: What's that, sir? COMMISSIONER KOWAL: Kudzu. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Yeah, yeah, kudzu. Yeah. Kudzu, yeah. CHAIRMAN HALL: We have air potato. Item # 11 G AWARD CONSTRUCTION INVITATION TO BID ("ITB") NO. 23-8182, THE "CAXAMBAS PARK AND BOAT REHABILITATION PROJECT" TO KELLY BROTHERS, INC., IN THE AMOUNT OF $2,735,926.67, AUTHORIZE THE CHAIRMAN TO SIGN THE ATTACHED AGREEMENT, AND APPROVE THE NECESSARY BUDGET AMENDMENT. (PROJECT NO. 50280). (DISTRICT 1) - MOTION TO APPROVE BY COMMISSIONER LOCASTRO; SECONDED BY Page 218 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK ...,)Collier County LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT PETITION SUMMARY OF AMENDMENT PL20250007882 This amendment updates and allows the administrative review and approval ORIGIN of plat and replat submittals through a designated authority (County Manager Growth Management or designee) in accordance with F.S. 177.071 Approval of Plat by Governing Community Department Bodies. LDC amendments are reviewed by the Board of County (GMCD) Commissioners (Board), Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC), Development Services Advisory Committee (DSAC), and the Land Development Review Subcommittee of the DSAC (DSAC-LDR). HEARING DATES LDC SECTION TO BE AMENDED Board TBD 1.08.02 Definitions CCPC TBD 4.03.02 Applicability DSAC TBD 10.02.04 Requirements for Subdivision Plats DSAC-LDR 8/19/25 10.02.05 Construction, Approval, and Acceptance of Required Improvements Appendix A STANDARD PERFORMANCE SECURITY DOCUMENTS FOR REQUIRED IMPROVEMENTS Appendix C FINAL SUBDIVISON PLAT, REQUIRE CERTIFICATIONS AND SUGGESTED TEXT AND FORMATS FOR OTHER REQUIRED INFORMATION ADVISORY BOARD RECOMMENDATIONS DSAC-LDR DSAC CCPC Approval TBD TBD BACKGROUND F.S. 177.071 was amended, approved by the Governor on June 20,2025 and became effective law on July 1, 2025 (See Exhibit B). It requires local governments to review and approve plat and replat submittals administratively through a "designated authority" and provides parameters on the administrative review process. The term "administrative authority" is defined as "...a department, division, or other agency of the county or municipality. For the purposes of issuing a final administrative approval of a plat or replat submittal, the term also includes an administrative officer or employee designated by the governing body of a county or municipality, including but not limited to, a county administrator or manager, ..., a deputy county administrator or manager, ..., an assistance county administrator or manager, ... or other high ranking county department or, ...or, division director with direct or indirect oversight responsibility for the county's or municipality's land development, housing, utilities, or public works programs." On July 8, 2025, the Board of County Commissioners (Board) adopted Resolution No. 2025-131 designating the Development Review Division within the Growth Management Community Development Department as the "Administrative Authority" to review and process plat or replat submittals pursuant to F.S.177.01 (1) (a) (See Exhibit C). On behalf of the Board on or after July 1, 2025, as an "Administrative Official", the County Manager, Deputy County Manager, Community Development Department Head, Development Review Director and/or Zoning Division Director are each delegated authority to administratively approve, approve with conditions, or deny subdivision plats or replats and to execute the plat/replat and the Construction and Maintenance Agreement. J:\LDC Amendments\Advisory Boards and Public Hearings\DSAC\2025\Sep 03\Materials\PL20250007882 Administrative Plat Approval 8-20- 25 DSAC.docx ..,)Collier County The proposed LDC sections, have been identified and submitted by staff to state the "Administrative Official' shall be the authorized authority to sign plats and/replats, and Construction and Maintenance Agreements. To comply with F.S. 177, this amendment implements updates to the LDC. Under the law, the designated authority must provide written notice in response to a submittal within seven days acknowledging receipt, identifying missing documents or information required to process the plat or replat submittal, and provide information regarding the approval process including requirements and timeframes. Unless an applicant requests an extension, the designated authority must approve, approve with conditions, or deny the submittal within the timeframe in the initial written notice. Pursuant to the legislation, the designated authority may not request or require an extension of time. A denial must provide an explanation of why the submittal was denied, specifically citing any unmet requirements. Plats or replats submittals filed prior to June 30, 2025 will be approved by the Board and, for submittals thereafter, approved by the Administrative Official. A companion administrative code amendment is required to update Chapter 5-Subdivision Procedures related to the decision maker for plats, replats, construction and maintenance agreements. (See Exhibit A). DSAC-LDR Subcommittee Recommendation: On August 19, 2025, the DSAC-LDR Subcommittee recommended unanimous approval of the LDC amendment without conditions. FISCAL & OPERATIONAL IMPACTS There are no fiscal impacts to the County associated with this amendment other than GMP CONSISTENCY The proposed LDC amendment has been reviewed by the Comprehensive Planning staff and may be deemed the cost of recording fees that are at the consistent with the GMP. expense of an applicant/developer. EXHIBITS: A) Administrative Code Amendments B) F.S.Chapter 2025-164 C) Resolution 2025-131 2 J:\LDC Amendments\Advisory Boards and Public Hearings\DSAC\2025\Sep 03\Materials\PL20250007882 Administrative Plat Approval 8-20- 25 DSAC.docx 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 DRAFT Amend the LDC as follows: 1.08.02 — Definitions Text underlined is new text to be added Text str'Lethrn nh 'c currono text to he deleted Adjacent: To share a common property line or boundary, or to be separated by a public right-of- way, easement, or water body. Administrative Official: The person delegated authority to approve, approve with conditions, or deny subdivisions plans or replats on behalf of the Board of County Commissioners, including the County Manager, Deputy County Manager, Growth Management Community Development Department Head, Development Review Director and/or Zoning Director, as authorized in Resolution 2025-131. Adult day care center. A facility that provides temporary care on a daily basis for adults, whether for compensation or not, and without overnight accommodations. * * * * * * * * * * * * * # # # # # # # # # # # # # 4.03.02 - Applicability It shall be unlawful for any person to transfer, sell, or otherwise convey, to sell any land by reference to, exhibition of, or other use of, a plat of a subdivision of such land without having submitted a final subdivision plat of such land for approval to the EGG Administrative Official required by this section and without having recorded the approved final subdivision plat as required by this section. Any division of land meeting the definition of subdivision which is not otherwise exempt by this section shall require the filing of a subdivision plat in accordance with the requirements of LDC section 10.02.04 of this Cede. # # # # # # # # # # # # # 10.02.04 - Requirements for Subdivision Plats This section shall be read in conjunction with subdivision design standards, in particular, LDC Chapters 3, 4, and 6. * * * * * * * * * * * * * B. Construction Plans and Final Subdivision Plats (PPLs). Construction plans and final subdivision plats are commonly referred to as "plans and plat." 1. Generally. Final subdivision plat approval by the Beard of Geunty Gernmissieners Administrative Official is required before a final subdivision plat can be recorded. a. No final subdivision plat shall be approved by the Beard Administrative Official until the construction plans have been reviewed and accepted by the County Manager or designee, except for a minor final subdivision plat pursuant to LDC section 10.02.04 D. 3 J:\LDC Amendments\Advisory Boards and Public Hearings\DSAC\2025\Sep 03\Materials\PL20250007882 Administrative Plat Approval 8-20-25 DSAC.docx 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 DRAFT Text underlined is new text to be added Text str-kethrew gh is er.t text to he deleted b. The review and approval of construction plans does not authorize the construction of required improvements which are inconsistent with existing easement(s) of record. C. The required improvements shall be completed prior to recordation of the final subdivision plat unless the applicant files a subdivision performance security as identified in LDC section 10.02.04 F with the County. d. Where approval of construction plans and final subdivision plats will lead to the level of service for any public facility being reduced below the level established by the growth management plan for Collier County, the County shall deny approval to proceed with development until the requirements of LDC section 10.02.07 have been met. 3. County Manager review of construction plans and final subdivision plats. a. The County Manager or designee shall review and evaluate the construction plans and final subdivision plat in conformance with the LDC, in particular sections 10.02.04 B and 10.02.04 C, and F.S. ch. 177. The County Manager or designee shall review and evaluate the construction plans and final subdivision plat in light of the requirements established in the LDC and Administrative Code and provide written notice to the applicant acknowledging receipt. Based on the review and evaluation, the County Manager or designee shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny the construction plans and final subdivision plat. if the renstrUetien plans and final si ibdivr��tis denied, then the final subdivision plot shall not he si ihmitted to the Roam unto! the eonstri intion plans and final si ibdiVision plot have been appreved er appreved with nonrlitiens by the Gei intY Manager er�gihp; ppreyal of the GeURty eereor designee is si ihieet to Board approval noted belnn,�al, noted be! , with with r•enditiens er r•leRy the final subdiyisien plat. If the County Manager or designee denies or places conditions on the construction plans or recommends denial or conditions on the final subdivision plat, he shall state reasons and cite the applicable code or regulatory basis for the decision. C. Once the construction plans and final subdivision plats are submitted by the applicant for review by the County Manager or designee, they will remain under review so long as a resubmittal in response to a county reviewer's comments is received within 270 days of the date on which the comments were sent to the applicant. If a response is not received within this time, the application for construction plans and final subdivision plat review will be considered withdrawn and cancelled. Further review of the 4 J:\LDC Amendments\Advisory Boards and Public Hearings\DSAC\2025\Sep 03\Materials\PL20250007882 Administrative Plat Approval 8-20-25 DSAC.docx 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 DRAFT Text underlined is new text to be added Text strikethreu gh is GUFFeRt devil to he deleted project will require a new application and the appropriate fees paid by the applicant. 4. Bead Administrative approval of the final subdivision plat. a. Following approval or approval with conditions by the County Manager or designee, the rc-000 tyA'vrarRageF er deCIJryRee shall rila Ge the fir»I s bdiyici�n plat OR the Eer�'GeRt age�"rrcrca f9 its ReXt availaurravieregularlY"����v���i/abler shed led Board hearmlRe�"�armlRe Tthe Board • Administrative Official shall consider approval of the final subdivision plat together with the approval of standard form, Construction Maintenance Agreement, and approval of the amount of performance security for the required improvements based on the estimate of probable cost. sb. Approval of the final subdivision plat shall not constitute acceptance of public dedicated facilities. Acceptance of any such dedicated public facilities and responsibility for their maintenance shall be by separate resolution of the Board of County Commissioners. See LDC section 10.02.05 C.3. C. After Board administrative approval of the final subdivision plat, building permits may be issued for a percentage of planned homes in accordance with the Florida Building Code and pursuant to F.S. 177.073. Subdivision performance security shall be in accordance with LDC section 10.02.04 F 2.b.i., and the construction and maintenance agreement shall be in accordance with LDC section 10.02.04.F.3.e when utilizing F.S. 177.073. Subdivision performance security shall be in accordance with LDC section 10.02.04 F.2.b.i., and the construction and maintenance agreement shall be in accordance with LDC section 10.02.04.F.3.e when utilizing F.S. 177.073. 5 J:\LDC Amendments\Advisory Boards and Public Hearings\DSAC\2025\Sep 03\Materials\PL20250007882 Administrative Plat Approval 8-20-25 DSAC.docx 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 DRAFT Text underlined is new text to be added Text str'Lethre nh is currono text to he deleted 5. Insubstantial changes and amendments to construction plans and final subdivision plats. a. Insubstantial Changes to Construction Plans (ICP). Following approval by the County Manager or designee of the construction plans, the applicant may request insubstantial changes to the construction plans. Application. The Administrative Code shall establish the process and the submittal requirements for an insubstantial change to the construction plans. Construction plans shall be prepared pursuant to LDC section 10.02.04 B. Following approval by the Beard Administrative Official of the final subdivision plat, but prior to recordation, the County Manager or designee may approve minor insubstantial changes to the final subdivision plat. Insubstantial changes are insignificant to the project, such as a correction or change on the cover sheet. C. Following approval by the Beard Administrative Official of the final subdivision plat, but prior to recordation, the Beard Administrative Official may approve amendments to the final subdivision plat. This is commonly referred to as a "PPLA". Application. The Administrative Code shall establish the process and the submittal requirements for the final subdivision plat amendment. The final subdivision plat shall be prepared pursuant to LDC section 10.02.04 B. 7. Timing of recording and development. a. Recording. Within 18 months of the date of approval of the final subdivision plat by the Beard Administrative Official, the applicant shall submit the final subdivision plat to the County Manager or designee for recording. b. Required improvements to be completed. The improvements required for the final subdivision plat shall be completed within 18 months from the date of approval by the Beard Administrative Official unless a written extension request is approved by the County Manager or designee. Integrated phased development. Each subsequent phase of the project shall be submitted within 2 two years following the date of written approval of the most recently approved final subdivision plat in accordance with LDC section 10.02.04 A.6. F. Recordation of the Final Subdivision Plat. 6 J:\LDC Amendments\Advisory Boards and Public Hearings\DSAC\2025\Sep 03\Materials\PL20250007882 Administrative Plat Approval 8-20-25 DSAC.docx 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 DRAFT Text underlined is new text to be added Text str'Lethrn nh 'c currono text to he deleted 1. Generally. No building permits for habitable structures shall be issued prior to approval by the Beard ^f GE) Rty GE)MMOSSOE)Rers Administrative Official and recordation of the final subdivision plat, except as provided in LDC section 5.04.04, LDC section 10.02.04 B.6., and LDC section 10.02.04 B.4.d., as applicable. 2. Posting of subdivision performance security at the time of recording or at Beard administrative approval when utilizing F.S. 177.073. a. The final subdivision plat shall not be recorded until a subdivision performance security for the construction of the required improvements, both on -site and off -site, has been posted by the applicant and approved and accepted by the County Manager or designee on behalf of the Board. The applicant's professional engineer shall prepare an opinion of the probable construction cost or the actual contractor's bid price, which includes the cost of all required improvements, to determine the amount of the subdivision performance security. If no construction of the required improvements has begun at the time of posting of the subdivision performance security, the security shall be an amount equal to 110 percent of the sum of construction costs for all on -site and off -site required improvements based on the applicant's professional engineer's opinion of the probable construction costs or contract bid price. If construction of the required improvements has begun at the time of posting the subdivision performance security, the security shall be in an amount equal to 10 percent of the applicant's professional engineer's opinion of the probable construction cost or contract bid price, plus 100 percent of the required improvements to be completed, such as the final lift of asphalt and uncompleted sidewalks. iii. If construction of all required improvements has been completed and accepted by the Board at the time of recording, only a performance maintenance guarantee at an amount equal to 10 percent of the applicant's professional engineer's opinion of the probable construction cost or contract bid price shall be provided. iv. No subdivision performance security shall be required where improvements are to be constructed by a general-purpose government such as a county or municipality, a local school district, or state agency. A subdivision performance security shall be required of an independent special-purpose government such as a community development district (CDD). C. Once the form of a subdivision performance security has been approved and accepted by the Board, alternate securities, in a format approved by 7 J:\LDC Amendments\Advisory Boards and Public Hearings\DSAC\2025\Sep 03\Materials\PL20250007882 Administrative Plat Approval 8-20-25 DSAC.docx 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 DRAFT Text underlined is new text to be added Text otr'Lethro nh 'c ono text to he deleted the County Attorney, may be approved by the County Manager or designee, on behalf of the Board. 3. Recordation Procedure. After approval of the final subdivision plat by the Beard Administrative Official prior to the recording of the final subdivision plat with the clerk of the circuit court, the following shall occur: * * * * * * * * * * * * * e. Construction and Maintenance Agreement. The applicant shall enter into a construction and maintenance agreement with the County, in a form acceptable to the County Attorney, which establishes the terms and conditions for the construction and maintenance of the improvements required during the 18-month construction period or a time frame established in an approved extension request by the County Manager or designee. This agreement shall be submitted with the final subdivision plat for review and approval and shall be executed by all parties at the time of Beard administrative approval, if building permits are issued when utilizing F.S. 177.073 or at the time of recording the final plat. * * * * * * * * * * * * g. Supporting "gap" title information. Within 60 days of recordation of the final subdivision plat in the official records of Collier County, Florida, the applicant, at no expense to the County, shall submit to the County Manager or designee final supporting "gap" title information. The final supporting title information must meet all of the requirements of LDC section 10.02.04 F.3.c, except as to the effective date. Receipt and approval of the "gap" title information is a condition precedent to preliminary acceptance of subdivision improvements by the Beard Administrative * * * * * * * * * * * * # # # # # # # # # # # # 10.02.05 - Construction, Approval, and Acceptance of Required Improvements * * * * * * * * * * * * * C. Final Acceptance of the Required Subdivision Improvements by the Board of County Commissioners. 1. Generally. The Board may provide final acceptance, by resolution, of the improvements subject to the following: a. Following the 4 one-year minimum maintenance period as required by preliminary acceptance by the County Engineer or designee; and b. Following satisfactory completion of the preliminary acceptance inspections by the County Engineer or designee; and 8 J:\LDC Amendments\Advisory Boards and Public Hearings\DSAC\2025\Sep 03\Materials\PL20250007882 Administrative Plat Approval 8-20-25 DSAC.docx 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 DRAFT Text underlined is new text to be added Text str'Lethre nh is currono text to he deleted C. At the request of the applicant, after a final inspection by the County Engineer or designee. 2. Timing. All of the required improvements shall receive final acceptance by the Board within 36 months from the date of the original Beard administrative approval of the final subdivision plat, unless extended by the County Manager or designee, the Board, or general law. a. The developer may request two-year extensions for completion and acceptance of the required improvements. A maximum of 2- two extensions may be granted by the County Manager or designee. Each request should provide written justification for the extension. * * * * * * * * * * * * * # # # # # # # # # # # # # APPENDIX A STANDARD PERFORMANCE SECURITY DOCUMENTS FOR REQUIRED IMPROVEMENTS * * * * * * * * * * * * * Appendix A consists of the following specimen forms: A.1 Subdivision Improvements * * * * * * * * * * * * * C. The Construction, Maintenance and Escrow Agreement for Subdivision Improvements shall be substantially as follows: CONSTRUCTION, MAINTENANCE AND ESCROW AGREEMENT FOR SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENTS THIS AGREEMENT entered into this day of , 20 by (description of entity) (hereinafter "Developer"), THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, (hereinafter "The Board") and (hereinafter "Lender"). RECITALS: A. Developer has, simultaneously with the delivery of this Agreement, applied for the approval by the Board of a certain plat of a subdivision to be known as: B. The subdivision will include certain improvements which are required by Collier County ordinances, as set forth in a site construction cost estimate ("Estimate") prepared by , a copy of which is attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit 1. For purposes of this Agreement, the "Required Improvements" are limited to those described in the Estimate. C. Sections 10.02.05 C. and 10.02.04 of the Collier County Subdivision Code Division of the Unified Land Development Code requires the Developer to provide 9 J:\LDC Amendments\Advisory Boards and Public Hearings\DSAC\2025\Sep 03\Materials\PL20250007882 Administrative Plat Approval 8-20-25 DSAC.docx 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 DRAFT Text underlined is new text to be added Text str'Lethrn nh 'c currono text to he deleted appropriate guarantees for the construction and maintenance of the Required Improvements. D. Lender has entered into a construction loan agreement with Developer dated , Account No. (the "Construction Loan") to fund the cost of the Required Improvements. E. Developer and the Board have acknowledged that the amount Developer is required to guarantee pursuant to this Agreement is $ , and this amount represents 110% of the Developer's engineer's estimate of the construction costs for the Required Improvements. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing premises and mutual covenants hereinafter set forth, Developer, the Board and the Lender do hereby covenant and agree as follows: Developer will cause the water, sewer, roads, drainage and like facilities, the Required Improvements, to be constructed pursuant to specifications that have been approved by the County Manager or his designee within months from the date of approval of said subdivision plat. 2. Developer hereby authorizes Lender to hold $ from the Construction Loan, in escrow, pursuant to the terms of this Agreement. 3 Lender agrees to hold in escrow $ from the Construction Loan, to be disbursed only pursuant to this Agreement. Lender acknowledges that this Agreement shall not constitute a draw against the Construction Loan fund, but that only such funds as are actually disbursed, whether pursuant to this Agreement or a provision of the Construction Loan, shall accrue interest. 4. The escrowed funds shall be released to the Developer only upon written approval of the County Manager or his designee who shall approve the release of the funds on deposit not more than once a month to the Developer, in amounts due for work done to date based on the percentage completion of the work multiplied by the respective work costs less ten percent (10%); and further, that upon completion of the work, the County Manager or his designee shall approve the release of any remainder of escrowed funds except to the extent of $ which shall remain in escrow as a Developer guaranty of maintenance of the Required Improvements for a minimum period of one (1) year pursuant to Paragraph 10 of the Agreement. However, in the event that Developer shall fail to comply with the requirements of this Agreement, then the Lender agrees to pay to the County immediately upon demand the balance of the funds held in escrow by the Lender, as of the date of the demand, provided that upon payment of such balance to the County, the County will have executed and delivered to the Lender in exchange for such funds a statement to be signed by the County Manager or his designee to the effect that: (a) Developer for more than sixty (60) days after written notification of such failure has failed to comply with the requirements of this agreement; 10 J:\LDC Amendments\Advisory Boards and Public Hearings\DSAC\2025\Sep 03\Materials\PL20250007882 Administrative Plat Approval 8-20-25 DSAC.docx DRAFT Text underlined is new text to be added 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 (b) The County, or its authorized agent, will complete the work called for under the terms of the above -mentioned contract or will complete such portion of such work as the County, in its sole discretion shall deem necessary in the public interest to the extent of the funds then held in escrow; (c) The escrow funds drawn down by the County shall be used for construction of the Required Improvements, engineering, legal and contingent costs and expenses, and to offset any damages, either direct or consequential, which the County may sustain on account of the failure of the Developer to carry out and execute the above -mentioned development work; and (d) The County will promptly repay to the Lender any portion of the funds drawn down and not expended in completion of the said development work. 5. Written notice to the Lender by the County specifying what amounts are to be paid to the Developer shall constitute authorization by the County to the Lender for release of only those specified funds to the Developer. Payment by the Lender to the Developer of the amounts specified in a letter of authorization by the County to the Lender shall constitute a release by the County and Developer of the Lender for the specified funds disbursed in accordance with the letter of authorization from the County. 6. The Required Improvements shall not be considered for preliminary approval until a statement of substantial completion by Developer's engineer along with the final project records have been furnished to be reviewed and approved by the County Manager or his designee for compliance with the Collier County Subdivision Regulations. 7. The County Manager or his designee shall, within sixty (60) days of receipt of the statement of substantial completion, either: a) notify the Developer in writing of his preliminary approval of the improvements; or b) notify the Developer in writing of his refusal to approve the improvements, therewith specifying those conditions which the Developer must fulfill in order to obtain the Director's approval of the Required Improvements. However, in no event shall the County Manager or his designee refuse preliminary approval of the improvements if they are in fact constructed and submitted for approval in accordance with the requirements of this Agreement. 8. Should the funds held in escrow be insufficient to complete the Required Improvements, the Board, after duly considering the public interest, may at its option complete the Required Improvements and resort to any and all legal remedies against the Developer. 9. Nothing in this Agreement shall make the Lender liable for any funds other than those placed in deposit by the Developer in accordance with the foregoing provisions; provided, that the Lender does not release any monies to the Developer or to any other person except as stated in this Escrow Agreement to include closing the account, or disbursing any funds from the account without first requesting and receiving written approval from the County. 11 J:\LDC Amendments\Advisory Boards and Public Hearings\DSAC\2025\Sep 03\Materials\PL20250007882 Administrative Plat Approval 8-20-25 DSAC.docx 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 DRAFT Text underlined is new text to be added Text str'Lethrn nh 'c current text to he deleted 10. The Developer shall maintain all Required Improvement for one year after preliminary approval by the County Manager or his designee. After the one year maintenance period by the Developer and upon submission of a written request for inspection, the County Manager or his designee shall inspect the Required Improvements and, if found to be still in compliance with the Code as reflected by final approval by the Board, the Lender's responsibility to the Board under this Agreement is terminated. The Developer's responsibility for maintenance of the Required Improvements shall continue unless or until the Board accepts maintenance responsibility for and by the County. 11. All of the terms, covenants and conditions herein contained are and shall be binding upon the respective successors and assigns of the Developer and the Lender. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Board and the Developer and Lender have caused this Agreement to be executed by their duly authorized representatives this _ day of , 20_ SIGNED IN THE PRESENCE OF: (Name of entity) (Developer) By: Printed Name Print Name/Title (President, VP, or CEO) (Provide Proper Evidence of Authority) Printed Name SIGNED IN THE PRESENCE OF: (Name of entity) (Lender) By: Printed Name Print Name/Title President, VP, or CEO 12 J:\LDC Amendments\Advisory Boards and Public Hearings\DSAC\2025\Sep 03\Materials\PL20250007882 Administrative Plat Approval 8-20-25 DSAC.docx DRAFT Printed Name 1 2 ATTEST: 3 (Blame of Clerk) CLERK B y: o Deputy Clerk 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 (Ord. No. 15-44, § 3.N; Ord. No. 20-16, § 3.M) Text underlined is new text to be added Text str'Lethrn nh is currono text to he deleted de Proper Evidence of BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA By: Name of r'"n Administrative Official) ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL PER RESOLUTION 2025-131 d. The Construction and Maintenance Agreement for Subdivision Improvements shall be substantially as follows: CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT FOR SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENTS THIS CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT FOR SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENTS entered into this day of , 20 between hereinafter referred to as "Developer," and the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, hereinafter referred to as the "Board". RECITALS: 13 J:\LDC Amendments\Advisory Boards and Public Hearings\DSAC\2025\Sep 03\Materials\PL20250007882 Administrative Plat Approval 8-20-25 DSAC.docx 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 DRAFT Text underlined is new text to be added Text str'Lethrn nh 'c currono text to he deleted A. Developer has, simultaneously with the delivery of this Agreement, applied for the approval by the Board of a certain plat of a subdivision to be known as: B. Chapters 4 and 10 of the Collier County Land Development Code requires the Developer to post appropriate guarantees for the construction of the improvements required by said subdivision regulations, said guarantees to be incorporated in a bonded agreement for the construction of the required improvements. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing premises and mutual covenants hereinafter set forth, Developer and the Board do hereby covenant and agree as follows: Developer will cause to be constructed: within months from the date of approval of said subdivision plat, said improvements hereinafter referred to as the required improvements. 2. Developer herewith tenders its subdivision performance security (attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and by reference made a part hereof) in the amount of $ which amount represents 10% of the total contract cost to complete construction plus 100% of the estimate cost of to complete the required improvements at the date of this Agreement. 3. In the event of default by the Developer or failure of the Developer to complete such improvements within the time required by the Land Development Code, Collier County, may call upon the subdivision performance security to insure satisfactory completion of the required improvements. 4. The required improvements shall not be considered complete until a statement of substantial completion by Developer's engineer along with the final project records have been furnished to be reviewed and approved by the County Manager or designee for compliance with the Collier County Land Development Code. 5. The County Manager or designee shall, within sixty (60) days of receipt of the statement of substantial completion, either: a) notify the Developer in writing of his preliminary approval of the improvements; or b) notify the Developer in writing of his refusal to approve improvements, therewith specifying those conditions which the Developer must fulfill in order to obtain the County Manager's approval of the improvements. However, in no event shall the County Manager or designee refuse preliminary approval of the improvements if they are in fact constructed and submitted for approval in accordance with the requirements of this Agreement. .6. The Developer shall maintain all required improvements for a minimum period of one year after preliminary approval by the County Manager or designee. After the one year maintenance period by the Developer has terminated, the Developer shall petition the County Manager or designee to inspect the required improvements. The County Manager or designee shall inspect the improvements and, if found to be still in compliance with the Collier County Land Development Code as reflected by final approval by the Board, the Board shall release the remaining 10% of the subdivision performance security. The Developer's 14 J:\LDC Amendments\Advisory Boards and Public Hearings\DSAC\2025\Sep 03\Materials\PL20250007882 Administrative Plat Approval 8-20-25 DSAC.docx 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 DRAFT Text underlined is new text to be added Text str'Lethrn nh 'c currono text to he deleted responsibility for maintenance of the required improvements shall continue unless or until the Board accepts maintenance responsibility for and by the County. 7. Six (6) months after the execution of this Agreement and once within every six (6) months thereafter the Developer may request the County Manager or designee to reduce the dollar amount of the subdivision performance security on the basis of work complete. Each request for a reduction in the dollar amount of the subdivision performance security shall be accompanied by a statement of substantial completion by the Developer's engineer together with the project records necessary for review by the County Manager or designee. The County Manager or designee may grant the request for a reduction in the amount of the subdivision performance security for the improvements completed as of the date of the request. 8. In the event the Developer shall fail or neglect to fulfill its obligations under this Agreement, upon certification of such failure, the County Manager or designee may call upon the subdivision performance security to secure satisfactory completion, repair and maintenance of the required improvements. The Board shall have the right to construct and maintain, or cause to be constructed or maintained, pursuant to public advertisement and receipt and acceptance of bids, the improvements required herein. The Developer, as principal under the subdivision performance security, shall be liable to pay and to indemnify the Board, upon completion of such construction, the final total cost to the Board thereof, including, but not limited to, engineering, legal and contingent costs, together with any damages, either direct or consequential, which the Board may sustain on account of the failure of the Developer to fulfill all of the provisions of this Agreement. 9. All of the terms, covenants and conditions herein contained are and shall be binding upon the Developer and the respective successors and assigns of the Developer. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Board and the Developer have caused this Agreement to be executed by their duly authorized representatives this day of , 20 SIGNED IN THE PRESENCE OF: (Name of Entity) By: Printed Name Print Name/Title (President, VP, or CEO) (Provide Proper Evidence of Authority) 15 J:\LDC Amendments\Advisory Boards and Public Hearings\DSAC\2025\Sep 03\Materials\PL20250007882 Administrative Plat Approval 8-20-25 DSAC.docx 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 DRAFT Printed Name ATTEST: Text underlined is new text to be added Text strikethrei gh is GUFFeRt teXt 4e he deleted BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA By: (Name of Gha+rr a Administrative Official) ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL PER RESOLUTION 2025-131 (Ord. No. 15-44, § 3.N; Ord. No. 20-16, § 3.M) Ord. No. 25-XXX, § XX) * * * * * * * * * * * * * # # # # # # # # # # # # # APPENDIX C FINAL SUBDIVISION PLAT, REQUIRED CERTIFICATIONS AND SUGGESTED TEXT AND FORMATS FOR OTHER REQUIRED INFORMATION (SEE LDC section 10.02.04 for applicable, specific provisions) The following text and format are intended as a guide for preparation of those platting materials required to be submitted to reviewing authorities, including the Project Review Services Department, Utilities Division, County Health Department, County Attorney and the Board of County Commissioners. Adherence to this format and text will substantially expedite review. Substantial deviation in substance or form from the suggested text and format may result in delay or disapproval of the submitted plat. SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATE 16 J:\LDC Amendments\Advisory Boards and Public Hearings\DSAC\2025\Sep 03\Materials\PL20250007882 Administrative Plat Approval 8-20-25 DSAC.docx 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 DRAFT Text underlined is new text to be added Text o+rikethrei gh is GLIFFeRt teXt to he deleted I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAT WAS PREPARED FROM A BOUNDARY SURVEY OF THE PROPERTY PERFORMED BY ME, OR UNDER MY SUPERVISION, AS PROVIDED IN CHAPTER 177.041 FLORIDA STATUTES AND THAT THIS PLAT COMPLIES WITH ALL THE REQUIREMENTS OF CHAPTER 177, PART 1, AS AMENDED, FLORIDA STATUTES. IT IS FURTHER CERTIFIED THAT ALL PERMANENT REFERENCE MONUMENTS WILL BE SET PRIOR TO THE RECORDING OF THIS PLAT AND THAT THE PERMANENT CONTROL POINTS AND LOT CORNERS WILL BE SET PRIOR TO FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE REQUIRED IMPROVEMENTS. (signature) TYPED OR PRINTED NAME HERE DATE Include Florida Professional Land Surveyor No. COUNTY COMMISSION APPROVAL STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF COLLIER THIS PLAT APPROVED FOR RECORDING IN A REGULAR OPEN MEETING BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, THIS DAY OF 20, PROVIDED THAT THE PLAT IS FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. (Name of G4aim4an Administrative Official) � CHAIRMAN (Title of Administrative Official) ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL PER RESOLUTION 2025-131 CLERK OF CIRCUIT COURT IN AND FOR BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COUNTY, FLORIDA COLLIER SCR COUNTY FILING RECORD I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAT HAS BEEN EXAMINED BY ME AND THAT IT COMPLIES IN FORM WITH THE REQUIREMENTS, OF CHAPTER 177, FLORIDA STATUTES. I FURTHER CERTIFY THAT SAID PLAT WAS FILED FOR RECORD AT (a.m. or p.m.) THIS DAY OF 20 , AND DULY RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK PAGE(S) INCLUSIVE, OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. (Name of Clerk) CLERK OF CIRCUIT COURT IN AND FOR COLLIER COUNTY ENGINEERING SERVICES 17 J:\LDC Amendments\Advisory Boards and Public Hearings\DSAC\2025\Sep 03\Materials\PL20250007882 Administrative Plat Approval 8-20-25 DSAC.docx 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 DRAFT Text underlined is new text to be added Text str'Lethrn nh is currono text to he deleted THIS PLAT APPROVED BY THE ENGINEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENT OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIVISION OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA THIS _ DAY OF , 20 (TYPED NAME) ENGINEERING SERVICES DIRECTOR/COUNTY ENGINEER COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA COUNTY ATTORNEY THIS PLAT APPROVED BY THE COLLIER COUNTY ATTORNEY THIS DAY OF 20 (TYPED NAME) ASSISTANT COUNTY ATTORNEY DEDICATIONS STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF COLLIER KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS THAT (OWNER(S)), THE OWNER(S) OF THE LANDS DESCRIBED HEREON, HAVE CAUSED THIS PLAT ENTITLED (NAME OF SUBDIVISION) TO BE MADE AND DO HEREBY: A. DEDICATE TO THE (insert homeowners' association or legal entity): Private road rights -of -way, as follows: TRACT "R" AS A PRIVATE ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY (R.O.W.) (insert street name) SUBJECT TO THE EASEMENTS DEPICTED HEREON (insert easements; i.e., R.O.W., C.U.E., P.U.E., D.E., etc.) WITH RESPONSIBILITY FOR MAINTENANCE. 2. Drainage or stormwater management easements as follows: ALL DRAINAGE EASEMENTS (D.E.) FOR STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PURPOSES WITH RESPONSIBILITY FOR MAINTENANCE. 3. Landscape buffer easements as follows: ALL LANDSCAPE BUFFER EASEMENTS (L.B.E.) WITH RESPONSIBILITY FOR MAINTENANCE. 4. Lake maintenance easements as follows: ALL LAKE MAINTENANCE EASEMENTS WITH RESPONSIBILITY FOR MAINTENANCE. 18 J:\LDC Amendments\Advisory Boards and Public Hearings\DSAC\2025\Sep 03\Materials\PL20250007882 Administrative Plat Approval 8-20-25 DSAC.docx 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 DRAFT 5 a 7 Text underlined is new text to be added Text otr-kethrew gh is er.t text to he deleted Access easements as follows: ALL ACCESS EASEMENTS WITH RESPONSIBILITY FOR MAINTENANCE, Or any other similar easement or tract intended to be dedicated for a set purpose, or purposes. All conservation/preserve areas/easements as follows: ALL (CONSERVATION or PRESERVE) (TRACTS or EASEMENTS) ARE DEDICATED AS COMMON AREAS WITH PERPETUAL RESPONSIBILITY FOR MAINTENANCE. THE (CONSERVATION or PRESERVE) (TRACTS or EASEMENTS) MAY IN NO WAY BE ALTERED FROM THEIR NATURAL OR PERMITTED STATE. ACTIVITIES PROHIBITED WITHIN THE (CONSERVATION or PRESERVE) AREAS INCLUDE, BUT ARE NOT LIMITED TO: CONSTRUCTION OR PLACING OF BUILDINGS ON OR ABOVE THE GROUND; DUMPING OR PLACING SOIL OR OTHER SUBSTANCES SUCH AS TRASH; REMOVAL OR DESTRUCTION OF TREES, SHRUBS, OR OTHER VEGETATION WITH THE EXCEPTION OF EXOTIC/NUISANCE VEGETATION REMOVAL; EXCAVATION, DREDGING OR REMOVAL OF SOIL MATERIAL DIKING OR FENCING; ANY OTHER ACTIVITIES DETRIMENTAL TO DRAINAGE, FLOOD CONTROL, WATER CONSERVATION, EROSION CONTROL, OR FISH AND WILDLIFE HABITAT CONSERVATION OR PRESERVATION. Such tracts, or easements must be dedicated to a homeowners' association, or to any other lawfully existing entity which has, or would have at the time of final plat recording, the power or authority to perform the obligation to maintain, along with the responsibility for such maintenance. (Ord. No. 20-16, § 3.N; Ord. No. 24-11, § 3.HH, Ord. No. 25-XXX, XX) 19 J:\LDC Amendments\Advisory Boards and Public Hearings\DSAC\2025\Sep 03\Materials\PL20250007882 Administrative Plat Approval 8-20-25 DSAC.docx Exhibit A— Administrative Code Amendments 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Chapter 5 / Subdivision Procedures Collier County Land Development Code I Administrative Procedures Manual D. Construction Plan and Final Subdivision Plat (PPL) D.I. Construction Plans and Final Subdivision Plat - Standard Reference LDC sections 10.02.04 B and 10.02.04 C, Resolution No. 2025-131, and other provisions of the LDC. 80 Completeness and gSee Chapter 1 D.5 for the acceptance and processing of an application. The County Processing of Manager or designee shall send written notice in response to the application submittal Application within seven days. acknowledging receipt, identifying missing documents or information required to process the application for final subdivision plat or replat. 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Notice NA- ^^* ^^ i� ed Public Hearing The BCC shall hold at least 1 -..Jye Rise. public hearing None. Decision Maker The BC-C—. Administrative Official per Resolution 2025-131. Review Process The Development Review Division will review the application, identify whether additional materials are needed and review the application for compliance with LDC sections 10.02.04 B and 10.02.04 C and other provisions of the LDC. Once submitted for review, the construction plans and final subdivision plat application will remain under review so long as a resubmittal in response to a county reviewer's comments is received within 270 days of the date on which the comments were sent to the applicant. If a response is not received within this time, the application will be considered withdrawn and cancelled. Further review of the project will require a new application together with appropriate fees. The Count„ Manager or designee Administrative Official will provide a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners to approve, approve with conditions, or deny the final subdivision plat. For applicants requesting building permits before plat recording, the county will stamp the final plat as "Preliminary Plat for Building Permit Issuance" after tad administrative approval of the plat and receipt of the fully executed construction and maintenance agreement and performance security after County Attorney approval. * * * * * * * * * * * * * Updated Res.2025-XXX # # # # # # # # # # # # # D.2. Construction Plans and Final Subdivision Plat Amendment (PPLA) Reference LDC sections 10.02.04 B and Resolution No. 2025-131, and other provisions of the LDC. 20 J:\LDC Amendments\Advisory Boards and Public Hearings\DSAC\2025\Sep 03\Materials\PL20250007882 Administrative Plat Approval 8-20-25 DSAC.docx Exhibit A— Administrative Code Amendments 1 Application A Construction Plans and Final Subdivision Plat Amendment application must include the Contents and following, in addition to the Application Contents and Requirements for Construction Requirements for Plans and Final Subdivision Plat, as applicable. G*See Chapter 5 D.1 of the Administrative Construction Plans Code. and Final The application must include the following: Subdivision Plat Amendments 1. Applicant contact information. 2. Addressing checklist. 3. Name of development. 4. Amendment to PPL Number (original PPL number). S. Cover letter describing the proposed changes. Completeness and G* See Chapter 1 D.5 for the acceptance and processing of an application. The County Processing of Manager or designee shall send written notice in response to the application submittal Application within seven days. acknowledging receipt, identifying missing documents or information required to process the application for final subdivision plat amendment. 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Public Hearing The QrG^ shall held- ;at l,,.,..* , .,d,,, kis d publi . hearing. None. Decision Maker The 9GG. Administrative Official per Resolution 2025-131. Review Process The Development Review Division will review the application, identify whether additional materials are needed and review the application for compliance with LDC sections 10.02.04 B and 10.02.04 C and other provisions of the LDC. Once submitted for review, the construction plans and final subdivision plat amendment application will remain under review so long as a resubmittal in response to a county reviewer's comments is received within-0 120 days of the date on which the comments were sent to the applicant. If a response is not received within this time, the application will be considered withdrawn and cancelled. Further review of the project will require a new application together with appropriate fees. The County Manager or designee Administrative Official will provide a recommendation to the Board of County CernmissioneFs to approve, approve with conditions, or deny the final subdivision plat. * * * * * * * * * * * * * Updated Res.2025-XXX # # # # # # # # # # # # # D.3 Final Subdivision Plat - For Townhouse Fee Simple Development Reference LDC sections 10.02.04 B and 10.02.04 C, Resolution No. 2025-131, and other provisions of the LDC. 9 10 21 J:\LDC Amendments\Advisory Boards and Public Hearings\DSAC\2025\Sep 03\Materials\PL20250007882 Administrative Plat Approval 8-20-25 DSAC.docx Exhibit A— Administrative Code Amendments 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Completeness and c*See Chapter 1 D.5 for the acceptance and processing of an application. The County Processing of Manager or designee shall send written notice in response to the application submittal Application within seven days. acknowledging receipt, identifying missing documents or information required to process the application for final subdivision plat. Notice No notice is required. Public Hearing The Qrr shall hold at least 1 advertised public hearing. None. Decision Maker The 641�G. Administrative Official per Resolution 2025-131. Review Process The Development Review Division will review the application, identify whether additional materials are needed and review the application for compliance with LDC sections 10.02.04 B and 10.02.04 C and other provisions of the LDC. Once submitted for review, the townhouse construction plans and final subdivision plat application will remain under review so long as a resubmittal in response to a county reviewer's comments is received within 270 days of the date on which the comments were sent to the applicant. If a response is not received within this time, the application review will be considered withdrawn and cancelled. Further review of the project will require a new application together with appropriate fees. The COURt„ Manager or designee Administrative Official will provide a recernmeRdatien to the Beard of C , Rty C,,,.,.,,.,.,;SS;,,. ere to approve, approve with conditions, or deny the final subdivision plat. * * * * * * * * * * * * * Updated Res.2025-XXXX # # # # # # # # # # # # # F. Minor Final Subdivision Plat (FP) Reference LDC section 10.02.04 D and Resolution No. 2025-131. * * * * * * * * * * * * * Completeness and gSee Chapter 1 D.5 for the acceptance and processing of an application. The County Processing of Manager or designee shall send written notice in response to the application submittal Application within seven days. acknowledging receipt, identifying missing documents or information required to process the application for minor final subdivision plat. Notice No notice is required. Public Hearing The BCC shall held" publie hea4p^ None. Decision Maker BGGwith an appFeval 49m The Administrative Official per Resolution 2025-131 Caunty ManageF 9F designee. Review Process The Development Review Division will review the application, identify whether additional materials are needed and review the application for compliance with and shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny the minor final subdivision plat. 22 J:\LDC Amendments\Advisory Boards and Public Hearings\DSAC\2025\Sep 03\Materials\PL20250007882 Administrative Plat Approval 8-20-25 DSAC.docx Exhibit A— Administrative Code Amendments Once submitted for review, the minor final subdivision plat application will remain under review so long as a resubmittal in response to a county reviewer's comments is received within 270 days of the date on which the comments were sent to the applicant. If a response is not received within this time, the application for review will be considered withdrawn and cancelled. Further review of the project will require a new application together with appropriate fees. The Geunty ManageF eF designee Administrative Official will previde , Feeemmendatien to the BGG te approve, approve with conditions, or deny the minor final subdivision plat. 2 Updated Res.2025-XXX 3 # # # # # # # # # # # # # 23 J:\LDC Amendments\Advisory Boards and Public Hearings\DSAC\2025\Sep 03\Materials\PL20250007882 Administrative Plat Approval 8-20-25 DSAC.docx Exhibit 6— F.S. Chapter 2025-164 AIElllIUMDli 1 Committee Substitute for Committee Substitute for Committee Substitute for Senate Bill No. 784 An act relating to platting; amending s. 177.071, F.S.; requiring that certain plat or replat submittals be administratively approved with no further action by certain entities under certain circumstances; requiring the governing body of such county or municipality to designate an adminis- trative authority to receive, review, and process plat or replat submittals; providing requirements for such designation; defining the term "admin- istrative authority"; requiring the administrative authority to submit a certain notice to an applicant; providing requirements for such notice; requiring the administrative authority to approve, approve with condi- tions, or deny a plat or replat submittal in accordance with the timeframe in the initial written notice to the applicant; requiring the administrative authority to notify the applicant in writing if it declines to approve a plat or replat submittal; requiring that the written notification contain the reasons for denial and other information; prohibiting the administrative authority or other official, employee, agent, or designee from requesting or requiring that the applicant request an extension of time; amending s. 177.111, F.S.; conforming provisions to changes made by the act; providing an effective date. Be It Enacted by the Legislature of the State of Florida: Section 1. Section 177.071, Florida Statutes, is amended to read: 177.071 Administrative approval of plats by designated county or municipal official o^"____"o both_ — (1)(a) A plat or replat submitted under this part must be administra- tively approved and no further action or approval by the governing body of a county or municipality is required if the plat or replat complies with the requirements of s. 177.091. The governing body of the county or municipality shall designate, by ordinance or resolution, an administrative authority to receive, review, and process the plat or replat submittal, including designating an administrative official responsible for approving, approving with conditions, or denying the proposed plat or replat. (b) As used in this section, the term "administrative authority" means a department, division, or other agency of the county or municipality. For purposes of issuing a final administrative approval of a plat or replat submittal, the term also includes an administrative officer or employee designated bythebody of a county or municipality, including but not limited to, a county administrator or manager, a city manager, a deputy county administrator or manager, a deputy city manager, an assistant county administrator or manager, an assistant city manager, or other high- ranking county or city department or division director with direct or indirect 1 CODING: Words st, �riv��' ^^ are deletions; words underlined are additions. 24 J:\LDC Amendments\Advisory Boards and Public Hearings\DSAC\2025\Sep 03\Materials\PL20250007882 Administrative Plat Approval 8-20-25 DSAC.docx REV. 8/20/2025 Exhibit 6— F.S. Chapter 2025-164 Ch. 2025-164 LAWS OF FLORIDA Ch. 2025-164 oversight responsibility for the county's or municipality's land development housing. utilities. or Dublic works Drograms. (2) Within 7 business days after receipt of a plat or replat submittal, the administrative authority shall provide written notice to the applicant acknowledging receipt of the plat or replat submittal and identifying any missing documents or information necessary to process the plat or replat submittal for compliance with s. 177,091, The written notice must also provide information regarding the plat or replat approval process, including requirements regarding the completeness of the process and applicable timeframes for reviewing, approving, and otherwise processing the plat or replat submittal. (3) Unless the applicant requests an extension of time, the adminis- trative authority shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny the plat or replat submittal within the timeframe identified in the written notice provided to the applicant under subsection (2). If the administrative authority does not approve the plat or replat, it must notify the applicant in writing of the reasons for declining to approve the submittal. The written notice must identify all areas of noncompliance and include specific citations to each requirement the plat or replat submittal fails to meet. The administrative authority, or an official, an employee, an agent, or a designee of the governing body, may not request or require the applicant to file a written extension of time. Before a plat or replat is offered for recording, it must be administratively approved as required by this section b the appropriate governing body, and evidence of such approval must be placed on the plat or replat. If not approved, the governing body must return the plat or replat to the professional surveyor and mapper or the legal entity offering the plat or replat for recordation. For the purposes of this part: (a) When the plat or replat to be submitted for approval is located wholly within the boundaries of a municipality, the ge-ver-ftiftg bedy of the municipality has exclusive jurisdiction to approve the plat or replat. (b) When a plat or replat lies wholly within the unincorporated areas of a county, the R g bad, a f the county has exclusive jurisdiction to approve the plat or replat. (c) When a plat or replat lies within the boundaries of more than one county, municipality, or both 1- two plats or replats must be prepared and each county or municipality Ra= - ---i-, bady has exclusive jurisdiction to approve the plat or replat within its boundaries, unless each county or municipality with jurisdiction over the plat or replat agrees the gever-Rifig bodies having said sdieti .r agree that one plat is mutually acceptable. aY,24 Any provision in a county charter, or in an ordinance of any charter county or consolidated government chartered under s. 6(e), Art. VIII of the 2 CODING: Words n*»a��zic e are deletions; words underlined are additions. 25 J:\LDC Amendments\Advisory Boards and Public Hearings\DSAC\2025\Sep 03\Materials\PL20250007882 Administrative Plat Approval 8-20-25 DSAC.docx Exhibit 6— F.S. Chapter 2025-164 Ch. 2025-164 LAWS OF FLORIDA Ch. 2025-164 State Constitution, which provision is inconsistent with anything contained in this section shall prevail in such charter county or consolidated government to the extent of any such inconsistency. Section 2. Section 177.111, Florida Statutes, is amended to read: 177.111 Instructions for filing plats .—After the approval by the appropriate administrative authority ge-,�er-ftiiig be� required by s. 177.071, the plat or replat must shall be recorded by the circuit court clerk or other recording officer upon submission thereto of such approved plat or replat. The circuit court clerk or other recording officer shall maintain in his or her office a book of the proper size for such papers so that they will shall not be folded, to be kept in the vault. A print or photographic copy must be filed in a similar book and kept in his or her office for the use of the public. The clerk shall make available to the public a full size copy of the record plat or replat at a reasonable fee. Section 3. This act shall take effect July 1, 2025 Approved by the Governor June 20, 2025. Filed in Office Secretary of State June 20, 2025. 3 CODING: Words stricken are deletions; words underlined are additions. 26 J:\LDC Amendments\Advisory Boards and Public Hearings\DSAC\2025\Sep 03\Materials\PL20250007882 Administrative Plat Approval 8-20-25 DSAC.docx Exhibit C— Resolution 2025-131 RESOLUTION NO. 2025- 131 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA DESIGNATING THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DIVISION WITHIN THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT AS THE ADMINISTRATIVE AUTHORITY TO REVIEW AND PROCESS PLAT OR REPLAT SUBMITTALS, AND DESIGNATE THE COUNTY MANAGER, DEPUTY COUNTY MANAGER, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT HEAD, DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DIRECTOR AND/OR ZONING DIVISION DIRECTOR AS THE ADMINISTRATIVE AUTHORITY TO ADMINISTRATIVELY APPROVE, APPROVE WITH CONDITIONS, OR DENY PROPOSED SUBDIVISION PLATS OR REPLATS AND SIGN THE PL,ATIREPLAT AND CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH FLORIDA STATUTE SECTION 177.071(1)(a), ON BEHALF OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS. WHEREAS, the Development Review Division within the Growth Management Community Development Department as the County Manager's designee under Land Development Code (LDC) Section 10.02.04.13.3 is currently responsible for the review of the subdivision plat and replat process, including, but not limited to, engineering review, planning review, environmental review, and the County Surveyor review; and WHEREAS, the LDC requires the Board of County Commissioners to consider approval of a subdivision plat, along with the approval of the Construction Maintenance Agreement, and approve the amount of the performance security for the required improvements, based on the estimate of probable cost; and WHEREAS, during the 2025 Legislative session, Senate Bill 784 was approved, which updated Section 177.071(1)(a) of the Florida Statutes to require administrative approval, approval with conditions, or denial of a proposed plat or replat. WHEREAS, the Board desires to comply with the statute by designating the reviewing division and those persons authorized to administratively approve, approve with conditions, or deny subdivision plats or replats pursuant to Florida Statutes Section 177.071(])(a)_ NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that; 1. The Development Review Division within the Growth Management Community Development Department is designated as the Administrative Authority to review and [25-L➢"0372+19556951114 7IIR5 1 of 2 27 J:\LDC Amendments\Advisory Boards and Public Hearings\DSAC\2025\Sep 03\Materials\PL20250007882 Administrative Plat Approval 8-20-25 DSAC.docx Exhibit C— Resolution 2025-131 process the plat or replat submittal pursuant to Florida Statutes Section 177.07](1)(a) after the Client Services team of the Growth Management Community Development Department receives the application and deems the it complete. 2. The County Manager, Deputy County Manager, Community Development Department Head, Development Review Director and/or Zoning Division Director are each delegated authority to administratively approve, approve with conditions, or deny subdivision plats or replats pursuant to Florida Statutes Section 177.071(])(a), and to execute the platlreplat and the Construction and Maintenance Agreement, on behalf of the Board. This Resolution adopted after motion, second and majority vote favoring same, this day of 2025. ATTEST: HOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS CRYSTAL K. KENZ> L, CLERK COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA By: By: _ A44VI, —'Odz4v� Altest as a�rmarrS' Veputy Clerk Burt L. Saunders, Chairman signature rf E';. Approved as to form and legality: Heidi Ashton-Cicko 7-1-25 Managing Assistant County Attorney [25-LDS-0037V195569511 J4 71112. 2 of 2 28 J:\LDC Amendments\Advisory Boards and Public Hearings\DSAC\2025\Sep 03\Materials\PL20250007882 Administrative Plat Approval 8-20-25 DSAC.docx THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK ,t .., Collier County CODE OF LAW AMENDMENT PETITION SUMMARY OF AMENDMENT PL20250008677 This amendment seeks to allow a County "Administrative Official" to be ORIGIN the designated "administrative authority" to approve, approve with Growth Management conditions, or deny subdivision plats or replats, and sign the plat or replat Community Department and the Construction and Maintenance Agreement on behalf of the Board of County Commissioners. It shall update the excavation review procedure's timeframe for excavation application review. HEARING DATES BCC TBD CODE OF LAW SECTION TO BE AMENDED CCPC TBD 134-58 Construction Approval and Document Submissions DSAC TBD 22-110 Excavation review procedures. DSAC-LDR 08-19-25 ADVISORY BOARD RECOMMENDATIONS DSAC-LDR DSAC CCPC TBD TBD TBD I11TOT;ZeL:iell �� Prior to July 01, 2025, plat or replat submittals were reviewed and approved by the Board of County Commissioners (Board) as the local governing authority confirmed by F.S. 177.071: "Approvals of plats by governing body". The Governor on June 20,2025 signed into law an amendment to this statue that now require local governments to designate an "administrative authority" to review and approve plats and replats administratively, rather than by the local governing body. The amended law became effective on July 01, 2025. (See Exhibit A) On July 8, 2025, the Board of County Commissioners (Board) adopted Resolution No. 2025-131, Exhibit A, designating the Development Review Division within the Growth Management Community Development Department as the "administrative authority" to review and process plat or replat submittals pursuant to F.S.177.01 (1)(a). In accordance with statue, the County Manager, Deputy County Manager, Community Development Department Head, Development Review Director and/or Zoning Division Director are each a delegated authority to administratively approve, approve with conditions, or deny subdivision plats or replats and to execute the plat/replat and the Construction and Maintenance Agreement on or after July 1, 2025 on behalf of the Board. Staff reviewed the Code of Laws and Ordinances that govern plats, replats and construction approval and document submittals and found in Division 3-Subdivision Regulations, Section 250-73. Approval of plats, are the germeral parameters for plat approval and Chapter 266 Subdivisions, Section 266-1. Replats, for accepting and processing replats of previously platted property. Additionally, the Code of Laws and Ordinances, pursuant to Section 134-58 (d)(2), states that construction approval and document submissions approval of construction documents are not made until the Board has approved the proposed plat. 1 J:\LDC Amendments\Current Work\Administrative Plat Approval (PL20250007882)\Code of Laws and Ordinances\Code of Law Amendment - Plat, Replat, and Construction Documents, Excavation Review Update 8-15-25 DSAC.docx 8/19/2025 ,.,)Collier County To comply with statue, this proposed amendment modifies the appropriate Code of Laws and Ordinances sections to specify that an "Administrative Offical" rather than the local governing body shall approve a plat or replat including a plat prior to the approval of construction documents. Pursuant to new Florida law, Chapter 2025-177, that becomes effective October 1, 2025, local governments must revise timeframes for processing applications for development permits or orders. Non -quasi-judicial hearing applications must be approved or denied within 120-days and quasi-judicial hearing applications within 180-days. This amendment updates the timeframe for excavation application reviews. FISCAL & OPERATIONAL IMPACTS GMP CONSISTENCY This amendment shall reduce staff s time and This amendment has no impact associated with the improve the process for applicants to obtain Growth Management Plan. administratively plat or replat approvals. EXHIBITS: A) F.S.Chapter 2025-164 and Resolution 2025-131 2 J:\LDC Amendments\Current Work\Administrative Plat Approval (PL20250007882)\Code of Laws and Ordinances\Code of Law Amendment - Plat, Replat, and Construction Documents, Excavation Review Update 8-15-25 DSAC.docx 8/19/2025 Exhibit A — F.S. Chapter 2025-164 and Resolution 2025-131 Amend the Code of Laws as follows: 2 3 Chapter 134 — UTILITIES 4 Article III -UTILITIES STANDARDS AND PROCEDURES 5 Section 134-58. — Construction approval and document submissions. 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 (d) Plats. (1) A copy of the proposed plat for new subdivisions that contain potable water, non - potable irrigation water and/or wastewater system(s) or portion(s) thereof shall be submitted with the construction drawings to the county staff for review and approval. All utility easements that will be required for the potable water, non - potable irrigation water and/or wastewater system(s) or portion(s) thereof shall be shown on the plat, if possible. Further, the dedication block on the cover sheet shall contain the following statements: a. That all utility easements for potable water, non -potable irrigation water and/or wastewater system(s) or portion(s) thereof and Ingress and Egress rights, where appropriate, are provided to the Collier County Water -Sewer District to operate and maintain potable water, non -potable irrigation water and/or wastewater utility systems or portion(s) thereof within the Platted Area after final conveyance to the CCWSD; and, where applicable, to install the CCWSD's connecting utility facilities within such easement(s). Applicable potable water, non -potable irrigation water and/or wastewater system(s) or portion(s) thereof constructed within this platted area in compliance with the requirements set forth herein shall be conveyed to the board as the ex-officio governing board of the water -sewer district upon acceptance of the additions, extensions and/or improvements required by the plat. (2) Final approval of construction documents for a project will not be made until the board Administrative Official, pursuant to the LDC requirements, has duly approved the proposed plat. Plats submitted and approved by the board Administrative Official, shall be in complete accordance with this ordinance. Any requests for deviations from this ordinance shall be clearly outlined in the executive summary, with a copy sent to the affected division(s). Deviations approved as part of the plat shall not be valid unless clearly outlined in the applicant's submittal letter and a copy of such approval by the public utilities department administrator or designee(s) is provided. If a plat is not required for a specific project, the engineer of record shall provide documentation confirming such so that the county staff may determine the extent of utility easements that must be provided. # # # # # # # # # # # # 3 J:\LDC Amend ments\Cu rrent Work\Administrative Plat Approval (PL20250007882)\Code of Laws and Ordinances\Code of Law Amendment -Plat, Replat, and Construction Documents, Excavation Review Update 8-15-25 DSAC.docx 8/19/2025 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Exhibit A — F.S. Chapter 2025-164 and Resolution 2025-131 Chapter 22- BUILDINGS AND BUILDING REGULATIONS ARTICLE III. - CONTRACTORS' LICENSING, ZONING INVESTIGATORS Sec. 22-110. Excavation review procedures. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * (h) Excavation application time limit for review. Excavation application, once deemed complete and sufficient, will remain under review so long as a resubmittal in response to County reviewers' comments is received within 270 calendar days from the date on which the comments were sent to the applicant, or until the time frames specified in F.S. 125.022. If a waiver of time limits is submitted and a response is not received within this time, the application for the excavation review will be considered withdrawn and cancelled. If there is no waiver of time limits submitted, and the applicant exceeds the time limits specified in F.S. 125.022, the application will be considered denied. Further review of the project will require a new application and payment of new application fees subject to the t#eR current regulations. (Ord. No. 04-55, § 2.E.; Ord. No. 2006-04, § 2; Ord. No. 2024-39, § 1 Ord. No. 25-###,� xxx # # # # # # # # # # # # # 4 J:\LDC Amend ments\Cu rrent Work\Administrative Plat Approval (PL20250007882)\Code of Laws and Ordinances\Code of Law Amendment -Plat, Replat, and Construction Documents, Excavation Review Update 8-15-25 DSAC.docx 8/19/2025 Exhibit A — F.S. Chapter 2025-164 and Resolution 2025-131 CHAPTER 2025-164 Committee Substitute for Committee Substitute for Committee Substitute for Senate Bill No. 784 An act relating to platting; amending s. 177.071, F.S.; requiring that certain plat or replat submittals be administratively approved with no further action by certain entities under certain circumstances; requiring the governing body of such county or municipality to designate an adminis- trative authority to receive, review, and process plat or replat submittals; providing requirements for such designation; defining the term "admin- istrative authority'; requiring the administrative authority to submit a certain notice to an applicant; providing requirements for such notice; requiring the administrative authority to approve, approve with condi- tions, or deny a plat or replat submittal in accordance with the timeframe in the initial written notice to the applicant; requiring the administrative authority to notify the applicant in writing if it declines to approve a plat or replat submittal; requiring that the written notification contain the reasons for denial and other information; prohibiting the administrative authority or other official, employee, agent, or designee from requesting or requiring that the applicant request an extension of time; amending s. 177.111, F.S.; conforming provisions to changes made by the act; providing an effective date. Be It Enacted by the Legislature of the State of Florida: Section 1. Section 177.071, Florida Statutes, is amended to read: 177.071 Administrative approval of plats VIftt by designated county or municipal official bodies. (1)(a) A plat or replat submitted under this part must be administra- tively pproved and no further action or approval by the governing body of a county or municipality is required if the plat or replat complies with the requirements of s. 177.091. The governing body of the county or municipality shall designate, by ordinance or resolution, an administrative authority to receive, review, and process the plat or replat submittal, including designating an administrative official responsible for approving; approving with conditions, or denying the proposed plat or replat. (b) As used in this section, the term "administrative authority" means a department, division, or other agency of the county or municipality. For purposes of issuing a final administrative approval of a plat or replat submittal, the term also includes an administrative officer or employee designated by the governing body of a county or municipality, including but not limited to, a county administrator or manager, a city manager, a deputy county administrator or manager, a deputy city manager, an assistant county administrator or manager, an assistant city mana er, or other high- ranking county or city department or division director with direct or indirect CODING: Wordssti2ieken are deletions; words underlined are additions. 5 J:\LDC Amend ments\Cu rrent Work\Administrative Plat Approval (PL20250007882)\Code of Laws and Ordinances\Code of Law Amendment -Plat, Replat, and Construction Documents, Excavation Review Update 8-15-25 DSAC.docx 8/19/2025 Exhibit A — F.S. Chapter 2025-164 and Resolution 2025-131 Ch. 2025-164 LAWS OF FLORIDA Ch. 2025-164 oversight responsibility for the county's or municipality's land development, housing; utilities, or public works programs. (2) Within 7 business days after receipt of a plat or replat submittal, the administrative authority shall provide written notice to the applicant acknowledging receipt of the plat or replat submittal and identifying any missing documents or information necessary to process the plat or replat submittal for compliance with s. 177,091, The written notice must also provide information regarding the plat or replat approval process, including requirements regarding the completeness of the process and applicable timeframes for reviewing, approving,, and otherwise processing the plat or replat submittal. (3) Unless the applicant requests an extension of time, the adminis- trative authority shall approve; approve with conditions, or deny the plat or replat submittal within the timeframe identified in the written notice provided to the applicant under subsection (2). If the administrative authority does not approve the plat or replat, it must notify the applicant in writing of the reasons for declining to approve the submittal. The written notice must identify all areas of noncompliance and include specific citations to each requirement the plat or replat submittal fails to meet. The administrative authority, or an official, an employee, an a ant, or a designee of the governing body, may not request or require the applicant to file a written extension of time. Before a plat or replat is offered for recording, it must be administratively approved as required by this section by the arr,,,,rriat governing body, and evidence of such approval must be placed on the plat or replat. If not approved, the governing body must return the plat or replat to the professional surveyor and mapper or the legal entity offering the plat or replat for recordation. For the purposes of this part: (a) When the plat or replat to be submitted for approval is located wholly within the boundaries of a municipality, the gever-ftifig bedy of the municipality has exclusive jurisdiction to approve the plat or replat. (b) When a plat or replat lies wholly within the unincorporated areas of a county, the county has exclusive jurisdiction to approve the plat or replat. (c) When a plat or replat lies within the boundaries of more than one county, municipality, or both ge­--i­ b, two plats or replats must be prepared and each county or municipality o,.ver-ni„o=o be4y has exclusive jurisdiction to approve the plat or replat within its boundaries, unless each county or municipality with jurisdiction over the plat or replat agrees the that one plat is mutually acceptable. Lam} Any provision in a county charter, or in an ordinance of any charter county or consolidated government chartered under s. 6(e), Art. V11I of the 2 CODING: Wordssti2ieken are deletions; words underlined are additions. 6 J:\LDC Amend ments\Cu rrent Work\Administrative Plat Approval (PL20250007882)\Code of Laws and Ordinances\Code of Law Amendment -Plat, Replat, and Construction Documents, Excavation Review Update 8-15-25 DSAC.docx 8/19/2025 Exhibit A — F.S. Chapter 2025-164 and Resolution 2025-131 Ch. 2025-164 LAWS OF FLORIDA Ch. 2025-164 State Constitution, which provision is inconsistent with anything contained in this section shall prevail in such charter county or consolidated government to the extent of any such inconsistency. Section 2. Section 177.111, Florida Statutes, is amended to read: 177.111 Instructions for filing plats plat. —After the approval by the appropriate administrative authority ge-,,�efiiiiig be&y, required by s. 177.071, the plat or replat must shall be recorded by the circuit court clerk or other recording officer upon submission thereto of such approved plat or replat. The circuit court clerk or other recording officer shall maintain in his or her office a book of the proper size for such papers so that they will shall not be folded, to be kept in the vault. A print or photographic copy must be filed in a similar book and kept in his or her office for the use of the public. The clerk shall make available to the public a full size copy of the record plat or replat at a reasonable fee. Section 3. This act shall take effect July 1, 2025. Approved by the Governor June 20, 2025. Filed in Office Secretary of State June 20, 2025, 3 CODING: Wordssti2ieken are deletions; words underlined are additions. i J:\LDC Amend ments\Cu rrent Work\Administrative Plat Approval (PL20250007882)\Code of Laws and Ordinances\Code of Law Amendment -Plat, Replat, and Construction Documents, Excavation Review Update 8-15-25 DSAC.docx 8/19/2025 Exhibit A — F.S. Chapter 2025-164 and Resolution 2025-131 RESOLUTION NO.2025- 131 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA DESIGNATING THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DIVISION WITHIN THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT AS THE ADMINISTRATIVE AUTHORITY TO REVIEW AND PROCESS PLAT OR REPLAT SUBMITTALS, AND DESIGNATE THE COUNTY MANAGER, DEPUTY COUNTY MANAGER, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT HEAD, DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DIRECTOR AND/OR ZONING DIVISION DIRECTOR AS THE ADMINISTRATIVE AUTHORITY TO ADMINISTRATIVELY APPROVE, APPROVE WITH CONDITIONS, OR DENY PROPOSED SUBDIVISION PLATS OR REPLATS AND SIGN THE PLAT/REPLAT AND CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH FLORIDA STATUTE SECTION 177.071(1)(a), ON BEHALF OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS. WHEREAS, the Development Review Division within the Growth Management Community Development Department as the County Manager's designee under Land Development Code (LDC) Section 10.02.04.B.3 is currently responsible for the review of the subdivision plat and replat process, including, but not limited to, engineering review, planning review, environmental review, and the County Surveyor review; and WHEREAS, the LDC requires the Board of County Commissioners to consider approval of a subdivision plat, along with the approval of the Construction Maintenance Agreement, and approve the amount of the performance security for the required improvements, based on the estimate of probable cost; and WHEREAS, during the 2025 Legislative session, Senate Bill 784 was approved, which updated Section 177.071(1)(a) of the Florida Statutes to require administrative approval, approval with conditions, or denial of a proposed plat or replat. WHEREAS, the Board desires to comply with the statute by designating the reviewing division and those persons authorized to administratively approve, approve with conditions, or deny subdivision plats or replats pursuant to Florida Statutes Section 177.071(1)(a). NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that: 1. The Development Review Division within the Growth Management Community Development Department is designated as the Administrative Authority to review and [25-LDS-003 721195 5695/ 114 7/1/25 1 of 2 8 J:\LDC Amendments\Current Work\Administrative Plat Approval (PL20250007882)\Code of Laws and Ordinances\Code of Law Amendment -Plat, Replat, and Construction Documents, Excavation Review Update 8-15-25 DSAC.docx 8/19/2025 Exhibit A — F.S. Chapter 2025-164 and Resolution 2025-131 process the plat or replat submittal pursuant to Florida Statutes Section 177.071(l)(a) after the Client Services team of the Growth Management Community Development Department receives the application and deems the it complete. 2. The County Manager, Deputy County Manager, Community Development Department Head, Development Review Director and/or Zoning Division Director are each delegated authority to administratively approve, approve with conditions, or deny subdivision plats or replats pursuant to Florida Statutes Section 177.071(1)(a), and to execute the plat/replat and the Construction and Maintenance Agreement, on behalf of the Board. This Resolution adopted after motion, second and majority vote favoring same, this day of } 52025. ATTEST: r 'r CRYSTAL K. KINZ] L, CLERK By: , Attest as airmarr'5puty Clerk signature rr^i'; Approved as to form and legality: ��k C� Jk_W7Jif_ Heidi Ashton-Cicko 7-1-25 Managing Assistant County Attorney [25-LD5-00372/195569511]4 711l25 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA By: ILYIX - 09 Burt L. Saunders, Chairman 2 of 2 9 J:\LDC Amend ments\Cu rrent Work\Administrative Plat Approval (PL20250007882)\Code of Laws and Ordinances\Code of Law Amendment -Plat, Replat, and Construction Documents, Excavation Review Update 8-15-25 DSAC.docx 8/19/2025 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Prepared for: Collier County Capital Projects Planning, Impact Fees and Program Management Division 2685 Horseshoe Drive South Naples, Florida 34104 ph (239) 252-2925 benesch Prepared by: Benesch 1000 N. Ashley Dr., #400 Tampa, Florida 33602 ph (813) 224-8862 E-mail: nkamp@benesch.com DRAFT Collier County School Impact Fee Update Study Table of Contents INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................... 1 INVENTORY...................................................................................................................... 5 SERVICE AREA AND ENROLLMENT..................................................................................... 6 FACILITY SERVICE DELIVERY.............................................................................................. 8 COST COMPONENT........................................................................................................... 9 CREDITCOMPONENT........................................................................................................ 14 NET IMPACT COST PER STUDENT...................................................................................... 17 STUDENT GENERATION RATES.......................................................................................... 19 CALCULATED SCHOOL IMPACT FEE SCHEDULE................................................................... 21 SCHOOL IMPACT FEE COMPARISON.................................................................................. 22 Appendices: Appendix A: School District Inventory Appendix B: Supplemental Unit Cost Information Benesch Collier County April 2025 i School Impact Fee Update Study DRAFT Introduction With a population of over 400,000, Collier County ranks as the 19th most populous county in Florida. The county is continuing to grow and is estimated to add approximately 110,000 new residents through 2050. In terms of residential permitting, Collier County ranks 19th out of Florida counties with an average of 5,300 new units per year over the past three years. To address additional facilities needed due to growth, Collier County implemented a school impact fee, which was last updated in 2015. To comply with the technical study update requirements of the impact fee ordinance and given the recent changes in variables affecting the impact fee, Collier County retained Benesch to update the school impact fee schedule. This report serves as the technical study to support the calculation of the updated school impact fee. Data presented in this report represents the most recent and localized data available at the time of this update study. All data and support material used in this analysis are incorporated by reference as set forth in this document. The figures calculated in this study represent the technically defensible level of impact fee that the County could charge; however, the Board of County Commissioners may choose to discount the fee as a policy decision. Methodology Ne� N The methodology used to update the school impact fee is a consumption -based impact fee methodology, which is also the County's adopted methodology and has been used to calculate several school impact fees throughout Florida, including, but not limited to fees in Broward, Miami -Dade, Orange, Osceola, Palm Beach, and Lake Counties. A consumption -based impact fee is intended to charge new growth the proportionate share of the cost of providing a new student station available for use by new growth, based A consumption -based upon the student generation rate (demand), or the number of students methodology has been a dwelling unit is expected to generate over the life of the home. used for this study. Benesch Collier County April 2025 1 School Impact Fee Update Study DRAFT Legal Overview In Florida, legal requirements related to impact fees have primarily been established through case law since the 1980's. Impact fees must comply with the "dual rational nexus" test, which requires that they: • Be supported by a study demonstrating that the fees are proportionate in amount to the need created by new development paying the fee; and • Be spent in a manner that directs a proportionate benefit to new development, typically accomplished through a list of capacity -adding projects included in the School District's Work Plan, Capital Improvement Plan, or another planning document/Master Plan. In 2006, the Florida legislature passed the "Florida Impact Fee Act," which recognized impact fees as "an outgrowth of home rule power of a local government to provide certain services within its jurisdiction." § 163.31801(2), Fla. Stat. The statute — concerned with mostly procedural and methodological limitations — did not expressly allow or disallow any particular public facility type from being funded with impact fees. In fact, which it was initially adopted, the Act largely codified requirements and standards common to the practice already. However, the Legislature has amended the Impact Fee Act numerous times since 2006, significantly affecting the impact fee practice in Florida. For this reason, a summary of the key legislative changes since 2006 is provided: • HB 227 in 2009: The Florida legislation statutorily clarified that in any action challenging an impact fee, the government has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the imposition or amount of the fee meets the requirements of state legal precedent or the Impact Fee Act and that the court may not use a deferential standard. • SB 360 in 2009: Allowed fees to be decreased without the 90-day notice period required to increase the fees and purported to change the standard of legal review associated with impact fees. SB 360 also required the Florida Department of Community Affairs (now the Department of Commerce) and Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) to conduct studies on "mobility fees," which were completed in 2010. • HB 7207 in 2011: Required a dollar -for -dollar credit, for purposes of concurrency compliance, for impact fees paid and other concurrency mitigation required. • HB 319 in 2013: Applied mostly to concurrency management authorities, but also encouraged local governments to adopt alternative mobility systems using a series of tools identified in section 163.3180(5)(f), Florida Statutes. Benesch Collier County April 2025 2 School Impact Fee Update Study DRAFT • HB 207 in 2019: Included the following changes to the Impact Fee Act along with additional clarifying language: o Impact fees cannot be collected prior to building permit issuance; and o Impact fee revenues cannot be used to pay debt service for previously approved projects unless the expenditure is reasonably connected to, or has a rational nexus with, the increased impact generated by the new residential and commercial construction. • HB 7103 in 2019: Addressed multiple issues related to affordable housing/linkage fees, impact fees, and building services fees. In terms of impact fees, the bill required that when local governments increase their impact fees, the outstanding impact fee credits for developer contributions should also be increased. This requirement was to operate prospectively; however, HB 337 that was signed in 2021 deleted that clause and making all outstanding credits eligible for this adjustment. This bill also allowed local governments to waive/reduce impact fees for affordable housing projects without having to offset the associated revenue loss. • SB 1066 in 2020: Added language allowing impact fee credits to be assignable and transferable at any time after establishment from one development or parcel to another that is within the same impact fee zone or impact fee district or that is within an adjoining impact fee zone or district within the same local government jurisdiction, and which receives benefit from the improvement or contribution that generated the credits. Added language indicating any new/increased impact fee not being applicable to current or pending permit applications submitted prior to the effective date of an ordinance or resolution imposing new/increased fees. • HB 1339 in 2020: Required reporting of various impact fee related data items within the annual financial audit report submitted to the Department of Financial Services. • HB 337 in 2021: Placed limits on the amount and frequency of fee increases, but also included a clause to exceed these restrictions if the local governments can demonstrate extraordinary circumstances, hold two public workshops discussing these circumstances and the increases are approved by two-thirds of the governing body. • HB 479 in: Required interlocal agreements between counties and municipalities when both entities collect a transportation impact fee. Placed limits on timing of impact fee study completion and adoption and data used in the studies. The following paragraphs provide further detail on the generally applicable legal standards. Benesch Collier County April 2025 3 School Impact Fee Update Study DRAFT Impact Fee Definition • An impact fee is a one-time capital charge levied against new development. • An impact fee is designed to cover the portion of the capital costs of infrastructure capacity consumed by new development. • The principal purpose of an impact fee is to assist in funding the implementation of projects identified in the Five -Year Work Plan, District Educational Facilities Plan and other capital improvement programs for the respective facility/service categories. Impact Fee vs. Tax • An impact fee is generally regarded as a regulatory function established based upon the specific benefit to the user related to a given infrastructure type and is not established for the primary purpose of generating revenue for the general benefit of the community, as are taxes. • Impact fee expenditures must convey a proportional benefit to the fee payer. This is accomplished through the establishment of benefit districts as needed, where fees collected in a benefit district are spent in the same benefit district. • An impact fee must be tied to a proportional need for new infrastructure capacity created by new development. This technical report has been prepared to support legal compliance with existing case law and statutory requirements and documents the methodology used for the school impact fee calculations, including an evaluation of the inventory, service area and enrollment, facility service delivery, cost, credit, and demand components. Information supporting this analysis was obtained from Collier County Public Schools ("the District") and other sources, as indicated. Benesch Collier County April 2025 4 School Impact Fee Update Study DRAFT Inventory Collier County Public Schools provides public education facilities that are available to all school - age residents of Collier County. As such, this analysis considers all traditional elementary, middle, and high school level facilities and the students attending these facilities located throughout and living within Collier County. i ne Uistrict currently operates 51 traditionai public scnoois that serve the students of Collier County and its municipalities, including 31 elementary schools, 10 middle schools, 9 high schools, and 1 multi -level school. The District also operates a number of other programs, including alternative learning programs, technical schools, and adult learning centers in the county. To ensure that the impact fee reflects only classroom space for traditional schools, adult, technical, and alternative learning schools are not included in the inventory and impact fee calculations. Examples of these include Immokalee Technical College and Leila B. Canant Professional Development Center. The District's current school inventory that is included in the impact fee calculations is provided in Appendix A, Table A-9.+ M IM Benesch Collier County April 2025 5 School Impact Fee Update Study DRAFT Service Area and Enrollment Collier County Public Schools provides public education facilities that are available to all pre- kindergarten through 12t" grade (PK-12) students throughout the entire county. Attendance boundaries can be redrawn to balance school enrollment with available school capacity and therefore can serve different geographic areas over time. In addition, the Florida Department of Education (FDOE) has been increasing its support of Choice programs where students can attend schools outside of their designated boundaries. As such, the appropriate impact fee benefit district for public schools is countywide. Table 1 presents the historical student enrollment since 2000-2001 for pre -kindergarten through 12t" grade students, as well as projected enrollment through 2028-2029. Historical enrollment figures are based on the 5t" Month Membership Counts and projections for future years are based on information provided by Collier County Public Schools. In order to be consistent with the inventory used in the impact fee analysis, the enrollment figures presented in this table only include those students attending (or projected to attend) the schools listed in Appendix A, Table A-1. The annual percent change for the enrollment is presented, as well as a three-year average to account for random fluctuations. Benesch Collier County April 2025 6 School Impact Fee Update Study DRAFT Table 1 Enrollment Summary SchoolYear M 2000-01 34,157 Annual Change (2) N/A Three -Year Average( N/A 2001-02 36,240 6.1% N/A 2002-03 37,635 3.8% N/A 2003-04 39,441 4.8% 4.9% 2004-05 40,942 3.8% 4.1% 2005-06 41,870 2.3% 3.6% 2006-07 41,612 -0.6% 1.8% 2007-08 41,056 -1.3% 0.1% 2008-09 41,178 0.3% -0.5% 2009-10 41,672 1.2% 0.1% 2010-11 41,820 0.4% 0.6% 2011-12 42,020 0.5% 0.7% 2012-13 42,566 1.3% 0.7% 2013-14 42,934 0.9% 0.9% 2014-15 42,878 -0.1% 0.7% 2015-16 43,387 1.2% 0.7% 2016-17 43,891 1.2% 0.8% 2017-18 43,761 -0.3% 0.7% 2018-19 43,843 0. 2% 0.4% 2019-20 43,981 0.3% 0.1% 2020-21 42,015 -4.5% -1.3% 2021-22 42,196 0.4% -1.3% 2022-23 42,787 1.4% -0.9% 2023-24 43,005 0.5% 0.8% 2024-25 43,548 1.3% 1.1% 2025-26 43,418 -0.3% 0.5% 2026-27 43,607 0.4% 0.5% 2027-28 44,055 1.0% 0.4% 2028-29 44,2501 0.4%1 0.6% 1) Source: Collier County Public Schools, includes only the students attending traditional schools. Years 2000- 2001 through 2023-2024 are based on 5th month count. Future years are based on information provided by Collier County Public Schools. 2) Percent change from one year to the next 3) Average percent change over the past three years Benesch April 2025 Collier County 7 School Impact Fee Update Study DRAFT Facility Service Delivery Schools that were recently constructed or planned to be constructed by the District over the next 20 years are similarly designed in terms of square footage and student stations. These "prototype" schools have been or will be constructed to different standards than the older existing schools and are used to measure service delivery levels. The prototype facility service delivery in Collier County is 139.1 Florida Inventory of School Houses (FISH) net square feet per permanent student station for elementary schools, 144.9 FISH net square feet per permanent student station for middle schools, and 150.2 FISH net square feet per permanent student station for high schools The District's prototype facilities are used to measure the service delivery levels. hLI Benesch Collier County April 2025 8 School Impact Fee Update Study DRAFT Cost Component The capital costs of providing school facilities includes several components, such as the school building and land cost, transportation cost, and ancillary facility costs. This section addresses each of these components. Facility Cost per Student Station The cost of a school includes various components, such as facility cost (buildings and land), transportation costs, and ancillary facility costs. The first step in determining the cost of providing public schools to Collier County residents is to calculate the facility cost per student station. Several cost components must be considered when calculating the total cost of constructing a school, including architect/site improvement costs, construction costs, and the cost to purchase land. Each component of the school facility cost is described in more detail in the following subsections. N Architect/Site Improvement and Construction Costs To determine the architectural/design, site improvement, and construction costs associated with building a new school in Collier County, the following information was evaluated: • Construction cost associated with the recently built high school; • Construction cost trends documented by the Engineering News Records since the last technical study; • Insurance values of existing schools, which provide a conservative estimate since more permanent parts of the structures, such as the foundation, etc. are typically not insured; • Information obtained from other jurisdictions regarding recently built schools; • Discussions with architects/contractors that are active in school construction; and • Discussions with the District. Detailed information on cost estimates is included in Appendix B. Table 2 presents the estimated cost per net square foot for facility planning, construction, and land cost components for each school type. For illustration purposes, Table 2 also presents the weighted average figure for each cost component, based on all schools that are planned to be built over the next 20 years. Benesch Collier County April 2025 9 School Impact Fee Update Study DRAFT Land Cost For each school type, the land cost per square foot is based on a value of $75,000 per acre. This cost per acre accounts for future land purchases over the next few years are likely to be in the eastern parts of the county, where land cost is relatively low. Additional information on the land value analysis is included in Appendix B. The land cost per square foot of building by school level was developed based on the acres per 1,000 permanent net building square feet for the existing schools. The resulting land value figures used for each school level are presented in Table 2. Total Facilities Cost "O;v Overall, the total school facility cost estimates range from $48,100 per permanent station for elementary schools to $62,800 per permanent station for high schools. N Table 2 Facility Cost per Student Station Cost Component Net Square Feet per Student Station (LOS)(') Elementary School 1 139.11 Middle School 144.9 School 150.2 Weighted Average N/A Additional Planned Stations for the Next 20Years lzl1 1,6511 1,333 4,092 7,076 School Facility Cost Components: Facility Planning Cost per Net Square Foot (3) $43.50 $48.00 $52.50 $49.67 Construction Cost per Net Square Foot(4) $290.00 $320.00 $350.00 $331.13 Land Cost per Net Square Foot (5) 12.53 17.40 15.75 15.34 Total Facility Cost per Net Square Foot (6) $346.03 $385.40 $418.25 $396.14 Facility Cost per Student Station(' $48,133 $55,8441 $62,821 $58,080 1) Source: Based on the District's prototype schools which will be utilized for future construction of school facilities 2) Source: Collier County Public Schools 2023-2024 Work Plan 3) Estimated at 15% of construction cost based on estimates obtained from Collier County Public Schools and recent costs obtained from other Florida School Districts. See Appendix B for further detail. 4) Source: Appendix B 5) The land cost per square foot for each school type is based on the acreage per 1,000 permanent square feet for the existing schools at a cost of $75,000 per acre. Further information on land value estimate is included in Appendix B. 6) Sum of school facility cost per net square foot (Items 3 through 5) 7) The net square feet per permanent student station (Item 1) multiplied by the total school facility cost per net square foot (Item 6) for each respective school type. Weighted average is based on the number of stations that are plannned for each school type (Item 2). Benesch Collier County April 2025 10 School Impact Fee Update Study DRAFT Total Facility Cost per Student by School Type The total facility impact cost per student by school level is based on the facility cost per student station figures derived in Table 2 and is typically calculated by dividing the cost per student station by the ratio of current student enrollment to available capacity. The adjustment of dividing the cost per student station by the ratio of current student enrollment to available capacity converts the cost per student station to a cost per student. In addition, this calculation accounts for the current availability or shortage in permanent capacity and adjusts the costs accordingly. If there is available capacity (e.g., currently more permanent student stations than enrolled students), then the total facility cost per student increases because the achieved level of service suggests more than one station per student to accommodate functional or program capacity needs. Similarly, if there are currently more students enrolled than available capacity, the cost per student is adjusted downward. In the case of Collier County Public Schools, there is currently 20 percent permanent capacity available in elementary schools, 19 percent permanent capacity available in middle schools, and 13 percent permanent capacity available in high schools. Although there is available capacity, the District's adopted level of service standard calls for an enrollment -to -FISH capacity ratio of 95 percent for elementary and middle schools, and a ratio of 100 percent for high schools. The weighted average cost per student is calculated under achieved LOS and adopted LOS standards, and the lower cost is used for impact fee calculation purposes. This is because while inventory availability represents the community's investment in public school facilities, adopted level of service standards represent the future LOS the School District intends to provide. As presented in Table 3, the resulting weighted average cost per student based on the adopted LOS standards is approximately $62,200 per student. Using the total facility impact cost per student based on achieved LOS (total available capacity), this figure would increase to approximately $68,700 per student. Benesch Collier County April 2025 11 School Impact Fee Update Study DRAFT Table 3 Total Facility Impact Cost per Student by School Type SchoolCalculation Step Elementary Middle High Weighted ..School Facility Impact Cost per Student Facility Cost per Permanent Student Station(�) $48,133 $55,844 $62,821 $58,080 Existing (2023/24) Student Enrollment (2) 19,368 9,471 14,166 43,005 Existing (2023/24) Permanent Capacity (3) 24,199 11,745 16,246 52,190 Ratio of Existing Enrollment to Permanent Capacity (4) 80% 81% 87% 82% FISH Capacity Adjustment(5) 100% 90% 95% N/A Adopted LOS Standard (6) 95% 95% 100% N/A Additional Planned Capacity for the Next 20 Yearsl'i 1,6511 1,200 3,887 6,738 Facility Impact Cost per Student - Achieved LOS(8) $60,166 $68,943 $72,208 $68,676 Facility Impact Cost per Student - Adopted LOS Standard(9) 1 $50,6661 $65,3151 $66,1271 $62,194 1) Source: Table 2 2) Source: Collier County Public Schools, based on 5th month count, excludes alternative schools 3) Source: Appendix A, Table A-1 4) Student enrollment (Item 2) divided by existing permanent capacity (Item 3) 5) Source: Florida Department of Education 6) Source: Collier County Public Schools 7) Source: Collier County Public Schools 8) Facility cost per student station (Item 1) divided by the ratio of existing enrollment to existing permanent capacity (Item 4) 9) Facility cost per student station (Item 1) divided by the FISH capacity adjustment (Item 5) and adopted level of service standard (Item 6) _ Total Cost per Student In addition to the facility cost per student calculated in Table 3, the total facility cost per student includes two additional components: the capital costs associated with providing transportation services and ancillary facilities. Both cost components are calculated on a per -student basis and are not dependent on school type. These additional cost components are discussed in further detail below. Transportation CosAl The first additional capital cost component is the cost of providing transportation services to students. The District currently owns 378 buses used for student transportation at an average cost of approximately $148,400 per bus. In addition to its bus fleet, the District owns 291 support vehicles. The cost of the support vehicles varies depending on the type of vehicle, with an average cost of approximately $41,800 per vehicle. The result is a total value of approximately $68 million for transportation services. The total value of the transportation fleet is divided by Benesch Collier County April 2025 12 School Impact Fee Update Study DRAFT the District's enrollment for schools which results in a cost of $1,587 per student for transportation services, as presented in Table 4. Ancillary Facility Costs The other capital cost component is for the ancillary facilities that are necessary for the District to provide support services for students, schools, transportation services, and administrative personnel. The District currently has approximately 247,700 square feet of ancillary facilities for maintenance, warehouse, and administrative functions. Current values of each existing ancillary facility depend on the type of facility and were based on the insurance values, with the weighted average value equaling approximately $200 per square foot. The cost of land for ancillary facilities is also included in the ancillary facility values. The land value for ancillary facilities is the same as that used for schools ($75,000 per acre). The ancillary facility cost per student is based on the existing inventory, which is valued at $57.2 million, including $49.5 million for buildings and $7.7 million for land. Based on the current enrollment, ancillary facility cost is estimated at $1,332 per student, as presented in Table 4. Table 4 Transportation and Ancillary Facility Cost per Student Description Transportation Services Cost per Student Total Value of Transportation Services(�) $68,252,000 Enrollment for 2023-24School Year (2) 43,005 Total Transportation Services Cost per Student(3) $1,587 Ancillary Cost per Student Building Value for Ancillary Facilities (4) $49,545,000 Land Value for Ancillary Facilities (5) $7,717,500 Total Ancillary Facility Value (6) $57,262,500 Total Ancillary Facility Value per Student(') $1,332 Public Schools 1) Source: Collier Count y 2) Source: Table 1 3) Total value of transportation services (Item 1) divided by the enrollment for the 2023-24 school year (Item 2) 4) Square footage obtained from Collier County Public Schools multiplied by $200 per square foot. 5) Acres obtained from Collier County Public Schools multiplied by $75,000 per acre 6) Sum of the building value and land value for ancillary facilities (Items 4 and 5) 7) Total ancillary facility value (Item 6) divided by the enrollment for the 2023-24 school year (Item 2) Benesch Collier County April 2025 13 School Impact Fee Update Study DRAFT Credit Component To ensure that new development is not being overcharged for construction of future student stations, any non -impact fee revenue that will be generated by new development and that will be used towards the capital expansion of school facilities must be included as a credit to reduce the total cost per student. It is important to note that a credit for school impact fees is not given for revenue that is used for capital renovation of existing school facilities or for maintenance or operational costs. Based on a review of the District's funding of capacity addition projects over the past five years and planned projects over the next five years, it has been determined that the District uses Capital Improvement Tax revenues for expansion projects paid with cash. In addition, capacity projects were funded with Certification of Participation (COPS), and therefore, a credit for remaining debt service payments is given. N Capital Expansion "Cash" Credit its,, The Collier County School Board has the authority to levy ad valorem tax to generate revenue for capital, up to 1.5 mills. Referred to as Capital Improvement Tax (CIT), this revenue is used for both capital renovation and expansion projects, as well as technology, vehicles, buses, and maintenance. The capital improvement tax revenue credit per student is calculated by dividing the annual amount of capital revenue allocated to capacity projects between FY 2019 and FY 2028 by the average enrollment during the same period. As presented in Table 5, the resulting capital expansion "cash" credit is $205 per student per year. Once the capital expansion "cash" credit per student is calculated, a credit adjustment is made to account for the fact that new homes tend to pay higher property taxes per dwelling unit. This adjustment factor was estimated based on a comparison of the average taxable value of recently built homes built to that of all homes. As shown in Table 5, this adjusted credit amounts to $257 per student per year. Finally, the total credit over a 25-year period, which is considered to be the time frame when major repairs or replacement is needed for structures built, is estimated at $3,769 per student. Benesch Collier County April 2025 14 School Impact Fee Update Study F- LL I.I. 00 m o m m o N v o� v Ln o a Ln an 00 wv O1 ei tG v LD w N O N O N N a V N N 00 tV w N ei O N v m tD m m m y C11 ei LD LD v 00 V N LA N M N rn �o O v w .-i m 4-*, co N N '^ m m O 0o 00 co 4/ - to ri iA N t? iA L► v An 00 to t? N N O O N N LLn Ln0O NN ]cc co m O c O 14 NN t/) joo N N om0 O O W ci O O Ol V � N p O 00 to th Of VN? N o0 D1 00 06 V Q M r to tN n Ln .o o lD 00 Ln ll ri - m ei L/1 o M . Go Ln N N N N O M Ol Ln N M 00 U} Nen co r� j c Rt n N ri 0o m m m m Ln N V V N W o0 O L' M M to to N O ry to an to tmj� m LD O N -I lD cl 00 D1 LA M M V m lD m rl 'Al V} N M n u a•� l0 NNM en loo coL!1D1 c0 O W m a +/� Y NO c C. O N a+ c r } LL a+ a i m O L W -4 � U C O A OJ > o c y r Y y p m cc N y ' c M W o y_ u c o W a O m N m X ` u _ V k Cf O a y U W W C= O O jc m a) L I. O i N G 10 C •N a+ } Y •= v+ C. al m U aJ U C .V m <L c� a+ ac' c E LL a in x W c c 110 c O b00 W _v m m E 3 K d N 0= O >= f0 O .Y 7 O am+ c c C O .. D m o ` m r1°. c c a Q Y YQL m O Q> D' O m N N U Q ow N N W M 0 U U Q U m Y m C .Q +�+ .Q a C £ m aai Y 4 v p L w v v U c0 Ln N Ln D_ Q Q Q u Q U U L) O QJ Q c O fD N O Q i O u U fl_ L O � E Ln � N O t � Y � > > O M n E E _ aO-LI1 0 c N O a C C L L O 7 Ln O U Y v c 0) vYc O Y � v � > v . °' U CU E � O .� Y NCC L C T N � U 0 41 T v � v p' Y O L � U Y 41 , O V Q X L N O L N v 4J �p o C o m cc 6 Q p v p L v 0 m m O Q- O c N U 0 O _U U N U .2 DD U l0 U h U � f0 U_ .p O M U M d a v O a s N >` ` ? f0 L Vf > U Y/1 ` ` o C 3 c 7 O cc O L 7 U O X O L l4 L X L U Lct� O o O c c Q o 0 cc •+t_' U Q U v m U 'O > U 01 11 �CC d w L-Fa L DA ++ (c 01 L Q c I a" C 4! 4! LO LN Q Q Q Ln H d — : N M v Z lD FZ 00 01 Lr) r-I Ln L N 0 V) N CU — c m Q DRAFT Capital Expansion "Debt Service" Credit Any bond/COPs issues with outstanding debt service payments related to the school capacity expansion projects will result in a credit to the impact fee. Table 6 summarizes the outstanding debt service related to school capital expansion projects. The debt service payments are divided by the student enrollment during the same period to determine the debt service credit per student. As shown in Table 6, the resulting debt service credit is approximately $593 per student. Similar to the capital expansion "cash" credit per student, because the debt service is being retired using ad valorem tax revenues, an adjustment of the credit per student is incorporated to account for higher level of property taxes paid by new homes. As shown, the adjusted debt service credit amounts to $741 per student. Tab A� 1*4146, Capital Expansion "Debt Service' Credit 1) Source: Collier County Public Schools 2) Source: Collier County Public Schools 3) Present value of the total remaining payments due, based on the interest rate of each payment and the number of years of remaining payments 4) Source: Collier County Public Schools, represents the estimated average annual enrollment over the life of remaining payments 5) Present value of total remaining payments (Item 3) divided by the average annual enrollment over the life of remaining payments (Item 4) 6) Adjustment factor to reflect higher ad valorem taxes paid by new homes 7) Total debt service credit per student (Item 5) multiplied by the credit adjustment factor (Item 6) Benesch Collier County April 2025 16 School Impact Fee Update Study DRAFT Net Impact Cost per Student The net impact cost per student is the difference between the cost component and the credit component. Table 7 summarizes the three -step process used to calculate the net impact cost per student for public schools in Collier County by residential land use. First, the total impact cost per student is determined, which is the sum of the weighted average facility impact cost per student from Table 3 and the transportation and ancillary facility cost components per student from Table 4. As previously mentioned, the transportation and ancillary cost components are calculated on a per -student basis and do not differ by type of school or by type of residential land use. Total cost per student increased by 40 percent since the 2015 study. Second, the total capital expansion credit per student is determined. This is the sum of the capital expansion "cash" credit per student and the capital expansion "debt service" credit per student presented in Tables 5 and 6. Total credit per student decreased by 59 percent compared to the last study since the School District has been paying off debt on COPs, which reduced the debt service credit. Third, the net impact cost per student is determined, which is the difference between the total impact cost per student and total revenue credit per student and is calculated at $60,500 per student. Compared to the 2015 study, the net cost per student increased by 85 percent. t Benesch Collier County April 2025 17 School Impact Fee Update Study DRAFT Table 7 Net Impact Cost per Student Variable Per Student Impact Cost Facility Cost(�) $62,194 Transportation Cost(2) $1,587 Ancillary Facility Cost (3) 1 332 Total Impact Cost (4) $65,113 Revenue Credit Capital Expansion "Cash" Credit (5) $3,769 Capital Expansion "Debt Service" Credit (6) 741 Total Capital Expansion Credit (7) $4,510 Net Impact Cost Net Impact Cost per Student(8) $60,603 L) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7) 8) Source: Table 3 Source: Table 4 Source: Table 4 Sum of facility, transportation, and ancillary facility cost per student (Items 1 through 3) Source: Table 5 Source: Table 6 Sum of capital expansion "cash" credit per student (Item 5) and the capital expansion "debt service" credit per student (Item 6) Total impact cost per student (Item 4) less the total capital expansion credit per student (Item 7) t Benesch Collier County April 2025 18 School Impact Fee Update Study DRAFT Student Generation Rates The number of students living in a household typically varies depending on the type of residential housing. Therefore, school impact fees are typically assessed based on the specific student generation rates for different types of residential land uses. This impact fee study employs a methodology using Collier County Property Appraiser (CCPA) information and Geographic Information Systems (GIS) to develop the student generation rate for Collier County. Specifically, an address lookup and GIS were used to link student addresses to parcels in the CCPA parcel database to generate the number of students per unit by school type and residential category based on the latest tax roll. This process is described in more detail in the following sections. Determination of Total Housing Units by Type of La.0 The CCPA database is used to identify the number of housing units for student generation rate calculations for the single family, multi -family, and mobile home units. For all land uses, the total number of units countywide through early 2023 year were extracted from the parcel database based on the appropriate use code. A Determination of Students by School Type and Land Use Code The determination of the number of students per land use by type of school (e.g., elementary, middle, and high school) for traditional schools was completed using the following process. First, Collier County Public Schools provided a GIS shapefile containing geocoded student addresses. Then, the student addresses were linked to their respective parcel in the Property Appraiser database using address point data. The student generation rates used as the demand component for the impact fee only include those students for which the impact fee is based on, or students attending those schools listed in Appendix A, Table A-1. Therefore, the school code associated with each student record was used to exclude students attending charter schools or other facilities not included in the impact fee inventory. Benesch Collier County April 2025 19 School Impact Fee Update Study DRAFT As previously mentioned, once the GIS shapefile with the geocoded student addresses was provided, the second step in the analysis was to link each student address to data from the parcel database. This allows for determining the residential category that is assigned to a given parcel (or address) where a student lives. This was accomplished by spatially joining the student address to the respective parcel in the database using GIS. Approximately 98 percent of the students were successfully linked to a residential parcel in Collier County. The remaining two percent were linked to parcels out of the county, a non- residential or vacant property, land uses that are not included in the impact fee schedule. The following assumptions were used to identify the appropriate land use for these records: • Students at mobile home parks were added to the student counts for mobile homes • Residential structures on agricultural land uses were added to the corresponding residential category • Students located at parcels with a vacant residential classification were added to the single family residential category This approach resulted in just over one percent of student addresses being linked to a non- residential land use (such as orphanage, offices, hotel/motel, etc.) or residing outside of the county. Students residing at non-residential land uses and those residing outside of Collier County are excluded from the calculations to provide a more conservative estimate. The results of this analysis are presented in Table 8, which includes the student generation rates calculated for each residential category, based on the methodology described above. Table 8 also provides a comparison to the student generation rate estimates used in the 2015 study. As shown, student generation rates for single family and mobile home units decreased 24 percent to 25 percent, which reduces the impact fee amount. Table 8 Student Generation Rates Number of Number of Students per Students per Percent Residential Category Students 111 Units �z� Unit - 2024 �3> �a> Unit - 2015 Difference (s) ME*,�: ,. 1) Source: Collier County Public Schools (adjusted) 2) Source: Collier County Property Appraiser database 3) Number of students (Item 1) divided by the number of units (item 2) 4) Source: Collier County School Impact Fee Update Study Final Report, June 23, 2015 5) Percent change from students per unit — 2015 (Item 4) to students per unit -2024 (Item 3) Benesch Collier County April 2025 20 School Impact Fee Update Study ii F- LL OaC 0 c v L L D U (U S O C O N •L (0 I? C O v (0 N c v N v L Iz O N -Fa _N S (0 (U s Q: w m C N C N N Q) L Q N v U (0 Q E N C 00 C N N L N S N +J (0 C O 4-1 ra Qu W (U O Ln N c O f6 U U1 S O Q C v U L v 0- Ln 00 s N N O1 U C 7 N � Q N O U U (0 Q E Q) S_ V) LO r1 O N v S 5 O v sC? C O U Ln O N Q O1 S_ O cu E Ln w 4 c � O V) U v L OJ a- � O IZ U c v LL v E U u Q C C O O O s (n > 0 v C SZ 4J � 4J O v � U SZ U C O 4J C .- '� E U } CCZ, 0 C CL } X E m N v O `1 a oo CD 00 0 N C <D L LL LL 0 u L i 4J N 4J CL v 0 v a v a)u U � E a)m c LL C 4J v U E ++ L Q U U L T � Q U _0 a +� a c0 v c u Ln a Q a 7 d ��••, �U,, E '3 0 0 C U +� L .a +_°) u v 4J E C } ? 0 u 4J .0 ++ c W E o s? 0r, 00 u Qj ci N N O U1 Q to f0 U U C U CL .. ++ 7 ++ U) U U U W 4J s N n L L V)O ion ion z ion a a v � (� (n v Ln �o r, co Q DRAFT School Impact Fee Comparison As part of the work effort in updating Collier County's school impact fee program, a comparison of the calculated single family school impact fees for Collier County to the school impact fees adopted by other counties throughout Florida has been prepared. Table 10 presents this comparison. The impact fee study date, adoption percentage and the full rate are also shown. Approximately 40 percent of Florida counties implemented a school impact fee. Benesch Collier County April 2025 22 School Impact Fee Update Study DRAFT Table 10 School Impact Fee Schedule Comparison, Single Family (2,000 Square Feet) Miami -Dade County Date of Last Update(l) 1995 100% Single Family AdoptedCounty $2,448 (per du) 00 $2,448 Citrus County 2021 50% $2,059 $4,117 Indian River County 2020 28% $1,310 $4,680 St. Johns County 2018 100% $5,940 $4,725 Baker County 2005 52% $2,592 $5,000 Nassau County 2017 100% $5,431 $5,431 St. Lucie County 2005 100% $6,786 $5,447 Lee County 2018 53% $2,879 $5,484 Martin County 2007 100% $5,567 $5,567 Sarasota County(3) 2022 Varies -SF @48% $3,048 $6,306 Flagler County(4) 2021 Varies -SF @83% $5,950 $7,175 Hillsborough County 2020 100% $8,227 $8,227 Volusia County 2022 85% $7,023 $8,262 Palm Beach County(5) 2022 Varies -SF 2,000 sf @95% $7,906 $8,322 Hernando County(6) 2022 70% $6,135 $8,764 Broward County(7) 2019 Varies -SF @97% $8,809 $9,049 Manatee County(8) 2023 Varies-2,000 sf @96% $9,190 $9,524 Orange County 2020 Varies -SF @100% $9,513 $9,560 Brevard County 2015 50% $5,097 $10,193 Marion County 2023 40% $4,307 $10,768 Collier County -- Adopted(') 2015 79% $8,790 $11,164 Hendry County(10) 2023 40% $4,531 $11,328 Lake County(11) 2023 100% $12,021 $12,021 Seminole County 2017 1 73% $9,000 $12,322 Clay County(12) 2022 Varies -SF @83% $10,551 $12,680 Osceola County 2021 100% $12,923 $12,923 Pasco County(13) 2024 Varies -SF @94% $12,328 $13,163 Collier County-- Maximum Calculated(14) 2024 N/A N/A $13,184 Polk County(15) 2024 85% $12,187 $14,338 Collier County -- Calculated(16) 2024 N/A N/A $15,757 Note: Counties adjacent to Collier County are highlighted. 1) Source: Published impact fee schedules and discussions with the jurisdictions 2) Represents the full calculated fee from each respective technical study 3) Fees shown effective January 1, 2026. 4) The impact fee shown shall be increased ($500 for single family, $125 for multi -family and $850 for mobile home) - on July 1, 2023, and annually on July 1 each year thereafter, each time the total number of students enrolled in Flagler County Public Schools, grades kindergarten through twelfth (excluding charter school students), increases by five hundred students as of the preceding year's October FTE reporting date. 5) Fees adopted in compliance with the 50% limit phasing requirements per F.S. 163.31801. Fees shown effective January 1, 2026. 6) Fees adopted in compliance with the 50% limit phasing requirements per F.S. 163.31801; fees shown reflect fully phased -in fees effective July 30, 2025. 7) School impact fee reflects single family homes with three or fewer bedrooms. Benesch Collier County April 2025 23 School Impact Fee Update Study DRAFT 8) Fees adopted in compliance with the 50% limit phasing requirements per F.S. 163.31801. Fees effective September 9, 2027. 9) Source: Collier County Growth Management Division, Project Planning, Impact Fees, and Program Management Division 10) Fees shown effective February 10, 2025 11) Fees adopted in compliance with the 50% limit phasing requirements per F.S. 163.31801. School impact fee shown effective October 1, 2026. 12) Fees adopted in compliance with the 50% limit phasing requirements per F.S. 163.31801. Fees shown reflect fully phased -in fees effective June 1, 2026. 13) Fees adopted in compliance with the 50% limit phasing requirements per F.S. 163.31801. Fees shown reflect fully phased -in fees effective January 1, 2028. 14) Source: Table 9 15) Fees adopted in compliance with the 50% limit phasing requirements per F.S. 163.31801. Fees shown reflect fully -phased impact fees. School impact fee shown effective January 1, 2027. 16) Source: Table 9 ,_ Benesch Collier County April 2025 24 School Impact Fee Update Study DRAFT Appendix School District Inventory DRAFT Appendix A - School District Inventory Table A-1 provides an inventory of traditional schools included in the impact fee calculations. Non-traditional schools, such as charter schools, adult education schools, etc. are excluded. Table A-1 Collier County Public Schools Existing School Inventory(l) CapacityCount School Grade Year Acres Net Square Permanent Permanen Level Acquired Feet Stations Elementary Schools 1 Avalon Elementary PK05 1966 15.0 85,795 481 481 2 Big Cypress Elementary PK05 1985 20.0 138,487 940 940 3 Calusa Park Elementary PK05 2000 24.6 153,988 900 900 4 Corkscrew Elementary PK05 1992 22.0 161,053 836 836 5 Eden Park Elementary PK05 2006 25.0 119,5641 824 824 6 Estates Elementary PK05 2001 35.0 156,316 719 719 7 Golden Gate Elementary PK05 1973 16.0 103,898 802 802 8 Golden Terrace Elementary PK05 1987 15.0 95,943 735 735 9 Herbert Cambridge Elementary PK05 2003 4.0 70,309 3891 389 10 Highlands Elementary PK05 1964 13.0 132,702 812 812 11 Lake Park Elementary PK05 1955 11.0 89,197 570 570 12 Lake Trafford Elementary PK05 1967 15.0 136,719 881 881 13 Laurel Oak Elementary PK05 1992 30.0 110,602 700 700 14 Lavern Gaynor Elementary PK05 2003 8.0 84,139 523 523 15 Lely Elementary PK05 1987 22.0 131,577 821 821 16 Manatee Elementary PK05 1972 46.0 110,049 706 706 17 Mike Davis Elementary PK05 2002 17.0 126,345 919 919 18 Naples Park Elementary PK05 1973 21.0 110,082 750 750 19 Osceola Elementary PK05 1970 16.0 152,129 784 784 20 Palmetto Elementary PK05 2002 39.0 123,954 971 971 21 Parkside Elementary PK05 2002 28.0 132,679 919 919 22 Pelican Marsh Elementary PK05 1994 20.0 162,968 854 854 23 Pinecrest Elementary PK05 1959 20.0 125,430 854 854 24 Poinciana Elementary PK05 1973 19.0 112,795 781 781 25 Sabal Palm Elementary PK05 2002 31.0 159,796 761 761 26 Sea Gate Elementary PK05 1963 15.0 125,263 854 854 27 iShadowlawn Elementary PK05 1958 12.0 92,527 660 660 28 Tommie Barfield Elementary PK05 1956 11.0 111,921 600 600 29 Veterans Memorial Elementary PK05 2004 30.0 169,076 929 929 30 Village Oaks Elementary PK05 1 1986 20.0 116,347 839 839 31 Vineyards Elementary PK05 1 1989 18.0 132,532 883 883 Subtotal - Elementary 638.6 3,834,182 23,997 23,997 Benesch Collier County April 2025 A-1 School Impact Fee Update Study Table A-1(Continued) Collier County Public Schools Existing School Inventory(l) SchoolMF Middle Schools 1 Corkscrew Middle 0608 1992 32.0 175,407 1,118 1,006 2 Cypress Palm Middle 0608 2003 87.0 174,947 1,325 1,193 3 East Naples Middle 0608 1966 19.8 146,274 1,139 1,025 4 Golden Gate Middle 0608 1974 27.0 163,361 1,375 1,238 5 Gulfview Middle 0608 1937 10.0 96,792 759 683 6 Immokalee Middle 0608 1990 24.0 178,174 1,906 1,715 7 Manatee Middle 0608 1972 46.0 160,939 1,451 1,306 8 North Naples Middle 0608 1990 43.0 153,270 1,116 1,004 9 Oakridge Middle 0608 1990 39.0 178,681 1,461 1,315 10 Pine Ridge Middle 0608 1973 37.0 143,766 1,261 1,135 Subtotal - Middle 364.8 1,571,6111 12,9111 11,620 Multi -level Schools 1 I Everglades City School PK 12 1954 4.0 96,761 537 483 Subtotal - Multi -level Schools 4.0 96,761 537 483 High Schools 1 Aubrey Rogers High School 0912 2001 60.0 298,797 1,908 1,813 2 Barron Collier High 0912 1970 98.0 306,391 1,943 1,846 3 Golden Gate High 0912 2002 65.9 334,049 2,086 1,982 4 Gulf Coast High 0912 1992 42.0 345,609 1,891 1,796 5 Immokalee High 0912 1973 43.0 295,243 2,338 2,221 6 Lely High 0912 1973 50.0 264,930 2,103 1,998 7 Lorenzo Walker Technical(') 0912 1972 6.0 59,142 609 579 8 Naples High 091 1958 33.0 302,880 2,019 1,918 9 iPalmetto Ridge High 0912 2001 135.01 356,8741 2,039 1,937 Subtotal - High 532.91 2,563,9151 16,936 16,090 Grand Total 1 1,540.31 8,066,4691 54,3811 52,190 1) Source: Collier County Public Schools; Florida Inventory of School Houses (FISH) Report 2) Includes the Technical High portion of the school only. Acreage adjusted to reflect the portion of the square footage added. Benesch Collier County April 2025 A-2 School Impact Fee Update Study DRAFT Appendix Building and land Cost Estimates - Supplemental Information it DRAFT Appendix 6 - Supplemental Unit Cost Information This Appendix provides additional information on the data and methodology used to estimate building and land values for the school impact fee. Building Costs To determine the administration, architect/site improvement, and construction cost associated with building a new school in Collier County, the following information was evaluated: • Recently built or planned/programmed schools in Collier County• • Insurance values of the existing schools; • School cost information from other Florida counties; • Construction cost increases observed by industry sources; and • Discussions with the District. Mq, The following paragraphs provide further detail on this research and analysis. Construction Cost Collier County Public Schools recently completed the construction of a new high school. Construction cost for this school was approximately $346 per net square foot. A review of construction cost index suggests that costs increased by 50 percent since 2015. Applying this percentage to the estimated unit costs during the previous study resulted in construction cost estimates of $270 per net square foot for elementary schools to $330 per net square foot for high schools. The insurance values of the existing schools average approximately $180 per net square foot for buildings only and $210 per square foot for buildings and contents. It is important to note insurance values do not include the full cost of constructing a school since certain components of a building, such as the foundation, are excluded from these values. As such, insurance values are considered to be conservative estimates. Benesch Collier County April 2025 B-1 School Impact Fee Update Study DRAFT Table B-2 provides a summary of data obtained from the Florida Department of Education for schools built in 2015 through 2023. As shown, during 2020 through 2023, the construction costs ranged from $122 per net square foot to $437 per net square foot. Finally, the discussions within clustry architects suggested a range of $233 per square foot to $526 per square foot for construction costs. The low end of this range reflects prices in 2021/2022 while the high end reflects 2023 estimates. Table B-1 provides a summary of this information. Given this data and information, average construction costs of $290 per net square foot for elementary schools, $320 per net square foot for middle schools, and $350 per net square foot for high schools are used in this studyfor impact fee calculation purposes and reflect the local cost factors of Collier County schools. Ll Benesch Collier County April 2025 B-2 School Impact Fee Update Study DRAFT 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7) Table B-1 Construction Cost Analysis - Collier County Year Built Facility Name Construction Cost Net Permanent Cost per Net Square Feet Square .. New School Construction 2022-23 Aubrey Rogers High $97,996,019 283,392 $346 2015 Estimates per Indexed Values .. .. 2015 Study Estimated Indexed - Elementary Schools - Middle Schools 51.23% - High Schools 1 $180 $272 $200 $302 L $220 $333 Building Value per Building & "&.School LeAveft Square Foot Contents Value per Square .. Insurance Values of Existing School Buildings �51 - Elementary Schools $175 $201 - Middle Schools $177 $201 - High Schools $193 $224 - Multi -Level Schools $178 $203 - All Traditional Schools $181 $208 Construction Cost Range Obtained From Other Florida Jurisdictions (2020-2023)(" $122- $437 County Schooll-evel Year Cost per Square .. Cost of Projects with Similar Construction Specifications (7) Dade County Middle School 2021/2022 $233 Broward County Middle School 2023 $450 Construction cost percent increase between the two projects 93% Collier County High School 2019 $298 Sarasota County High School 2023 $526 Construction cost percent increase between the two projects 77% Estimates Used in the Study: - Elementary Schools $290 - Middle Schools $320 - High Schools $350 Source: Collier County Public Schools Source: Engineering News Record (ENR), Building Cost Index Source: Collier County School Impact Fee Update, Draft Report, September 25, 2015 Source: Estimates from the 2015 study (Item 3) indexed according to the Engineering News Record (Item 2) Source: Collier County Public Schools, Statement of Property Values, April 21, 2023 Source: Table B-2 Source: Industry architects Benesch April 2025 Collier County B-3 School Impact Fee Update Study Table B-2 Construction Cost Analysis — Other Florida Jurisdictions Vpened District AL Type Facility Name Cost "per NSF Elementary Schools: 2015 Orange El ern Eagl e Creek El ementa ry $116 2015 Orange El ern Independence Elementary $116 2015 Orange El ern Ocoee ES (Replacement) $112 2015 Orange El ern ClaySprings Elementary $148 2015 Orange El ern Lake Weston Elementary $117 2015 Orange El ern Lovel I Elementary $130 2015 Palm Beach El ern GIadeView Elementary $177 2015 Palm Beach El ern Rosenwald Elementary $189 2015 Pasco El ern Sanders Memorial Elementary $160 2016 Orange El ern Millennia Gardens Elementary $126 2016 Orange El ern Tangelo Park ES $139 2016 Pasco El ern Wiregrass Elementary School (Elem "W") $167 2016 Washington El ern Kate Smith Elementary School $140 2017 Orange El ern Bay Lake Elementary $138 2017 Orange El ern Engelwood Elementary $149 2017 Orange El ern Ivy Lane Elementary $159 2017 Orange El ern Laureate Park Elementary $143 2017 Orange El ern Meadow Woods Elementary $148 2017 Orange El ern Mollie Ray ES $153 2017 Orange El ern Oak Hill ES $156 2017 Orange El ern Rock Lake ES $166 2017 Orange El ern Ventura ES $147 2017 Orange El ern Westpointe ES $224 2017 St Johns El ern Picolata Crossing Elementary $176 2017 Pasco El ern Bexley Elementary $164 2017 Nassau El ern WiIdIightElementarySchool $156 2017 Browa rd El ern Rivergl a des Elementary $154 2017 Hamilton El ern Hamilton County Elementary School $119 2018 Escambia El ern Kingsfield El ementa ry School $226 2018 Hillsborough El ern Dawson Elementary School $172 2018 Orange El ern William Frangus Elementary $167 2018 Orange El ern Hidden Oaks Elementary $164 2018 Orange El ern Hungerford Elementary School $190 Benesch Collier County April 2025 B-4 School Impact Fee Update Study Table B-2 (Continued) Construction Cost Analysis — Other Florida Jurisdictions Vpened District Type Facility Name 41 AL Elementary Schools: 2018 Orange El em Maxey Elementary School $158 2018 Orange El em PineHiIIs ElementarySchool $159 2018 Volusia El em Pierson Elementary School $185 2018 Clay El em Discovery Oaks Elementary School $178 2019 Manatee El em Barbara Harvey Elementary School $149 2019 Monroe El em Gerald Adams Elementary School $290 2019 Orange El em Deerwood Elementary School $191 2019 Orange El em Water Spring Elementary School $175 2019 Orange El em Ca A evi ew El ementa ry Sc hoo 1 $159 2019 Taylor El em Taylor County Primary School $146 2019 Volusia El em ChisholmElementarySchool $260 2020 Monroe El em Stanley Switlik Elementary School $437 2020 Orange El em Summerlake Elementary School $176 2020 Orange El em Sunshine Elementary School $177 2020 Orange El em Vista Pointe Elementary School $196 2020 Pinellas El em Melrose Elementary School $154 2020 Seminole El em Pine Crest School of Innovation $130 2020 Walton El em Dune Lakes Elementary School $194 2021 Alachua El em Metcalf Elementary $172 2021 Alachua El em New Myra Terwilliger Elementary $194 2021 Brevard El em Viera Elementary School $151 2021 Dade El em Andrea Castillo Preparatory $232 2021 Hillsborough El em Bel mo nt El ementa ry $163 2021 Hillsborough El em Tampa Heights Elementary $434 2021 Orange El em Village Park Elementary $202 2021 Osceola El em Michigan Avenue Elementary $122 2021 Palm Beach El em Washington Elementary $233 2021 Polk El em Bella Citta Elementary $218 2021 Polk El em Willow Oak School $240 2022 Bay El em A. Gary Walsingham Academy $243 2022 Orange El em Hamlin ES $190 2022 Orange El em Panther Lake ES $204 2022 l0range I El em I Stonewyck ES 1 $198 Benesch Collier County April 2025 B-5 School Impact Fee Update Study Table B-2 (Continued) Construction Cost Analysis — Other Florida Jurisdictions Cened District AL Type Facility Name Cost "per NSF Elementary Schools: 2022 Palm Beach El ern Blue Lake ES 05-C $210 2022 St Johns El ern Pine Island Academy ("MM") $173 2022 Volusia El ern George Marks Elementary $260 2023 Bradford El ern Bradford Elementary $355 2023 Lake El ern La ke Poi nte Aca demy $207 2023 Baker El ern Legacy Elementary $262 2023 10sceola I El ern lCelebration Elementary JZ97 Total/Weighted Average -- Elementary Schools $188 Total/Weighted Average -- Elementary Schools (2015 - 2023) $188 Total/Weighted Average -- Elementary Schools (2020 - 2023) $213 Middle Schools: 2015 St Johns Middle Pa tri ot Ca ks Aca d emy $143 2015 St Johns Middle Valley RidgeAcademy $143 2016 Orange Middle Wedgefield K-8 School $154 2016 Polk Middle Citrus Ri dge: A Ci vi cs Academy $164 2017 Orange Middle OCPS Academic Center for Excellence $129 2017 Orange Middle Innovation $135 2017 Orange Middle Timber Springs Middle $134 2017 Orange Middle Carver Middle $126 2017 Calhoun Middle Atha PublicSchool $155 2017 Hillsborough Middle Sulphur Springs K-8 $293 2017 Holmes Middle Bonifay PK-8 $155 2018 Escambia Middle Beulah Middle School $168 2018 Orange Middle Audubon Park School K-8 $157 2018 Orange Middle Lake Como School K-8 $154 2018 Seminole Middle New Millenium Middle School $191 2018 St Johns Middle Freedom Crossing Academy ("LL") K-8 $173 2018 St Johns Middle Palm Valley Academy ("KK")K-8 $185 2019 Manatee Middle Mona Jain Middle School $161 2019 Orange Middle Horizon West Middle School $138 2019 Orange Middle Pershing School K-8 $159 2019 Osceola Middle Harmony Middle School $178 2020 Jackson Middle Marianna K-8 School $165 Benesch Collier County April 2025 B-6 School Impact Fee Update Study Table B-2 (Continued) Construction Cost Analysis — Other Florida Jurisdictions Pp , Middle Schools: 2020 Monroe Middle Plantation Key School $363 2020 Palm Beach Middle Verde K-8 School $200 2020 Pasco Middle Cypress Middle School "HH" $184 2021 Alachua Middle Howard Bishop Middle School $196 2021 Lee Middle MM Middle School $207 2021 Osceola Middle St. Cloud Middle School $151 2021 Palm Beach Middle Addison Mizner K-8 $192 2022 Orange Middle Hamlin MS $165 2022 Orange Middle Kelly Park School $164 2022 Pasco Middle Starkey Ranch K-8 $195 2022 Santa Rosa I Middle I East Bay K-8 $154 2023 Orange I Middle Water Spring Middle JL96 Total/Weighted Average -- Middle Schools $168 Total/Weighted Average -- Middle Schools (2015-2023) $168 Total/Weighted Average - Middle Schools (2020-2023) $189 High Schools: 2016 Charlotte High Lemon Bay High School $154 2017 Dade High Miami Carol City Senior High $182 2017 Levy High Williston Middle High School $175 2017 Pasco High Cypress Creek High $165 2017 Osceola High Poinciana High $182 2017 Pinellas High Palm Harbor University High $206 2017 St Johns High Nease High $173 2017 Orange High Windermere HS $155 2018 Dixie High Dixie County High School $126 2018 Osceola High Tohopekaliga High School $186 2018 Pinellas High Largo High School $153 2019 Dade High Maritime& Science Technology Academy $322 2019 Lee High Bonita Springs High School $209 2019 Manatee High Parrish Community High School $207 2019 Osceola High NeoCity Academy $277 2020 Orange High Magnolia School $259 2021 Lee High Gateway High School $215 Benesch Collier County April 2025 B-7 School Impact Fee Update Study Table B-2 (Continued) Construction Cost Analysis — Other Florida Jurisdictions Iear District Type Facility Name Construction •. Cost per NSF High Schools: 2021 Orange High Horizon High School $214 2021 Orange High Lake Buena Vista High School $237 2021 Orange High Silver Pines Academy K-12 Learning Center $190 2021 Polk High Davenport High $235 2022 Hillsborough High Sumner High School $269 2023 Levy High Chiefland Middle High School $226 2023 Pasco High Kirkland Ranch Academy of Innovation JZ71 Total/Weighted Average - High Schools $199 Total/Weighted Average - High Schools (2015-2023) $199 Total/Weighted Average - High Schools (2020-2023) $235 Total/Weighted Average - All Schools $185 Total/Weighted Average -- All Schools (2015-2023) $185 Total/Weighted Average -- All Schools (2020-2023) $212 Source: Florida Department of Education and information from Florida school districts, when available Benesch Collier County April 2025 B-8 School Impact Fee Update Study DRAFT Architectural, Design, and Site Preparation Costs The architectural, design, and site preparation costs (including on -site improvement and traffic control costs) are calculated based on the ratio of these costs to the construction costs observed in Collier County and other jurisdictions. The estimated architectural/design cost for the planned new high school is 5 percent of the construction cost, consistent with the estimates used in prior studies. The estimate used in the previous study for site preparation (10 percent) is maintained. Tables B-4 and B-5 summarize the data obtained from other Florida jurisdictions, which is consistent with the study's estimates. Table B-3 F%, Non -Construction Cost Components - Collier County . . Architectural/Design 5% 5% 6% Site Preparation 10% 10% 11% Total 15% 15% 17% 1) Source: Collier County School Impact Fee Update Study Final Report, June 23, 2015 _ 2) Source: Tables B-4 and B-5` Benesch Collier County April 2025 B-9 School Impact Fee Update Study DRAFT Table B-4 Architectural/Civil Design Cost Analysis -Other Florida Jurisdictions .. r Facility Name 2015 Hillsborough Elem Thompson Elementary $1,117,623 8% 2015 Orange Elem Ea gl e Creek El ementa ry $503,008 5% 2015 Orange Elem Independence Elementary $454,954 5% 2015 Orange Elem Ocoee ES (Replacement) $669,660 7% 2015 Orange Middle ClaySprings Elementary $619,675 5% 2015 Orange High Lake Weston Elementary $557,676 6% 2015 Orange Elem Lovell Elementary $532,470 5% 2015 Palm Beach Middle GI a de Vi ew El ementa ry $1,142,611 8% 2015 Palm Beach High Rosenwald Elementary $942,748 8% 2015 Pasco Elem Sanders Memorial Elementary $1,442,401 8% 2015 St Johns Middle Patriot Oaks Academy $1,492,491 7% 2015 St Johns Middle Valley Ridge Academy $856,884 4% 2016 Charlotte High Lemon Bay High School $6,486,215 13% 2016 Hillsborough Elem Lamb Elementary $1,159,221 8% 2016 Orange Elem Bay Lake Elementary $715,680 6% 2016 Orange Elem Tangelo Park Elementary $766,295 7% 2016 Pasco Elem Wiregrass Elementary School (Elem"W") $993,089 7% 2016 Polk Middle Citrus Ridge: A Civics Academy $1,235,864 4% 2016 Washington Elem Kate Smith Elementary School $1,799,321 9% 2017 Orange Elem Millenia Gardens Elementary $660,780 6% 2017 Orange K8 Wedgefield $2,153,131 11% 2017 Orange Elem Laureate Park Elementary $636,009 5% 2017 Orange Elem Engelwood ES $659,183 5% 2017 Orange Elem Ivey Lane ES $599,596 5% 2017 Orange Elem Meadow Woods ES $782,369 6% 2017 Orange Elem Mollie Ray ES $693,404 6% 2017 Orange Elem Oak Hill ES $581,863 5% 2017 Orange Elem Rock Lake ES $672,601 5% 2017 Orange Elem Ventura ES $780,745 6% 2017 Orange K8 OCPSAcademic Center for Excellence $2,342,381 8% 2017 Orange Middle Innovation Middle $1,954,764 9% 2017 Orange Middle Timber Springs Middle $2,460,335 10% 2017 Orange Middle Carver Middle $1,519,638 7% 2017 St Johns Elem Picolata Crossing Elementary $711,881 4% 2017 Pasco Elem Bexley Elementary $1,176,816 7% 2017 Nassau Elem Wildlight Elementary School $1,649,044 10% 2017 Broward Elem Riverglades Elementary $303,332 6% 2017 Hamilton Elem Hamilton County Elementary School $1,677,527 10% 2017 Calhoun Middle Atha Public School $1,436,603 8% 2017 Hillsborough Middle Sulphur Springs K-8 $417,315 8% 2017 Holmes Middle Bonifay PK-8 $2,870,562 9% Benesch Collier County April 2025 B-10 School Impact Fee Update Study DRAFT Table B-4 (Continued) Architectural/Civil Design Cost Analysis -Other Florida Jurisdictions .. Facility Name 2017 Dade High Miami Carol City Senior High $5,273,339 8% 2017 Levy High Williston Middle High School $1,849,055 6% 2017 Pasco High Cypress Creek High $2,712,972 7% 2017 Dade High Maritime & Science Technology Academy $1,052,669 8% 2017 Osceola High Poinciana High $267,393 6% 2017 Pinellas High Palm Harbor University High $1,034,481 10% 2017 St Johns High Nease High $828,000 8% 2017 Orange High WindermereHS $4,993,625 9% 2017 Orange Elem Westpointe Elementary $860,457 9% 2018 Escambia Elem Kingsfield Elementary School $2,421,087 8% 2018 Hillsborough Elem Dawson Elementary School $712,947 4% 2018 Orange Elem William Frangus Elementary $642,656 4% 2018 Orange Elem Hidden Oaks Elementary $640,642 5% 2018 Orange Elem Hu ngerford El ementa ry School $650,486 5% 2018 Orange Elem Maxey Elementary School $626,928 5% 2018 Orange Elem Pine Hills Elementary School $693,105 5% 2018 Volusia Elem Pierson Elementary School $1,459,238 12% 2018 Clay Elem Discovery Oaks Elementary School $869,100 4% 2018 Escambia Middle Beulah Middle School $3,394,057 10% 2018 Orange Middle Audubon Park SchoolK-8 $2,972,528 11% 2018 Orange Middle Lake Como School K-8 $2,050,230 8% 2018 Seminole Middle New Millenium Middle School $2,892,045 7% 2018 St Johns Middle Freedom Crossing Academy ("LL") K-8 $1,247,321 4% 2018 St Johns Middle Palm Valley Academy ("KK") K-8 $1,342,410 4% 2018 Dixie High Dixie County High School $2,055,000 8% 2018 Osceola High Tohopekaliga High School $3,360,740 5% 2018 Pinellas High Largo High School $3,606,122 9% 2019 Manatee Elem Barbara Harvey Elementary School $1,104,274 7% 2019 Monroe Elem Gerald Adams Elementary School $2,151,000 7% 2019 Orange Elem Deerwood Elementary School $679,669 5% 2019 Orange Elem Water Spring Elementary School $673,077 4% 2019 Orange Elem Castleview Elementary School $781,914 5% 2019 Taylor Elem Taylor County Primary School $1,216,820 8% 2019 Volusia Elem Chisholm Elementary School $206,670 2% 2019 Manatee Middle Mona Jain MiddIeSchool $1,580,528 6% 2019 Orange Middle Horizon West Middle School $1,357,152 6% 2019 Orange Middle Pershing School K-8 $2,114,313 8% 2019 Osceola Middle Harmony Middle School $1,552,230 5% 2019 Lee High Bonita Springs High School $2,178,000 5% 2019 Manatee I High Parrish Community High School $2,436,800 4% 2019 Osceola I High NeoCityAcademy $1,436,484 12% Benesch Collier County April 2025 B-11 School Impact Fee Update Study DRAFT Table B-4 (Continued) Architectural/Civil Design Cost Analysis -Other Florida Jurisdictions Facility Name 2020 Jackson Middle Marianna K-8 School $4,686,265 9% 2020 Monroe Middle Plantation Key School $276,122 1% 2020 Monroe Elem StanleySwitlik Elementary School $1,762,172 7% 2020 Orange High Magnolia School $1,468,970 8% 2020 Orange Elem Summerlake Elementary School $717,175 5% 2020 Orange Elem Sunshine Elementary School $748,162 5% 2020 Orange Elem Vista Pointe Elementary School $600,440 4% 2020 Palm Beach Middle Verde K-8 School $2,411,658 9% 2020 Pasco Middle Cypress Middle School "HH" $2,073,215 6% 2020 Pinellas Elem Mel ros e El ementa ry Sc hool $1,129,923 10% 2020 Seminole Elem Pine Crest School of Innovation $1,718,290 9% 2020 Walton Elem Dune Lakes Elementary School $3,049,104 11% 2021 Alachua Elem Metcalf Elementary $1,240,634 9% 2021 Alachua Elem New Myra Terwilliger Elementary $1,334,132 7% 2021 Brevard Elem Viera Elementary School $331,710 2% 2021 Dade Elem Andrea Castillo Preparatory $599,726 6% 2021 Hillsborough Elem Belmont Elementary $1,335,221 7% 2021 Hillsborough Elem Tampa Heights Elementary $1,550,777 8% 2021 Orange Elem Village Park Elementary $727,857 4% 2021 Osceola Elem Michigan Avenue Elementary $2,068,487 13% 2021 Palm Beach Elem Washington Elementary $765,589 8% 2021 Polk Elem Bella Citta Elementary $1,266,728 5% 2021 Polk Elem W i I I ow Oa k Scchool $1,397,894 5% 2021 Alachua Middle Howard Bishop Middle School $2,212,315 9% 2021 Lee Middle MM Middle School $2,300,000 7% 2021 Osceola Middle St. Cloud Middle School $2,255,570 11% 2021 Palm Beach Middle Addison Mizner K-8 $1,619,786 7% 2021 Lee High Gateway High School $2,035,500 4% 2021 Orange High Horizon High School $3,140,805 5% 2021 Orange High Lake Buena Vista High School $2,477,598 3% 2021 Orange High Silver Pines Academy K-12 Learning Center $1,056,160 8% 2021 Polk High Davenport High $3,755,737 5% 2022 Bay Elem A. Gary Walsingham Academy $2,255,888 8% 2022 Orange Elem Hamlin ES $861,339 5% 2022 Orange Elem Panther Lake ES $956,540 5% 2022 Orange Elem Stonewyck ES $1,046,001 6% 2022 Palm Beach Elem Blue Lake ES 05-C $1,365,440 7% 2022 St Johns Elem Pine Island Academy("MM") $1,369,334 4% 2022 Volusia Elem George Marks Elementary $1,907,025 7% 2022 Orange Middle Hamlin MS $1,508,823 5% 2022 Orange Middle Kelly Park School $1,458,184 6% Benesch Collier County April 2025 B-12 School Impact Fee Update Study DRAFT Table B-4 (Continued) Architectural/Civil Design Cost Analysis -Other Florida Jurisdictions Year Opened 2022 District Pasco Type Middle Facility Name Starkey Ranch K-8 Architect & Eng.Fees $2,067,542 Ratio of Architect & Eng. Fees to Construction Cost 6% 2022 Santa Rosa ddle East Bay K-8 $1,645,878 8% 2022 Hillsborough High Sumner High School $4,017,926 7% 2023 Levy High Chiefland Middle High School $2,467,200 9% 2023 Orange Middle water Spring Midle $1,479,836 4% 2023 Bradford El ern Bradford Elementary $3,578,849 7% 2023 Pasco High Kirkland Ranch Academy of Innovation $3,334,589 7% 2023 Lake Elem LakePoi nteAcademy $1,785,110 6% 2023 Baker El ern Lea gacy Elementary $2,611,286 9% 2023 Osceola Elem Celebration Elementary 725 905 3% Total/Weighted Average $210,761,746 7% Total/Weighted Average (2015-2023) $210,761,746 7% Total/Weighted Average (2020-2023) $90,556,417 6% Source: Florida Department of Education and information from Florida school districts, when available Benesch Collier County April 2025 B-13 School Impact Fee Update Study Table B-5 Site Development Cost Analysis - Other Florida Jurisdictions =[a 2015 Hillsborough Type Elem Facility Name Thompson Elementary Site DevelopmentRatio $1,020,579 of Site Construction Cost 8% 2015 Orange Elem Clay Springs Elementary $2,096,813 18% 2015 Orange High Lake Weston Elementary $1,719,879 17% 2015 Orange Elem Lovell Elementary $851,121 8% 2015 Orange Elem Ea gl e Creek El ementa ry $1,934,060 21% 2015 Orange Elem Independence Elementary $1,649,461 18% 2015 Orange Elem Ocoee ES (Replacement) $1,470,388 16% 2015 Palm Beach Middle G I a de Vi ew El ementa ry $1,652,065 11% 2015 Palm Beach High Rosenwald Elementary $1,853,846 16% 2015 Pasco Elem Sanders Memorial Elementary $1,478,220 9% 2015 St Johns Middle Patriot Oaks Academy $0 0% 2015 St Johns Middle Val ley Ridge Academy $0 0% 2016 Charlotte High Lemon Bay High School $7,169,846 14% 2016 Hillsborough Elem Lamb Elementary $3,980 0% 2016 Orange Elem Bay Lake Elementary $2,371,208 19% 2016 Orange Elem Tangelo Park Elementary $1,682,616 15% 2016 Pasco Elem Wiregrass Elementary School (Elem "W") $1,213,282 8% 2016 Polk Middle Citrus Ri dge: A Ci vi cs Academy $0 0% 2016 Washington High Kate Smith Elementary School $2,568,867 12% 2017 Orange Elem Millenia Gardens Elementary $1,802,063 17% 2017 Orange K8 Wedgefield School K-8 $3,151,392 16% 2017 Orange Elem Laureate Park Elementary $1,229,287 10% 2017 Orange Elem Engelwood ES $1,389,126 11% 2017 Orange Elem Ivey Lane ES $1,526,111 13% 2017 Orange Elem Meadow Woods ES $1,358,748 10% 2017 Orange Elem Mollie Ray ES $1,525,138 13% 2017 Orange Elem Oak Hill ES $1,629,450 13% 2017 Orange Elem Rock Lake ES $2,685,941 20% 2017 Orange Elem Ventura ES $2,458,354 18% 2017 Orange K8 OCPSAcademic Centerfor Excellence $1,503,611 5% 2017 Orange Middle Innovation Middle $1,856,965 8% 2017 Orange Middle Timber Springs Middle $3,047,594 13% 2017 Orange Middle Carver Middle $3,648,736 16% 2017 Orange High WindermereHS $8,003,699 15% 2017 Pasco Elem Bexley Elementary $1,481,772 9% 2017 Nassau Elem WildlightElementary School $4,423,526 27% 2017 Broward Elem Riverglades Elementary $671,049 14% 2017 Hamilton Elem Hamilton County Elementary School $1,241,320 7% 2017 Calhoun Middle Atha Public School $1,389,719 7% 2017 Hillsborough Middle Sulphur Springs K-8 $0 0% 2017 Holmes Middle Bonifay PK-8 $1,489 0% 2017 Dade High Miami Carol City Senior High $7,753,194 12% 2017 Levy High Williston Middle High School $1,773,603 5% 2017 Pasco High Cypress Creek High $8,217,342 20% 2017 Dade High Maritime& Science Technology Academy $335,946 2% 2017 Osceola High Poinciana High $414,907 9% Benesch Collier County April 2025 B-14 School Impact Fee Update Study Table B-5 (Continued) Site Development Cost Analysis - Other Florida Jurisdictions ffp.n.gd[ft 2017 Pinellas Type High Facility Name Palm Harbor University High Site DevelopmentRatio $2,306,147 of Site Construction Cost 23% 2017 St Johns High Nease High $0 0% 2017 Orange Elem Westpointe Elementary $1,422,408 15% 2018 Hillsborough Elem Hope Dawson Elementary $0 0% 2018 Escambia Elem Kingsfield El ementa ry School $1,835,262 6% 2018 Orange Elem William Frangus Elementary $2,529,474 17% 2018 Orange Elem Hidden Oaks Elementary $1,686,521 14% 2018 Orange Elem Hungerford Elementary School $1,490,730 12% 2018 Orange Elem Maxey El ementa ry School $1,103,308 9% 2018 Orange Elem Pine Hills Elementary School $1,026,205 7% 2018 Vol usia Elem Pierson Elementary School $2,081,652 18% 2018 Clay Elem Discovery Oaks Elementary School $1,668,705 8% 2018 Escambia Middle Beulah Middle School $7,401,440 23% 2018 Orange Middle Audubon Park School K-8 $1,787,707 7% 2018 Orange Middle Lake Como School K-8 $1,747,202 7% 2018 Seminole Middle New Mi I lenium Middle School $1,714,394 4% 2018 St Johns Middle Freedom Crossing Academy ("LL") K-8 $0 0% 2018 St Johns Middle Pal m Va [ley Academy ("KK") K-8 $0 0% 2018 Dixie High Dixie County High School $1,500,000 6% 2018 Osceola High Tohopekaliga High School $9,186,709 14% 2018 Pinellas High Largo High School $10,741,728 27% 2019 Manatee Elem Barbara Harvey Elementary School $1,055,565 7% 2019 Monroe Elem Gera I d Ad a ms El ementa ry Sc h oo 1 $0 0% 2019 Orange Elem Deerwood Elementary School $2,253,796 15% 2019 Orange Elem Wa ter Spr i ng El ementa ry Sc h ool $1,844,486 12% 2019 Orange Elem Ca stl evi ew El ementa ry Sc In ool $1,587,126 10% 2019 Taylor Elem Taylor County Primary School $2,266,867 15% 2019 Volusia Elem Chisholm Elementary School $0 0% 2019 Manatee Middle Mona Jain MiddleSchool $3,674,825 15% 2019 Orange Middle Horizon West Middle School $2,924,349 12% 2019 Orange Middle Pershing School K-8 $1,866,230 7% 2019 Osceola Middle Harmony Mi ddl e School $4,005,510 13% 2019 Lee High Bonita Springs High School $11,339,000 26% 2019 Manatee High Parrish Community High School $8,097,183 15% 2019 Osceola High NeoCi ty Academy $2,227,396 19% 2020 Jackson Middle Marianna K-8 School $0 0% 2020 Monroe Middle Plantation Key School $208,401 1% 2020 Monroe Elem Sta n I ey Swi tl i k El ementa ry Sc hoo 1 $0 0% 2020 Orange High Magnolia School $2,328,178 12% 2020 Orange Elem Summed ake Elementary School $1,713,260 11% 2020 Orange Elem Sunshine Elementary School $3,074,502 20% 2020 Orange Elem Vista Pointe Elementary School $4,458,820 27% 2020 Palm Beach Middle Verde K-8 School $3,336,287 12% 2020 Pasco Middle Cypress MiddleSchool "HH" $6,161,935 18% 2020 Pinellas Elem Mel ros e El ementa ry Sc h ool $1,108,393 10% 2020 Seminole Elem Pine Crest School of Innovation $1,770,059 9% Benesch Collier County April 2025 B-15 School Impact Fee Update Study Table B-5 (Continued) Site Development Cost Analysis - Other Florida Jurisdictions MW 2020 Walton Type Elem Facility Name Dune Lakes Elementary School Site DevelopmentRatio $1,914,262 of Site Construction Cost 7% 2021 Alachua Elem Metcalf Elementary $917,445 7% 2021 Alachua Elem New Myra Terwilliger Elementary $1,834,051 10% 2021 Brevard Elem Viera El ementa ry School $2,415,000 13% 2021 Dade Elem Andrea Castillo Preparatory $1,584,975 15% 2021 Hillsborough Elem Belmont Elementary $2,948,482 16% 2021 Hillsborough Elem Tampa Heights Elementary $1,346,184 7% 2021 Orange Elem Vi I I a ge Pa rk El ementa ry $2,404,612 14% 2021 Osceola Elem Michigan Avenue Elementary $3,610,703 23% 2021 Palm Beach Elem Washington Elementary $2,957,816 29% 2021 Polk Elem Bella Citta Elementary $0 0% 2021 Polk Elem Willow Oak Scchool $0 0% 2021 Alachua ddle Howard Bishop Middle School $1,218,000 5% 2021 Lee Middle MM Middle School $2,208,756 7% 2021 Osceola ddle St. Cloud Middle School $3,661,064 19% 2021 Palm Beach Middle Addison Mizner K-8 $4,964,092 22% 2021 Lee High Gateway High School $13,116,809 23% 2021 Orange High Horizon High School $12,948,899 19% 2021 Orange High Lake Buena Vista High School $12,970,995 17% 2021 Orange High Silver Pines Academy K-12 Learning Center $1,760,883 13% 2021 Polk High Davenport High $0 0% 2022 Bay Elem A. Gary Walsingham Academy $2,690,591 9% 2022 Orange Elem Hamlin ES $1,403,033 8% 2022 Orange Elem Panther Lake ES $2,678,792 15% 2022 Orange Elem Stonewyck ES $2,333,282 13% 2022 Palm Beach Elem Blue Lake ES 05-C $3,078,264 17% 2022 StJohns Elem Pine Island Academy ("MM") $2,379,053 8% 2022 Volusia Elem George Marks Elementary $0 0% 2022 Orange Middle Hamlin MS $2,869,169 10% 2022 Orange Middle Kelly Park School $1,622,658 7% 2022 Pasco Middle Starkey Ranch K-8 $3,881,006 11% 2022 Santa Rosa ddle East Bay K-8 $4,376,460 20% 2022 Hillsborough High Sumner High School $15,765,935 28% 2023 Levy High Chiefland Middle High School $3,405,923 13% 2023 Orange Middle Water Spring Midle $3,083,326 9% 2023 Bradford Elem Bradford Elementary $258,453 0% 2023 Pasco High Kirkland Ranch Academy of Innovation $6,299,962 13% 2023 Lake Elem La ke Po i nte Aca demy $158,060 1% 2023 Baker Elem Leagacy Elementary $2,092,000 8% 2023 Osceola Elem Celebration Elementary $3,415,862 13% Total/Weighted Average $350,362,930 11% Total/Weighted Average (2015-2023) $350,362,930 11% Total/Weighted Average (2020-2023) $160,734,692 11% Source: Florida Department or taucatlon and Information from Florida school districts, when available Benesch Collier County April 2025 B-16 School Impact Fee Update Study DRAFT Land Value Analysis To estimate the current land value the following analysis is conducted: • Recent land purchases; • Land value increases since the previous study as reported by the Florida Department of Revenue (FDOR), Florida Property Valuations and Tax Databook; • A review of current market value of land from the Property Appraiser database where the existing schools are located; • An analysis of vacant land sales in Collier County over the past five years for parcels of necessary size; • An analysis of market value of all vacant land from the Property Appraiser database for parcels of necessary size and similar location; and • Discussions with the District. L11 The District's recent land purchases were smaller parcels for support facilities and one had structures on it. These parcels did not necessarily reflect the cost of purchasing land for school facilities. The cost of the two most recent purchases ranged from $127,500 per acre to $1.5 million per acre. v"� The value of parcels where the existing schools are located, as estimated by the Property Appraiser, indicates an average land value of $154,000 per acre. Property Appraiser estimates for public entities are not regularly updated and tend to not represent the market value of land. Vacant land values of similarly sized parcels (20 acres to 70 acres) averaged $123,000 per acre with a median value of $102,000 per acre for all vacant land use types. Discussions with the District suggested that future land purchases are more likely to occur in the eastern parts of the county. Land values of parcels with 20 acres to 70 acres and located east of CR 951 averaged $115,000 per acre with a median cost of $75,000. Given that generally land values are lower in this area and the cost of agricultural land also being lower, a unit of cost of $75,000 per acre is considered a reasonable, and if not a conservative estimate for impact fee calculation purposes. Benesch Collier County April 2025 B-17 School Impact Fee Update Study r CO Ter County Prepared for: Prepared by: benesch Collier County Capital Projects Planning, Benesch Impact Fees and Program Management Division 1000 N. Ashley Dr., #400 2685 Horseshoe Drive South Tampa, Florida 33602 Naples, Florida 34104 ph (813) 224-8862 ph (239) 252-8192 E-mail: nkamp@benesch.com DRAFT Collier County Correctional Facilities Impact Fee Study Table of Contents INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................... INVENTORY....................................................................................................................... SERVICE AREA AND DEMAND COMPONENT...................................................................... LEVELOF SERVICE............................................................................................................. COST COMPONENT........................................................................................................... CREDITCOMPONENT........................................................................................................ NET CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES IMPACT COST................................................................... CALCULATED CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES IMPACT FEE SCHEDULE ....................................... CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES IMPACT FEE SCHEDULE COMPARISON ..................................... Appendices: Appendix A: Building and Land Value Analysis - Supplemental Information Appendix B: Population Estimates — Supplemental Information 1 5 8 9 11 13 15 16 20 Benesch Collier County October 2024 i Correctional Facilities Impact Fee Study DRAFT Introduction With a population of over 400,000, Collier County ranks as the 19th most populous county in Florida. The county is continuing to grow and is estimated to add approximately 110,000 new residents through 2050. In terms of residential permitting, Collier County ranks 19th out of Florida counties with an average of 5,300 new units per year over the past three years. To address additional infrastructure needs, Collier County implemented an impact fee program for correctional facilities, which was last updated in 2015. To reflect most recent data, the County retained Benesch to prepare an update study. This report serves as the technical study to support the calculation of the updated correctional facility impact fee. Data presented in this report represents the most recent and localized data available at the time of this update study. All data and support material used in this analysis are incorporated by reference as set forth in this document. The figures calculated in this study represent the technically defensible level of impact fee that the County could charge; however, the Board of County Commissioners may choose to discount the fee as a policy decision. Methodology ir In developing the County's correctional facilities impact fee, a consumption -based impact fee methodology is utilized, which is commonly used throughout Florida. A consumption -based impact fee charges new development based upon the burden placed on services from each land use (demand). The demand component is measured in terms of population per unit. A consumption -based impact fee charges new growth the proportionate share of the cost of providing additional infrastructure for use by new growth. Unlike a "needs -based" approach, consumption -based approach ensures that the impact fee is set at a rate that generates revenues sufficient only for new capacity needs and does not generate revenues at a level to correct existing deficiencies. Given this, the County does not need to go through the process of estimating the portion of each capacity expansion project that may be related to existing deficiencies. In addition, per legal requirements, a credit is subtracted from the total cost to account for the value of future non -impact fee funding contributions of new development toward any capacity expansion projects. In other words, case law requires that the new development should not be charged twice for the same infrastructure. Benesch Collier County October 2024 1 Correctional Facilities Impact Fee Study DRAFT Legal Overview In Florida, legal requirements related to impact fees have primarily been established through case law since the 1980's. Impact fees must comply with the "dual rational nexus" test, which requires that they: • Be supported by a study demonstrating that the fees are proportionate in amount to the need created by new development paying the fee; and • Be spent in a manner that directs a proportionate benefit to new development, typically accomplished through establishment of benefit districts (if needed) and a list of capacity - adding projects included in the County's Capital Improvement Plan, Capital Improvement Element, or another planning document/Master Plan. In 2006, the Florida legislature passed the "Florida Impact Fee Act," which recognized impact fees as "an outgrowth of home rule power of a local government to provide certain services within its jurisdiction." § 163.31801(2), Fla. Stat. The statute — concerned with mostly procedural and methodological limitations — did not expressly allow or disallow any particular public facility type from being funded with impact fees. In fact, which it was initially adopted, the Act largely codified requirements and standards common to the practice already. However, the Legislature has amended the Impact Fee Act numerous times since 2006, significantly affecting the impact fee practice in Florida. For this reason, a summary of the key legislative changes since 2006 is provided: • HB 227 in 2009: The Florida legislation statutorily clarified that in any action challenging an impact fee, the government has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the imposition or amount of the fee meets the requirements of state legal precedent or the Impact Fee Act and that the court may not use a deferential standard. • SB 360 in 2009: Allowed fees to be decreased without the 90-day notice period required to increase the fees and purported to change the standard of legal review associated with impact fees. SB 360 also required the Florida Department of Community Affairs (now the Department of Commerce) and Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) to conduct studies on "mobility fees," which were completed in 2010. • HB 7207 in 2011: Required a dollar -for -dollar credit, for purposes of concurrency compliance, for impact fees paid and other concurrency mitigation required. • HB 319 in 2013: Applied mostly to concurrency management authorities, but also encouraged local governments to adopt alternative mobility systems using a series of tools identified in section 163.3180(5)(f), Florida Statutes. Benesch Collier County October 2024 2 Correctional Facilities Impact Fee Study DRAFT • HB 207 in 2019: Included the following changes to the Impact Fee Act along with additional clarifying language: o Impact fees cannot be collected prior to building permit issuance; and o Impact fee revenues cannot be used to pay debt service for previously approved projects unless the expenditure is reasonably connected to, or has a rational nexus with, the increased impact generated by the new residential and commercial construction. • HB 7103 in 2019: Addressed multiple issues related to affordable housing/linkage fees, impact fees, and building services fees. In terms of impact fees, the bill required that when local governments increase their impact fees, the outstanding impact fee credits for developer contributions should also be increased. This requirement was to operate prospectively; however, HB 337 that was signed in 2021 deleted that clause and making all outstanding credits eligible for this adjustment. This bill also allowed local governments to waive/reduce impact fees for affordable housing projects without having to offset the associated revenue loss. • SB 1066 in 2020: Added language allowing impact fee credits to be assignable and transferable at any time after establishment from one development or parcel to another that is within the same impact fee zone or impact fee district or that is within an adjoining impact fee zone or district within the same local government jurisdiction, and which receives benefit from the improvement or contribution that generated the credits. Added language indicating any new/increased impact fee not being applicable to current or pending permit applications submitted prior to the effective date of an ordinance or resolution imposing new/increased fees. • HB 1339 in 2020: Required reporting of various impact fee related data items within the annual financial audit report submitted to the Department of Financial Services. • HB 337 in 2021: Placed limits on the amount and frequency of fee increases, but also included a clause to exceed these restrictions if the local governments can demonstrate extraordinary circumstances, hold two public workshops discussing these circumstances and the increases are approved by two-thirds of the governing body. • HB 479 in 2024 (Effective October 1, 2024): Required interlocal agreements between counties and municipalities when both entities collect a transportation impact fee. Placed limits on timing of impact fee study completion and adoption and data used in the studies. The following paragraphs provide further detail on the generally applicable legal standards. Benesch Collier County October 2024 3 Correctional Facilities Impact Fee Study DRAFT Impact Fee Definition • An impact fee is a one-time capital charge levied against new development. • An impact fee is designed to cover the portion of the capital costs of infrastructure capacity consumed by new development. • The principal purpose of an impact fee is to assist in funding the implementation of projects identified in the Capital Improvements Element (CIE) and other capital improvement programs for the respective facility/service categories. Impact Fee vs. Tax • An impact fee is generally regarded as a regulatory function established based upon the specific benefit to the user related to a given infrastructure type and is not established for the primary purpose of generating revenue for the general benefit of the community, as are taxes. • Impact fee expenditures must convey a proportional benefit to the fee payer. This is accomplished through the establishment of benefit districts as needed, where fees collected in a benefit district are spent in the same benefit district. • An impact fee must be tied to a proportional need for new infrastructure capacity created by new development. 1W mak T This technical report has been prepared to support legal compliance with existing case law and statutory requirements and documents the methodology used for the correctional facilities impact fee calculations, including an evaluation of the inventory, service area and demand component, level of service (LOS), cost, credit, and demand components. Information supporting this analysis was obtained from the County and other sources, as indicated. Benesch Collier County October 2024 4 Correctional Facilities Impact Fee Study DRAFT Inventory The correctional facilities inventory includes the County's jails and other related facilities that are primarily for the provision of correctional services and does not include any of the buildings or portions thereof included in the calculation of other impact fees. According to information provided by the County, Collier County has a total of 417,200 square feet of correctional facility -related space. This includes the square footage of the Naples Jail (original and new), the square footage of the accompanying parking garage associated with the Naples Jail, and the Immokalee Jail. Table 1 presents a summary of the correctional facilities building and land inventory, including a total building value of approximately $140.3 million and a total land value of $510,400. As mentioned previously, these values do not include building space or land associated with other County departments. A. The building value is estimated based on cost increases observed since 2016, the insurance values of the existing correctional facilities, and estimates provided by Collier County, resulting in $430 per square foot for correctional facilities and $150 per square foot for the parking garage. Appendix A provides further detail on the building cost estimates. Because the County is likely to purchase future jail sites in the Immokalee/Big Corkscrew area, the land value is based on an analysis of vacant land values and parcels sold in this area over the past five years, resulting in an estimate of $40,000 per acre (see Appendix A). In addition to building and land value, because correctional facilities typically require large scale investments, and therefore are funded with bond issues, an interest cost is added to the inventory value. Collier County funded both the Immokalee and Naples Jails with bond issues, which are being paid back with impact fee and General Fund revenues. To determine the appropriate cost factor, the interest cost for the expansion -portion of the Naples Jail debt schedule is brought back to present value and divided by the square footage of the jail expansion. This resulted in an interest cost of $106 per square foot. As presented in Table 1, this value is applied to the square footage of existing jail facilities. Benesch Collier County October 2024 5 Correctional Facilities Impact Fee Study C n n lD Q; f n M O O o0 a O O LOD LOD ti ti [V m n n rn MO rn o r, m N -zt N c-I m 00 LQ a n oo o`Vo w LO n to N a lT M N N w c N O O D w V O VT rl ri N N i/? Ol00 to Q1 000 M +A m m v m N rn rn oc Ln fn o Ln v o N v>- O O V N Lo n Ln o0 Cl n c N N Ln N rl N o0 L!) c v v o v N (T n O O n lD N m a N� m m o v N Q Ni cj O V D D M f) N N c-I N -D _ E O ai � i Y ~ W ti O O N M N O rn z @ M O 0 _ � O LL i M _ O" rl to W C w N U I Q V Q i o v — ar a`i o. m to a tl0 to N N Q Q Y E r- > Z Z co H m L Y Ln C O Y Q t/? O fa Z 5 a N 41 fB + ro ro L v E o O �' T Y Z) O to m ~ ru U O O fo O u +' 41 U U L C L O O O u Y Ln Q- E Q L v w Y Q O Ucr O v T 4% + VI -6 Q- C fD > O O u -a � a I- L O v cu Y N = fB vu v f6 W (U Y fL5 E s �; N O Y N Y tu0 L^ O f0 C fo 111U L N 6 O � � .� L •f0 L U •� v C v La o O �••, ++ v Y Y _ p N NOO C E O L (V N u Y N U L C C O is U Y (B ro CL W t Q YO _ w O L Y C "6 .0 > fB No V fu Lv Y Y M c u 0 o co > o L 0 Y oLn OL > v N a C v -O Q Y 'O v t •; L.0 +•� T X T C Y p C-0 �..ro r l"1 f6 o o t/} E v f0 v Y t La�_ fa > t]A O Y Q Q- � 0- N 0 f0 Q Y (.0 E (U Y N E L o a) a, E a " Y E � i Y L1 N y_, Ln v-o -aQ Y N Q fL6 N = 7 �O ai OA O UA Y E � — N V O N Z3 Ln to fa _0 -leV on ao > T T T T v 7 N f`p L1 =_ u UA C C C C u m m m m m -OL„ v (u . 7 U w o v la a C Y -c- � � VI - X L L L L (IDN W O O M :jo M w N N N N U dA N U Y f6 O U fB N CL a 0 0 0 0 fo w O O O O Q O Q U U U U Q w 0 Q Ln U O- (n H Q ai ai ai ai ai a0 v v v Y v *' a0 ai ai u u u u u C a L u u v L O C L L L L L� Q a 6 Q LO LO LO LO LO LO LO LO LO � ri N M � Ln LD I� 00 lT ri ri Ln a) a) ll U f0 Q E T 4-1 f6 ll f0 C O U N O U P1 It N O N U 41 Ln � a) O C U co DRAFT In addition to buildings, land, and interest costs, the correctional facility services also require the use of necessary vehicles and equipment. Table 2 summarizes the vehicle and equipment inventory. Equipment included in this list follows the County's definition of capital assets, which includes items that have a minimum value of $5,000 and five years of useful life. As presented in Table 2, the total vehicle and equipment value is estimated at $3.35 million. Table 2 Correctional Facilities Vehicle and Equipment Inventory Description Detection Intox/ Breathalizer(4) Total Cost $55,080 Units 9 Cost per Unit (3) $6,120 Jail Equipment $56,271 6 $9,379 Maintenance Equipment $17,119 2 $8,560 Major Computer Equipment $206,815 3 $68,938 Medical Equipment $46,835 6 $7,806 Minor Comm Equip $26,021 2 $13,011 Minor Recording Equipment $98,454 9 $10,939 Minor Shop Equipment $22,847 1 $22,847 Misc Security Equipment $108,828 11 $9,893 Mobile Radio After FY 2010 $10,365 2 $5,183 Other Detection Devices $340,572 3 $113,524 Servers $15,797 2 $7,899 Specialty Vehicles $133,612 6 $22,269 TV With Network $61,045 10 $6,105 Vehicles $2,147,417 74 $29,019 Total Value 1 $3,347,078 1) Source: Collier County 2) Source: Collier County 3) Total value (Item 1) divided by units (Item 2) 4) Total cost is calculated as the number of units (Item 2) multiplied by the cost per unit (Item 3) based on acquisition costs. Benesch Collier County October 2024 7 Correctional Facilities Impact Fee Study DRAFT Service Area and Demand Component Correctional facilities and related services are provided by Collier County in all areas of the county. Therefore, the proper benefit district for the correctional facilities impact fee is countywide. The correctional facilities impact fee program requires the use of population data in calculating current levels of service and to be consistent with the population utilized in the County's comprehensive planning and Annual Update and Inventory Report (AUIR) process, this impact fee study considers not only the resident or permanent population of the County, but also the number of seasonal residents and visitors as well. Therefore, for purposes of this technical analysis, the peak season population is used in all population estimates and projections. Peak season population projections were provided by Collier County's Comprehensive Planning Division.. X. To measure effective population that benefits from correctional services, this study also developed functional population figures. Functional population, as used in the impact fee analysis, is a generally accepted methodology for several impact fee areas and is based on the assumption that demand for certain facilities is generally proportional to the presence of people at a land use, including residents, employees, and visitors. Appendix B provides additional details on population estimates. Z Benesch Collier County October 2024 8 Correctional Facilities Impact Fee Study DRAFT Level of Service Table 3 presents the calculation of the current LOS included in the inventory as well as Collier County's adopted LOS standards according to the most recent AUIR. As presented, Collier County's current level of service is 2.65 beds per 1,000 peak seasonal population. While the current LOS for is 2.65 beds per 1,000 peak population, in order to calculate the correctional facilities impact fee, the LOS needs to be calculated in terms of beds per 1,000 functional residents. As shown in Table 3, the current achieved LOS is 2.75 beds per 1,000 functional residents. -P� Table 3 also presents the adopted LOS standard, which is 2.79 beds per 1,000 peak residents and 2.89 beds per 1,000 functional residents. While the achieved LOS indicates the investment made by the community, the adopted LOS standard provides the intended/goal LOS. For impact fee calculations, the lower of the two measures is used to ensure new development is not overcharged.4%h%- NTable 3 Current Achieved & Adopted Level of Service Standard 1) Source: Appendix B, Table B-1 and Table B-7 2) Source: Table 1 3) Number of beds (Item 2) divided by the population (Item 1), multiplied by 1,000 4) Source: Collier County 2023 Annual Update and Inventory Report. LOS standard per peak population is converted to LOS standard per functional resident using the ratio of peak to functional population. Table 4 provides a LOS comparison between Collier County and counties that have implemented correctional facility impact fees throughout the State of Florida. The LOS is displayed in terms of permanent population for 2023 for all entities because functional population data analysis has not been completed for these jurisdictions. As presented, Collier County's LOS is within the range of these counties. Benesch Collier County October 2024 9 Correctional Facilities Impact Fee Study Table 4 Level of Service Comparison Jurisdiction Palm Beach County Total• Available -. 2,456 Permanent Population 1,532,718 • per 000 1.60 Osceola County 919 439,225 2.09 Lake County 893 414,749 2.15 Sarasota County 1,026 464,223 2.21 Lee County 2,009 800,989 2.51 Escambia County 840 333,452 2.52 Broward County 5,144 1,973,579 2.61 Brevard County 1,849 640,773 2.89 Collier County 1,304 399,480 3.26 St. Lucie County 1,370 368,628 3.72 Indian River County 668 167,781 3.98 Manatee County 1,780 439,566 4.05 Marion County 1,924 403,966 4.76 Highlands County 512 104,385 4.90 Charlotte County 1,074 204,126 5.26 Okeechobee County 232 39,591 5.86 Hendry County 266 40,895 6.50 Monroe County 704 84,511 8.33 Wakulla County 350 36,168 9.68 1) Source: Discussions with each county's Sheriff's/Corrections Office and/or county websites 2) Source: Bureau of Economic and Business Research (BEBR), April 1, 2023 3) Permanent population (Item 2) divided by the total available beds _, (Item 1) Benesch October 2024 Collier County 10 Correctional Facilities Impact Fee Study DRAFT Cost Component Table 5 provides a summary of correctional facility related capital assets owned by the County. As shown, total capital asset value associated with correctional facilities amounts to $173.6 million. However, the County is still paying debt service on a portion of these assets. In addition, it is Collier County's policy to use impact fee revenues to pay debt service associated with capacity expansion projects. To ensure that new development is not being overcharged for these future payments, the portion of the remaining principal for the Naples Jail addition that is to be repaid with impact fee revenues is subtracted from the total asset value in Table 5. The resulting owned capital asset value is approximately $159.3 million or approximately $122,100 per bed. Table 5 also presents the cost per functional resident for the impact fee analysis. This cost is calculated by multiplying the owned capital asset value per bed by the current LOS of 2.75 beds per 1,000 functional residents and then dividing by 1,000. As shown, these calculations result in $336 per functional resident for all correctional facilities assets considered in the impact fee calculations. Table 5 Total Impact Cost per Functional Resident Description Figure TotalPercent of . Building Value(i) $140,311,830 80.8% Land Value (2) $510,400 0.3% Interest Cost (3) $29,426,766 17.0% Vehicle and Equipment Value (4) $3,347,078 1.9% Total Capital Asset Value(s) $173,596,074 100.0% Less: Portion Not Owned (6) $14,320,697 Owned Capital Asset Value(') $159,275,377 Number of Beds(8) 1,304 Owned Capital Asset Value per Bed(9) $122,144 LOS (beds per 1,000 residents)(10) 2.75 Total Impact Cost per Functional Resident(11) $335.90 1) Source: Table 1 2) Source: Table 1 3) Source: Table 1 4) Source: Table 2 5) Sum of building value, land value, interest cost, and vehicle and equipment value (Items 1, 2, 3, 4) 6) Source: Collier County Office of Management and Budget 7) Total capital asset value (Item 5) less the portion not owned (Item 6) Benesch Collier County October 2024 11 Correctional Facilities Impact Fee Study DRAFT 8) Source: Table 1 9) Owned capital asset value (Item 7) divided by the number of beds (Item 8) 10) Source: Table 3 11) Owned capital asset value per bed (Item 9) multiplied by the LOS (Item 10) divided by 1,000 12) Distribution of total capital asset value Benesch October 2024 Collier County 12 Correctional Facilities Impact Fee Study DRAFT Credit Component To avoid overcharging new development for the correctional facility impact fee, a review of the capital financing program for correctional services was completed. The purpose of this review was to determine any potential revenue credits generated by new development that are being used for expansion of capital facilities, land, and equipment included in the inventory. Based on a review of the County's funding of capacity addition projects over the past five years, it has been determined that the County uses impact fees and the one -percent local government infrastructure surtax for expansion projects paid with cash. The local government infrastructure surtax was repealed on December 31, 2023, and the County does not intend to renew this funding mechanism. Given this, the surtax is excluded from credit calculations. Capital Expansion "Debt Service" Credit `&%, & X Any outstanding bond issues related to the correctional facilities also will result in a credit to the impact fee. As mentioned previously, Collier County funded the Naples Jail replacement and expansion expenditures with a bond issue. The capital expansion portion of the improvements to the Immokalee Jail was paid in cash using impact fee revenue, while the remaining payments of debt service on the bond issued for the capital expansion of the Naples Jail are to be repaid using impact fee revenues. As previously presented in Table 5, this study excluded the portion of the remaining principal for the Naples Jail expansion and parking garage from the capital asset value not to overcharge new development. Although the expansion portion of the debt service is being paid with impact fee revenues, the remaining portion is being paid with the General Fund revenues. Because the non -expansion portion of the Naples Jail included replacing the old structures entirely, as opposed to renovating existing structures as in the case of Immokalee Jail, a credit is calculated for debt service payments related to the replacement portion of the Naples Jail. As presented in Table 6, the resulting credit for the correctional facility -related debt is approximately $5 per functional resident. Benesch Collier County October 2024 13 Correctional Facilities Impact Fee Study LL a �c u Q. 0 C GJ 4+ O N u 'a it Im 7 GJ C U LL CC LO C m '*,� • • }0 a' a CL LL O a m ,F H C O C C .• • • a` f° LTa E � a v cc • ao ++ O 0 •co � N L � � •C ui • E O E Z � a C CL •L u G v O CL N 7 V) -O bA O _ L Q E N N L op � C L > O O v o v � v O o � m O O _ o � � U 7 = O_ O O_ �p C C v o m z 7 (O N � N t (O > O C N c t ao o v >- 7 co 41 — 41 'O E m N E v N O±f C L v bA co N Q Q) of c 0 o v w E E cu u > m N (d L 'j Q N ++ rya v TE E � � ra a0 rya o -a E x C- L to v � o Q)E O Q j O N Q m u E Q > 4J > N C N N L H H On a rAA +, Ln a) a) Ll U (6 Q E N U f6 Ll (6 C 0 U N L L 0 U c-I It N O N U 41 a) 0 c� Q) U co DRAFT Net Correctional Facilities Impact Cost Table 7 summarizes the net impact cost per functional resident, which is the difference between the cost component and the credit component. The resulting net impact cost is $331 per functional resident. Table 7 Net Impact Cost per Functional Resident Variable Per Functional Resident Impact Cost Total Impact Cost(1) $335.90 Impact Credit Capital Expansion "Debt Service" Credit (Z) $5.20 Net Impact Cost Net Impact Cost(3) 1) Source: Table 5 - 2) Source: Table 6 3) Total impact cost per functional resident (Item 1) less capital expansion "debt service" credit per functional resident (Item 2) Benesch Collier County October 2024 15 Correctional Facilities Impact Fee Study DRAFT Calculated Correctional Facilities Impact Fee Schedule Table 8 presents the calculated correctional facilities impact fee schedule for residential and non- residential land uses, based on the net impact fee cost per functional resident figures presented in Table 7. Net impact cost per functional resident increased by approximately 25 percent since the 2015 study due to changes to cost and credit components. The remaining differences reflect the changes in the demand component since 2015 as well as new land use categories or units. Table 8 also shows the maximum allowable impact fees consistent with F.S. 163.3180 and the corresponding percent change from the current adopted impact fee. Benesch Collier County October 2024 16 Correctional Facilities Impact Fee Study W F- LL. 0 0 0 0 0 S o b s b\ o a o 0 0 o a \ o 0 0 o s b\\ o a s o 0 to c-I �n N ci M n Z o c-I v N ci c-I ri c-I Z o lfl 0 lfl o N N M Z Z N ci 00 V O Il M r7 � M 00 lD Ql � O N a N 00 lD W I, a O N W W I:t I- W Q a I, oo M V Ol O W 01 N 00 r1 Cl O� V M V \ Z .--I N m L 1 V M m \ Z 00 w 00 t C1 ww m w Z Z M V Il Vl ' i I, O M co V N M Oo m M c-I m (n N In .--I M to t0 N Il V} W Vl N tf} N VII N V} M to N V} N -Zt c-I M 'Al V} V} V} V} o 0 v o v o v o 0 0 o a o o a o a o o a s a s a a tD -I Ln rl .-j V) V m I� \ Z O V c-I rl \ Z I� O O O n \ Z \ Z N oo a N M c-I c-I W W N c-I N c-I c-I O N N M c-I m O rl Ln N N M o Il 'O o tD m C wmri I� N Ln m. Vl M m Ol O 00 I-� ui ui O g .--i \ 1� (V I, M L fV W O1 N 1,- M Ol I- Lf1 N N Q7 M e-I N r1 N N N O N M N t4 N N m -Mq VT N V} Ol N to 00 IM H r� W' L4 �--� V} e-� V? N VT N VT V? n 7 M V? N V? N ry V� N n ryi ri Vt V* tD Ln N tD O P M rl M LnM N pppp O n M O 1� O tD P tD M O P en 01 00 00 00 Il oo lai P rl tD IA M N W O P O rl M rl W O C1 c+f ei tG rn rn N m m rl co en m w rn tG Ln rl cm � h Ln e-I N O MI M 1!1 M 0o Ci O v Ln M O1 N oo P Ln 'i M AK N 1- Vr O A tD Ln M VT N VT N Vf m vi. N Vn In ei co N N i rl M V► VF V► V► lff V) i/A VF VA VA i/). i/1• V! Vf V! VA OO Ln Ln tD . M N In m Il Qt n to No am No of Oo o Oo N V1 of M O V1 rV O 0o m V -! 00 N m Il 00 N a1 ri fV O �--i ri O ri ri O cV O O O O m. 0 o o o o o o O L V1 in V1 in vt vt 7 7 7 7 7 7 p p 7 0 N al N 8 C -a C -o C -o C -o C -o O O O t L N O ar Y N 6 .> a E 7 LL (6 L7+ N co -Z Ln C cnc v G O -a -a a O a) L N iLm V c u Y ] o Lr o E o a a h O o on on C C Y Y N u a/ al L Y E E Y -_ N C d M N o E E C x m W > 7 O .� o C7 L= O N Taj >, U U O • E '6 `-� a0+ O VI O 7 7 C N L H fp 2 al al a¢ J= O j L 7 O Y Y al _ W p E Eaj on H v c v i 6 d it d h aJ in i Q C w-o > V E On L > > V U Q aJ ' C N J V 7 O y K v h O 2 O `^ a 7 Z m U co O l7 7 m o ns 0 2 w 2 2'E 7 U O = (7 O Q O N G y O N N v M O V o O D O O m Vl m O N V1 V�1 O V1 y o o N O U) N N O M N w V V V C C ',�;, VN1 lNl1 LNl1 \ l0l1 V�1 W V n N cn F- C O U (4 LL n ri r LL 0 0 N N o rl N a Ln c-I a v o v 0 to V 0 00 o 0\ N a Z a N m o N 0 o N 0 m 0 o in 0 V 0 N o a\\ m a Z a Z s S m o r �--� s b Vl o rn m 0 v o N s b N b N o ti 0 N N 0 I� N N 00 I� N t0 N N V V .N-I ^ rM-I a \ 00 M w O n Vl 00 00 ei N I, I� Ol In O n a \ a \ lO In 00 N m 00 N In w 00 O N 14 I� M O V1 �••� M N aa c-I c-I lD c-I lD Z I, 00 00 00 m m m Z Z V 00 m lO n w r, N o 00 Ln CL W m Ln Ln O m to <D LIl lO O Ql N l0 a0 V V I� c•I m m In to m m V} tO m lO O m c-I N I� I, m w to m 00 00 N 00 Ln O V V c-I I� c-I V? V} Vt V? V) V? V) VT V? V1 V>• V) to cy^ VT fY1 in N V} V? V} V> Ln V) VT V) a o\° o\' a o\' a\° o\' \° o\' o\' o o\' a a e\' I.R a\' o\' a N 1--1 m V V tO 00 O \ N I, O m O .--1 In to \ \ O �--I I, Ol Ln O 0 cu N N Q V NZ M N N Ln d• N ul Z Z M .--I Ln m N N N N N O O N M n c-1 H In N N >. m N m w O N O +-' +-' O O m N N N V O I, V o0 I- n n ul V V m m tO H m N w tO Q, to tO m m m m Ol V 0 m Cl a a -I ri I.f) v tD Li - L,i n o N o n ui p \ vi t0 O 8 ai T g td lD ui 1-4 Oo N � IIl \ 111 \ of �••� v �••� v �••� V �••� m M vi pp v 00 o m r, M CL M N lO tD tO L" V N V1 V A i/} tO tD pp lO M I� n n N R N e-I e-I VT V} V} V} V} V} V} V? Ij VT n V} V} V} N tO V N N VT V? V? V? VT V} V} VT V} M V! LoCL iA N N ei Il N N m O tD N rl N m O rl n tO 00 tO N tO O e•I m m t0 N N c•I 1� c•I m O w N P of P of ll� m N O to 00 N P O N M 00 VI O V1 O N o0 01 I, 00 00 O1 00 O1 01 M tO 01 N 00 N N O tO m 1, 00 lO m 1, 00 N 00 1n 1l m m M �n tD tO m tO V M n .•i Ql m 1A m i? m O 00 00 P �••I n m tO O N In N Vf tR Vf iA to in iA in in N VF i/► V1• a -I rl e-0 M N i/1 iA 4 iA VF V. i/► in Ln lD n N n N V 00 I, 0 w 0 H m O O N 00 m m w Ill N N 00 H N wH In m ci ID Ol m al I� 00 V N N 00 00 lD m c-I V N 1l m tD N In M O I- 00 Il N V lfl H H O H -1 fV H c-I H fV Ln c-I H 0 c-1 e-I M In Ill M CO -4 c-I fV fV 0 -1 -4 O o ipn Vf Np �9 t�pp/1 �Vl 0 0 0 O O O O pVI O pN O pN O pVf O pN O pVf O pN O SN 8VI 8VI pVI O pN O pVI O pVI O U O Q O !Z O Q �_ pVI O pVI O O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 o C C 0 0 o O o O O O 0 0 0 o v v y o 0 0 0 .--i ti c-i o 0 O 0 H .--i c-i .--i c4 .--i ti .-i .ti .-i c-i .-i .--i .--i O 7 O s rn a C,- � or g m o 0 N Q 25Ln y w V N L6 m 3 O c N a H 7 t O Y Y Y Y a N tla O O i O L GC _ N u aJ u N u N i� .-I u oo u a N v O O o In a) vl a+ Y o a, > c O ° p 3 �+ L a) •cam aJ a) t H L c c x o 00 o c m Y c 3 ` >c >c >c O �° °+~ \\ LT N V O m E 06 \ Y W N Y > U U U a) ar a no O yt., ar g v Y v 3 3 \\\ `m — 0a w 'u w o ri o aY a° v v o 3 ° m ao a°'c >> °1 fr 3 3 3 3 w -0 o s oa O O o 0 O 0 O 0 O` i 'c N � al Y �cpc C aJ n E n v c > c@° > 7 i 0 E -0 '6 v c ,O c O c O u° •j 7 J+ U_ a) - bO \ j i c�• \ \ LL o f0 fa M E _u - - E �' U F Y N O 7 acCt Y Y 3 a, i1 C E N i C c i'' L In w 7 C cal G L 3 co •• Ul w aJ w al W. OJ cc Z 7 to O U O = t CL 7 LL N WR-M ai CO M Co N LL o J S E N LL N LL � I4 (J f6 l9 M G y to a 3 J O N a1 l7 a] G O O 0 N N c-I O e Ol O 0 .--I N ei 000 O .--I N 00 \ O O V N N 00 N 00 N 00 N\ 00 O m 00 00 Vl 00 tO 00 \ O1 00 Vn m m m Ol Ol 01 m Ol Ol c Oml a r-I c-I O C 00 to 00 4) LL Q v w f6 L U v l0 O E � v Y C Y � L Vf (O Y � o v O E 00 > - Q M n^ E p Y E m X - C v m U v+'� E C E N I :3 N LL O N (O L 00 0 a a ni -, E .E " -i v vi Q w N m 1LL Y O Q v v � C n vi v u m M LL U N O Ln E Q v O E O :t _ Y U v E c E C N 'm •— L 4% O C *' O m u U v Q U U U a) Q 41 � L E O T Y Y c E v E 7 O O Q u rya E v bz o bn Y = ra ca ca z u u E u Y � Y u u N .E N U X U (c6 to to d c a- -1 N M L l0 'A* rn It N O N V O O C +, U co DRAFT Impact Fee Schedule Comparison As part of the work effort in updating Collier County's correctional facilities impact fee program, a comparison of correctional facilities impact fee schedules was completed for several other Florida counties. Table 9 presents this comparison. Table 9 Correctional Facilities Impact Fee Schedule Comparison Land Use Date of Last Update Unit Collier Calculated (3) 2024 County Current (4) Adopted(2) 2015 Brevard County (5) 2000 Charlotte County (6) 2021 Polk 2024 2016 Adoption Percentage(l) N/A 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Residential: Single Family (2,000 sf) I du $579 $499 $72 $284 $6621 $1,009 Non -Residential: Light Industrial 1,000sf $149 $190 N/A $73 $205 $205 Office (50,000sf) 1,000sf $314 $328 $34 $211 $367 $756 Retail (125,000sf) 1,000sf $906 $621 $100 $442 $727 $1,319 1) Represents the portion of the maximum calculated fee for each respective county that is actually charged. Fees may have been lowered/raised through indexing or policy discounts. Does not account for moratoriums/suspensions 2) du = dwelling unit 3) Source: Table 8 4) Source: Collier County Capital Project Planning, Impact Fees, and Program Management Division 5) Source: Brevard County Planning & Development Department 6) Source: Charlotte County Community Development Department, Planning & Zoning Division 7) Source: Polk County Building & Construction Department. Fees shown effective January 1, 2027 following a three-year phasing. 8) Source: Sarasota County Planning & Development Services; fee shown is for "Justice Facilities" Benesch Collier County October 2024 20 Correctional Facilities Impact Fee Study DRAFT Appendix A Building and Land Value Analysis - Supplemental Information DRAFT Appendix A - Building and Land Value Analysis This appendix provides the additional data and information on building and land value estimates. Building Values In determining the appropriate unit value for buildings, the following analysis was conducted: • Cost trends since the most recent technical study; • Insurance value of the existing inventory; and • Estimates provided by the County. During the 2015 study, the value of jails was estimated at $300 per square foot. Applying Engineering News Records Building Cost Index for the cost changes between 2015 and 2024 resulted in a unit cost of approximately $450 per square foot. The insured value of the Naples Jail is approximately $202 per square foot and the Immokalee Jail is approximately $264 per square foot. The insured value of the parking garage is approximately $78 per square foot. It is important to note insurance values are considered to provide conservative estimates and do not take into consideration certain building components, such as foundation, architectural/design cost, furniture/fixture/equipment, security features, etc. T Given this data and based on estimates provided by the County, building cost for jails was estimated at $430 per square foot. The value of support facilities was estimated at $150 per square foot. Land Values To estimate the current land value the following analysis is conducted: • Land value trends in Collier County; • Current value of land where the jail buildings are located; • Analysis of vacant land sales and values of similarly sized parcels; and • Discussions with the County. Benesch Collier County October 2024 A-1 Correctional Facilities Impact Fee Study DRAFT Value of vacant land increased by 146 percent since the last update study based on estimates published by the Florida Department of Revenue. Applying this increase to the average cost of $25,000 per acre used in the previous study results in land value of approximately $61,500 per F-DY&M According to the Collier County Property Appraiser, the value of the land where the Naples Jail is located is approximately $871,000 per acre. The value of the land where the Immokalee Jail is located is much lower at $20,000 per acre. Based on discussions with the County, future land purchases for correctional facilities are likely to be in the Immokalee and Big Corkscrew areas. Therefore, the land value analysis considered sales over the past five years in these areas. Vacant land sales in this area over the last five years suggested a weighted average of $57,600 per acre and a median value of $31,900 per acre for parcels greater than 0.5 acres and less than 5 acres. Vacant land values within this area indicated an average value of $35,700 per acre for parcels greater than 0.5 acres and less than 5 acres. Given these figures, an average land value of $40,000 per acre is considered to be a reasonable estimat( ' Benesch Collier County October 2024 A-2 Correctional Facilities Impact Fee Study DRAFT Appendix Population Estimates - Supplemental Information DRAFT Appendix B - Population Estimates The correctional facilities impact fee program requires the use of population data in calculating current levels of service. To be consistent with the population utilized in the County's comprehensive planning and Annual Update and Inventory Report (AUIR) process, this impact fee study considers not only the resident or permanent population, but also the number of seasonal residents and visitors as well. Therefore, for purposes of this technical analysis, the peak seasonal population estimates provided by Collier County's Comprehensive Planning Department are used for all population estimates and projections. Table B-1 presents the peak seasonal population trends for Collier County. The projections indicate that the current peak seasonal population of the county is approximately 491,800 and is expected to increase to 582,700 (increase of 90,900) by 2040. The estimated average growth rate is apprc 611 Benesch Collier County October 2024 B-1 Correctional Facilities Impact Fee Study DRAFT Table B-1 Collier County Population Estimates (Countywide) IrIq 2010 Peak PopulationCountywide Seasonal 387,183 Percent Change - 2011 392,180 1.3% 2012 398,107 1.5% 2013 402,268 1.0% 2014 408,351 1.5% 2015 416,402 2.0% 2016 424,603 2.0% 2017 433,359 2.1% 2018 442,240 2.0% 2019 451,303 2.0% 2020 455,059 0.8% 2021 464,155 2.0% 2022 474,235 2.2% 2023 483,487 2.0% 2024 491,779 1.7% 2025 499,426 1.6% 2026 506,406 1.4% 2027 513,483 1.4% 2028 520,660 1.4% 2029 527,936 1.4% 2030 534,305 1.2% 2031 539,741 1.0% 2032 545,233 1.0% 2033 550,781 1.0% 2034 556,384 1.0% 2035 561,339 0.9% 2036 565,633 0.8% 2037 569,960 0.8% 2038 574,320 0.8% 2039 578,714 0.8% 2040 582,721 0.7% Source: Collier County Comprehensive Planning Department (population projections dated May, 2024) Benesch October 2024 Collier County B-2 Correctional Facilities Impact Fee Study DRAFT Apportionment of Demand by Residential Unit Type and Size The residential land uses to be used for the correctional facilities impact fee calculations include the following: • Single Family (Detached) • Multi -Family • Mobile Home/ RV Park (tied down) • Retirement Community (detached and attached) Table B-2 presents the number of residents per housing unit for the residential categories identified above in Collier County. This analysis includes all housing units, both occupied and vacant. To address fairness and equity issues between land uses, the single family land use is tiered based on two categories of square footage: less than 4,000 square feet and 4,000 square feet and greater. To accommodate the tiering of impact fee assessments for the single family residential land use category, an analysis was completed based on housing unit size and persons per housing unit, comparing nationwide averages to those of Collier County. This analysis utilized national data from the 2021 American Housing Survey (AHS) and data from the 2022 American Community Survey (ACS) to examine this relationship. Table B-2 Residents per Housing Unit 1) Source: 2022 ACS 5-Yr Estimates, Table B25033 (owner occupied and renter occupied), adjusted for peak seasonal population. 2) Source: 2022 ACS 5-Yr Estimates, Table DP04 3) Ratios developed based on national PPH data derived from the 2021 American Housing Survey. 4) Population (Item 1) divided by housing units (Item 2). For single family detached tiers, the residents per housing unit is determined by multiplying the weighted average value (2.58) by the ratio developed from the AHS data (Item 3) Benesch Collier County October 2024 B-3 Correctional Facilities Impact Fee Study DRAFT 5) Estimate for retirement community (detached) is based on people per household figures for single family homes, adjusted for the residents over 55 years of age based on information obtained from the 2017 National Household Travel Survey, prepared by the US Department of Transportation. 6) Estimate for retirement community (attached) is based on people per household figures for multi -family homes, adjusted for the residents over 55 years of age based on information obtained from the 2017 National Household Travel Survey, prepared by the US Department of Transportation. Functional Population For correctional facilities, this study uses functional population as the demand component, which distributes the cost associated with the availability of correctional facilities among various land uses based on the density of people at each land use throughout the day. Functional population, as used in the impact fee analysis, is a generally accepted methodology and is based on the assumption that demand for certain facilities is generally proportional to the presence of people at a land use, including residents, employees, and visitors. It is not enough to simply add resident population to the number of employees, since the service - demand characteristics can vary considerably by type of industry. Functional population is the equivalent number of people occupying space within a community on a 24-hour-day, 7-days-a-week basis. A person living and working in the community will have the functional population coefficient of 1.0. A person living in the community but working elsewhere may spend only 16 hours per day in the community on weekdays and 24 hours per day on weekends for a functional population coefficient of 0.76 (128-hour presence divided by 168 hours in one week). A person commuting into the county to work five days per week would have a functional population coefficient of 0.30 (50-hour presence divided by 168 hours in one week). Similarly, a person traveling into the community to shop at stores, perhaps averaging 8 hours per week, would have a functional population coefficient of 0.05. Functional population thus tries to capture the presence of all people within the community, whether residents, workers, or visitors, to arrive at an estimate of effective population that needs to be served. This form of adjusting population to help measure real facility needs replaces the population approach of merely weighting residents two-thirds and workers one-third (Nelson and Nicholas 1992). By estimating the functional and weighted population per unit of land use across all major land uses in a community, an estimate of the demand for certain facilities and services in the present and future year can be calculated. The following paragraphs explain how functional population is calculated for residential and non-residential land uses. Benesch Collier County October 2024 B-4 Correctional Facilities Impact Fee Study DRAFT Residential Functional Population Developing the residential component of functional population is simpler than developing the non-residential component. It is generally estimated that people spend one-half to three -fourths of their time at home and the rest of each 24-hour day away from their place of residence. In developing the residential component of Collier County functional population, an analysis of the County's population and employment characteristics was conducted. Based on this analysis, it was estimated that people, on average, spend 16.6 hours, or approximately 69 percent, of each 24-hour day at their place of residence and the other 31 percent away from home. This analysis is presented in Tables B-3 and B-4. Table B-3 Population & Employment Characteristics Item/Calculation Step Total workers living in Collier County(l) Year 2021 150,529 Collier County Population (2) 372,797 Total workers as a percent of population(3) 40.4% School age population (5-17 years)(4) 47,900 School age population as a percent of populationlsl 12.8% Population net of workers and school age population (6) 174,368 Other population as a percent of total population(7) 46.8% 1) Source: Census OnTheMap 2021 2) Source: ACS 20215-Yr Estimates, Table S0101 3) Total workers (Item 1) divided by countywide population (Item 2) 4) Source: ACS 2021 5-Yr Estimates, Table S0101 5) Total school age population (Item 4) divided by total population (Item 2) 6) Total population (Item 2) less total workers (Item 1) and school age population (Item 4) 7) Population net of workers and school age population (Item 6) divided by total population (Item 2) Benesch Collier County October 2024 B-5 Correctional Facilities Impact Fee Study DRAFT Table B-4 Residential Coefficient for Functional Population Hours at Percent of Effective Pop.Group Residence(l) Population (2) Hours (3) Workers 13 40.4% 5.3 Students 15 12.8% 1.9 Other 20 46.8% 9.4 Total Hours at Residence (4) 16.6 Residential Functional Population Coefficient(s) 69.2% 1) Estimated 2) Source: Table B-3 3) Hours at residence (Item 1) multiplied by percent of population (Item 2) 4) Sum of effective hours 5) Sum of effective hours (Item 4) divided by 24 The resulting percentage from Table B-4 is used in the calculation of the residential coefficient for the 24-hour functional population. These actual calculations are presented in Table B-6. Non -Residential Functional Population Given the varying characteristics of non-residential land uses, developing the estimates of functional residents for non-residential land uses is more complicated than developing estimated of functional residents for residential land uses. Nelson and Nicholas originally introduced a method for estimating functional resident population, now used widely'. This method uses trip generation data from the Institute of Transportation Engineers' (ITE) Trip Generation Manual and Benesch's Trip Characteristics Database, information on passengers per vehicle, workers per vehicle, length of time spent at the land use, and other variables. Specific calculations include: • Total one-way trips per employee (ITE trips multiplied by 50 percent to avoid double counting entering and exiting trips as two trips). • Visitors per impact unit based on occupants per vehicle (trips multiplied by occupants per vehicle less employees). • Worker hours per week per impact unit (such as nine worker -hours per day multiplied by five days in a work week). • Visitor hours per week per impact unit (visitors multiplied by number of hours per day times relevant days in a week, such as five for offices and seven for retail shopping). 1 Arthur C. Nelson and James C. Nicholas, "Estimating Functional Population for Facility Planning," Journal of Urban Planning and Development 118(2): 45-58 (1992). Benesch Collier County October 2024 B-6 Correctional Facilities Impact Fee Study DRAFT • Functional population coefficients per employee developed by estimating time spent by employees and visitors at each land use. Table B-5 shows the functional population coefficients for residential and non-residential uses in Collier County. The functional population coefficients in Table B-5 were used to estimate the County's functional population in Table B-6. Benesch October 2024 Collier County B-7 Correctional Facilities Impact Fee Study U F— LL Ix! M N N N N NM a a C C C C C C N O O O d v o a E O O 0 0 0 0 ri 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ri 0 0 0 0 o o n Z m c I� V1 V1 vi vi ui lG w E w w v 0 E o O e-I O e-I O e-I O c-I O e-I �O/1 c-I O c-I O e-I O e-I w o E m 00 v E 3 °- rn rn oo m in a N oo oo m m oo w o c — o w C o o o o o V o V H w p o m Oo m o t5 ap+ N 3 N d w C > n O - C v o 0 o n Y m m m rr! m n n n r�: w L c G O N C N C T � oo � �! o � fV M N Cl! ry M N M N M V N N T N d j w cL w n w. ti W w c d v o a o C a VI ci VI ci N ci V1 c-I V1 N 1p oo l0 e-1 ci O 1l m W 6- O j t pt N W w m y W d ry w � L. •• O p .' .� 3 `w — u E O O M .--� n O �/1 o O m M m N M O V1 v 8 T C O' W u H C u w o 3 LD N N N rcl cV HI V1 1� V1 Hf N 1� O ca C F o o a in o w w `p c v > o m to o °• in to m ry o o m m n ti o — w a n n w m m o a w w w u E o m a E `m o m o O o O o O o O o O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 O N Cl m Ol Ol Ol Ol Cl C7 O n y N 7 7 n n w N aw+ wa s a y y N 3 v m o wo' a N o c - Ul 3 mcm T � � J� � 7 41 6 LL 6 > U a c ry '> c m m m m a a —. m E n ._ c H d t w H in w w .� o W 2 w Y N Q WC C C O O T w L L 6 o C W 6 w W >> d > O Q o o o o 0 0 0 o N N N N N p>> X? O E w w w w w o. x a r a Y Z .ti ti N N oo n Z n c>> > 3 '�-' C m n a m n 3 m- w w `o w o o o a 3 > Y C T>>>>> y r L+ N H Y C C O N w U ai ai ti ff ai z u u p �n a m nn nn o 3 a> T>> T Ul C '> = C 'j T v O u t0 Ul a a a a a a o t'i '^ c t'i '^ w !-' c o O w w w a N W N W W T E N C O N C 'Q C p u L 2 0_ o. o_ o_-2w p Z N O p w o n u V o 2 E w E •� n n a n n c a LL m O C O Y �`+ �`+ a`+ �`+ i+ c m m m m v E a 'a° o o 2 a w i 3 3 3 3 3 a1D�o o a uo w~ uo w 'T° o n > f0 o �n m in 6 _' w w a w o v E ._ w v n n° L - u o U c o yo c~ �, a a a a T a m m m m m �- o a o `o �n c n o n c C c oC .Lp. O c 0 0 0 o a c t n 3 LL N h r W N O. �. O. O. 3 w uO O C F w a .-1 .�-I .N-I y p Y y y ^ °1 c O m ii ._ my E m > u u u u y r w m p a `w p o a o 6 o o m i m a w o 0 0 0 0 0 n w r 3 E a v u u uo u u C— m o Y f0 > j w H H H H H H H m m m H O H H H O a O. Z C V (0 (` H L K LL Vf l7 3 .-i .-i .-i .-i .�I N K K K N M V V1 lD I� W O� N ti a D O LN U v L � N L.L +� O L) U CQ C In v U ( L.L 0 Table B-6 Functional Population (Countywide) Population Category PF 2024 Peak Season Population Collier County Baseline .. I 491,779 Functional Functional Resident (2) Population Coefficient 0.692 -4 340,311 Employment Category Natural Resources 4,961 0.379 1,880 Construction 24,935 0.271 6,757 Manufacturing 6,231 0.270 1,682 Transportation, Communication, and Utilities 11,268 0.271 3,054 Wholesale Trade 61495 0.272 1,767 Retail Trade 26,632 1.252 33,343 Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate 56,185 0.292 16,406 Services 127,033 0.499 63,389 Government Services 1 14,309 0.451 6,453 Total Employment by Category Population(4) 134,731 2024 Total Functional Population(s) 475,042 1) Source: Table B-1 for population and 2024 Woods & Poole for employment data 2) Source: Tables B-4 and B-5 3) The functional population is Collier baseline data (Item 1) multiplied by the functional resident coefficient (Item 2) 4) The total employment population by category is the sum of the employment figures from the nine employment categories (e.g., natural resources, construction, etc.) 5) The total functional population is the sum of the residential functional population and the employment functional population Table B-7 presents the County's annual functional population figures from 2010 through 2040, based on the 2024 functional population figure from Table B-6 and the annual population growth rates from the population figures previously presented in Table B-1. Benesch October 2024 Collier County B-9 Correctional Facilities Impact Fee Study DRAFT Table B-7 Countywide Functional Population (2010-2040) c 2010 PopulationYear Functional 374,006 2011 378,833 2012 384,558 2013 388,577 2014 394,453 2015 402,230 2016 410,152 2017 418,610 2018 427,189 2019 435,944 2020 439,572 2021 448,358 2022 458,095 2023 467,032 2024 475,042 2025 482,429 2026 489,171 2027 496,007 2028 502,940 2029 509,968 2030 516,120 2031 521,371 2032 526,676 2033 532,035 2034 537,447 2035 542,233 2036 546,381 2037 550,561 2038 554,773 2039 559,017 2040 562,888 L'I Source: Table B-6 for the 2024 functional population figure and Table B-1 for annual growth rates Benesch October 2024 Collier County B-10 Correctional Facilities Impact Fee Study DRAFT Functional Residents by Land Use Category When a wide range of land uses impact services, an estimate of that impact is needed for each land use. This section presents functional population estimates by residential and non-residential land uses. Residential and Transient Land Uses For residential and transient land uses, the functional population coefficients are displayed in Table B-8. The transient land uses include hotel/all suites hotel, motel, assisted living facility and nursing home. Secondary sources, such as Smith Travel Research (STR), Collier County Convention and Visitors Bureau, and the Florida Department of Elderly Affairs, are used to determine the occupancy rate for these land uses. Non -Residential Land Uses A similar approach is used to estimate functional residents for non-residential land uses. Table B-9 reports basic assumptions and calculations, such as trips per unit, trips per employee, employees per impact unit, one-way trips per impact unit, worker hours, occupants per vehicle trip, visitors (patrons, etc.) per impact unit, visitor hours per trip, and days per week for non- residential land uses. The final column in the tables shows the estimated functional resident per unit by land use. These figures represent the demand component for the correctional facility impact fee program and are used in the calculation of the correctional facilities impact fee crharli j I P rt Benesch Collier County October 2024 B-11 Correctional Facilities Impact Fee Study N 14 Ln n O M O N O W M m c m cu ECL a ` a ° m o O M c is O O N °u E a) N N w w m pp O O c O - 0 p L 7p O ` u Im ° m ax) r w a .� o b0 6 .--I w 01 01 al 01 0 C, c w p NO R cu w 00 N N Om r 1O W O m >. �O > u c m O w 7 N m O 3 > U T "O tD U ID Ln M rl ID Ln O `w ul c O c c O O O fV p U > w u CL j E ° v w O ° o a m e0 w o u @ m v c m N N -1 O N O> N o Q r1 C a \ w r u C N = yt 0 p YO p n r 2 o m m o a w m V c m w 'E w Y w w > . - . O Q E c N M O O 00 a1 E w K Q .. N N O rI ♦+ E H y O i O t s m N E O c L / w v L m 3 m E c _ v e m o m e o e o w o o E > > O�°> E m lu w N o c 0 E ° Y w X c 'pw -p Y .E ¢ m m o c • ' E 0 0 r w L ;o 'E , m To N M Ln N r e-I M N rn Vl Ln Ol n o O0 0 00 00 e ko n N M '-I c-I e-I O N N c-1 N .--1 >, ,� c m w ei+ w C O t w U 7 C O - o O m w 2 N p c Iyaj O O E a ° s- m E O c O c-I c w 7 H °O a U p.0 0 o N v 14� rn CD 0 CL m ._ a c v= v N N O N N N O M Ian N lD w `! O w= coU C d N M N ` w E O c H h N N (D v -- o o '@ u Y w a o f0 o u aai w H m p w '> >, v mil w w p_ y '6 - + a E E 0 7 U n'1 Y T 7 7 7 7 3 7 7 p w m 'p Y a Y - c w v y p c-I 3 °y >. H p - c - I� v c E p- -mac p ++ X C w •� c 'p H w E o w w m Ccc c w >> o° E Gl w a m X 0 7 Y y w J w LL o a T?> U= O O -0 m= w C In 7 OQ _ LL -0N m N N OU w c O E -O w O c t w E E ° 0 fO Y w o C j c p u w w m p O c 3 (D cou N o E O .V ` L m O O w o w E E W u w 4• E m w o J N m E OT V w U U N Y O w w^ O t\ .> E E N J w 2 E N c 0 w - 4. L' Lm Y O LL m a) E w E C N Q = to m O w E N Y '� i :p a ;Q N �n O Y w _ ` _ D w C c ` m "O w `O c O w Q '^ C J O O O p O N a E m In i o°ic n 2 Q Z `" I awc ° c m E v i F FArA F— LL Y� 10 Q N a -I O CO Q N li 1� N O eY q q O ei 0] O 1� Q N W CO N Yl Of 10 M 1� tp N Of n Of n Ol Q n GO W 1� Q O N ID N O 0] .-I W Ol l0 O M O ei N Q 0] N M 1� Of M tD tD W N G G G G M1 ei G G G C C O G ei O ei M G .-I .-I N a -I a -I eel IV V1 .-I .-I G ei ei HI N N Oi W n O vl n O O n vl N n N N n O O n O ul In 0 O In 0 O In 0 O In 0 O In 0 O n 0 O In In O O In O O In O O In v1 n n O vl n O vl n vl tD n O O n O O n O O n O ul n O n O O n In m n O vt to ul m to n vl m n O O n vl n n N N n ul N n O O O .y O O O O .y .i O O .+ O O O o 0 .y O O O O 01 ID N t0 N V V N O O ID Q IA OI m w M V T l0 N t0 M tD W M Q Q O Q 01 O IA ti O R Ol Q 17�o O V O1 N IA t0 N V n n n o O M N n IA l0 Vi o O O O o n I VI V N Q O N W op M n Q lD N lG m M Ol m l0 c0 Ill 6 O N n n Q N V IA n h O Q 01 Q O Q l0 ul IA V Q Q V Q Q c-I 01 Q Q O� N N O O O O O N N N N N N N N N N N w tO lO l0 t0 l0 N N O Q Q O IA ul of vl vl ul ul ul of N v1 ul ul m N m N M N M N m N m m m m m m m m m m m m m rn m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m IIl O n Ol Ill n O 00 N 00 Ol M M N M N t0 n VI Ol N N N Ill n n M M Ol 00 N M lG Li n tD N V N Ol M M n Ol n 00 n III N O M n Cl Ill M lD O Vl Q Q O O O M V N Vl Ill n tp n N n N M M OD N O n a OI lD M III N M W N IA 00 a M Q Vl O1 M N a O N O N .� a0 O Q Q ul ul O O O Ol O O1 O n m m l0 o0 IO N Q n m Ol 00 00 a0 O N tp Q O O vl O vl n vl n n n vl ap n a0 �O n O O O O O O O m N m M m m m N N m N O m V Q Q O OI yO I AMF O I!1 IA Ill V W n O M t0 O ID N N \ N N O N V1 O N I!1 O M N C N V N d' N V N Q Q 00 \ l0 CO CO M\ N T M pl O Q HI Ol rl n rl n rl 1p O M n M n 00 n 00 0 Q rl fV n N N N 1� N rl IA IA N N N IA N N rl rl rl �� N b rl M N N Q Q l0 Q a0 M .I rl O li m m n O Q Ol 0 O 0 IA 0 l0 tO Q W m o0 vw N Ln 1p LnN Q Q vl O a0 vl n li a0 Q O Ill Q n tD -q N Q Ol M n M O lO n ul n Q Q 0 P: a 01 v o o v v v v v o 0 0 0 0 0 eo 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 L c 0 0 0 0 C 0 c 0 c 0 C 0 c 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 c 0 c c 0 0 c c 0 c 0 o 0 c 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o o 0 0 0 9 v = A a` v c a � o � ` c H o 3 o o « to w0 O t O ~ J C > s ' - > r m m o °1 `v' '°�° o m 3 3 a` In o 0 v g N x a 3 o o « v l\7 s v 3 3 y« o o Y o� w w w m v 3 — w 3 a N v vl « o u O O O N o o g o p m v£ a Z' v >> 'n c c o 0 n c wv H v U a v v `w v u ro _ y to to a a`o N > o. N E v v « vl ul V F r Io Io c o c y a m>> j a v °' c c c 3 m v�i 2 2 O ~ 0 w O O N Iall N O N Vl N O VI " O O O O N N O W Ol O N Opp O 1%j rl N O N V W c a c � U n n n .i m o0 00 0o R m m o0 00 � oo m of of of al al � Q U (4 LL M I m W F— LL. W VI v 3 LL N N M w. O r� N 00 b 1. M N Ill Q M Li O ei M O N N o M M o o o o in O in O �n n n n n � n N n N n N n VOf n N n O o rn M oo li m co n o co ko m in n n I� N O M O� Ol N l0 N N M t0 O O ti 0 0 0 [O O 00 O 00 O 00 O N ut N u1 N of N ut N ut N vt N u1 O m m m m m m m rn u o O m m o ti rii ro n O N l0 00 N M N I� � N n 00 N N O O p O O N O M O VI 00 h Ol Q O � Q 0 0 0 0 E o 0 w a a u _ J N N N O N V 0 o m n m o oM � n n O 0 o N v vi ni �� G n 0 o a a o o v i . °' u o o o C o c 0 c o o c« s o Z' n o _ _ r Q o i Y m x - r z 3 3 3 K m x - 2 T G v Q o « C w 0 N 0 0 0 w o V N ill O p- Q -o- Y Y " z c N Z _ ` m w v 3 0 w 3 w o a — m 'o i E « o O x v ° v a v o — «ws ; a a a v\ a uoi �n c a a a o a E o u rn i benesch ,f ( Co TeY County F" Prepared for: Prepared by: Collier County Capital Projects Planning, Benesch Impact Fees and Program Management Division 1000 N. Ashley Dr., #400 2685 Horseshoe Drive South Tampa, Florida 33602 Naples, Florida 34104 ph (813) 224-8862 ph (239) 252-8192 E-mail: nkamp@benesch.com DRAFT Collier County Emergency Medical Services Impact Fee Update Study Table of Contents INTRODUCTION................................................................................................... 1 INVENTORY.......................................................................................................... 5 SERVICE AREA AND DEMAND COMPONENT.......................................................... 10 LEVEL OF SERVICE................................................................................................. 11 COST COMPONENT............................................................................................... 12 CREDIT COMPONENT............................................................................................ 13 NET EMS IMPACT COST......................................................................................... 15 CALCULATED EMS IMPACT FEE SCHEDULE............................................................. 16 EMS IMPACT FEE SCHEDULE COMPARISON........................................................... 20 Appendices: Appendix A: Building and Land Value Analysis - Supplemental Information Appendix B: Population Estimates — Supplemental Information 1k Benesch October 2024 Collier County EMS Impact Fee Study DRAFT Introduction With a population of over 400,000, Collier County ranks as the 19th most populous county in Florida. The county is continuing to grow and is estimated to add approximately 110,000 new residents through 2050. In terms of residential permitting, Collier County ranks 19th out of Florida counties with an average of 5,300 new units per year over the past three years. To address additional infrastructure needs, Collier County implemented an impact fee program for emergency medical services (EMS), which was last updated in 2016. To reflect most recent data, the County retained Benesch to prepare an update study. This report serves as the technical study to support the calculation of the updated EMS impact fee. Data presented in this report represents the most recent and localized data available at the time of this update study. All data and support materials used in this analysis are incorporated by reference as set forth in this document. X. The figures calculated in this study represent the technically defensible level of impact fee that the County could charge; however, the Board of County Commissioners may choose to discount the fee as a policy decision. Methodology Ar In developing the County's EMS impact fee, a consumption -based impact fee methodology is utilized, which is commonly used throughout Florida. A consumption -based impact fee charges new development based upon the burden placed on services from each land use (demand). The demand component is measured in terms of population per unit. A consumption -based impact fee charges new growth the proportionate share of the cost of providing additional infrastructure for use by new growth. Unlike a "needs -based" approach, consumption -based approach ensures that the impact fee is set at a rate that generates revenues sufficient only for new capacity needs and does not generate revenues at a level to correct existing deficiencies. Given this, the County does not need to go through the process of estimating the portion of each capacity expansion project that may be related to existing deficiencies. In addition, per legal requirements, a credit is subtracted from the total cost to account for the value of future non -impact fee funding contributions of new development toward any capacity expansion projects. In other words, case law requires that the new development should not be charged twice for the same infrastructure. Benesch Collier County October 2024 1 EMS Impact Fee Study DRAFT Legal Overview In Florida, legal requirements related to impact fees have primarily been established through case law since the 1980's. Impact fees must comply with the "dual rational nexus" test, which requires that they: • Be supported by a study demonstrating that the fees are proportionate in amount to the need created by new development paying the fee; and • Be spent in a manner that directs a proportionate benefit to new development, typically accomplished through establishment of benefit districts (if needed) and a list of capacity - adding projects included in the County's Capital Improvement Plan, Capital Improvement Element, or another planning document/Master Plan. In 2006, the Florida legislature passed the "Florida Impact Fee Act," which recognized impact fees as "an outgrowth of home rule power of a local government to provide certain services within its jurisdiction." § 163.31801(2), Fla. Stat. The statute — concerned with mostly procedural and methodological limitations — did not expressly allow or disallow any particular public facility type from being funded with impact fees. In fact, which it was initially adopted, the Act largely codified requirements and standards common to the practice already. However, the Legislature has amended the Impact Fee Act numerous times since 2006, significantly affecting the impact fee practice in Florida. For this reason, a summary of the key legislative changes since 2006 is provided: • HB 227 in 2009: The Florida legislation statutorily clarified that in any action challenging an impact fee, the government has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the imposition or amount of the fee meets the requirements of state legal precedent or the Impact Fee Act and that the court may not use a deferential standard. • SB 360 in 2009: Allowed fees to be decreased without the 90-day notice period required to increase the fees and purported to change the standard of legal review associated with impact fees. SB 360 also required the Florida Department of Community Affairs (now the Department of Commerce) and Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) to conduct studies on "mobility fees," which were completed in 2010. • HB 7207 in 2011: Required a dollar -for -dollar credit, for purposes of concurrency compliance, for impact fees paid and other concurrency mitigation required. • HB 319 in 2013: Applied mostly to concurrency management authorities, but also encouraged local governments to adopt alternative mobility systems using a series of tools identified in section 163.3180(5)(f), Florida Statutes. Benesch Collier County October 2024 2 EMS Impact Fee Study DRAFT • HB 207 in 2019: Included the following changes to the Impact Fee Act along with additional clarifying language: o Impact fees cannot be collected prior to building permit issuance; and o Impact fee revenues cannot be used to pay debt service for previously approved projects unless the expenditure is reasonably connected to, or has a rational nexus with, the increased impact generated by the new residential and commercial construction. • HB 7103 in 2019: Addressed multiple issues related to affordable housing/linkage fees, impact fees, and building services fees. In terms of impact fees, the bill required that when local governments increase their impact fees, the outstanding impact fee credits for developer contributions should also be increased. This requirement was to operate prospectively; however, HB 337 that was signed in 2021 deleted that clause and making all outstanding credits eligible for this adjustment. This bill also allowed local governments to waive/reduce impact fees for affordable housing projects without having to offset the associated revenue loss. • SB 1066 in 2020: Added language allowing impact fee credits to be assignable and transferable at any time after establishment from one development or parcel to another that is within the same impact fee zone or impact fee district or that is within an adjoining impact fee zone or district within the same local government jurisdiction, and which receives benefit from the improvement or contribution that generated the credits. Added language indicating any new/increased impact fee not being applicable to current or pending permit applications submitted prior to the effective date of an ordinance or resolution imposing new/increased fees. • HB 1339 in 2020: Required reporting of various impact fee related data items within the annual financial audit report submitted to the Department of Financial Services. • HB 337 in 2021: Placed limits on the amount and frequency of fee increases, but also included a clause to exceed these restrictions if the local governments can demonstrate extraordinary circumstances, hold two public workshops discussing these circumstances and the increases are approved by two-thirds of the governing body. • HB 479 in 2024 (Effective October 1, 2024): Required interlocal agreements between counties and municipalities when both entities collect a transportation impact fee. Placed limits on timing of impact fee study completion and adoption and data used in the studies. The following paragraphs provide further detail on the generally applicable legal standards. Benesch Collier County October 2024 3 EMS Impact Fee Study DRAFT Impact Fee Definition • An impact fee is a one-time capital charge levied against new development. • An impact fee is designed to cover the portion of the capital costs of infrastructure capacity consumed by new development. • The principal purpose of an impact fee is to assist in funding the implementation of projects identified in the Capital Improvements Element (CIE) and other capital improvement programs for the respective facility/service categories. Impact Fee vs. Tax • An impact fee is generally regarded as a regulatory function established based upon the specific benefit to the user related to a given infrastructure type and is not established for the primary purpose of generating revenue for the general benefit of the community, as are taxes. • Impact fee expenditures must convey a proportional benefit to the fee payer. This is accomplished through the establishment of benefit districts as needed, where fees collected in a benefit district are spent in the same benefit district. • An impact fee must be tied to a proportional need for new infrastructure capacity created by new development. This technical report has been prepared to support legal compliance with existing case law and statutory requirements and documents the methodology used for the EMS impact fee calculations, including an evaluation of the inventory, service area and demand component, level of service (LOS), cost, credit, and demand components. Information supporting this analysis was obtained from the County and other sources, as indicated. Benesch Collier County October 2024 4 EMS Impact Fee Study DRAFT Inventory According to information provided by the Collier County Emergency Medical Services Division (CCEMS), the County owns 13 stations used to provide emergency medical services. In addition, the County operates 13 additional stations out of leased buildings. For impact fee calculation purposes, only the owned facilities are included in this study. Table 1 shows a summary of the CCEMS building inventory included in the impact fee calculations. As presented, the inventory used to calculate impact fees includes a total of 82,600 square feet of building space and 30 acres of land dedicated to EMS related services. The total building and land value is approximately $43.4 million including $38.0 million for buildings and $5.4 million for land. A. The building value per square foot is estimated based on recent construction costs, estimates for upcoming construction, insurance values of the existing EMS stations, and discussions with the County. The building value is estimated at $460 per square foot. Appendix A provides further detail on the building cost estimates. The land value is estimated at $180,000 per acre based on an analysis of vacant land value trends since the last study, recent land purchases, and an analysis of vacant land sales and values based on information from the Collier County Property Appraiser. 4 4k 4z0q%hh1'% Benesch Collier County October 2024 5 EMS Impact Fee Study r LL Q 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N O LD O 0 0 wN N :tO O LO -* 0 0 O NLnN 0a 0 OlC 'tll V ManON w N N m rl Ln O N Ln rq l0 m M rq O o 00' Nm j OO V LO N LO NM l0 wLn LO Ln r-I .--1 01 O V Ln Lnn MtlO M LO o0 oo O r-I n Nr-I n 00 LT M M N ri N ri V1 ri ri N ri ri N N N Ln en VT V? V} v1 V} V} v1 to V} V} V1- V) r-I a V} {/} o O O O O Q O O O Q O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O\ O \ 0 0 O O O O O O ll O cm)t0 00 It N Z O O O Z a N W DD O N 00 � l0 O O w cr N co l0 r-I N l0 r-I O n O LO O al m M O V m M O m O n 00 n N o0 n �--� m O O coM VT r-Ir-I V} Vn N vl V) (N n M Vl V) N V} M Vl -CT V) n V} N V} ri VL m vl lO -T u1 ri V► o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0¢¢ Q ¢� o o N O lO O O O LO N N MT O l0 MT\\\ '� N tD n tO O O n O CO l0 M O l0 lT Z Z Z Z LO N M W O M O N Ln r-I lO O M n M N ll 11:1 lO m rr l0 C KtlO L!1 N V M 0 Q1 N rr-IN rr-r-IV} r ri ' N r-I r-I N N N V n in. V} VA, Vl� V} V? Vn V^ V} V? V4 V1 r-I M A^ in Q O O O Q m m ri wO 'mLD m N O n M N O\ Ln O Ln \ M wmt O m 01 V V O N O O r-I O Z r-I N O Z r-I r-I N V O Ln m O M Q o m r-IM Q Q O n Ln N m m o Q ¢ Q Q \ N w Ln m \ \ Ln m w V n Ln m \ \ \ \ Z N M O Z Z V r-I O N m V ri Z Z Z Z O O O O O O O O O O O Q LD o o m M LT r-Io M m lD LO LD m � O\ m O m LD Moo V O n LT V m n m N n ri Z Ln N ri O ri ri N O n O Ln 00 r-I r-I o0 N LO Q n 0a LD o Q m n r-I N O Ln ri oa ¢ Q Q Q \ n m Ln Ol \ ri V m n o o0 N oo \ \ \ -- Z I a ri V Z ri It Ln LO L.n LT m m Z Z Z Z tD -1-1 LT V LT LT Ln -t Ln n N Lmn ri N o c-1 O Ln o -1 n n M O Ln "I Ol Q Q Q n LD l0 lD O M O n V n n O o0 N m- LT m N m m ri m Ln ct r-I Ln Ln mm N Z Z Z Z Ln V M L!1 M r-I N M me M M Ln nj I m m 00 v v v m r-I m LD r-I v m .-I lD to a1 M rl D1 N O1 O1 LT M O1 oo Ol O O O N O r-I o 0 0 ri N 01 a) LT Ol Ol a) LT O O O O O O O o O O O ci r-I r-I ri ri r-I N N N N N N N N N N N m -O > > > O > Q) > m m m - O N O Y O 3 L o 5 > C o s L �_ 0 0 m o m 3 y m a Z E K N > y m N O fa Y v m p s v 6 o v Ln v N m 7 Y n- dcu U C �+ F Y O t'' O C m co, N of ri - O E L1 L of m LJ c�-I p o1 3 v Y m m E E nn c> 'u m> 00 LD 0 0 O C O 7 E - s m m w -- 'O m l7 O r-I LD Y Q m 2 Ln O J m O LL Ln > r-I Ln N O Ln M Ln m Ln O J m :t �T O lD I, l0 V N r-I ri n `~ LT N LT O � r-I Ln Ln M n n n a r-I r-I r-I r-I o n ri Ln rn n N m V LD M Ln a mO n w2 v lO ri N 0 r-IN oo 0 ;o o O _ X Ln LL a v r-I rl Ln 2 v E Lu m n c c c 3 O L° o 0 o v a. Q V_ Ln L% Ln w O Q o C LjCL O O O O y u m m m m > M V O n O M ri N N -zt O r-I ri n V N N N Ln N Ln n LD n C J J J J tio 3 C C C C C C C C � C C C C > 0 0 0 Y 0 Y 0 + 0 + 0 Y 0 Y 0 �+ 0 0 0 .0 o Y O Y v m m m ra M � i0 m m m m m m m m m m m m E V 0 cn Vf N L% t%1 Ly in L% t%1 L% Vf L% t%1 Lu > > > > F m J O O O r-I T v Ln N a0 � � T L � aJ U o v 3 p O O c-I a1 T a1 t a)00 rr-I ai a) E L cr w Y t E 0 a)+i u L c0 U _� Q av aJ 7 aJ 0- a) O ty 7 E aJ E ZA (6 N O *' 0 L > > In V, IL 6 al i O_ C Ln C O E � co c a) a� F O aJ +' > L n 3as T c1 O O u E .N v Q 3 Qj j as -0 a O u Ln 'O 75 w _ E i- s 4- a lD � a, o +! E a' aw)i E +� Ln 3 N V) a, a, E U 0 O M > ) U 0 6 O v ++ L CU O as M O E O uvSUa) to a -- v v V f6 H h L V Ln Q Q Q VI (n ro E a-1 N M � Ln lD n DO 01 T N aJ v Ll U f6 CQ E cN G W P7 7 _ / 2 / \ Z k $ { _ = w of u » \ \ \ @ § \ \ » ) - ) > k \ u ± / E » \ bnr-\ CL / E » » a)\ � u \/-0 - \ { E J @ � a u = M u 7 / m 2 rn = \ \ a) / / \ / 0 \ = a) :rn /\G®®2 LU j k \ \ » \ : s u § 7 o _ u .� c u a) } / w { < W. __ W / \ _ 3 § \ \ § \ m g : 5 / » 2 = 0 / \ z s 0 < 2 ) \ § § ° .$ : @ t = } / % \ \ 2 \ � Q � \ � Q -1 \ -1 S � y � ± » \ / LU » DRAFT In addition to the facilities included in Table 1, the County also leases 26,100 square feet of building space for thirteen additional stations. These leased facilities, which are not included in the impact fee calculations but provide services to County residents, are presented in Table 2. Table 2 Leased EMS Stations Station 1 AddressFacility 835 8th Ave. South, Naples 34102 2,200 Station 50(2) 1280 San Marco Rd., Marco Island 34145 1,200 Station 40 1441 Pine Ridge Rd., Naples 34109 2,500 Station 60 201 Buckner Ave., Everglades City 34139 2,700 Station 23 6055 Collier Blvd., Naples, 34114 2,500 Station 2 977 26th Ave. North, 34103 1,500 Station 43 16325 Vanderbilt Dr., 34110 2,500 Station 90 175 Capri Blvd., Naples 34113 2,500 Station 46 3410 Pine Ridge Rd., 34109 2,500 Station 32 5368 Useppa Drive, Ave Maria 34142 1,148 Station 48 16280 Livingston Road, Naples, FI 34110 895 Station 20 14798 Davis Blvd, Naples, FL 34104 2,000 Station 31 502 East New Market Rd, Immokalee, FI 34142 2,000 Total 26,143 1) Source: Collier Countv 2) Station 50 was demolished and was rebuilt by Marco Island Fire. County. In the interim, the County leased a temporary space at the hospital which was 1,200 square feet. In addition to the land and buildings inventory, the CCEMS also has the necessary vehicles and equipment to perform its emergency medical services duties. Table 3 summarizes the vehicle and equipment inventory. Equipment included in this list follows the County's definition of capital assets, which includes items that have a minimum value of $5,000 and five years of useful life. As shown, the total CCEMS vehicle and equipment inventory amounts to approximately $19.4 million. Benesch Collier County October 2024 8 EMS Impact Fee Study DRAFT Table 3 Vehicle and Equipment Inventory Description Value Vehicles ALS Ambulance 42 $432,200 $18,152,400 Ford Explorer 12 $60,000 $720,000 Ford Escape 2 $24,000 $48,000 Econo Van 1 $30,000 $30,000 Hazmat Trailer 1 $29,500 $29,500 Chevrolet C4500 1 $63,500 $63,500 Ford F350 1 $44,200 $44,200 Haulmark 1 $5,500 5 500 Subtotal -- Vehicles $19,093,100 Equipment Mobile MHz Radios 1 2 $5,300 $10,600 Mobile MHz Radios 2 6 $5,100 $30,600 UHF/VHF/800 MHz Radio Ambulance 45 $5,400 $243,000 Subtotal -- Equipment $284,200 Total $19, 377, 300 1) Source: Collier County 2) Source: Collier County 3) Units (Item 1) multiplied by unit value (Item 2) Benesch Collier County October 2024 9 EMS Impact Fee Study DRAFT Service Area and Demand Component Emergency medical services are provided by Collier County in all areas of the county. Therefore, the proper benefit district for the provision of emergency response services is countywide. The EMS impact fee program requires the use of population data in calculating current levels of service and to be consistent with the population utilized in the County's comprehensive planning and Annual Update and Inventory Report (AUIR) process, this impact fee study considers not only the resident or permanent population of the County, but also the number of seasonal residents and visitors as well. Therefore, for purposes of this technical analysis, the peak season population is used in all population estimates and projections. Peak seasonal population projections were provided by Collier County's Comprehensive Planning Division. X. To measure effective population that benefits from emergency medical services, this study also developed functional population figures. Functional population, as used in the impact fee analysis, is a generally accepted methodology for several impact fee areas and is based on the assumption that demand for certain facilities is generally proportional to the presence of people at a land use, including residents, employees, and visitors. Appendix B provides additional details on population estimates. Benesch Collier County October 2024 10 EMS Impact Fee Study DRAFT Level of Service For impact fee calculation purposes, the current level of service (LOS) is calculated based on stations per peak seasonal and functional resident, as presented in Table 4. It should be noted that two different calculations of the current LOS were provided in the table. One of these calculations includes only the stations owned by the County and is used in the calculation of the impact fee. The other includes stations that are owned and leased, which better reflects the service County residents are receiving. However, because impact fees need to be based on capital investment made by the existing population, the LOS calculations exclude leased stations, which are considered operational expenses. The achieved LOS based on owned stations is 0.000027 per functional resident and is utilized in the calculation of the EMS impact fee. Table 4 m166, '& Current Achieved Level of Service Year2024 Variable Peak Functional Population Population Population�) 491,779 475,042 Number of Owned Stations (2) 13 13 Number of Owned and Leased Stations (3) 26 26 Population per Station (4) 18,915 18,271 Current LOS (All Stations per Resident)(5) 0.000053 0.000055 Current LOS (Owned Stations per Resident)(') 0.000026 0.000027 1) Source: Aaaendix B. Table B-1 for peak aooulation and Table B-7 for functional population 2) Table 1 3) Number of owned stations (Item 2) plus the 13 leased stations from Table 2 and Station 76 4) Population (Item 1) divided by number of owned stations and leased stations include Station 76 (Item 3) 5) Number of owned stations and leased stations including Station 76 (Item 3) divided by population (Item 1) 6) Number of owned stations (Item 2) divided by population (Item 1) Benesch Collier County October 2024 11 EMS Impact Fee Study DRAFT Cost Component Table 5 provides a summary of EMS related capital assets owned by the County. As shown, the total capital asset value associated with EMS amounts to $62.8 million. However, the County is still paying debt service on a portion of these assets. In addition, it is Collier County's policy to use impact fee revenues to pay debt service associated with capacity expansion projects. To ensure that new development is not being overcharged for these future payments, the portion of the remaining principal of bonds used to fund EMS capacity expansion projects is subtracted from the total asset value in Table 5. The resulting owned capital asset value is approximately $58.6 million or $4.5 million per station. 4 kk Table 5 also presents the cost per functional resident for the impact fee analysis. This cost is calculated by multiplying the owned capital asset value per station by the current LOS of 0.00027 stations per functional resident. As shown, these calculations result in $122 per functional resident for all EMS assets considered in the impact fee calculations. _ V Table 5 Total Impact Cost per Functional Resident Description Figure Percent of Total"" Total Building Value(i) $37,994,620 60.5% Total Land Value (2) $5,403,600 8.6% Total Vehicle and Equipment Value (3) $19,377,300 30.9% Total Capital Asset Value (4) $62,775,520 100.0% Less: Portion Not Owned (5) $4,126,165 Owned Capital Asset Value (6) $58,649,355 Number of Owned Stations (7) 13 Owned Capital Asset Value per Station (8) $4,511,489 Current LOS (Owned Stations per Functional Resident)(9) 0.000027 Total Impact Cost per Functional Resident(10) $121.81 11 Source: Table 1 2) Source: Table 1 3) Source: Table 3 4) Sum of building, land, vehicle and equipment values (Items 1, 2, and 3) 5) Source: Colier County Office of Management and Budget 6) Total capital asset value (Item 4) less the portion not owned (Item 5) 7) Source: Table 1 8) Owned capital asset value (Item 6) divided by the number of owned stations (Item 7) 9) Source: Table 4 10) Owned capital asset value per station (Item 8) multiplied by current LOS (Item 9) 11) Distribution of total capital asset value (Item 4) Benesch Collier County October 2024 12 EMS Impact Fee Study DRAFT Credit Component To avoid overcharging new development for the EMS impact fee, a review of the capital financing program for EMS was completed. The purpose of this review was to determine any potential revenue credits that should be considered for revenues generated by new development that could be used for capital facility expansion, land purchase, or vehicle/equipment expansion for the EMS program. Capital Expansion "Cash" Credit To calculate the capital expansion credit per functional resident, funding sources used for the past five years and programmed for the next five years were reviewed. Between FY 2018 and FY 2027, the County has allocated an average non -impact fee funding of $250,500 per year towards EMS capital facilities utilizing grants and land sales proceeds. The annual capital expansion "cash" expenditures were divided by the average annual functional residents for the same period to calculate the average annual capital expansion "cash" credit per functional resident. As presented in Table 6, the result is $0.54 per functional resident annually. Collier County has also allocated revenues from the one -percent local government infrastructure surtax for capacity expansion projects. The infrastructure surtax was repealed on December 31, 2023, and the County does not intend to reimplement this funding mechanism. Therefore, this funding source is excluded from the credit calculations. I Benesch Collier County October 2024 13 EMS Impact Fee Study DRAFT Table 6 Capital Expansion "Cash" Credit escription American Rescue Plan . Ambulances & SUVs - 1 700 000 $1,700,000 Subtotal -- American Rescue Plan - $1,700,000 $1,700,000 GAC Land Sales Trust Fund EMS Station 74 - Golden Gate Estates $105,000 - $105,000 EMS Station 74 - Golden Gate Estates, Ambulance - 700 438 700 438 Subtotal -- GAC Land Sales Trust Fund $105,000 $700,438 $805,438 Total Capital Expansion "Cash" Expenditures $2,505,438 Average Annual Capital Expansion "Cash" Expenditures (2) $250,544 Average Annual Functional Population (3) 461,884 Annual Capital Expansion "Cash" Expenditures per Functional Resident(4) $0.54 1) Source: Collier County 2) Total capital expansion "cash" expenditures divided by 10 to calculate the average annual expenditures 3) Source: Appendix B, Table B-7. Average functional population over the same time period. 4) Average annual capital expansion "cash" expenditures (Item 2) divided by the average annual functional population (Item 3) Note: Excludes projects funded with Infrastructure Sales Tax since this tax was repealed in December 2023. Benesch Collier County October 2024 14 EMS Impact Fee Study DRAFT Net EMS Impact Cost Table 7 summarizes the calculation of the net EMS impact cost per functional resident which is the difference between the total impact cost and the capital expansion "cash" credit per functional resident. The resulting net impact cost is $113 per functional resident. Table 7 Net Impact Cost per Functional Resident Variable Per Functional Resident Impact Cost Total Impact Cost per Functional Resident(l) $121.81 Impact Credit Average Annual Capital Expansion "Cash" Credit per Functional Resident(z) $0.54 Capitalization Rate 3.70% Capitalization Period (years) 25 Capital Expansion "Cash" Credit per Functional Resident(3) $8.71 Net Impact Cost Net Impact Cost per Functional Resident(4) $113.10 1) 2) 3) 4) Source: Table 5 Source: Table 6 The present value of the average annual capital expansion "cash" credit per functional resident using an interest rate of 3.7 percent over a capitalization period of 25 years. The capitalization rate estimate was provided by Collier County. Total impact cost per functional resident (Item 1) less capital expansion "cash" credit per functional resident (Item 31 t Benesch Collier County October 2024 15 EMS Impact Fee Study DRAFT Calculated EMS Impact Fee Schedule Table 8 presents the calculated EMS impact fee schedule for both residential and non-residential land uses, based on the net impact cost per functional resident figure presented in Table 7. Net impact cost per functional resident increased by approximately 45 percent since the 2015 study due to changes to cost and credit components. The remaining differences reflect the changes in the demand component since 2015 as well as new land use categories or units. Table 8 also shows the maximum allowable impact fees consistent with F.S. 163.3180 and the percent change from the current adopted impact fee. Benesch Collier County October 2024 16 EMS Impact Fee Study 0) r LL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0¢ 0 0 0 0¢ 0 0 0 0 0 0 a a 0 O O Na) O O O O ll \ Z m 01 1, n\ Z N O O V V O\\ Z Z V1 m Ln Ln m Ln M Ln N M e--I Lf) Ln V V Ln m 1, m m Ln N rI r, 'D Q m n oo v ¢ m LD co Ln 11 m ¢ ¢ _ 01 1, Ol oo N r-I V O O m N N m Ln V 01 l0 O \ Z O N V1 m O r, Z Vl V O 1, N oo O 0) m c-I N oo \\ Z Z I, V 01 cy m N O 1--1 Lfl r-I Ol VT lD V} D1 V? oo V} O 11 Ln tr} r-I V} M V} N V) m ri V? V} V} r-I 'Al V} V ci V} VT V} V} V} V} V} 0 0 0 a 0 0\' 0 0 0 o 01 m N N N c:) Ol M n\ Z m al l\ N\ Z N O Ln V V lf) \\ Z Z Lf1 m Ln Ln M Ol N c-I O rl N fY) V c-I oo V V lD m M 1, m O r1 r1 c-1 w m 1, a m r1 1, N C m N Ol oo Ln Ol O m Ln o0 O O Ln LD N w N 01 1, V N N 1, V N o0 V 41) Ln N Ol r, m N N M m 01 -a c;) V V M 2 V V N LD 1, N N -O n V m LD r1 lD lD lD Ln N cy m 1 r-IN W V 1, V) V). V} V) V} \ Ln c-I V} c-I VT V} rl 14 V). V} VT V} V). V} V} N V} N rl V} m ate+ V} N ^ 0o m cq t4 m D m V +h Vt n M O N N N rl rl N w N M N v N M rl w M .-I N w v 01 M O1 a O N rl O LO O O M rl t0 W!M rl O M O rl rl 1� P v N O �4 N m rl O w N M O N w v rl O m rl m M w V 01 rl v N O rl m rl N rl l0 V4 M rl N rl O rl w N M N rl VT m V! N N N M m rl rl Vn rl VT VF rl VF V! N V! m VT R ei V! N N V! V> V> V! N V> V> V* V4 oo u1 tD 11 m 1, Ln M n Ol 1, W N O V M N o m w o w 1l l/•1 1� ri rn m o Ln N o 0o M v r1 0o N m � r1 0 o r1 o v oo N a -I . N O c-I rl O rl c-I O N O O O O M c-I O O O O O O O . .--I t 3 -a-o-o 3 = 3 O -o-o O o o-o 3 O O O N a N a N o N -o W a o O O O O o O '^ % O o L o L o O ci o o c-1 3 VI 3 Vf O N O iA 3 i/L o O a --I o O ci o O ci v v � Y > o` c > T C ) — E N +O i N W 00 c Cc + N n G C u V > O v y V Y o Ln O v Q ^E . .. L N _ N N YO C Y N E E •V 11 E O L pp m U U Y G1 O o ro v E E _ N (p W > O O CD L S •� O O N CO \ N V > E U U :Ll E v w _O LA o_ 7 7 v _ E m w E O c C V) J o j N O y E o \ U O v1 m 2 — 2 O 7 'LS iT+ Y N +L.+ N E Q H to \ O V L i L fo N O- Y r Q C U N N y Lu Z •� '6 •� .O O C O O y O p O 7 tEa m p j O m N M aC l7 2 Q Z u 2 (D m O W 2>> u O 2 NLn • O N O N Q M O V o lD o O m Ln m N O N Ln Ln O Ln O a c-I N O r N Ln N Ln N w \ O N CO Lf) N N lD c l V N m \ C V V \ C G O N Ln N Ln N Ln \ O LD In lD In •• rl lD S N N L. c M Q Ln V N W t3 � O N cOl C cc n ri 4) 0 0 0 e 0 0 0 0 0 Q\ 0 0 0 0� e 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o n m w kD W o o v Z o o v v 0 01 0 In \\ Z z o v o In tD o v -e0 Ln L V V M 11 4 Ln M V Ln N V N Ln N rl Ln M N 4Ln L(1 V V Ln tD O 00 Ln r1 rl Ln M tD Q 1 L r-I '-1 V w -1 O rl Q Q V 00 I, Ol Ln M O tD lO tD N 00 O o0 00 V tD N \ M O 1" r1 N lD O1 \ \ 00 O lit N N D1 V O N O rl 00 Kt N N o0 N tD Z r1 V V e1 00 -4 O O Z Z n M tD M Ln -4 00 O1 r1 01 V) M 11 00 rl O r1 N N N N 00 N 1 N tD rl Kt N -zT tD O N 01 rl N i/} N c-I tD r1 1l M V O M O1 M r1 V r1 M N O M 01 Vl y 01 r N 14 V} VT V} V) V} Vy V} V) V} VT V} Vy V1. V) V) V} Vy V) V). V). V} V} Lf 0 o Q o 0 0 0 0\'\' o\'\' o o Q Q 0 0 0 0\'\' o 0 0 0 0 00 I, N 00 tD tD ei O V \ Ol M V V O 01 O Il \ \ tD V 01 1, tD rl V V 01 r t V M 1-1 rl tD M V Z lit m V N 00 N rl V Z Z m M 00 N rl m V V lD V V w V m N m M O M O M O M V O w M >. m O al V M 1� O V o0 V 00 M O tD 01 tD Ln N N O Ln tD Lq V1 O m N m N m N 01 N V -! V 00 O m O m N N (N V N\ O m N M 00 m 00 00 H 00 00 11 M M M 00 00 O lD t/) 00 VY M ci I� t/T Ql r1 Ol .--i Ol r1 lD c-I rl c-I 00 r1 lD c-I N V H Ln r1 ti V). r1 H tD N Ol lD tD Vy O O O V) H . Vt• V} V} V} V} 4^ V} VT V} V} V} V} in N i--I VT t/} VT VT V} VT Ln O n ~ Ln O 00 LR N N m M t0 N r1 w e4 v M r1 O P t0 v4 M 00 r1 m N o O O Ln a N 00 O 00 00 . 00 t0 N P t0 M N ei M a t0 O1 O t0 M O 01 N N Ln � O 00 . . 00 . 0 . N N . . N . t0 . N . Ln . Ln . o . . N1 . . O . O . 00 . 01 . N . M . r1 . . N . . 00 . 01 . t0 O 0 ei M m ei 00 rl O ei N N N N o O M er-iq N t0 ei ei 14 LA N LA to O N in 01 ei M VT N N ei LD rl P M � t0 O t0 O 0 M 01 11 ei � v rl M N O o M 01 VF 01 rl M a -I N N N i? V! i? � V! N i? V! V} N N N V. N N N �-I N N N N14 V4 iA yr Lf1 tD rI N n n V 00 1, O t0 O e-1 m O O N 00 M T 1p m N N w e-I 1, tD ei m H tD m Ol 01 I� 00 V N N 00 M tD M Lf1 M O I, 00 I, N O c-I 4 CD .--I c-I N e-I rl -1 N In -1 -4 O -1 -4 M Ln In Ol 00 .--1 -4 N N O .--I -I m m m m o o o � 0 0 0 0 ... 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o a Q a o a o 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 O O O O 0 O 0 0 0 u u O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 41 N GJ O O ri ri ri ti O O O O ri ti .--i ri ri ri .-i ri ri ri ri .ti ri ri w w w N ri ri w � N H 0J O O O O s O H 0l O s p" v u 0 0 a N °- v ^ o CD s v u u N o O 0 Ln c-I O) to y aw V tJ ar m O` q I m f`o a2i \ \ ao o Y o v s v w U Y H Y rl Q O 0l o O `u O O w O a 0 0 o m o Y c n 3 n N o O o v v m a E u v �0 u U � Y Y Y Y 3 Q !_ Vl w i C m 0 m cmc omc s z H i'n uo 2 0. w 6 O1 w � w a � 6 O t O O O 0 nl O Lt` O 7 0c1 C V N Y Ln Y O t O Y 1- v ~ L H 3 di t c c 3 u u u v v W O) 7 m O s N w O N L H 4 O 0 mm-. N I � 7 H > > O > O > O m in 3 3 v�i7, non 3 c c c �o o o v v o > > 7 C E 0 a 9 0 o O .Z v m m \\u v1 F F O 0 0 =. m m m O i C Q ? y y LOL y VI In V In L c c in 3 gyp' p in in m= 0 x m m LL J 2 LL Il .v� V 0 uD (D Ln Q J L O Cl O N N rl Cl 0�0 01 O r1 N 0�0 O r1 N O r1 N V ~ -1 V V V1 1- 1* \ r r1 N I, N N N N \ V In Ln tD 00 Ol c-I rl M M M M V V V V CT V LL 1, N n 00 00 00 00 O 00 00 00 00 a 00 N O1 m m 0) 0) O1 rn 01 O1 m 0) O1 m 0 00 00 0 O cc Li 00 -1 0) 3 GJ s v N W W LL 4, v to Q E C� ui C 4J m v m U r LL Q 0 0 0 0 U, V N O I� c•I CIl _ rn oo m m O w c m in Ln N v} 0 0 0 0 In V N N Obi I� V m c V m m rq V). C! 01 M M O '•I M N Ln N rl i/? Ln m O m v Ln ti o 0 o d o 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O ti ri c-i c-i Y � N C to C to L � Y •v, L v J � 7 � C C C O1-1 a .s V r1 In c-I In ti 3 a aJ L O N v c L U 4J Lf1 O E N r-I-I E N N � ++ u U 7 E v v Q � C N M O C E 9 2 00 E r 7 (6 N M E O 'D X U 41 U E 7 E Q ci v L.. O O 00 .- L 00 s v o .T E 0 - � f6 N N Q ru 4A = O LL ++ O N L v 7 d i = a� E O - vf C U = o v N U M a) Q) L La) 6- N E a E o v O W w CL 3 U C tl0 v 0) (0 N = C E a E 4. to d !0 O CL a,Q ++ d E a c c�i O) O O , p = a 0) C d (� v O ! L L 4�_ u }J u a)Q U � U Q m 0) Q N U s E s O T +' .- +' `) C N E 7 O O Q U W T c c 4 � 43) 0= ra ca Z U U E U ++ 7 4+ L L U X U O O W m a) to to d G d ,; N M Ln lD J rn r LL li L Ln 3 Ln _N D a) t U In a (, a-1 U f6 a E W 4- 0 _ O In •L f0 a O U fC6 C fE bA _ O O L N Q •L c� Q) Q Q) E 4 O v U ca Ln Q E V) G � UJ Ln Q) V) Q a-1 M w, O U v O N U }' C: O O raa m _0 _0 Q •L O c LL. L 4- O 3 Q) N t O 4- 4-- O a) L � Q a E Ln Q OU _ O �L Q E O U 3 s u LL QJ VI v m N V C� C T V _ CUD N W 0 � t a � YC E a1 L U c C � \ Ln L1 a) L a1 �' LL O v 3 � � v � v U > o a C O >• C U N a1 LL \ Ln Q a) _ UA N Ln L fj co co a) LU N U LL 00 ON > c u vi N i rj O Cl LL m O N i U A aJ rl L O ra p 00 __ a L + ma) ro Lzo .0 > C) � '+ L.O dA C C Ln +..�w 0 U oz > O ,O N ,a) ++ N U a) cca +� a) u v LL (6 O2S G •`-' W v a)a >_ v a E On c v v w v t c *' a, E v v co Lw c a a a v co .� Q a) O LL O vU L0 a U C a O v E p co a) L E i a) E i �-+ o Li '} O L O v a v LL i s C _ +� . a) r a) a1 ++ p U CL C)Lv a) a, i E �+ `� u = +' a p E i Ln v v u p a LL N c a)u m +� N a, E ai a) o N N o w E C E ,� c LL E o a v s> w n v v o c O LL E $ v c� > E Li O E 2 ao E ho O o ri me O a) � LZ c E E •E > c)+� C :t +> Lb u o a) a mU _ m } O � u a M U LL E m >• O O 0 7 U 0 Ln O m i s D > Q O *' Lw 3 O O U U a v U U i U c O O v a cO a) 7 OO ' < bA N O = i N 0 � o 0 0 +- O U M U ra - Y v .0 � C E - v m M v C U O C a) H v 7 E v v v u u v v u Ln E a v v u v u u u u a I I C X L L L = m -6 Ln cm G Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln U) Ln Ln ri N m � L11 l0 FZ LX1 LT O N DRAFT Appendix Building and Land Value Analysis - Supplemental Information DRAFT Appendix A — Building and Land Value Analysis This appendix provides additional data and information on building and land value estimates. Building Values In determining the appropriate unit cost for building construction, the following analyses were conducted: • A review of recently built or planned EMS stations in Collier County; • Cost trends since the most recent technical study; • Insurance value of the existing inventory; and • Discussions with the County. Collier County built EMS Station 76 in 2017 for a cost of $326 per square foot. EMS Station 25, built in 2021, had a building cost of $531 per square foot. The County is planning to build two new EMS stations and one new Fire/EMS station. The cost estimates for these planned stations range from $353 per square foot to $628 per square foot. The average cost of the recently constructed stations and planned stations is $460 per square foot. During the 2016 impact fee study, the value of stations was estimated at $300 per square foot. Applying Engineering News Records Building Cost Index for the cost changes between 2016 and 2024 resulted in a unit cost of approximately $436 per square foot. The average insurance value of EMS stations in Collier County is $302 per square foot. It should be noted that insurance values are considered to be a conservative estimate because the value of the foundation and other more permanent parts of the structure tends to be excluded since they would not have to be rebuilt if the structure was damaged or lost. Given this information, an average building value of $460 per square foot is used for the current station value. Benesch Collier County October 2024 A-1 EMS Impact Fee Study Table A-1 Building Cost Estimates W- 0 2016 Cos, 2016 Cost Description Estimate Indexed (2) 2016 Study Cost Estimates Indexed Cost Estimate Used in 2016 Study $300 $442 ENR Index (2016-2024)(3) 47.46% roject Year Construction Cost per SF Insurance Values(4) Average Building Value per Square Foot 2022 $302 Recent/Upcoming Construction(s) Station 76 2017 $326 Station 25 - Hacienda Lakes 2021 $531 Fire and EMS Station 74 2024 $628 Heritage Bay EMS Station Upcoming $353 Old US 41/North Naples EMS station Upcoming $460 Average $460 Used in the Study 2024 $460 1) Source: Collier County Emergency Medical Services Impact Fee Update Study, October 10, 2016 2) Source: 2016 cost estimate (Item 1) indexed according to the Engineering News Record (ENR) (Item 3) 3) Source: Engineering News Record, Building Cost Index 4) Source: Collier County 5) Source: Collier County Land Values 1% Iq To determine land value for future EMS station land purchases, the following data/information was evaluated: • Cost trends since the most recent technical study; • Current value of land where EMS stations are located; • Vacant land sales analysis; • Vacant land values as reported by the Property Appraiser; and • Discussions with the County. Benesch Collier County October 2024 A-2 EMS Impact Fee Study DRAFT The 2016 study estimated land value at $160,000 per acre. Since then, land values increased by approximately 118 percent, which results in an indexed value of approximately $349,000 per acre. The value of parcels where existing EMS stations are located ranges from $29,000 per acre to $1.3 million per acre with an average of $280,000 per acre. Vacant land sales of parcels between 0.5 to 5 acres countywide between 2018 and 2022 averaged $80,000 per acre. This value was over $460,000 per acre when commercial vacant land was considered. Similarly, the value of all vacant land of 0.5-acre to 5-acre parcels as estimated by Collier County Property Appraiser averaged $56,000 per acre. This figure was $370,000 per acre for commercial vacant land. It is likely that future EMS stations will be built in the eastern parts of the county. An evaluation of the vacant residential land sales between 2018 and 2022 and commercial land sales for 0.5 to 5-acre parcels in the area east of County Road 951 resulted in an average land value of $60,000 per acre for residential land uses, and $370,000 per acre for commercial land uses. Median values for these sales were $35,000 per acre for residential vacant land and $365,000 per acre for commercial vacant land. Finally, sales of agricultural parcels resulted in an average value of $37,000 per acre and a median value of $16,000 per acre. Currently, approximately 20 percent of EMS stations are in rural/agricultural areas, 30 percent in residential areas while the remaining 50 percent are in commercial areas. As presented in Table A-2, using a conservative assumption that more of the future purchases will be in residential areas and applying these percentages to the estimated land values by land use results in a combined land value of approximately $180,000 per acre, which is considered to be a reasonable estimate for impact fee calculation purposes. Table A-2 Weighted Land Value (1) Land Use Distribution Rural/Agricultural 10% Land Value per Acre (2) $35,000 Weighted Land Value per Acre (3) $3,500 Residential 50% $60,000 $30,000 Commercial 40% $370,000 148 MOP Total $181,500 Land Value Used in the Study $180,000 1) Based on the current distribution. with the assumption that future purchases will be more heavily in residential areas 2) Distribution (Item 1) multiplied by land value per acre (Item 2) for each land use 3) Based on the weighted land value per acre Benesch Collier County October 2024 A-3 EMS Impact Fee Study DRAFT Appendix Population Estimates Supplemental Information DRAFT Appendix B — Population Estimates The EMS impact fee program requires the use of population data in calculating current levels of service and to be consistent with the population utilized in the County's comprehensive planning and Annual Update and Inventory Report (AUIR) process. This impact fee study considers not only the resident or permanent population of the County, but also the number of seasonal residents and visitors as well. Therefore, for purposes of this technical analysis, the peak seasonal population is used in all population estimates and projections. Peak seasonal population projections were provided by Collier County's Comprehensive Planning Division. Table B-1 presents the seasonal population trends for Collier County. The projections indicate that the current peak seasonal population of the county is approximately 491,800 and is expected to increase to 582,700 (increase of 90,900) by 2040. The estimated average growth rate is approxi 611 Benesch Collier County October 2024 B-1 EMS Impact Fee Study DRAFT Table B-1 Collier County Population Estimates (Countywide) r Ir, 2010 Peak PopulationCountywide Seasonal 387,183 -A Pe enj rc - 2011 392,180 1.3% 2012 398,107 1.5% 2013 402,268 1.0% 2014 408,351 1.5 % 2015 416,402 2.0% 2016 424,603 2.0% 2017 433,359 2.1% 2018 442,240 2.0% 2019 451,303 2.0% 2020 455,059 0.8% 2021 464,155 2.0% 2022 474,235 2.2% 2023 483,487 2.0% 2024 491,779 1.7% 2025 499,426 1.6% 2026 506,406 1.4% 2027 513,483 1.4% 2028 520,660 1.4% 2029 527,936 1.4% 2030 534,305 1.2% 2031 539,741 1.0% 2032 545,233 1.0% 2033 550,781 1.0% 2034 556,384 1.0% 2035 561,339 0.9% 2036 565,633 0.8% 2037 569,960 0.8% 2038 574,320 0.8% 2039 578,7141 0.8% 2040 1 582,7211 0.7% Source: Collier County Comprehensive Planning Section (population projections dated May 2024) Benesch Collier County October 2024 B-2 EMS Impact Fee Study DRAFT Apportionment of Demand by Residential Unit Type and Size The residential land uses to be used for the EMS impact fee calculations include the following: • Single Family (Detached) • Multi -Family • Mobile Home/ RV Park (tied down) • Retirement Community (detached and attached) Table B-2 presents the number of residents per housing unit for the residential categories identified above in Collier County. This analysis includes all housing units, both occupied and vacant. ff A. To address fairness and equity issues between land uses, the single family land use is tiered based on two categories of square footage: less than 4,000 square feet and 4,000 square feet and greater. To accommodate the tiering of impact fee assessments for the single family residential land use category, an analysis was completed based on housing unit size and persons per housing unit, comparing nationwide averages to those of Collier County. This analysis utilized national data from the 2021 American Housing Survey (AHS) and data from the 2022 American Community Survey (ACS) to examine this relationship. Table B-2 esidents per Housing Unit 1) Source: 2022 ACS 5-Yr Estimates, Table B25033 (owner occupied and renter occupied), adjusted for peak seasonal population. 2) Source: 2022 ACS 5-Yr Estimates, Table DP04 3) Ratios developed based on national PPH data derived from the 2021 American Housing Survey. 4) Population (Item 1) divided by housing units (Item 2). For single family detached tiers, the residents per housing unit is determined by multiplying the weighted average value (2.58) by the ratio developed from the AHS data (Item 3). Benesch Collier County October 2024 B-3 EMS Impact Fee Study DRAFT 5) Estimate for retirement community (detached) is based on people per household figures for single family homes, adjusted for the residents over 55 years of age based on information obtained from the 2017 National Household Travel Survey, prepared by the US Department of Transportation. 6) Estimate for retirement community (attached) is based on people per household figures for multi -family homes, adjusted for the residents over 55 years of age based on information obtained from the 2017 National Household Travel Survey, prepared by the US Department of Transportation. Functional Population This study uses functional population as the demand component, which distributes the cost associated with the availability of EMS facilities among various land uses based on the density of people at each land use throughout the day. Functional population, as used in the impact fee analysis, is a generally accepted methodology and is based on the assumption that demand for certain facilities is generally proportional to the presence of people at a land use, including residents, employees, and visitors. It is not enough to simply add resident population to the number of employees, since the service -demand characteristics can vary considerably by type of industry. N*# Functional population is the equivalent number of people occupying space within a community on a 24-hour-day, 7-days-a-week basis. A person living and working in the community would have the functional population coefficient of 1.0. A person living in the community but working elsewhere may spend only 16 hours per day in the community on weekdays and 24 hours per day on weekends for a functional population coefficient of 0.76 (128-hour presence divided by 168 hours in one week). A person commuting into the county to work five days per week would have a functional population coefficient of 0.30 (50-hour presence divided by 168 hours in one week). Similarly, a person traveling into the community to shop at stores, perhaps averaging 8 hours per week, would have a functional population coefficient of 0.05. Functional population thus tries to capture the presence of all people within the community, whether residents, workers, or visitors, to arrive at an estimate of effective population that needs to be served. This form of adjusting population to help measure real facility needs replaces the population approach of merely weighting residents two-thirds and workers one-third (Nelson and Nicholas 1992). By estimating the functional and weighted population per unit of land use across all major land uses in a community, an estimate of the demand for certain facilities and services in the present and future year can be calculated. The following paragraphs explain how functional population is calculated for residential and non-residential land uses. Benesch Collier County October 2024 B-4 EMS Impact Fee Study DRAFT Residential Functional Population Developing the residential component of functional population is simpler than developing the non-residential component. It is generally estimated that people spend one-half to three -fourths of their time at home and the rest of each 24-hour day away from their place of residence. In developing the residential component of Collier County functional population, an analysis of the County's population and employment characteristics was conducted. Based on this analysis, it was estimated that people, on average, spend 16.6 hours, or approximately 69 percent, of each 24-hour day at their place of residence and the other 31 percent away from home. This analysis is presented in Tables B-3 and B-4. Table B-3 Population & Employment Characteristics Item/Calculation Step Year2021 Total workers living in Collier County(�) 150,529 Collier County Population (2) 372,797 Total workers as a percent of population(3) 40.4% School age population (5-17 years)(4) 47,900 School age population as a percent of populationlsi 12.8% Population net of workers and school age population (6) 174,368 Other population as a percent of total population(7) 46.8% 1) Source: Census OnTheMap 2021 2) Source: ACS 2021 5-Yr Estimates, Table S01001 3) Total workers (Item 1) divided by population (Item 2) 4) Source: ACS 2021 5-Yr Estimates, Table S01001 5) Total school age population (Item 4) divided by total population (Item 2) 6) Total population (Item 2) less total workers (Item 1) and school age population (Item 4) 7) Population net of workers and school age population (Item 6) divided by total population (Item 2) Benesch Collier County October 2024 B-S EMS Impact Fee Study DRAFT Table B-4 Residential Coefficient for Functional Population at Percent of Effective Pop. Group PopulationHours Residence(l) Workers 13 40.4% 5.3 Students 15 12.8% 1.9 Other 20 46.8% 9.4 Total Hours at Residence (4) 16.6 Residential Functional Population Coefficient(s) 69.2% 1) Estimated 2) Source: Table B-3 3) Hours at residence (Item 1) multiplied by percent of population (Item 2) 4) Sum of effective hours. 5) Sum of effective hours (Item 4) divided by 24. The resulting percentage from Table B-4 is used in the calculation of the residential coefficient for the 24-hour functional population. These actual calculations are presented in Table B-6. Non -Residential Functional Population Given the varying characteristics of non-residential land uses, developing the estimates of functional residents for non-residential land uses is more complicated than developing the estimates of functional residents for residential land uses. Nelson and Nicholas originally introduced a method for estimating functional resident population, now used widely'. This method uses trip generation data from the Institute of Transportation Engineers' (ITE) Trip Generation Manual and Benesch's Trip Characteristics Database, information on passengers per vehicle, workers per vehicle, length of time spent at the land use, and other variables. Specific calculations include: ` . • Total one-way trips per employee (ITE trips multiplied by 50 percent to avoid double counting entering and exiting trips as two trips). • Visitors per impact unit based on occupants per vehicle (trips multiplied by occupants per vehicle less employees). • Worker hours per week per impact unit (such as nine worker -hours per day multiplied by five days in a work week). 1 Arthur C. Nelson and James C. Nicholas, "Estimating Functional Population for Facility Planning," Journal of Urban Planning and Development 118(2): 45-58 (1992). Benesch Collier County October 2024 B-6 EMS Impact Fee Study DRAFT • Visitor hours per week per impact unit (visitors multiplied by number of hours per day times relevant days in a week, such as five for offices and seven for retail shopping). • Functional population coefficients per employee developed by estimating time spent by employees and visitors at each land use. Table B-5 shows the functional population coefficients for residential and non-residential uses in Collier County. The functional population coefficients in Table B-5 were used to estimate the County's functional population in Table B-6. Benesch Collier County October 2024 B-7 EMS Impact Fee Study U F- LL I.I. t0 M N N N N N N O a v O O O O O O ei O O O v o o o 1� o n o to o Ln o N o IA o I� o to o LD o n E N N N O E O O O O O O O O O O O u1 O O O O O O W o L Y t0 E M � E c n ar 3 Ot m Ol V1 V N m M 0 c1 0 0 0 O m m m O nOi ,O m o o o o o V ti o V '-I a W j L p o m of m a s. E _ 6 N 3 W i > O n C o O ,. N m m m m m m m m m c-I rl ci rl rl eY rl a -I rl .� O N VI CL 72t O o o N N � > G N a 3 u .O a °' m a W > )• O N N N N N m m m m M N N N N OM 0 c0 T E x o y uYpV y a v n o - n m 0 C m o y m c n O 3 a V1 V1 N V1 V1 lD to ti n ei ey .ti c-i N m W > W N 3 w c >• O O N V W O --I x u °� - L y v v o h n o E 3o > w W Y p a v .+ u E y - o h W j N W p H v V C w a 0 0� o o m m m v W Z w oc' o �^ E c v m m N m m N m N n .. >° «a. U X N > C C a N A N O O O C ; d o e-1 m o .4 uai l�o m Q o o no u _ov -o w ami > 01 m m m ti w ~ 3 C o O' w W n w o u M W c c E > o '" w o E o m=° E m a ¢ of ai of ai of ai of ai of .o _ m m c T_ O O y > a w 2' > U O a ` o . a C o v« � a> E •N 6 3 J W N O N 3 m 7 0 0 >, 3 L > L o o E .`. w o a o 3 3 6 a N N N N N a W O Y E v m 01 v m c = c ~ c �' E x no 3 o ¢ o 0 0 0 0 0¢ o v E E E E E- m o E C J 3 J J 3 C '>° N Z e-I e-I c1 e-I m I� Z I, �+ a 0 a U! v o 0 0 0 0 o o O •c :o;•c 3 Y v w w w w w m z m u 'o 0o u o c a01i o v n a n n a O d v 'i d v>' w v v w w v w o w 9 c° `5 c a a LL ~ n a c n a c a F o i i i O N N o w t N o ai o w Y L= W w N c m m m m m v E a m E o 0 Q`_ m v E a •« o ffi o w >' o 'a E E s v ve'i. o m Q n c u u z u z v v y o u v a v O m > oo '" n a o u w ni n Y a°'i Y a a a n a m m m m m o o v o- 3 c o `� _ cC a E a uoi m la, c c 3 c c a c c a E 0 W O •�� F W - W .ti e-I .-I 1� n m = aa+ N N 'w d 7 u 7 C n t y w C u u u l' o 0 0 0 0 o a c o> w o' s �p O_ yp, o o o u 2 3 y o0 o V V V V V V �. -..o a N a = 00 M =-_ a 3 a s a ate+ C L - � IC U Z > --- M N M c W f F H F F H H �IC �IO �N j H � e-I O .�-� � f f ~ N f` C N o d Z O 2 H C t%1 ED K w K m v of l0 C` W N a c � O N U v L � N L.L i--� O U Q E c) C LU 0 DRAFT Table B-6 Functional Population (Countywide) Population Category P 2024 Peak Season Population Functi Collier County . U 1 .. Baseline Data(l) esi( nt (2) 491,779 0.692 340,311 Employment Category Natural Resources 4,961 0.379 1,880 Construction 24,935 0.271 6,757 Manufacturing 6,231 0.270 1,682 Transportation, Communication, and Utilities 11,268 0.271 3,054 Wholesale Trade 6,495 0.272 1,767 Retail Trade 26,632 1.252 33,343 Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate 56,185 0.292 16,406 Services 127,033 0.499 63,389 Government Services 14,309 0.451 6,453 Total Employment by Category Population(4) 134,731 2024 Total Functional Population(s) 475,042 1) Source: Table B-1 for population and 2024 Woods & Poole for employment data 2) Source: Table B-4 3) The functional population is Collier baseline data (Item 1) multiplied by the functional resident coefficient (Item 2) 4) The total employment population by category is the sum of the employment figures from the nine employment categories (e.g., natural resources, construction, etc.) 5) The total functional population is the sum of the residential functional population and the employment functional population. Table B-7 presents the County's annual functional population figures from 2010 through 2040, based on the 2024 functional population figure from Table B-6 and the annual population growth rates from the population figures previously presented in Table B-1. Benesch Collier County October 2024 B-9 EMS Impact Fee Study DRAFT Table B-7 Collier County Functional Population (2010-2040) 2010 374,006 2011 378,833 2012 384,558 2013 388,577 2014 394,453 2015 402,230 2016 410,152 2017 418,610 2018 427,189 2019 435,944 2020 439,572 2021 448,358 2022 458,095 2023 467,032 2024 475,042 2025 482,429 2026 489,171 2027 496,007 2028 502,940 2029 509,968 2030 516,120 2031 521,371 2032 526,676 2033 532,035 2034 537,447 2035 542,233 2036 546,381 2037 550,561 2038 554,773 2039 559,017 2040 562,888 u Source: Table B-6 for the 2024 functional population figure and Table B-1 for annual growth rates Benesch Collier County October 2024 B-10 EMS Impact Fee Study DRAFT Functional Residents by Specific Land Use Category When a wide range of land uses impact services, an estimate of that impact is needed for each land use. This section presents functional population estimates by residential and non-residential land uses. Residential and Transient Land Uses As mentioned previously, functional population estimates by land use need to be developed for each impact fee service area to be analyzed. For residential and transient land uses, these coefficients are displayed in Table B-8. The transient land uses include hotel/all suites hotel, motel, assisted living facility and nursing home. Secondary sources, such as Smith Travel Research (STR), Collier County Convention and Visitors Bureau, and the Florida Department of Elderly Affairs, are used to determine the occupancy rate for these land uses. Non -Residential Land Uses A similar approach is used to estimate functional residents for non-residential land uses. Table B-9 reports basic assumptions and calculations, such as trips per unit, trips per employee, employees per impact unit, one-way trips per impact unit, worker hours, occupants per vehicle trip, visitors (patrons, etc.) per impact unit, visitor hours per trip, and days per week for non- residential land uses. The final column in the tables shows the estimated functional residents per unit by land use. These coefficients by land use serve as the demand component for the EMS impact fee program and are used in the calculation of the EMS impact fee schedule. Benesch Collier County October 2024 B-11 EMS Impact Fee Study N 14 Ln n O M O N O W M m c cu E ` a Q ° o E p M c is O N °u E a) O N N W w m pp O p c O - 0 p L 7p O ` u m a m ax) r w a .s a b0 m 6 .--I w 01 01 al 01 c 14 w Np NO R G! w 00 N N O O4 m L U O c IW C m O w 7 N m O O U >• a � � ID Ln M rl ID Ln O `w ul m O c c _ �n N O_ m O O O fV a p U > w u CL j E ° v w D ° o Q m e0 w a 0 o u m a c m N N O N O> N a r1 �--1 C Q \ w r u C N = yt c 0 p YO p n r 2 a cwu m o a w m V c m v 'E w Y w w > - O O 00 a1 E w K Q .. N N O -I ♦+ E H m O i O t L m LL N E O c L n w v L m 3 cu m y w m E e m o m e o e o ~ m w N o F E .T > E w olu 0mm E w x c 'pw Y a ¢o m • ' E 0 0 L ;o 'E m To N M Ln N N e-I M N rn Vl 41 n O O0 O 00 00 e ko n N m '-I "1 e-I O N N c-1 N .--1 >, ,� c m w a O t w U 7 C O - O bD w 2 m N p c w O O E a ° s- m E O c O a 0 0 0_ cy m> 3 s c-I c w 7 H °O a U p.0 0 o N v �n a c v- v N N O N Ln N N O m N LDw= coU C d N m 'w` w E O c H h N N L7 v -- p o '@ u Y w a o o u H m "nu>, v mil w' w p_ y a - + Q E E O= O l� M Y T a C a a s °O °O a OO w m a Y H .T a Y Q c0 W N pm c-I N 3 w >, H O c n c E •� E o w Cc c w W p Cc h O = �, O C m � c >• m C L Q 0 Q • w m ei in °- a w w Q ,-I x L' T u Y w w J LL fE0 w- a m O wo m U0 U O p ° m= i0 C In 7 N m LL Q_ E c N m OU w c O w c w O w m Y o o d °' u C j c p u c p O c 7 l7 G a > Y w O j w Q w C C 0 w a+ �/ m m Q H a E E O . V O` L m O O w p w E E W LL w 4• E m w o J m E m �^ Op0 u N Y w E O w w^ O L Q > w E N >_ J O w v o W ,2 E "' a -a)M N c o C.w - L' LL m O LL 2 w E w E C N a = bA J m O w E N w _ ` _ t. w w v1 'i C `O W a C J 7 O O p O N Q E m In i in 2 a z awc ° c m E v FArA a 4- 0 V) U v L � N L.L o U U Q E N LU F- L Y� tD N O Q M N O Ol O] O O] 1� N W NC! Ill Ip ei 1� Ip N 01 1! 01 n Ol Q 11: W W I� Q O N ID N O 0p e1 0p Ol ID O M O ei N Q N N M Il Ol M ID N M N O O o O 0 O o O In 0 Vl o O In N In N o O 0 Vl 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -i o o I/1 In tD o O 0 O 0 O 0 I/1 0 N o O rn o vl rn In M o O In n In N In N N O O N N N N N N .-I O rl 0 O O O rl e-I O O ti 0 0 O O O rl 0 0 0 M tp m Q Q O Q Ol vl q f ol Q Ol O I� Q W N O T Ifl Ip N Q I� I� r N t0 N Q Q N O O tp Q OO IO OO Ol W Q -i N Ip rl M Q O rl M N n N 1p . Vl rl O O O 1� VI � N Q O N M OO M 00 M I� Q t0 N l0 M Ol 1p W Vl O h h C N Q IA I� I� O Q 01 Q O Q tp Vl Ill Q Ol N N 0 0 0 0 0 tD tD N N N N N N N N N N N - c-I rl ei rl ei c-I c-I rl ei c-I c-I N N c-I O c-I c-I c-I O c-I Il1 c-I Ill c-I Ill c-I Ill c-I Ill c-I Ill c-I Ill c-I II1 c-I Ill rl Ill ri Vl rl Il1 ri Ill r1 M N M N M N M N M N m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m IT M W N 1p V1 I� tp N O n 01 O O V1 1� O W N 00 N N Ol I M M M N M N tp I� N I N �I-I V N In n M M� Ol n 01 n W n Ill N O M I4 Ol Ill in b O r1 N Q V O O O M Q N Vl Vl 1� tD n N n N M M 00 N O I� Q Ol l0 Ih Ill CO N Il1 CO Q M Q Ill 01 M N Q O N O N .ti OO Q Q Q In In O O O Ol O Ol O m m I t0 OO w N Q I� Ol .� .r .-I o0 OO N .-I OO O t0 ul e+ Q O O O N n Il n .I N OO n O0 w Il M .I n IM M I� n Q O \ N V1 N V1 N V1 \ O V1 Q Vl Ot I11 In I11 V tp 00 M N N N Q N Q Q 00 \ lD CO 00 M \ N M pl M I� M n N N O Ol N N N Ill N Ill O N O N O N M Vl N N M N N O N N M M CG CO V I n N n M a M V N lD M M N N I� W 00 N t0 tp Q M .-I M M N Ol O Vl tp tD V: Q IA It N Il1 O 00 I ll M W V O V I� lG W N V O1 M n M O lD Q IA N lV O Ol lV lV .-i Ih � I� rl Q Q a a a a o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 p s s c o y y y y y o 0 0 0 .ti 0 ri 0 0 ri 0 o 0 C 0 c 0 C 0 .-i 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 C 0 ri 0 c .i C 0 .i 0 c .i 0 c .i c 0 .ti w v " L y y a o a o 0 3 � w o oo a 3 Q y -on v v >ae - m m c C _ _ - > o W W o OO 2 0 V1 L Q C 30 3 = 0 1011 N > m m 0 H c v °o v w d >> z 3 o L i� s O O O o 0 0 aai v v u v'oi v >> c Eo 0 a c U v a v v In `v `w u .a `v u u v v E I° Io E '� c o c E =o a_ m> >>> c v� .� m= .� 3 In o, > c E .. u 0 U' m — x> j u o v C7 m v rr w w w rr v Z H o V o x s m m 2 x p t0 O O m N lO O F O N Vf INiI O O O O O N N O W Ol O W O N� N O rI N Q ti W V V V c V c� In N INlf O I�if I�il Q V ID kj I� n n �i W W W W O W W W W O W U Ol Ol Ol Ol OMi OMi M 4- 0 V) V v L � N L.L O U Q E V) 2 LU M I m W F— LL. N 111 ei N M ei W O eV ei I� eV 1� W G b 1� e'I M N ei Ifl Q O M Yl O O ei C M O C 0 Vl O 0 N O 0 N O 0 N O 0 Vl O In N O o O ti o O g N ul I� O ul n O O m I� N -i O M M w Ol Ol ill m rl lD N Cl ao N M lD O m O ti q o W to O Ol ul O I� n O O E' V O O N vl N vl N u N vl N ul N u1 N ul g q ql W O m 0 O N m o lD OJ m N M m ao N m m rl N m o n m W m N m M N m w O m n O voi a voi n o Lq -q m o O Q a N O O N O O E 'O p LL a v u a v a a0 a o O lD m Ii n N Q N\ Q c o M N ul ill o � O O 0 v o n m N n a M m v o a m onoa v n n a W O m. m c a v o — a$ W U � Y � n c o E v o 0 o — 0 o a o o x v m v a o. n v o 0 o 0 0 o Z v 3 3 3 Z v o 0 c 0 c o _ _ o o v `w c u c V o a v o m ,.. v Wo o x w O N O L x x Y c 3 c o oo `o m o' w aci w ww v N _ � o g c c c N '~^ v N l7c a+ a v ?� O a o v o c c c N -p o 'O = u x m N z_ 3 N o _ o e a v v o y o U' tm N a' c°1� 3 i .a o v n n n o a m m m m m m\ vO�l v a a a n a E E 3 CO y O w w == N ? w voi Voi i a 4- 0 V) V v L � N L.L O U Q E V) 2 LU Coiner County f � 1 Prepared for: Prepared by: } benesch Collier County Capital Projects Planning, Benesch Impact Fees and Program Management Division 1000 N. Ashley Dr., #400 2685 Horseshoe Drive South Tampa, Florida 33602 Naples, Florida 34104 ph (813) 224-8862 ph (239) 252-8192 E-mail: nkamp@benesch.com DRAFT Collier County Government Buildings Impact Fee Update Study Table of Contents INTRODUCTION................................................................................................. 1 INVENTORY........................................................................................................ 5 SERVICE AREA AND DEMAND COMPONENT....................................................... 7 LEVEL OF SERVICE.............................................................................................. 8 COST COMPONENT............................................................................................ 9 CREDIT COMPONENT......................................................................................... 10 NET GOVERNMENT BUILDINGS IMPACT COST .................................................... 13 CALCULATED GOVERNMENT IMPACT FEE SCHEDULE .......................................... 14 GOVERNMENT BUILDINGS IMPACT FEE SCHEDULE COMPARISON ....................... 18 Appendices: Appendix A: Government Buildings Inventory Appendix B: Population Estimates — Supplemental Information Appendix C: Building and Land Value Analysis - Supplemental Information RA Benesch October 2024 Collier County i Government Buildings Impact Fee Study DRAFT Introduction With a population of over 400,000, Collier County ranks as the 19th most populous county in Florida. The county is continuing to grow and is estimated to add approximately 110,000 new residents through 2050. In terms of residential permitting, Collier County ranks 19th out of Florida counties with an average of 5,300 new units per year over the past three years. To address additional infrastructure needs, Collier County implemented an impact fee program for government buildings, which was last updated in 2016. To reflect most recent data, the County retained Benesch to prepare an update study. This report serves as the technical study to support the calculation of the updated government buildings impact fee. The data presented in this report represents the most recent and localized data available at the time of this update study. All data and support material used in this analysis are incorporated by reference as set forth in this document. The figures calculated in this study represent the technically defensible level of impact fee that the County could charge; however, the Board of County Commissioners may choose to discount the fees as a policy decision. Methodology ZN X In developing the County's government buildings impact fee, a consumption -based impact fee methodology is utilized, which is commonly used throughout Florida. A consumption -based impact fee charges new development based upon the burden placed on services from each land use (demand). The demand component is measured in terms of population per unit. A consumption -based impact fee charges new growth the proportionate share of the cost of providing additional infrastructure for use by new growth. Unlike a "needs -based" approach, consumption -based approach ensures that the impact fee is set at a rate that generates revenues sufficient only for new capacity needs and does not generate revenues at a level to correct existing deficiencies. Given this, the County does not need to go through the process of estimating the portion of each capacity expansion project that may be related to existing deficiencies. In addition, per legal requirements, a credit is subtracted from the total cost to account for the value of future non -impact fee funding contributions of new development toward any capacity expansion projects. In other words, case law requires that the new development should not be charged twice for the same infrastructure. Benesch Collier County October 2024 1 Government Buildings Impact Fee Study DRAFT Legal Overview In Florida, legal requirements related to impact fees have primarily been established through case law since the 1980's. Impact fees must comply with the "dual rational nexus" test, which requires that they: • Be supported by a study demonstrating that the fees are proportionate in amount to the need created by new development paying the fee; and • Be spent in a manner that directs a proportionate benefit to new development, typically accomplished through establishment of benefit districts (if needed) and a list of capacity - adding projects included in the County's Capital Improvement Plan, Capital Improvement Element, or another planning document/Master Plan. In 2006, the Florida legislature passed the "Florida Impact Fee Act," which recognized impact fees as "an outgrowth of home rule power of a local government to provide certain services within its jurisdiction." § 163.31801(2), Fla. Stat. The statute — concerned with mostly procedural and methodological limitations — did not expressly allow or disallow any particular public facility type from being funded with impact fees. In fact, which it was initially adopted, the Act largely codified requirements and standards common to the practice already. However, the Legislature has amended the Impact Fee Act numerous times since 2006, significantly affecting the impact fee practice in Florida. For this reason, a summary of the key legislative changes since 2006 is provided: • HB 227 in 2009: The Florida legislation statutorily clarified that in any action challenging an impact fee, the government has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the imposition or amount of the fee meets the requirements of state legal precedent or the Impact Fee Act and that the court may not use a deferential standard. • SB 360 in 2009: Allowed fees to be decreased without the 90-day notice period required to increase the fees and purported to change the standard of legal review associated with impact fees. SB 360 also required the Florida Department of Community Affairs (now the Department of Commerce) and Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) to conduct studies on "mobility fees," which were completed in 2010. • HB 7207 in 2011: Required a dollar -for -dollar credit, for purposes of concurrency compliance, for impact fees paid and other concurrency mitigation required. • HB 319 in 2013: Applied mostly to concurrency management authorities, but also encouraged local governments to adopt alternative mobility systems using a series of tools identified in section 163.3180(5)(f), Florida Statutes. Benesch Collier County October 2024 2 Government Buildings Impact Fee Study DRAFT • HB 207 in 2019: Included the following changes to the Impact Fee Act along with additional clarifying language: o Impact fees cannot be collected prior to building permit issuance; and o Impact fee revenues cannot be used to pay debt service for previously approved projects unless the expenditure is reasonably connected to, or has a rational nexus with, the increased impact generated by the new residential and commercial construction. • HB 7103 in 2019: Addressed multiple issues related to affordable housing/linkage fees, impact fees, and building services fees. In terms of impact fees, the bill required that when local governments increase their impact fees, the outstanding impact fee credits for developer contributions should also be increased. This requirement was to operate prospectively; however, HB 337 that was signed in 2021 deleted that clause and making all outstanding credits eligible for this adjustment. This bill also allowed local governments to waive/reduce impact fees for affordable housing projects without having to offset the associated revenue loss. • SB 1066 in 2020: Added language allowing impact fee credits to be assignable and transferable at any time after establishment from one development or parcel to another that is within the same impact fee zone or impact fee district or that is within an adjoining impact fee zone or district within the same local government jurisdiction, and which receives benefit from the improvement or contribution that generated the credits. Added language indicating any new/increased impact fee not being applicable to current or pending permit applications submitted prior to the effective date of an ordinance or resolution imposing new/increased fees. • HB 1339 in 2020: Required reporting of various impact fee related data items within the annual financial audit report submitted to the Department of Financial Services. • HB 337 in 2021: Placed limits on the amount and frequency of fee increases, but also included a clause to exceed these restrictions if the local governments can demonstrate extraordinary circumstances, hold two public workshops discussing these circumstances and the increases are approved by two-thirds of the governing body. • HB 479 in 2024 (Effective October 1, 2024): Required interlocal agreements between counties and municipalities when both entities collect a transportation impact fee. Placed limits on timing of impact fee study completion and adoption and data used in the studies. The following paragraphs provide further detail on the generally applicable legal standards. Benesch Collier County October 2024 3 Government Buildings Impact Fee Study DRAFT Impact Fee Definition • An impact fee is a one-time capital charge levied against new development. • An impact fee is designed to cover the portion of the capital costs of infrastructure capacity consumed by new development. • The principal purpose of an impact fee is to assist in funding the implementation of projects identified in the Capital Improvements Element (CIE) and other capital improvement programs for the respective facility/service categories. Impact Fee vs. Tax RAA9 • An impact fee is generally regarded as a regulatory function established based upon the specific benefit to the user related to a given infrastructure type and is not established for the primary purpose of generating revenue for the general benefit of the community, as are taxes. • Impact fee expenditures must convey a proportional benefit to the fee payer. This is accomplished through the establishment of benefit districts as needed, where fees collected in a benefit district are spent in the same benefit district. • An impact fee must be tied to a proportional need for new infrastructure capacity created by new development. 7 This technical report has been prepared to support legal compliance with existing case law and statutory requirements and documents the methodology used for the government buildings impact fee calculations, including an evaluation of the inventory, service area and demand component, level of service (LOS), cost, credit, and demand components. Information supporting this analysis was obtained from the County and other sources, as indicated. Benesch Collier County October 2024 4 Government Buildings Impact Fee Study DRAFT Inventory The government buildings inventory includes facilities that are primarily for the provision of essential court and county services and do not include any of the buildings included in the calculation of other impact fees or buildings that were funded with user fees. According to information provided by the County, Collier County has 1.3 million square feet of general government building space. This includes the square footage of both primary and support buildings. Support facilities are defined as facilities without air conditioning, or facilities that are unlikely to be occupied by personnel. For the purposes of impact fee calculations, leased space is not included in the inventory and new development is not charged for it through the impact fee. Table 1 shows a summary of the government buildings inventory and the current value of buildings and land. As presented, the inventory includes a total of 876,500 square feet of primary building space and 443,200 square feet of support space. A list of the County's general government buildings can be found in Appendix A, Table A-1. Table 1 Building and Land Inventory 1) Source: Appendix A, Table A-1 2) Source: Appendix C 3) Square feet (Item 1) multiplied by the building value per square foot (Item 2) and allocated acreage (Item 4) multiplied by land value per acre (Item 5) 4) Source: Appendix A, Table A-2 5) Source: Appendix C 6) Sum of building and land value An important part of the impact fee calculations involves estimating the current value of the capital assets. As shown in Table 1, primary buildings are estimated to cost $450 per square foot Benesch Collier County October 2024 5 Government Buildings Impact Fee Study DRAFT while support buildings are estimated to cost $90 per square foot. The building value estimates are based on a review of recently built government buildings in Collier County, insurance values of the existing inventory, and discussions with the County. A more detailed explanation of building value estimates can be found in Appendix C. To estimate the value of land component of government buildings, recent land purchases by the County, land values of the existing inventory, recent sales and the value of vacant land as reported by the Collier County Property Appraiser were evaluated. This analysis resulted in an average land value of $180,000 per acre, and is explained further in Appendix C. Benesch Collier County October 2024 6 Government Buildings Impact Fee Study DRAFT Service Area and Demand Component Government buildings and services are provided by Collier County in all areas of the county. Therefore, the proper benefit district for government buildings is the entire county. The government buildings impact fee program requires the use of population data in calculating current levels of service and performance standards. To accurately determine demand for government building facility services and to be consistent with the population utilized in the County's comprehensive planning and Annual Update and Inventory Report (AUIR) process, this impact fee study considers not only the resident or permanent population of the County, but also the number of seasonal residents and visitors as well. Therefore, for purposes of this technical analysis, the peak season population is used in all population estimates and projections, unless otherwise noted. Peak season population projections were provided by Collier County's Comprehensive Planning Division. To measure effective population that benefits from the government buildings services, this study also developed functional population figures. Functional population, as used in the impact fee analysis, is a generally accepted methodology for several impact fee areas and is based on the assumption that demand for certain facilities is generally proportional to the presence of people at a land use, including residents, employees, and visitors. Appendix B provides additional details on population estimates. Benesch Collier County October 2024 7 Government Buildings Impact Fee Study DRAFT Level of Service Table 2 presents the calculation of the existing LOS for government buildings within Collier County. It should be noted that the County is still paying off debt service on several recently constructed buildings. The existing LOS based on buildings that are paid for is approximately 1.58 square feet per peak seasonal resident, which is lower than the adopted LOS standard of 1.70 square feet shown in the County's 2023 Annual Update and Inventory Report (AUIR). The achieved LOS figure represents the existing community's investment into government buildings while the adopted LOS standard that is also shown in Table 2, represents the service level intended going forward. Given that the achieved LOS based on owned buildings is lower than the adopted LOS standard, the achieved LOS is used for impact fee calculation purposes, which results in a more conservative impact fee. While the 2024 LOS for all buildings is 1.78 square feet per peak seasonal resident, in order to calculate the government buildings facilities impact fee, the LOS, or square feet per functional resident needs to be calculated. Table 2 also illustrates the calculation of the current LOS using the total functional residents within Collier County. The current LOS of primary government building space is 1.85 square feet per functional resident, which converts to 1.64 square feet per functional resident when only the paid facilities are considered. 0& is Table 2 Current Achieved & Adopted Level of Service Standard Variable Population(1) Year2024 Peak Seasonal Functional Population Population 491,779 475,042 Total Square Feet of Primary Buildings (2) 876,501 876,501 Achieved LOS (Square Feet per Resident)(3) 1.78 1.85 Owned Square Feet of Primary Buildings (4) 779,177 779,177 Achieved LOS (Owned Square Feet per Resident)(5) 1.58 1.64 Adopted LOS Standard (Square feet per Resident)(6) 1.70 1.76 1) Source: Aooendix B. Tables B-1 and B-7 2) Source: Appendix A, Table A-1 3) Total square feet of primary buildings (Item 2) divided by population (Item 1) 4) Owned building square feet is calculated as the portion of the owned total asset value to the total asset value times the total square feet of all primary buildings. 5) Total square feet of owned primary buildings (Item 4) divided by population (Item 1) 6) Source: Collier County 2023 Annual Update of Inventory Report (AUIR) Benesch Collier County October 2024 8 Government Buildings Impact Fee Study DRAFT Cost Component Table 3 provides a summary of government buildings facility related capital assets owned by the County. As shown, total capital asset value associated with government buildings amounts to $451.5 million. However, the County is still paying debt service on a portion of these assets. In addition, it is Collier County's policy to use impact fee revenues to pay debt service associated with capacity expansion projects. To ensure that new development is not being overcharged for these future payments, the portion of the remaining principal for government buildings capacity projects that is to be repaid with impact fee revenues is subtracted from the total asset value in Table 3. The resulting owned capital asset value is approximately $401.4 million or approximately $458 per square foot. Table 3 also presents the cost per functional resident for the impact fee analysis. This cost is calculated by multiplying the owned capital asset value per square foot by the achieved LOS of 1.85 square feet per functional resident. As shown, these calculations result in $847 per functional resident for all government buildings assets considered in the impact fee calculations. Table 3 Total Impact Cost per Functional Resident Item "I Total Land Value(l) Figul%L�ent $17,179,200 of taolo) is 3.8% Total Building Value (2) $434,309, 330 96.2% Total Capital Asset Value (3) $451,488,330 100.0% Less: Portion Not Paid for (4) $50,131,816 Owned Building and Land Value (5) $401,356,514 Total Building Square Footage (Primary Buildings)(6) 876,501 Owned Capital Asset Value per Square Foot(') $457.91 Achieved LOS (Square Feet per Functional Resident)($) 1.85 Total Capital Asset Value per Functional Resident(9) $847.13 1) Source: Table 1 2) Source: Table 1 3) Sum of land and building values (Items 1 and 2) 4) Source: Collier County Office of Management and Budget 5) Total capital asset value (Item 3) less portion not paid for (Item 4) 6) Source: Table A-1 7) Owned buildings and land value (Item 5) divided by total building square footage (Item 6) 8) Source: Table 2 9) Owned capital asset value per square foot (Item 7) multiplied by the LOS (Item 8) 10) Distribution of land and building values (Items 1 and 2) Benesch Collier County October 2024 9 Government Buildings Impact Fee Study DRAFT Credit Component To avoid overcharging development for the government buildings impact fee, a review of the capital funding of government buildings was conducted. The purpose of this review was to determine any potential credits that should be considered for revenues generated by new development that could be used for capital facility expansion or land purchase for government buildings. Based on a review of the County's funding of capacity addition projects over the past five years and planned projects over the next five years, it has been determined that the County uses ad valorem tax revenues for expansion projects paid with cash. In addition, capacity expansion projects were partially funded with bonds, and therefore, a credit for remaining debt service payments is incorporated. Capital Expansion "Cash" Credit To calculate the capital expansion credit per functional resident, funding sources used for the past five years as well as those programmed for the next five years are reviewed. Between FY 2018 and FY 2027, the County has allocated an average non -impact fee funding of $1.25 million per year toward government buildings capital facilities utilizing ad valorem revenues. The annual capital expansion "cash" expenditures were divided by the average annual functional residents for the same period to calculate the average annual capital expansion "cash" credit per functional resident. As presented in Table 4, the result is $2.71 per functional resident per year. Once the capital expansion "cash" credit per functional resident is calculated, a credit adjustment is made to account for the fact that new homes tend to pay higher property taxes per dwelling unit. This adjustment factor was estimated based on a comparison of the average taxable value of recently built homes built to that of all homes. As shown in Table 4, this adjusted credit amounts to $3.39 per functional resident per year. Benesch Collier County October 2024 10 Government Buildings Impact Fee Study DRAFT Table 4 Capital Expansion "Cash" Credit Ad Valorem Heritage Bay Government Center $12,515,500 - $12,515,500 Total Capital Expansion "Cash" Expenditures $12,515,500 - $12,515,500 Average Annual Capital Expansion "Cash" Expenditures (2) $1,251,550 Average Annual Functional Population (3) 461,884 Annual Capital Expansion "Cash" Credit per Functional Resident (4) $2.71 Credit Adjustment Factor (5) 1.25 Adjusted Annual Capital Expansion "Cash" Credit per Functional Resident(6) $3.39 1) Source: Collier County 2) Total capital expansion expenditures divided by 10 to calculate the average annual expenditures 3) Source: Appendix A, Table B-7 4) Average annual capital expansion "cash" expenditures (Item 2) divided by the average annual functional population (Item 3) 5) Adjustment factor to reflect higher ad valorem taxes paid by new homes 6) Annual capital expansion "cash" expenditures per functional resident (Item 4) multiplied by the credit adjustment factor (Item 5) Capital Expansion "Debt Service" Credit Any bond issues with outstanding debt service payments related to government buildings capacity expansion projects will result in a credit to the impact fee. Table 5 summarizes the outstanding debt service related to the transportation building. The debt service payments for the transportation building are being paid with funds from the Road and Bridge Operating Fund, which receives funds mostly from the General Fund (approximately 70 percent). As shown in Table 5, the resulting debt service credit is approximately $7 per functional resident. Similar to the capital expansion "cash" credit per functional resident, because the debt service is being retired using ad valorem tax revenues, an adjustment of the credit per functional resident is incorporated to account for higher level of property taxes paid by new homes. As shown, the adjusted debt service credit amounts to approximately $8 per functional resident. Benesch Collier County October 2024 11 Government Buildings Impact Fee Study LL Q O 'V)- lzt 1.0 w %6 iA• m (Yi V)- m N •l/} N cI 00 I4 V)• 01 00 N Ol 00 00 r-i Itzr Ln Lb Ln lD N c-I O N M V)- fh V). QO O C't M O N I� 41 M C � H � a O C � V 11 LL Q. 41 4J Q) Q. 73 Gl }I C: O L U CJ u > N N X I— N cQ) L- i O N O N 4J 7 Vf �- O O n O N .ai ++ O N _ L 0.0 bn a O o c C O t t U m X 7 Co 7 Co m CL +-' W X W E O O Q. L- LL (� L L O. .7 Q Q U O O Q G ! Ln Ln O C M O O- 3 a' aI H I H I H I I U Q w E L +O O W c c v � •E LL V) 3 •� au c � E v v o v c o s a 7 O v o i C w i E L E Q O N CO N N E L > 7 -0 O C " O O f6 a _ O d0 N 00 E 7 u E 0 y O O t O io a O N L i c L a > E u O Co cTo m O E v E c LCL U 0 a O a)O u U V) ^ � N = T � In 7 0 — C L C C a) > E > � � +, 6 f6 f6 L v s CL s v b0 +' -O t .3 U m � °1 > v v o } s v LEv >, CL o "6 O 7 7 7 -6 LL vn Co CoC7EC 0 0 (xC U1 c E 1, v 'P fB (B U C U E E a a a> m a) v > c°pa c°ACU o a E O 'a w c c bA > a N L 41 m X O a U bA U +ra-' w awn w c w w E O O r • 'a , •� � t v wa)E U U O m m N N U O OO ° v E N s v +� +mow L ai (B > Q) > > 7 7 L CO 0 ro c co L *' "O p O u O L L O v 41 v _r CL U U> 00 Q> O 0 0 N 4J C N 4J C C N C O> O E C O U U E U O O L a tB O L O v 0 CLLh a a "a O Q V) V) CLL a- -1 N m Ct in �D r, 00 rn n E N ci N O N V O O C +, Q) U Co DRAFT Net Government Buildings Impact Cost Table 6 summarizes the net impact cost per functional resident, which is the difference between the cost component and the credit component. The resulting net impact cost is $785 per functional resident for residential land uses and $797 per functional resident for non-residential land uses. Table 6 Net Impact Cost per Functional Resident Functional Variable Per Resident Impact Cost Total Impact Cost per Functional Resident(l) $847.13 Revenue Credit Annual Capital Expansion "Cash" Credit per Functional Resident (2) - Residential Land Uses $3.39 - Non -Residential Land Uses $2.71 Capitalization Rate 25 Capitalization Period (years) 3.70% Capital Expansion "Cash" Credit per Functional Resident (3) - Residential Land Uses $54.68 - Non -Residential Land Uses $43.71 Capital Expansion "Debt Service" Credit per Functional Resident (4) - Residential Land Uses $7.82 - Non -Residential Land Uses $6.84 Total Capital Expansion Credit (5) - Residential Land Uses $62.50 - Non -Residential Land Uses $50.55 Net Impact Cost Net Impact Cost per Functional Resident (6) - Residential Land Uses $784.63 - Non-residential Land Uses $796.58 1) Source: Table 3 2) Source: Table 4 3) Source: Annual capital expansion expenditures per functional resident (Item 2) with a capitalization rate of 3.7%for 25 years. The capitalization rate estimate was provided by Collier County. 4) Source: Table 5 5) Sum of the capital expansion "cash" credit (Item 3) and the capital expansion "debt service" credit (Item 4) 6) Total impact cost per functional resident (Item 1) less total capital expansion credit per functional resident (Item 5) Benesch Collier County October 2024 13 Government Buildings Impact Fee Study DRAFT Calculated Government Buildings Impact Fee Schedule Table 7 presents the calculated government buildings impact fee schedule for Collier County for both residential and non-residential land uses, based on the net impact cost per functional resident previously presented in Table 6. The calculated fee is approximately 50 percent higher than the adopted fee due to the changes in the cost and credit variables. The remaining differences in fees are due to the changes in the demand component since 2016. Table 7 also shows the maximum allowable impact fees consistent with F.S. 163.3180 and the corresponding percent change from the current adopted impact fee. Benesch Collier County October 2024 14 Government Buildings Impact Fee Study IF 3 s U Ln G1 LL v m CL E to _QW) M m E C L V GJ f6 7 U U e e 9 9 e o e e Q o e e e Q o o e e e 9 Q Q o o e� e o o m O wr, O o m\ Z , M m m\ . Z m o o o o o\\ Z Z Lnn O 0 0 r- v m m m m m m m v ,� m m m m m N w rl oq m Ln 1� Ln M V m Q \ M V m N lD N w Q N lD aD lD l0 1, V m o l0 lD Q \ Q \ m N N N O M m 00 M , m M c c N M CO Z lD m n c Z O 1p N 00 Z Z m c O lD N _ n m n Ln w lD v, c lD m V m lD m Ln o n w M m +n m LD m r, v m vn w v" n �n m A4 o o LD m oo m N m n In ,n to in vt to in ri +n A/� in o o \\ Q a o 0 0 0 \\ o 0 0 \ Q o \\\ o Q Q 0 0OR v m o to m n m Z ~ m m m\ Z m Ln n m m Ln \\ Z Z In m w� v ,� Ln m Ln Ln n n m w r a N v v o o , m N c m v v n lD a w w o w M m m Ln o0 o0 lD 1p o0 w M m N lD w n N V lD O V N W V N n V M I, V M V w V I, O n O c-i N o m o-a N O lD w m N lD w LD d lrl Ln ri M ID M r V N Ln tD M a M O O M m V lD m m m O V n V V V M Ln t+\'1 m N Vf In c-I N c-I Lf v? iA M} of N N tD Y e-I n V Ln w V VT Vf Vf to V) V? V? to N Vf Vf \ ,n V? Vf V? V? Vf V} V O w c m" N +n O rl O 00 rL O -a N Ln 1n Ln N m n a M wm m oo M a m Ln w N co wl 14 wwl N w lD m lD M 1l lD lD M n m fn m O N lD Ln PP M O m N Ln cq M a-;r M m rt m N 00 n tD Ll1 N ri N O m rL M m M a n m w a O N 1l M m ll rl n M co M a n m Ln co O 1, m o %D M m Vn M w m rl Ln to n fn n VT n VT lD VF n Vi to VF n M n w rL O Ln n N m M M M 1, rl rl N ,-I iM1 N V? N N i..� N N N N ,-I N N ,-1 N Yf ,-I N 14 v� v� v� A4 v� oo v� Ln lD c-I M n Ln M n m n lD N O V M N O m w O w n V1 Ln w n N n c-I m M O Ln N O 00 M � -i o0 N m n -i O O -i O V c7 N m -i 1p m ,-1 N O O O N O O O O O O O O O O O O O aL '� aJ N 0 o C ar C N C al C aJ C v N O h O O H O N O H O H O °o °o o o o - o t o c o o a Y a Y a y a y a y o o 0 C 0 C 0 0 0 c 0 C 0 C c-i p a-i c-i ,n H H H in ri r-i c-I c-i c-i c-i c-i aJ aJ t9 a` a c w � LL LLV � o a on C - v o Ln o O ^ — o N O d C N O O O at C uU o p a Y al EC al Q _ O ^ V O m al O � V a ai � a L C C V 2 M u N N O O aO+ O L N V V C C X v a al E E LL O 2 O O y O O al p p Y to a) C \ w V, \ L v C C a/ \ a1 \ al >, E U U ._ 3 C '� E a C al O Y m o =p Ln n O _ 7 7 O N ' w w i C O a v Ln J o o s i ,e Eo = O\\ o O O O N yE o f x E E a o a o v n v i _ :9 v a w y y o`n Q c U v w a a r u u u on o= _- o v" -^ - E w a c o c E a p s>>>> V a v c v v J> p N N O o O m O ro W 'x C C o = ww v x a z u m o w >> u x: c� m' y N N O Q m 0 V O C wO O mLn m N O N Ln LNn O Ln O O O O N O N In N N N 4i C \ O N M Ln N N w e-I N M\ C V -tt \ C O N Ln N m N m \ o lD Ln to Ln •. e-I w e-I n N N n n N M ts N m a3Ln i V W U Lm� Ln ri 0) LL Q 99el.l*e<*l.Reee 0 0 0 e In N m N o Ln 00 m o\ In Z o In 0 Ln o In N m 0 In m N Ln t\\ V Z Z o In No V Ln N N m N o In 0 1n 0 Ln o Ln 0 0 Ln Ln V m N lD V Ln V tD tD o al lD N tD N O N n Ln N m\ Q �T o0 N Ln m �r N N e•I V C N V .•-I o0 n\\ Q Q e•I O Ol n Ln o0 Dl o) o0 N Ln o0 cn m M m M Ol Ol m n n Z O M ID n tD c-I N Z Z O m m V 00 O m m w Vl tD V` c1 Ol m V a c-I O tD n N c-I V a m 00 c-i n oo M c1 .--I tD Ln al n Ln o m Ln o Ln tD N O n tD n m o o0 Ln In Ol m n to N 1/1- c-I ci c-I ci c-I c-I V c-I c-I vl N .--I N t0 tD c-I c-I N "1 .--I Vf i4 iA 1R N N N N 14 N N 14 N 14 N v). N 1 0 0 0 0 0 a o 0 0 0 0 0 o a a o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o M N m N c1 n 00 m m\ In z m tD N tD M Ln N M c-I T Ln N Ln V V \\ Z z w lD N O O N N rn N O lD rn In m Vl o oo O N ID Ln V M N ci n n n Ln 00 T rn 00 of 00 V V n V V V O m m Ln N w N ci O n V � V 14 0 N m N tD N fn Dl Ol of M cn M l c fn M M Cl N N N M n N m Ln Ln o0 Ln ' n n N O V O tD M .n M M M 00 00 00 N tD tD m O Ln n N n N n N o0 O lD n p tD w O V o0 V of N 0 N ei tD ci oo e-I M\\ tD M-i lD M tD M tD O lD V M V cn V cn Ln V c•I Dl M Ln Ln M w N V e-I m V} Ln Vf V} V} 4? V? VT i/} ) 1/ ! V} V} a, V} Vf V? V} 1n. 1/f V} V} Vf 1A V} tD tD m n n ID O n tD .••I N n c1 c1 t0 01 tD O Q O O n tD 01 O Ol Ol M N 00 tD N N tD Ln Si Ol N .••I O N Cl N ei n ll� m Ol n o0 O O n O Gl 00 a ei t0 Ol m m N N O Ln O O .M w 00 w .••I N -* M •7 .••I O .y tD 00 m .4 m O N m M tD Ln tD Ln 00 W m I N W Ln m O 00 N tD aa a am m N N 00 m .•1 .•-0 tD tD Ln m N m tD N Ln .4 N m O m tD m r1 m tD O a tD Of Ln rn N R N v! N of N .-I a -I N a-i C .-I .-I N 41, .-I N O .4 N tO .••Z .-I .-I N 14 N 1n• 1A 1n• v! 14 M4 VF v/ if! M4 1h 14 14 VF 14 vA OF iA y} V� vn vA 16 n n V o0 n o tD o c-I Ol O o N w m m tD Ln N N wci n wc-I Ln M o m m m n 00 V N N o0 W lD m c1 N n M <0 N Ln M o n o0 n N V Ln c1 O o .-I .-I O m o o m W ci c•I N N O O O O O to to 16 16 T T w w w w w w w i w w H ul vl 0 0 0 o 0 o 0 0 o o 0 0 0 0 tv a a a N 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O U 'j w N o) u '� O O O O O O O c O O O O O c Co c-I c-I c-I c-I c-I 6 lT M + a N Q O ' + c o O o N c Ln N V N V H 7 i r O Y Y Y f6 N H > L _oho o 7 W 01 0) o r n> r 3 u c u c u c v > 3 3 2 W N of N co o N L O N C O C C C `o 00 p .�-I N Y > LU6 Y C F > > > o n c Lo w 3 7 v c c c m a r.. ° m y LLn r m> V V V m c cn yo,, a a 3 3 `w l o Q$ a a >o 3 ° co 0o K v\ 3 3 3 v u s o o o c w-a L Y n v e_ c o O O N a) of tp N N > > N L � 'O 'O y 7 7 lD lD V b0 D, j £ fo 7 In Ln LV 7 H O p J fo (o (o f6 f0 N o ———_\ N Y Y li H LL LL Y V) VI Vl N E i, 7 i am+ ate+ >> a > C E 16 i C C a+ r s+ a+ u C v C N N N W 01 ` 7 O O L 7 N f6 fo O N (6 7 m m m 7 of cO m cc w LY cc K Z F In U = D_ LL co m LL J = LL LL (7 (J (j to Q J (J G G c1 c1 N N .••I O oo0 N 0 .••� N oo O .-i N O .•-� N V c-I V Ln n oo @ O O O .•-� N W N 0o N 0o N\ o0 Oa 00 In 00 Li 1 00 lD oo00 \ of c-I Ol e-I Ol M Ol M Ol M Ol M Ol V Ol V Ol V Ol Ol V Ol V mC \ •' O e-I ci ci Ln ci Ln ci N N • oo oo V +� N Q) !n C s V a)Q) L 0 .E 7 v a V) c a) ci "6 O Ln ,Z,- v > � 0 C 0 Z a) U E C N 7 to a) C s ro E C v `L° Q O 7 E C Ln M a) a) U U 7 7 tO L°n LL Q G E a! M m lD E vi M E LL .— X aJ cc Q E M m O E U ap r-I +� vV M M a1 lD w U -1 Ln aj LL Q aj a! O U L n3 Q O aj O a� Ln O E N � � a U .Q w E a o u E a1 C 'p 7 a) �- V O io +� -0 V m (0 aj Q aj s E E a E o m o aj 3 v w o w c = c n3 m ns U E U c E c ._ aju X U L ru L � � a c-I 1� L V) v C D O U m O LL U v aJ Ln aJ S O 4- 0 Ln v v s U V1 N v 4J Q O c N L D U v O +J O Q E O U G1 s v H G1 00 U- � v � tp H � E M HM^ tw m c N c i V o 00 N N V Vim? V} Vim? 00 tL/ N L N O N N ' v > N N lD 1-I t.00 Zl- cI-I 00 Lo o ,-1 0 O 0 N iy o cl O 00 to V} VL. Ln V} (ON V N L O N N LV fa > Zt r, M N N O o - ON O lD VT V} In VT N N ON o 0 Ln r-4 lll)� r,j� o O4 N m m LDn' m NN t.0 r, N Vr to L� ti 0 0 0 V� rl Ln Ln rl � — c N Q Vr in O z m m Lnoo V Q N \ V} to O N z o 0 0 o 0 C v m Lu � Y a U Q V _ J0 O 0 w o ., 0 t a a O LU D_ >Ln O o ro C4 0 iS Y U — '^ Q N b0 c G C,LIDw L w L6 v y Ln Z O � 0 N O Y v L C O C W Y 7 O E N W >!E c� Y G � O In 'L (LS C C o E u C N a o _ 00 Ln Y m m In 3 rri n N LO lD N cO M LL U1 N N LL: U f0 m u 6 41 LOiL OA ,} uC Q at U C Q O Y u .O _0 v O ca Q CL O a °' Ln c p v .0 c E .� CL E O v p Q v C c O v cO v > p Q E w E own O j uc c E E E o }+, Eu 3 U co0 c CL c €}TAU j U W U0 Y Q L O C N L f0 E u u 7 X U U U V)V)LO O v 00 a v C W w 6 m �o L U N t O CL OA I a1 7 C l0 Q w a � W > Y LL m u o a CL n E °' 0J LiO U C C C - ri N m IZT Lr) l0 I- 00 LT Ln Ln C C E E CL Q O O p p co 06 on W c c E .E C c a a Ln aT N c c o U U m Q1 Q) U O O J u Ln N O LL N N � Y i i u 7 7 � F LQU n Qi v O rI r-I r-I 00 N O N V) O C co DRAFT r4 Appendix A - Government Buildings Inventory DRAFT Table A-1 Government Buildings Inventory (Primary) Name of Structure Square Primary Buildings Golden Gate Government Services Center 6,090 Immokalee Government Center 10,495 Immokalee Health Department (CHSI) 14,778 Immokalee Barn (Floors 1 & 2) 14,530 Immokalee Transportation Building 3,358 Medical Examiners Office 13,238 Building "B" Human Resources 7,160 Building "D" PWED 8,388 Tax Collector & Supervisor of Elections 30,753 Building "F" Administration (Floors 1-8) 89,966 Building "G" Purchasing 5,569 Building "H" Health (Floors 1-3) 54,160 Building "L" Courthouse (Floors 1-6,Mezz.) 148,533 Building "L-1" Courthouse Annex 137,984 Building "W" General Services (Floors 1-2) 31,054 Animal Control Administration 8,933 Animal Control Sally Port 6,727 Immokalee Animal Control Office 164 Marco Tax Collector 2,699 Transportation Headquarters 33,542 CAT Operations (ex-Monrande Dealership) 32,144 Immokalee Code Enforcement Building 1,994 BCC Fleet Management 41,316 North Collier County Government Services Center 14,000 Emergency Services Center 57,274 Agriculture Building 13,361 Supervisor of Elections 7,000 Property Appraiser/Elks Lodge 27,566 New Supervisor of Elections Building 30,980 Heritage Bay Government Services Center 22,745 Subtotal -- Primary Buildings 876,501 Benesch October 2024 Collier County A-1 Government Buildings Impact Fee Study DRAFT Table A-1(continued) Government Buildings Inventory (Support) Name of Structure d9m Support Buildings 800 MHz Generator Building 238 Animal Control Kennel 1-3 11,847 Animal Control Stable 3,159 Immokalee Animal Control Kennel 1,572 Immokalee Radio Tower Shed 16 Road & Bridge Shed 102 Road & Bridge Fuel Island 818 Building "K" Chiller Building 5,520 800 MGHZ Generator 368 Electric Substation "A" 824 Electric Substation "B" 1,088 Parking Garage #2 (Courthouse Annex) 410,302 Fuel Island/Canopy 3,600 Generator/Fuel Tank 127 Fuel Tanks and Slab 1,557 County Barn 800 MGHZ Repeater Building 64 BCC Fleet Wash Rack 1.950 Subtotal -- Support Buildings 443,152 Total -- All Buildings 1,319,653 1) Source: Collier County Benesch October 2024 Collier County A-2 Government Buildings Impact Fee Study DRAFT Table A-2 Government Buildings Inventory (Acreage) Name of Structure Golden Gate Government Services Center A ress 4715 Golden Gate Parkway Square Feet(l) 6,090 PF.MM 76,498 12.91 Acres per ,,, sf of I Bldg Space (4) 0.169 'an L(AII'.cadled es)(5) 1.029 Immokalee Government Center 106 S. 1st Street 10,495 23,042 7.42 0.322 3.379 Immokalee Health Department (CHSI) 419 N. 1st Street 14,778 29,513 10.00 0.339 5.010 Immokalee Barn (Floors 1 & 2) 425 Sgt. Joe Jones Road 14,530 1 69,135 4K 41.81 0.605 8.791 Immokalee Transportation Building 550 Stockade Road 3,358 2.032 800 MGHZ Generator Bldg. 312 Stockade Road 238 0.144 Immokalee Animal Control Kennel 405 Sgt. Joe Jones Road 1,572 0.951 Immokalee Animal Control Office 405 Sgt. Joe Jones Road 164 0.099 Immokalee Radio Tower Shed 312 Stockade Road 16 0.010 Road & Bridge Shed 402 Stockade Road 102 0.062 Road & Bridge Fuel Island 402 Stockade Road 818 0.495 Medical Examiners Office 3838 Domestic Avenue 13,238 13,238 2.00 0.151 2.000 Building "B" Human Resources 3301 E. Tamiami Trail 7,160 1,491,521 45.28 V 0.030 0.215 Collector & Supervisor of Elections 3301 E. Tamiami Trail 30,753 0.923 Building "D" PWED 3301 E. Tamiami Trail 8,388 0.252 Building "F" Administration (Floors 1-8) 3301 E. Tamiami Trail 89,966 2.699 Building "G" Purchasing 3301 E. Tamiami Trail 5,569 0.167 Building "H" Health (Floors 1-3) 3301 E. Tamiami Trail 54,160 1.625 Building "L" Courthouse (Floors 1-6,Mezz.) 3301 E. Tamiami Trail 148,533 4.456 Building "W" General Services (Floors 1-2) 3301 E. Tamiami Trail 31,054 0.932 Building "K" Chiller Building 3301 E. Tamiami Trail 5,520 0.166 Electric Substation "A" 3301 E. Tamiami Trail 824 0.025 Electric Substation "B" 3301 E. Tamiami Trail 1,088 0.033 Building "L-1" Courthouse Annex 3301 E. Tamiami Trail 137,984 4.140 Parking Garage #2 (Courthouse Annex) 3355 E. Tamiami Trail 410,302 410,302 9.51 0.023 9.510 Fuel Island/Canopy 2897 County Barn Road 3,600 82,847 9.63 0.116 0.418 Generator/Fuel Tank 2897 County Barn Road 127 0.015 Fuel Tanks and Slab 2897 County Barn Road 1,557 0.181 800 MGHZ Generator 2901 County Barn Road 368 0.043 BCC Fleet Management 2901 County Barn Road IL 41,316 4.793 County Barn 800 MGHZ Repeater Building 2901 County Barn Road 64 0.007 BCC Fleet Wash Rack 2901 County Barn Road 1,950 0.226 Animal Control Administration 7610 Davis Boulevard 8,933 32,178 9.44 0.293 2.617 Animal Control Sally Port 7610 Davis Boulevard 6,727 1.971 Animal Control Kennel 1-3 7610 Davis Boulevard 11,847 3.471 Animal Control Stable 7610 Davis Boulevard 3,159 0.926 Marco Tax Collector 1040 Winterberry 2,699 2,699 0.49 0.182 0.490 Transportation Headquarters 2885 Horseshoe Dr S 33,542 33,542 2.46 0.073 2.460 CAT Operations (ex-Monrande Dealership) 8300 Radio Road 32,144 32,144 10.04 0.312 10.040 Immokalee Code Enforcement Building 310 Alachua Street 1,994 1,994 0.20 0.100 0.200 North Collier County Government Services Center 2335 Orange Blossom Drive 14,000 56,401 7.63 0.135 1.890 Emergency Services Center 8075 Lely Cultural Pkwy 57,274 154,388 20.00 0.130 7.446 Agriculture Building 147001mmokalee Road 13,361 N/A N/A N/A N/A Supervisor of Elections 3300 Santa Barbara Blvd. 7,000 N/A N/A N/A N/A Property Appraiser/Elks Lodge 3950 Radio Road 27,566 27,566 6.741 0.245 6.740 New Supervisor of Elections Building 3750 Enterprise Ave. 30,980 30,980 1.84 0.059 1.840 Heritage Bay Government Services Center 15450 Collier Blvd. 22,745 336,718 7.73 0.023 0.523 Total 1,319,653 1 95.442 Weighted Average Acreage per 1,000 Square Feet of Building 0.072 1) Source: Collier County. Square feet of the indicated facility. 2) Source: Collier County. Square feet of all buildings on the parcel. 3) Source: Collier County Property Appraiser 4) Acres (Item 3) divided by the total square footage on site (Item 2) multiplied by 1,000 5) Square feet (Item 1) divided by 1,000 and multiplied by acres per 1,000 sf of building space (Item 4) Benesch October 2024 Collier County A-3 Government Buildings Impact Fee Study DRAFT Appendix B - Population Estimates —Supplemental Information Jr DRAFT Appendix B — Population Estimates The government buildings impact fee program requires the use of population data in calculating current levels of service. To be consistent with the population utilized in the County's comprehensive planning and Annual Update and Inventory Report (AUIR) process, this impact fee study considers not only the resident or permanent population, but also the number of seasonal residents and visitors as well. Therefore, for purposes of this technical analysis, the peak seasonal population estimates provided by Collier County's Comprehensive Planning Department are used for all population estimates and projections. Table B-1 presents the peak seasonal population trends for Collier County. The projections indicate that the current peak seasonal population of the county is approximately 491,800 and is expected to increase to 582,700 (increase of 90,900) by 2040. The estimated average growth rate is app - ...---�- Benesch Collier County October 2024 B-1 Government Buildings Impact Fee Study DRAFT .40 Table B-1 Collier County Population Estimates (Countywide) Population Source: Collier County Comprehensive Planning Section (population projections dated May 2024) Benesch October 2024 Collier County B-2 Government Buildings Impact Fee Study DRAFT Apportionment of Demand by Residential Unit Type and Size The residential land uses to be used for the government buildings impact fee calculations include the following: • Single Family (Detached) • Multi -Family • Mobile Home/RV (Tied Down) • Retirement Community (detached and attached) Table B-2 presents the number of residents per housing unit for the residential categories identified above in Collier County. This analysis includes all housing units, both occupied and vacant. To address fairness and equity issues between land uses, the single family land use is tiered based on two categories of square footage: less than 4,000 square feet and 4,000 square feet or greater. To accommodate the tiering of impact fee assessments for the single family residential land use category, an analysis was completed based on housing unit size and persons per housing unit, comparing nationwide averages to those of Collier County. This analysis utilized national data from the 2021 American Housing Survey (AHS) and data from the 2022 American Community Survey (ACS) to examine this relationship. Nk Table B-2 -*AhhN, Residents per Housing Unit Single Family Detached 289,5641 112,378 2.58 Less than 4,000 sf 98% 2.53 4,000 sf or greater 121% 3.12 Multi Family 139,405 106,016 1.31 Mobile Home/RV Park (Tied Down) 21,4461 11,189 1.92 Retirement Community - Detached (Single Family)(5) 1 173,7381 112,3781 1 1.55 Retirement Community - Attached (Multi-Family)(6)1 83,6431 106,016 1 0.79 1) Source: 2022 ACS 5-Yr Estimates, Table B25033 (owner occupied and renter occupied), adjusted for peak seasonal population. 2) Source: 2022 ACS 5-Yr Estimates, Table DP04 3) Ratios developed based on national PPH data derived from the 2021 American Housing Survey. 4) Population (Item 1) divided by housing units (Item 2). For single family detached tiers, the residents per housing unit is determined by multiplying the weighted average value (2.58) by the ratio developed from the AHS data (Item 3). Benesch Collier County October 2024 B-3 Government Buildings Impact Fee Study DRAFT 5) Estimate for retirement community (detached) is based on people per household figures for single family homes, adjusted for the residents over 55 years of age based on information obtained from the 2017 National Household Travel Survey, prepared by the US Department of Transportation. 6) Estimate for retirement community (attached) is based on people per household figures for multi -family homes, adjusted for the residents over 55 years of age based on information obtained from the 2017 National Household Travel Survey, prepared by the US Department of Transportation. Functional Population For government buildings, this study uses functional population as the demand component, which distributes the cost associated with the availability of government buildings among various land uses based on the density of people at each land use throughout the day. Functional population, as used in the impact fee analysis, is a generally accepted methodology and is based on the assumption that demand for certain facilities is generally proportional to the presence of people at a land use, including residents, employees, and visitors. It is not enough to simply add resident population to the number of employees, since the service - demand characteristics can vary considerably by type of industry. Functional population is the equivalent number of people occupying space within a community on a 24-hour-day, 7-days-a-week basis. A person living and working in the community will have the functional population coefficient of 1.0. A person living in the community but working elsewhere may spend only 16 hours per day in the community on weekdays and 24 hours per day on weekends for a functional population coefficient of 0.76 (128-hour presence divided by 168 hours in one week). A person commuting into the county to work five days per week would have a functional population coefficient of 0.30 (50-hour presence divided by 168 hours in one week). Similarly, a person traveling into the community to shop at stores, perhaps averaging 8 hours per week, would have a functional population coefficient of 0.05. Functional population thus tries to capture the presence of all people within the community, whether residents, workers, or visitors, to arrive at an estimate of effective population that needs to be served. This form of adjusting population to help measure real facility needs replaces the population approach of merely weighting residents two-thirds and workers one-third (Nelson and Nicholas 1992). By estimating the functional and weighted population per unit of land use across all major land uses in a community, an estimate of the demand for certain facilities and services in the present and future years can be calculated. The following paragraphs explain how functional population is calculated for residential and non-residential land uses. Benesch Collier County October 2024 B-4 Government Buildings Impact Fee Study DRAFT Residential Functional Population Developing the residential component of functional population is simpler than developing the non-residential component. It is generally estimated that people spend one-half to three -fourths of their time at home and the rest of each 24-hour day away from their place of residence. In developing the residential component of Collier County functional population, an analysis of the County's population and employment characteristics was conducted. Based on this analysis, it was estimated that people, on average, spend 16.6 hours, or approximately 69 percent, of each 24-hour day at their place of residence and the other 31 percent away from home. This analysis is presented in Tables B-3 and B-4. Table B-3 _ rupuiaLwn at Crnpwyr MML %.11aracLeF15LKb Item/Calculation Step Total workers living in Collier County(1) Year 2021 150,529 Collier County Population (2) 372,797 Total workers as a percent of population(3) 40.4% School age population (5-17 years)(4) 47,900 School age population as a percent of populationlsl 12.8% Population net of workers and school age population (6) 174,368 Other population as a percent of total population(7) 46.8% 1) Source: Census OnTheMap 2021 2) Source: 2021 ACS 5-Yr Estimates, Table S0101 3) Total workers (Item 1) divided by total population (Item 2) 4) Source: 2021 ACS 5-Year Estimates, Table S0101 5) Total school age population (Item 4) divided by total population (Item 2) 6) Total population (Item 2) less total workers (Item 1) and school age population (Item 4) 7) Population net of workers and school age population (Item 6) divided by total population (Item 2) fF Benesch Collier County October 2024 B-5 Government Buildings Impact Fee Study DRAFT Table B-4 Residential Coefficient for Functional Population Hours at Percent of Effective Pop.Group Residence(l) Population (2) Hours (3) Workers 13 40.4% 5.3 Students 15 12.8% 1.9 Other 20 46.8% 9.4 Total Hours at Residence (4) 16.6 Residential Functional Population Coefficient(S) 69.2% 1) Estimated 2) Source: Table B-3 3) Hours at residence (Item 1) multiplied by percent of population (Item 2) 4) Sum of effective hours. 5) Sum of effective hours (Item 4) divided by 24. The resulting percentage from Table B-4 is used in the calculation of the residential coefficient for the 24-hour functional population. These actual calculations are presented in Table B-6. Non -Residential Functional Population Given the varying characteristics of non-residential land uses, developing the estimates of functional residents for non-residential land uses is more complicated than developing the estimates of functional residents for residential land uses. Nelson and Nicholas originally introduced a method for estimating functional resident population, now used widely'. This method uses trip generation data from the Institute of Transportation Engineers' (ITE) Trip Generation Manual and Benesch's Trip Characteristics Database, information on passengers per vehicle, workers per vehicle, length of time spent at the land use, and other variables. Specific calculations include: • Total one-way trips per employee (ITE trips multiplied by 50 percent to avoid double counting entering and exiting trips as two trips). • Visitors per impact unit based on occupants per vehicle (trips multiplied by occupants per vehicle less employees). • Worker hours per week per impact unit (such as nine worker -hours per day multiplied by five days in a work week). 1 Arthur C. Nelson and James C. Nicholas, "Estimating Functional Population for Facility Planning," Journal of Urban Planning and Development 118(2): 45-58 (1992). Benesch Collier County October 2024 B-6 Government Buildings Impact Fee Study DRAFT • Visitor hours per week per impact unit (visitors multiplied by number of hours per day times relevant days in a week, such as five for offices and seven for retail shopping). • Functional population coefficients per employee developed by estimating time spent by employees and visitors at each land use. Table B-5 shows the functional population coefficients for residential and non-residential land uses in Collier County, which are used to estimate the 2024 functional population in Table B-6. Benesch Collier County October 2024 B-7 Government Buildings Impact Fee Study U t�0 M N N N N N N N a a C C C C C C C O C a v E o o 0 0 I� 0 0 ri 0 0 V1 0 0 V1 0 0 V1 0 0 V1 0 0 I� 0 0 ui 0 0 lD o o n L Z• m C a E w w v 0 E v `m _ E M c a Ol Ol 00 m m V N w m a O 0 0 0 O -i O o0 C1 CO o o o o o V o V .e o cm N 3 N a > n � p — C c o ui c ti N H H ti ti ti ti .ti � 0 3 v s p y c N C m T ; o� X o cL .ti '-i ti ti '-i c-i .ti '-i '-i- a > r o a E v VI VI N V1 V1 l0 l0 w � m n i+ N — m W 6- O j t ci c-I e-I e-I N 00 ry r-I o O M w �o��� a�sX a— m m m T v a M M cV HI Ill 1� HI O I� l7 O N N N V1 N X F o C a uryi o G ., w c c v v a n o 3 > o m L ti m- 3 + c w> 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C a a— 0o m m -o w w w n 01 Ol Ol Ot Ot Ot Ol m m O ry L C -a -a o w O wo n o c W n w a c 0 0 T a >>O v Q O O O O O O Q O a N N N N N L p>?:o6 E E X a o Z rl rl rl rl 00 I� Z 1� C J J J 3 J a o o o IS~ c T>>>>> tlOy� y r r N H C y0 d N U ai ai ti ff ai z u O u a nn nn o 'j = c 'j T v O u t0 UI w "6 N W W W W T E a w� m +' � m-•• c 2 L o. o_ o_ w a Z NO p w o x -2 n L � u. - •a �o E a w E .� n n a n n c c LL in v a " y E ho N O E W y > T E .t 0 o 2 n a o1D�o x o a uo s~ u° s o �n m in 6 y E ._ Ho cai uo o c o a m m m m m �- o a o `o �n v� c n o n O ew C O .-. ?C Y o 0 0 0 0 0 o c t n 3 c m c c LL N ti h r W N o O. �. O. O. ? w w c OC_ H a .-1 .N-I n y p Y .a d ^ C c O U! m ii m ._ "w U! E ya„ N N N N N N N . T u U u u N L a a m o. a -o v v a -c 'n a 3 `w p o a o 0 0 0 m i a w o 0 0 0 0 0 n E a v v u v u v— m o a ry a a' m m T N > j w H H H H H H H m m mlo 11 H O. o ate+ Z C o (0 (` H L K LL Vf l7 , .-i .�I ry Lm� I DRAFT Table B-6 Functional Population (Countywide) Population Category P 2024 Peak Season Population Baseline D. Population Coefficient 491,779 0.692 340,311 Employment Category Natural Resources 4,961 0.379 1,880 Construction 24,935 0.271 6,757 Manufacturing 6,231 0.270 1,682 Transportation, Communication, and Utilities 11,268 0.271 3,054 Wholesale Trade 61495 0.272 1,767 Retail Trade 26,632 1.252 33,343 Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate 56,185 0.292 16,406 Services 127,033 0.499 63,389 Government Services 1 14,309 0.451 6,453 Total Employment by Category Population(4) 134,731 2024 Total Functional Population(s) 475,042 1) Source: Table B-1 for population and 2024 Woods & Poole for employment data 2) Source: Table B-4 3) The functional population is Collier baseline data (Item 1) multiplied by the functional resident coefficient (Item 2) 4) The total employment population by category is the sum of the employment figures from the nine employment categories (e.g., natural resources, construction, etc.) 5) The total functional population is the sum of the residential functional population and the employment functional population. Table B-7 presents the County's annual functional population figures from 2010 through 2040, based on the 2024 functional population figure from Table B-6 and the annual population growth rates from the population figures previously presented in Table B-1. Benesch October 2024 Collier County B-9 Government Buildings Impact Fee Study DRAFT Table B-7 Countywide Functional Population (2010-2040) 2010 PopulationYear Functional 374,006 2011 378,833 2012 384,558 2013 388,577 2014 394,453 2015 402,230 2016 410,152 2017 418,610 2018 427,189 2019 435,944 2020 439,572 2021 448,358 2022 458,095 2023 467,032 2024 475,042 2025 482,429 2026 489,171 2027 496,007 2028 502,940 2029 509,968 2030 516,120 2031 521,371 2032 526,676 2033 532,035 2034 537,447 2035 542,233 2036 546,381 2037 550,561 2038 554,773 2039 559,017 2040 562,888 Source: Table B-6 for the 2024 functional population figure and Table B-1 for annual growth rates Benesch October 2024 Collier County B-10 Government Buildings Impact Fee Study DRAFT Functional Residents by Specific Land Use Category When a wide range of land uses impact services, an estimate of that impact is needed for each land use. This section presents functional population estimates by residential and non-residential land uses. Residential and Transient Land Uses As mentioned previously, functional population estimates by land use need to be developed for each impact fee service area to be analyzed. For residential and transient land uses, these coefficients are displayed in Table B-8. The transient land uses include hotel/all suites hotel, motel, assisted living facility and nursing home. Secondary sources, such as Smith Travel Research (STR), Collier County Convention and Visitors Bureau, and the Florida Department of Elderly Affairs, are used to determine the occupancy rate for hotel/motel and nursing home. Non -Residential Land Uses A similar approach is used to estimate functional residents for non-residential land uses. Table B-9 reports basic assumptions and calculations, such as trips per unit, trips per employee, employees per impact unit, one-way trips per impact unit, worker hours, occupants per vehicle trip, visitors (patrons, etc.) per impact unit, visitor hours per trip, and days per week for non- residential land uses. The final column in the tables shows the estimated functional resident coefficients by land use. These coefficients by land use create the demand component for the government buildings impact fee program and are used in the calculation of the cost per unit for each land use category in the government buildings impact fee schedule. �y Benesch Collier County October 2024 B-11 Government Buildings Impact Fee Study N 14 Ln n O M O N O W M m c m cu ECL a Q ° m o p M c is O O N °u E a) N N w w m pp O O c O - 0 p L 7p O ` u m a m ax) b0 b 01 01 al 01 c w p NO R w N N > on m r m O 1O to O m > �> u mO O0 C w m la m Y �6 N O ID Ln M rl ID Ln O `w _ �n N O_ m O O O N a pCL U > w u j E ° v w O o Q M w a 0 o u m a c m N N -1 O N O> N o Q ,4 E C Q w r u C N = yt 0 p YO p n r w a cwu m o a w m y c v 'E w Y m w w -0 > - io Q E c =o V V N M 0 0 oo m E a Y N N O rl ♦+ E H m O i O t L m W N E O c L n w v L m 3 cu m y w m E e n a e e w o f6 o '� a> E m w lu c o E 0m Yw X c 'pw a .¢o m • ' E 0 0 w - a+ r w t ;o 'E m a N 'm M Ln N N 11 cn N rn Vl Ln Ol n O OR O OR 0C "I —ID n N m "1 e-I O N N e-I N .--1 >, ,� c w C O t w u 7 c O - O w 2 C m N p iyaj O E O E � � a ° s- a E O c O a 0 o p_ cy m> 3 c u ti s 2 C i Y c 0 m a+ c w 7 H °O a U p.0 o m N v -moo o. O O N V m ._ a c v- v N N O N N N O M v�i N LO w `! O w= co U C EN rn N W E �n c in Gl N l7 v o o '@ u Y w a � o u t y w H m p w>>, v mil w' w p_ y a °- E O= O U > a M O a O 7 a O a 7 O a O O O a p w cca Y n a Y fl e w E a) y in c-i v 3 0 >, �o p c E C w 'C •� c a H w w >, E o w c w.0 O Gl m LCL y w e-I X D- a C Q M.- 7 Y w w J w o m a m= Q T?> U= O w O w C in 7m N m N Q __ LL E m m �n m OU w c O -O w " 2 a -O O > is N c w O w c t w C-~ E E ° f0 fO 0/ Y w o o s °% u C c p u o O C 3 m +' O 'u E r m o o o w H f0 w o w E E W W w* E m w cu a o J N m E m OT C w E U U N Q Y O w w^ O t\ .> , w u ti s w w a o f oO0 E ow O nm no °w No niL0J aaQym wI� L L'y E v a U Q ww 0 w wE ' �OE p Q c Oi C J O N Q E m cc n 2 Q` ° c m E v Lv F a 4- 4-O Ln U v L � N L.L 0 U U Q E L•, l0 Q N a -I O CO Q N li 1� N O eY q q O ei 0] O 1� Q N W CO N Yl Of l0 M 1� tp N Of n Of n Ol Q n o0 oo 1� Q O N lD N O ro .-I W Ol b O M O .-I N Q oo N M 1� Of M tD tD W N G G G G M1 ei G G G C C O G ei O ei M G .-I .-I N a -I a -I eel IV V1 .-I .-I G ei ei HI N N Oi W n O vl n O O n vl N n N N n O O n O ul In 0 O In 0 O In 0 O In 0 O In 0 O n 0 O In In O O In O O In O O In v1 n n O vl n O vl n vl t° n O O n O O n O O n O ul n O n O O n In m n O vt to ul m to n vl m n O O n vl n n N N n ul N n O O lOD 0Q0 lIA° m w ln0 I!O l0 W. tiO W QM OQn 0QIA1 ti R OO011 OQOl nOO 0Vn0 lINA0 VNQ nn N l0 vi VI V On N W op M n Q lD N lG M Ol l0 c0 Ill O N n n Q N V IA n h O Q °1 Q O Q l0 ul IA V T M M ti O O l�D etO-I N N IlN1 IINI INII INl1 VNl IINI IINI INII INII I4 INII IINI INII tOvf N N N N tOil N m m m rn m m m rn m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m Ol M M N M N l0 n VI Ol N N N Ill n n M M Ol 00 N -ii b Vl n lD Vl O n 01 0 O Ill n O 00 N 00 N a N Ol M M n al n OG n III N O M n Ol Ill M lG O Vl Q Q O O O M V N IA Ill n tp n N n N M M OD N O n a °I t° M III N M W N IA 00 a M Q Vl O1 M N a O N O a0 Q Q Q ul O O O 01 O q -i n In m l0 o0 Q n m Ol -i -i o0 00 ti q Ill t° Q O O vl O vl n vl n n -i vl ap a0 n O O 4 N O O O O O O m N m M m m m N N N m N O m V Q Q O OI O Vl IA Ill Iw n O \ N N O N V1 O N Vl O � N V N V N Q N Q Q 00 \ � l0 CO � CO M\ � N � A T pl O Q Ol n n t° 1p M n M n n 0 n (V n N N � 01 N IA IA N N N IA N N rl rl rl �� N tD rl M N N Q Q Q ao M .+ rl o M m m n o Q Ol o O 0 IA o l0 l0 Q 00 m c0 .. N l0 V In Q N VI O ao Ill n 'I ao Q o Q n to Op N Q Ol m n m O to Q n rl In N ,4 N O m Ol N m .y Q N m In In l° m N o N V m ci O m o l° m In m o � m tD o0 M o Ol n Ol o n Q Q - o L 0 0 o a a a a a o c 0 C 0 o 0 c 0 c 0 c 0 C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 c 0 C 0 c 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o o 0 C 0 9 v = A a` v a c a « x � o � H 3 O « to w0 O t O ~ J C m ' '7 m 3 3 a` n o 6o of ° E o m Y u = v g N x a 3 0 0 « v l\7 s - w al s v 3 3 y« o o Y o � In `o . -� J c v v w v w v w Y m „°, w v ° u° 3 c_ c_ — v> v\ z 3 N v vl «� o O O O N o o g o p m w a Z v >> 'n c c o 0 n c H v ro _ y to to a a`o N > o. N E v E v « vl ul V F r I° I° -o c y a m cJ l7 m w x> j u I (7 m rr a s s 2 H vJi V x a li m m u x IIi° 2 2 O ~ 0 w O O N Ill N O N Vl N O VI " O O O O N N O W Ol O N Opp O 1%j rl N O N V W c a c � U n n n .i m o0 00 0o R m m o0 00 � oo m of of of al al � W N Q N W W ro W C Lam, M I m W W v 3 LL N N M w. O r� N 00 b 1. M N Ill Q M Li O ei M O N N o M M o o o o in O in O �n n n n n � n N n N n N n VOf n N n O o rn M oo li m co n o co ko m in n n N M Ol l0 N M O [O O 00 O 00 O W O N ut N u1 N vl N vt N of N vt N u1 O m m m m m m m m rn m m u m m o ti m w n O N l0 00 N M N n N n 00 N N O O p O O N O M O in VI n q o n in Ol oo Q m N o O Q 0 0 0 0 w a a u _ J OOi g N N N O N V 0 o m n m o om ao n n v O 0 v °q LL � G n 0 o 0 C c c c v o F. _ _ r Q o i Y m x - K m x - 2 T G v Q o « C w 0 N O. 1 C 0 V - z c N Z _ ` m w v 3 3 w w wo 0 w c c c « w 4 a « o O x E 15 v ° v E E :aa a v\ a uoi �n c a c a o a E o rn 113 Cr_\ 1�1 Appendix C - Building and Land Value Analysis - Supplemental Information 1 'J Appendix C — Building and Land Value Analysis This appendix provides the additional data and information on building and land value estimates. Building Values In determining the appropriate unit value for buildings, the following analysis was conducted: • A review of recently built or planned government buildings in Collier County; • Insurance value of the existing inventory; and _ • Discussions with architects. N Over the past five years, the County constructed a building for the Heritage Bay Government Center at a cost of $550 per square foot, including land and building value. The County's Annual Update and Inventory Report (AUIR) estimated the unit cost for government buildings at $470 per square foot in 2023. During the 2016 study, the value of primary buildings was estimated at $300 per square foot. Applying Engineering News Records Building Cost Index for the cost changes between 2016 and 2024 resulted in a unit cost of approximately $406 per square foot. The insurance values of existing primary buildings ranged from $252 per square foot for building only to $267 per square foot for buildings and contents. It is important to note that insurance values are considered to be a conservative estimate because the value of the foundation and other more permanent parts of the structure tends to be excluded since these would not have to be rebuilt if the structure is damaged or lost. Given this data and information, building cost for primary buildings was estimated at $450 per square foot. The value of support facilities was estimated at $90 per square foot, based primarily on insurance values. These costs reflect all costs related to constructing buildings (such as design, construction, site preparation, etc.) with the exception of land purchase. This information is summarized in Table C-1. Benesch Collier County October 2024 C-1 Government Buildings Impact Fee Study 111 7� Table C-1 Building Cost Estimates Facility Cost per Square .. Building Cost Estimates 2016 Study Building Value Indexed(�) $406 Recent Construction - Heritage Bay Government Center(2) $550 County Estimate for Future Buildings(3) $470 Average Insurance Value of Primary Buildings(4) $252 Average Insurance Value of Support Buildings(5) $45 Used in the Study: - Primary Buildings $450 - Support Buildings $90 1) Primary building cost estimate from Collier County Government Buildings Impact Fee Study, October 10, 2016, indexed according to Engineering News Record (2016-2024) 2) Source: Collier County 3) Source: Collier County Annual Update and Inventory Report 2023 4) Source: Collier County 5) Source: Collier County Land Values To estimate land value associated with government buildings, the following information was evaluated: — 1%1; • Recent land purchases, • Land value trends since the last study; • Current value of land where government buildings are located; • Vacant land sales analysis; • Vacant land values as reported by the Property Appraiser; and • Discussions with the County Collier County purchases a 5-acre parcel in 2023 for Fleet Facility expansion for a cost of $120,000 per acre. The 2016 study estimated land value at $160,000 per acre. Since then, land values increased by approximately 118 percent, which results in an indexed value of approximately $350,000 per acre. Benesch Collier County October 2024 C-2 Government Buildings Impact Fee Study 111 7� The value of parcels where existing government buildings are located has an average value of $450,000 per acre. Vacant land sales of parcels between one acre and 10 acres countywide averaged $72,000 per acre over the past five years. This value was almost $400,000 per acre when commercial vacant land was considered. Similarly, the value of all vacant land of one to 10-acre parcels as estimated by Collier County Property Appraiser averaged $51,000 per acre. This figure was $316,000 per acre for commercial vacant land. If Given these figures, an average land value of $180,000 per acre is considered to be a reasonable estimate for the impact fee calculations. Benesch Collier County October 2024 C-3 Government Buildings Impact Fee Study Prepared for: Prepared by: benesch Collier County Capital Projects Planning, Benesch Impact Fees and Program Management Division 1000 N. Ashley Dr., #400 2685 Horseshoe Drive South Tampa, Florida 33602 Naples, Florida 34104 ph (813) 224-8862 ph (239) 252-8192 E-mail: nkamp@benesch.com DRAFT Collier County Law Enforcement Impact Fee Update Study Table of Contents INTRODUCTION...................................................................................................... 1 INVENTORY............................................................................................................. 5 SERVICE AREA AND DEMAND COMPONENT............................................................. 8 LEVEL OF SERVICE.................................................................................................... 9 COST COMPONENT.................................................................................................. 10 CREDIT COMPONENT............................................................................................... 12 NET LAW ENFORCEMENT IMPACT COST................................................................... 14 CALCULATED LAW ENFORCEMENT IMPACT FEE SCHEDULE ....................................... 15 LAW ENFORCEMENT IMPACT FEE SCHEDULE COMPARISON ..................................... 17 Appendices: Appendix A: Law Enforcement Facilities Inventory Appendix B: Population Estimates -- Supplemental Information Appendix C: Building and Land Value Analysis - Supplemental Information Benesch Collier County October 2024 i Law Enforcement Impact Fee Study DRAFT Introduction With a population of over 400,000, Collier County ranks as the 19th most populous county in Florida. The county is continuing to grow and is estimated to add approximately 110,000 new residents through 2050. In terms of residential permitting, Collier County ranks 19th out of Florida counties with an average of 5,300 new units per year over the past three years. To address additional infrastructure needs, Collier County implemented an impact fee program for law enforcement services, which was last updated in 2016. To reflect most recent data, the County retained Benesch to prepare an update study. 4 This report serves as the technical study to support the calculation of the updated law enforcement impact fee. The data presented in this report represents the most recent and localized data available at the time of this update study. All data and support materials used in this analysis are incorporated by reference as set forth in this document. The figures calculated in this study represent the technically calculated level of impact fee that the County could charge; however, the Board of County Commissioners may choose to discount the fee as a policy decision. Methodology In developing the County's law enforcement impact fee, a consumption -based impact fee methodology is utilized, which is commonly used throughout Florida. A consumption -based impact fee charges new development based upon the burden placed on services from each land use (demand). The demand component is measured in terms of population per unit. A consumption -based impact fee charges new growth the proportionate share of the cost of providing additional infrastructure for use by new growth. Unlike a "needs -based" approach, consumption -based approach ensures that the impact fee is set at a rate that generates revenues sufficient only for new capacity needs and does not generate revenues at a level to correct existing deficiencies. Given this, the County does not need to go through the process of estimating the portion of each capacity expansion project that may be related to existing deficiencies. In addition, per legal requirements, a credit is subtracted from the total cost to account for the value of future non -impact fee funding contributions of new development toward any capacity expansion projects. In other words, case law requires that the new development should not be charged twice for the same infrastructure. Benesch Collier County October 2024 1 Law Enforcement Impact Fee Study DRAFT Legal Overview In Florida, legal requirements related to impact fees have primarily been established through case law since the 1980's. Impact fees must comply with the "dual rational nexus" test, which requires that they: • Be supported by a study demonstrating that the fees are proportionate in amount to the need created by new development paying the fee; and • Be spent in a manner that directs a proportionate benefit to new development, typically accomplished through establishment of benefit districts (if needed) and a list of capacity - adding projects included in the County's Capital Improvement Plan, Capital Improvement Element, or another planning document/Master Plan. In 2006, the Florida legislature passed the "Florida Impact Fee Act," which recognized impact fees as "an outgrowth of home rule power of a local government to provide certain services within its jurisdiction." § 163.31801(2), Fla. Stat. The statute — concerned with mostly procedural and methodological limitations — did not expressly allow or disallow any particular public facility type from being funded with impact fees. In fact, which it was initially adopted, the Act largely codified requirements and standards common to the practice already. However, the Legislature has amended the Impact Fee Act numerous times since 2006, significantly affecting the impact fee practice in Florida. For this reason, a summary of the key legislative changes since 2006 is provided: • HB 227 in 2009: The Florida legislation statutorily clarified that in any action challenging an impact fee, the government has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the imposition or amount of the fee meets the requirements of state legal precedent or the Impact Fee Act and that the court may not use a deferential standard. • SB 360 in 2009: Allowed fees to be decreased without the 90-day notice period required to increase the fees and purported to change the standard of legal review associated with impact fees. SB 360 also required the Florida Department of Community Affairs (now the Department of Commerce) and Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) to conduct studies on "mobility fees," which were completed in 2010. • HB 7207 in 2011: Required a dollar -for -dollar credit, for purposes of concurrency compliance, for impact fees paid and other concurrency mitigation required. • HB 319 in 2013: Applied mostly to concurrency management authorities, but also encouraged local governments to adopt alternative mobility systems using a series of tools identified in section 163.3180(5)(f), Florida Statutes. Benesch Collier County October 2024 2 Law Enforcement Impact Fee Study DRAFT • HB 207 in 2019: Included the following changes to the Impact Fee Act along with additional clarifying language: o Impact fees cannot be collected prior to building permit issuance; and o Impact fee revenues cannot be used to pay debt service for previously approved projects unless the expenditure is reasonably connected to, or has a rational nexus with, the increased impact generated by the new residential and commercial construction. • HB 7103 in 2019: Addressed multiple issues related to affordable housing/linkage fees, impact fees, and building services fees. In terms of impact fees, the bill required that when local governments increase their impact fees, the outstanding impact fee credits for developer contributions should also be increased. This requirement was to operate prospectively; however, HB 337 that was signed in 2021 deleted that clause and making all outstanding credits eligible for this adjustment. This bill also allowed local governments to waive/reduce impact fees for affordable housing projects without having to offset the associated revenue loss. • SB 1066 in 2020: Added language allowing impact fee credits to be assignable and transferable at any time after establishment from one development or parcel to another that is within the same impact fee zone or impact fee district or that is within an adjoining impact fee zone or district within the same local government jurisdiction, and which receives benefit from the improvement or contribution that generated the credits. Added language indicating any new/increased impact fee not being applicable to current or pending permit applications submitted prior to the effective date of an ordinance or resolution imposing new/increased fees. • HB 1339 in 2020: Required reporting of various impact fee related data items within the annual financial audit report submitted to the Department of Financial Services. • HB 337 in 2021: Placed limits on the amount and frequency of fee increases, but also included a clause to exceed these restrictions if the local governments can demonstrate extraordinary circumstances, hold two public workshops discussing these circumstances and the increases are approved by two-thirds of the governing body. • HB 479 in 2024 (Effective October 1, 2024): Required interlocal agreements between counties and municipalities when both entities collect a transportation impact fee. Placed limits on timing of impact fee study completion and adoption and data used in the studies. The following paragraphs provide further detail on the generally applicable legal standards. Benesch Collier County October 2024 3 Law Enforcement Impact Fee Study DRAFT Impact Fee Definition • An impact fee is a one-time capital charge levied against new development. • An impact fee is designed to cover the portion of the capital costs of infrastructure capacity consumed by new development. • The principal purpose of an impact fee is to assist in funding the implementation of projects identified in the Capital Improvements Element (CIE) and other capital improvement programs for the respective facility/service categories. Impact Fee vs. Tax RAA9 • An impact fee is generally regarded as a regulatory function established based upon the specific benefit to the user related to a given infrastructure type and is not established for the primary purpose of generating revenue for the general benefit of the community, as are taxes. • Impact fee expenditures must convey a proportional benefit to the fee payer. This is accomplished through the establishment of benefit districts as needed, where fees collected in a benefit district are spent in the same benefit district. • An impact fee must be tied to a proportional need for new infrastructure capacity created by new development. 7 This technical report has been prepared to support legal compliance with existing case law and statutory requirements and documents the methodology used for the law enforcement impact fee calculations, including an evaluation of the inventory, service area and demand component, level of service (LOS), cost, credit, and demand components. Information supporting this analysis was obtained from the County and other sources, as indicated. Benesch Collier County October 2024 4 Law Enforcement Impact Fee Study DRAFT Inventory According to information provided by the County, Collier County has approximately 265,000 square feet of building space used to provide law enforcement services. As presented in Table 1, this figure includes 263,000 square feet of primary buildings and approximately 2,000 square feet of support space. Support facilities are defined as facilities without air-conditioning or space that is unlikely to be occupied by personnel. Inventory details are presented in Appendix A, Table A- 1. An important part of the impact fee calculations involves estimating the value of the capital assets. As shown in Table 1, the value of primary buildings are estimated at $350 per square foot while support buildings are estimated to cost $90 per square foot. The building value estimates are based on a review of cost estimates for planned law enforcement buildings, cost trends since the last technical study, insurance values of existing facilities, and discussions with the County. A more detailed explanation of building value estimates is included in Appendix C. In terms of estimating current land values, a review of the value of land where existing law enforcement facilities are located and land values in subareas of the county where future facilities are being planned was completed. Both vacant land sales and the current value of vacant parcels as reported by the Collier County Property Appraiser were evaluated for similar size parcels by land use and location. This analysis resulted in an average value of $180,000 per acre, and is explained further in Appendix C. OAC _N INK Benesch Collier County October 2024 5 Law Enforcement Impact Fee Study DRAFT Table 1 Building and Land Inventory Primary Buildings WIVE 263,171 $350 1,994 $90 265,165 - $92,109,850 Support Buildings 179 460 Total $92,289,310 Allocated Acreage(4) 27.39 $180,000 Land Value per Acre(5) $4,930,200 Total Building and Land Value (6) $97,219,510 1) Source: Appendix A, Table A-1 2) Source: Appendix C 3) Building value per square foot (Item 2) multiplied by square feet (Item 1) 4) Source: Appendix A, Table A-1 5) Source: Appendix C 6) Sum of total building value and land value In addition to the land and buildings inventory, the Collier County Sheriff's Office (CCSO) also has the vehicles and equipment to perform its law enforcement duties. Table 2 summarizes the vehicle and equipment inventory. Equipment included in this list follows the County's definition of capital assets, which includes items that have a minimum value of $5,000 and five years of useful life. As presented in Table 2, the total vehicle and equipment inventory amounts to apprc Benesch October 2024 Collier County 6 Law Enforcement Impact Fee Study Table 2 Law Enforcement Vehicle and Equipment Inventory WDescription Air Conditioning Unit Total Value(i) $5,790 Units (2) 1 UnitValue (3) $5,790 Aircraft $9,589,675 5 $1,917,935 Aircraft Equipment $4,222,518 64 $65,977 Alarm System $7,575 1 $7,575 Auto Accessories $470,787 16S $2,853 Boats $1,099,461 13 $84,574 Breathalizer $94,979 6 $15,830 ID Access System $222,311 23 $9,666 In Car Video $3,681,964 725 $5,079 Maintenance Equipment $193,566 5 $38,713 Major Comm Equip $1,260,155 73 $17,262 Major Computer Equipment $4,129,875 131 $31,526 Minor Comm Equip $3,802,357 165 $23,045 Minor Recording Equip $135,069 10 $13,507 Minor Shop Equipment $459,458 42 $10,939 Misc Security Equipment $589,318 47 $12,539 Mobile Radio After 2010 $4,283,725 763 $5,614 Servers $3,002,056 97 $30,949 Shop Machinery $219,085 11 $19,917 Special Operations $693,564 28 $24,770 Specialty Vehicles $2,951,020 88 $33,534 Storage and Sheds $114,949 10 $11,495 Trailers $1,457,958 76 $19,184 Utilities $60,000 2 $30,000 Vehicles $34,230,511 1,037 $33,009 TOTAL VALU E 1 $76,977,726 1) Source: Collier County Sheriff's Office 2) Source: Collier County Sheriff's Office 3) Total value (Item 1) divided by units (Item 2) Benesch October 2024 Collier County 7 Law Enforcement Impact Fee Study DRAFT Service Area and Demand Component Although the CCSO has countywide jurisdiction and provides services countywide, law enforcement services are provided primarily in unincorporated areas of the county and in Everglades City. Other municipalities within Collier County have separate law enforcement agencies that have the primary responsibility of providing law enforcement services in these areas. Therefore, for impact fee calculation purposes, the primary benefit district for law enforcement is the unincorporated county and Everglades City, and the population figures are calculated for this area. 4 The law enforcement impact fee program requires the use of population data in calculating current levels of service and performance standards. To accurately determine demand for law enforcement services and to be consistent with the County's comprehensive planning and Annual Update and Inventory Report (AUIR) process, this impact fee study considers not only the resident or permanent population of the County, but also the number of seasonal residents and visitors as well. Therefore, for purposes of this technical analysis, the peak seasonal population is used in all population estimates and projections, unless otherwise noted. Peak seasonal population projections were provided by Collier County's Comprehensive Planning Division. To measure effective population that benefits from the law enforcement services, this study also developed functional population figures. Functional population, as used in the impact fee analysis, is a generally accepted methodology for several impact fee areas and is based on the assumption that demand for certain facilities is generally proportional to the presence of people at a land use, including residents, employees, and visitors. Appendix B provides additional details on population estimates. Benesch Collier County October 2024 8 Law Enforcement Impact Fee Study DRAFT Level of Service Table 3 presents the calculation of the current LOS included in the inventory as well as Collier County's adopted LOS standards according to the most recent AUIR. As presented, Collier County's current level of service is 0.59 square feet per peak seasonal resident. While the current LOS for is 0.59 square feet per peak seasonal resident, in order to calculate the law enforcement facilities impact fee, the LOS needs to be calculated in terms of square feet per functional resident. As shown in Table 3, the current achieved LOS is 0.64 square feet per functional resident. Collier County's adopted LOS standard for law enforcement facilities is 0.91 square feet per peak population or 0.99 per functional resident. While the achieved LOS indicates the investment made by the community, the adopted LOS standard provides the intended/goal LOS. For impact fee calculation purposes, the lower of the two measures is utilized to not overcharge new development. Given this, the achieved LOS of 0.64 square feet per functional resident is utilized in the calculation of the law enforcement impact fee. Table 3 Current Achieved & Adopted Level of Service Standard 1) Source: Appendix B, Tables B-1 and B-7 2) Source: Table 1 3) Total square feet of primary buildings (Item 2) divided by population (Item 1) 4) Source: Collier County 2023 Annual Update and Inventory Report. LOS standard per peak population is converted to LOS standard per functional resident using the ratio of peak to functional population. Benesch Collier County October 2024 9 Law Enforcement Impact Fee Study DRAFT Cost Component Table 4 provides a summary of law enforcement facility related capital assets owned by the County. As shown, total capital asset value associated with law enforcement facilities amounts to $174.2 million. However, the County is still paying debt service on a portion of these assets. In addition, it is Collier County's policy to use impact fee revenues to pay debt service associated with capacity expansion projects. To ensure that new development is not being overcharged for these future payments, the portion of the remaining principal for law enforcement capacity expansion projects that is to be repaid with impact fee revenues is subtracted from the total asset value in Table 4. The resulting owned capital asset value is approximately $157.8 million or $599 per square foot. F"! Table 4 also presents the cost per functional resident for the impact fee analysis. This cost is calculated by multiplying the owned capital asset value per bed by the achieved LOS of 0.64 square feet per functional resident. As shown, these calculations result in $384 per functional resident for all law enforcement facilities assets considered in the impact fee calculations. Table 4 Total Impact Cost per Functional Resident DescriptionPe Total BuildingValuel1i $92,289,310 rce nt of 53.0% Total Land Value (2) $4,930,200 2.8% Total Vehicle & Equipment Value (3) $76,977,726 44.2% Total Capital Asset Value (4) $174,197,236 100.0% Less: Portion Not Owned (5) $16,435,751 Owned Capital Asset Value (6) $157,761,485 Primary Buildings Square Feet(') 263,171 Owned Capital Asset Value per Square Foots) $599.46 LOS (Square Feet per Functional Resident)(9) 0.64 Owned Capital Value per Functional Resident(10) $383.65 1) Source: Table 1 2) Source: Table 1 3) Source: Table 2 4) Sum of land, building, and equipment values (Items 1, 2, and 3) 5) Source: Collier County Office of Management and Budget 6) Total capital asset value (Item 4) less portion not owned by the County (Item 5) 7) Source: Table 1 8) Owned buildings, land and vehicle/equipment value (Item 6) divided by total square feet (Item 7) Benesch Collier County October 2024 10 Law Enforcement Impact Fee Study DRAFT 9) Source: Table 3 10) Owned capital asset value (Item 6) multiplied by the LOS (Item 9) 11) Distribution of land, building, and vehicle/equipment asset values (Items 1,2, and 3) Benesch October 2024 Collier County 11 Law Enforcement Impact Fee Study DRAFT Credit Component To avoid overcharging development for the law enforcement impact fee, a review of the capital funding program for law enforcement services was conducted. The purpose of this review was to determine any potential revenue credits that should be considered for revenues generated by new development that are likely to be used for capital facility expansion, land purchase, or vehicle/equipment expansion for the law enforcement program. Based on a review of the County's funding of capacity addition projects over the past five years, it has been determined that the County uses ad valorem tax revenues and grants for expansion projects paid with cash. Capital Expansion "Cash" Credit To calculate the capital expansion credit per functional resident, funding sources used for the past five years were reviewed. Between FY 2018 and FY 2022, the County allocated an average non -impact fee funding of $3.44 million per year toward law enforcement capital facilities utilizing ad valorem revenues and grants. N" The annual capital expansion "cash" expenditures were divided by the average annual functional residents for the same period to calculate the average annual capital expansion "cash" credit per functional resident. As presented in Table 5, the result is $9 per functional resident annually. Once the capital expansion "cash" credit per functional resident is calculated, a credit adjustment is made to account for the fact that new homes tend to pay higher property taxes per dwelling unit. This adjustment factor was estimated based on a comparison of the average taxable value of recently built homes built to that of all homes. As shown in Table 5, this adjusted credit amounts to approximately $10 per functional resident per year. Benesch Collier County October 2024 12 Law Enforcement Impact Fee Study DRAFT Table 5 Capital Expansion "Cash" Credit ,. General Fund Intangible Property $923,827 $923,827 IT Equipment $1,404,011 $3,189 - $1,407,200 Special Operations & Equipment - $4,847,546 $4,847,546 Subtotal -- General Fund $1,404,011 $927,016 $4,847,546 $7,178,573 Grants Auto Accessories - $205,627 - $205,627 Camera & Camera Equipment $16,018 $9,472 - $5,000 $30,490 Communications Equipment $56,296 $16,849 $306,355 $190,716 $570,216 Intangible Property - - $923,827 - $923,827 IT Equipment $43,996 $1,473,853 $525,445 $43,263 $2,086,557 Office Furniture/Equipment - $8,522 $12,225 - $20,747 Other Equipment $69,620 $65,435 $235,563 $86,308 $35,596 $492,522 Protection Ballistics $71,622 $35,427 - - $33,407 $140,456 Special Operations & Equipment $36,783 $46,197 $154,273 $4,847,546 $16,334 $5,101,133 Specialty Vehicles - - $202,894 - $202,894 Trailers $27,094 - $27,094 Vehicles 106 236 103 523 209 759 Subtotal -- Grants $294,335 $1,655,755 $2,699,539 $5,276,356 $85,337 $10,011,322 Total Capital Expansion "Cash" Expenditures 1 $294,335 $3,059,766 $3,626,555 $10,123,9021 $85,337 $17,189,895 Average Annual Capital Expansion "Cash" Expenditures (2) $3,437,979 Average Annual Functional Population (3) 379,936 Annual Capital Expansion "Cash" Credit per Functional Residenti°i $9.05 Portion Funded with Ad Valorem Tax Revenue(5) $2.62 Portion Funded with Other Sources(G) $6.43 Credit Adjustment Factor(') 1.25 Adjusted Annual Capital Expansion "Cash" Credit per Functional Resident(8) $9.71 1) Source: Collier County 2) Total capital expansion "cash" expenditures divided by five to calculate the average annual expenditures 3) Source: Appendix B, Table B-7 4) Average annual capital expansion "cash" expenditures (Item 2) divided by the average annual functional population (Item 3) 5) Capital expansion "cash" expenditures per functional resident (Item 4) multiplied by the ad valorem portion of total expenditures (29%) 6) Capital expansion "cash" expenditures per functional resident (Item 4) less the portion funded with ad valorem tax revenues (Item 5) 7) Adjustment factor to reflect higher ad valorem taxes paid by new homes 8) Portion funded with ad valorem revenue sources (Item 5) multiplied by the credit adjustment factor (Item 7) plus the portion funded with other revenue sources (Item 6) Benesch October 2024 Collier County 13 Law Enforcement Impact Fee Study DRAFT Net Law Enforcement Impact Cost Table 6 summarizes the net impact cost per functional resident, which is the difference between the cost component and the credit component. The resulting net impact cost is $227 per functional resident for residential land uses and $238 per functional resident for non-residential land uses. Table 6 j^ Net Impact Cost per Functional Resident Variable Per Functional Resident Impact Cost Total Impact Cost per Functional Resident(l) $383.65 Revenue Credit Annual Capital Expansion "Cash" Credit per Functional Resident (2) - Residential Land Uses $9.71 - Non-residential Land Uses $9.05 Capitalization Rate 3.70% Capitalization Period (years) 25 Capital Expansion "Cash" Credit per Functional Resident(3) - Residential Land Uses $156.62 - Non-residential Land Uses $145.97 Net Impact Cost Net Impact Cost per Functional Resident (4) - Residential Land Uses $227.03 - Non-residential Land Uses $237.68 L) Source: Table 4 2) Source: Table 5 3) Annual capital expansion "cash" credit per functional resident (Item 2) with a capitalization rate of 3.7% for 25 years. The capitalization rate estimate was provided by Collier County. 4) Total impact cost per functional resident (Item 1) less capital expansion "cash" credit per functional resident (Item 5) Benesch Collier County October 2024 14 Law Enforcement Impact Fee Study DRAFT Calculated Law Enforcement Impact Fee Schedule Table 7 presents the law enforcement facilities impact fee schedule for residential and non- residential land uses, based on the net impact fee per cost per functional resident figures presented in Table 6. Net impact cost per functional resident decreased by approximately 25 percent since the 2015 study due to changes to cost and credit components. The remaining differences reflect the changes in the demand component since 2016 as well as new land use categories or units. Table 7 4 Calculated Law Enforcement Impact Fee Schedule Functional Calculated Current Adopted Percent LUC Land Use �WUit Residents per (2) Impact Fee (3) Change (4) Residential: Single Family Detached 210 - Less than 4,000 sf du 1.83 $415.46 $586.95 -29% 210 -4,000sforgreater du 2.26 $513.09 $661.09 -22% 220-232 Multi -Family du 1.01 $229.30 $296.56 -23% 240 Mobile Home du 1.35 $306.49 $457.20 -33% 251 Retirement Community- Detached (Single Family) du 1.12 $254.27 $265.67 -4% 252 Retirement Community- Attached (Multi -Family) du 1 0.61 $138.491 $265.67 -48% Transient, Assisted, Group: 310/311 Hotel/All Suites Hotel room 1.23 $292.35 $252.91 16% 320 Motel room 1.07 $254.32 $237.30 7% 254 Assisted Living Facility du 0.95 $225.80 $340.34 -34% 620 Nursing Home 1,000 sf 2.37 $563.30 $327.85/bed N/A Recreation: 416 Campground/RV Park site 0.46 $109.33 $156.12 -30% 420 Marina boat berth 0.12 $28.52 $59.33 -52% 430 Golf Course hole 0.80 $190.14 $337.22 -44% n/a Bundled Golf Course hole 0.24 $57.04 $101.13 -44% 445 Movie Theater 1,000 sf 3.33 $791.47 $1,867.20/screen N/A n/a Dance Studio/Gymnastics 1,000 sf 1.72 $408.81 $693.17 -41% Institutions: 520 Elementary School (Private) student 0.10 $23.77 $18.73 279% 522 Middle/Junior High School (Private) student 0.09 $21.39 $21.86 -2% 525 High School (Private) student 0.08 $19.01 $24.98 -24% University/Junior College(7,500 or fewer students)(Private) student 0.10 $23.77 $31.22 -2451 540/550 University/Junior College (more than 7,500 students) (Private) student 0.08 $19.01 $21.86 -13% 560 Church 1,000 sf 0.47 $111.71 $9.37/seat N/A 565 Day Care Center 1,000 sf 0.85 $202.03 $15.61/student N/A Medical: 610 Hospital 1 1,000 sf 1.28 $304.23 $427.77 -29% Office: 710 General Office 1 1,000 sf 0.95 $225.80 $240.42 -6% Medical Office/Clinic 10,000 sq ft or less 1 1,000 sf 1.16 $275.71 $355.95 -23% 720 Medical Office/Clinic greater than 10,000 sq ft 1 1,000 sf 1.67 $396.93 $518.32 -23% 770 Business Park (Flex -Space) 1 1,000 sf 0.92 $218.67 $299.75 -27% Retail: 822 Retail 6,000 sfgla or less 1,000 sfgla 1.97 $468.23 $764.99 -39% 822 Retail 6,001 to 40,000 sfgla 1,000 sfgla 1.97 $468.23 $764.99 -39% 821 Retail 40,001 to 150,000 sfgla 1,000 sfgla 2.74 $651.24 $764.99 -15% 820 Retail greater than 150,000 sfgla 1,000 sfgla 1.88 $446.94 $652.58 -32% 940/841 New/Used Auto Sales 1,000 sf 1.47 $349.39 $458.99 -24% Benesch Collier County October 2024 15 Law Enforcement Impact Fee Study DRAFT Table 7 (continued) Calculated Law Enforcement Impact Fee Schedule Retail: 849 Tire Superstore 1,000 sf 1.20 $285.22 $418.40/bay N/A 850 Supermarket 1,000 sf 2.26 $537.16 $640.09 -16% 851 Convenience Market (24 hour) 1,000 sf 5.80 $1,378.54 $1,707.85 -19% 862 Home Improvement Superstore 1,000 sf 1.81 $430.20 $565.15 -24% 880/881 Pharmacy with & without Drive-Thru 1,000 sf 1.69 $401.681 $611.90 -34% 890 Furniture Store 1,000 sf 0.301 $71.301 $74.94 -5% Services: 911 Bank/Savings w/out Drive-Thru 1,000 sf 1.10 $261.45 $696.30 -62% 912 Bank/Savings w/Drive-Thru 1,000 sf 1.42 $337.51 $711.91 -53% 930 Fast Casual Restaurant 1,000 sf 3.28 $779.59 $2,778.94 -72% 931 Low -Turnover Restaurant 1,000 sf 5.73 $1,361.91 $68.69/seat N/A 932 High -Turnover (Sit -Down) Restaurant 1,000 sf 5.39 $1,281.10 $84.30/seat N/A 934 Fast Food Restaurant w/Drive-Thru 1,000 sf 9.66 $2,295.99 $2,778.94 -17% 934.1 Fast Food w/Drive-Thru with Two Meals 1,000 sf 8.25 $1,960.86 $2,778.94 -29% 941 Quick Lube service bay 1.52 $361.27 $362.20 0% 944 Gas Station w/Convenience Market <2,000 sq ft fuel pos. 1.32 $313.74 $808.70 -61% 944 Gas Station w/Convenience Market 2,000 - 5,499 sq ft fuel pos. 2.08 $494.37 $808.70 -39% 945 Gas Station w/Convenience Market 5,500+sq ft fuel pos. 2.71 $644.11 $808.70 -20% 947 Self -Service Car Wash service bay 0.87 $206.78 $271.65 -24% 948 Automated Car Wash 1,000 sf 1.76 $418.32 $549.54 -24% n/a Luxury Auto Sales 1,000 sf 1.21 $287.59 $321.61 -11% Industrial: 110 General Light Industrial 1,000 sf 0.45 $106.96 $215.45 -50% 140 Manufacturing 1,000 sf 0.53 $125.97 $156.12 -19% 150 lWarehousing 1,000 sf 0.10 $23.77 $87.43 -73% 151 1 Mini -Warehouse 1,000 sf 0.03 $7.13 $18.73 -62% 1) Source: Table B-8 for residential land uses and Table B-9 for non-residential land uses 2) Source: Net impact cost per functional resident from Table 6 is multiplied by the functional residents per unit (Item 1) 3) Source: Collier County Capital Project Planning, Impact Fees, and Program Management Division 4) Percent change from the calculated impact fee (Item 2) and the current adopted impact fee (Item 3) �r Benesch October 2024 Collier County 16 Law Enforcement Impact Fee Study r LL OC L 00 _0) M fC N O 0 N .y N N N M 0 0 0 N e-I M l0 m o V} N V} to O ry OO � o m N ti m ry � N 0 � v VT V� N VT Q Q z z o° 0 0 100 O o n n ti n ti n m v m CdJ 0 N v o m m N c vT N N VT O N 0 .y rn ti � o ono ti O c N N V N o O N � n ti m vOi �y o VT N VF O p N �y 1� N N VI C 0 0 O N vt Q N o Z 3 � O o O 0 O 0 v v -o - � o O v `o O o � ., Q 6 �• a C N O E j p bA 0 Ln a) O a1 4! Ll n v V) ; m(1) Q U i� C m LL i E X OU \ c 00 c 30 N rn O Q LL c 0) ii vi � ru 00 N N LL N N Q LL m O 3 T T m a! tB v O L U c } m LL m > Q 0 U bz 0—c0 U V L v _r_ U U Q L V a1 T CL L (0 p Ec 3 — c � m > m \ a1 Lna1 On LO c a1 Q O E LO T c v U O V c m f6 c N Oy U Q cm G >i c X W � E � f0 a1 U \ f6 as Q E N 3 a1 E OU O — C O .i LO LL O ++ c U1 U m O MLL w L E aj L CL O E L p a1 LL _0 O a0 v +� U a1 0 + O M .� -0 cm =3 a— a,LL00 E v a) ra o U E v E o Q N Z) +•• c Q- O v a1 .0 i--I m vi LL U p O> 'ro L L U E c > L O N O fl_ O d O O E v +T+ L� c Ln a1 E a c v ro E c o a E .Y E° o L v° E v a) U > N a Q U - +7 O w O Y j a)LL a1 00 c c •- U c O O O Y O U O c j U v U a 7 0_ Q bp.0 U CC N U C v c O r L p c � v •c — ra r6 T cB E c i u H U U c c c C v v v v v u v 0 I I L L L L L T L O_ c O O O O ,} v v c O 0 0 0 0 0 v O t 0C m -0 :n Ln Ln Ln Ln L :n a.+ A2 c O Ln a1 (1) �••i 0_ O � to 3 a1 N U LL c Cc fl_ E p to O C c Q) - _0 Q L Q ra co p � T � U p > O t0 Ln +� N w rNi O c a) N T v O rl U L 0 c Q c tD O a1 > N U ON 0 t6 > a) i +' N N c 7 V > (6 c O � U N a1 LL Ll LL , } rj aJ c 00 c a) c E rn E Q C Q v � vi li LL V v v m c m Ln v1 `° v 0 E E 0A E c Q O_ c O p p cr a) L 7 > > 0 Nc0 qp L a) aJ 00 c In 0 � -1 on un c 02S cn c t U bn on 0 N m .c •c i--I _ c >- •E ao C c vi _ l0 LL 7 c c a UJ O O 0 +' +T+ fl_ U U V) m c c n v v p 0 C U c U U a� O, a1 O +�+ .O N co U p U L E E 3 a cy d C a to L% N 'm aJ aJ .. U U Q U U U •— =5 E D D D m U) U) 0 L n coin coin a O r-I N M Ol rl ri ri ri V) aJ a) U t� Q E ++ c u U O C LU fo J N 0 N V a) O c m 0 Appendix A - Law Enforcement Facilities Inventory w Q V V 00 N m W O w w N Q V 1l M m Q N M n e-I m N N N m O O a --I M '-I P O G1 M O a -I O O O O O c) a N M O Z Ln M Z qj N C) C) C) 0 0 rn 1, O N N 0 O m '-1 m N e-I m Q O O Q a) tV M O LD li V N m n N M .--I -i tD O \ Z M .--I c-I Z m n N M rx O O O N O O O O O N O N lT 00 1, N 00 W\ O W\ n V Ln N O w n (yi M Z C:; 01 Z lD n t a -I N .--IW n n N O O Q m n Q n N N Ln in V tD N V V O Ln C Ln tD Z 00 M V 00 \ Z N V Zr C rl Lo M N M Ln M V N N M aj Ol n N M Li 1 Ll1 ei 00In N M 46 c Ln LnV1 n O O M Ln 11 n Ln n Ln Ln nl Ln l rn M L�D O O V V . N Ln O N M 00 M MDO mr1n n nC) -4 O c-I m N O M r1 V LTLD 471 rl w t0 N 00 Ln co �--� 00 Ln M rn rn M Ln t wrl N LLn D N v z v v v a, o > R a N z (0 z f0 z f0 z 3 G 01 a @ a v v v .F .Fo w w O_ G N W Z a N Z L V > m 0O W Z W Z W Z _ Q N Q f0 _ Q (0 H F F /U Z 01 z 01 N Ol - C 0) O) 01 Z Z Z .T .2 .2 .£ m v sO m > N Le z c c a) a) a) m m ,� a v � 0 �. Co ar w v T E E E E v Q^ v� v V c a> a> a> v v v v N t0 f0 f0 a ;r- L o -O 0 > T 7 t L L n n ~ ~ H ~ O m O a- C fa O - w ci w c-I w ci w ci U' n Z n c-I vi Lri fn m> > Q Ln u Ln 0 0) n a -I n c-I n c-I 0 vi vi O M O M O M O M O 1, O m V V N rl n M w 1-. O w n O w 00 w rl V V V V V V N rl N ci N rl M M M M V m V c-I N n c-I m N rl V V Vrr c-I e-I rl to c 3 m � O a - ar LL m Vc `m 0 u Y t LA a o H O 3 0 Q O O .a C--mvi a O p b0 x o Oci0 O o C O a c N w 0D M c C % O C C N a i O 9 C O m N U 00 H O) 9 a m s m 0J Vl LL N 0) Ln m t' tl0 V N Q 7 > lU ro Y m C N O1 v O O u 'h u O C y 00 G a a Ol N 9 in N- 'Lp O O aO� N > r w m G '� c N in c C. a -a C Q Q N LLn _ In O/ C F O O N O V313 w O v C O u c a C7 0] u cu 0) Ol LL tU LL Q 'O �. on oq LW Uq Ln on �o u _ O C j0 �+ H 00 w H m vL M N a c c s o m o° L° m v o c o cv cv w o w o L o v v v Ln z - LO z .0 a 2 o. > z z 0 9 o r o E v o a o D o s s o a m co m m c� Ln _ n z n W LL Q Ln n n n n_ n vL 3 �C C N J- N Q OA C Q) o v v c o � � a v O u 0 m Q_ L C Q C � Y _ L N O O N 2 Q- u ++ v C 7 O E ._Ln N -a N C L L O 0 m f T C 0 a O O U C N U V L L Q) } •v — M -- O U U V Q)) W 0 4- C V In Cn N Q N J m %D I, N N L.L u f6 CQ C C O m v U v Cf m Cv C u _O c LU m J ri Q DRAFT Appendix 6 - Population Estimates - Supplemental Information DRAFT Appendix B - Population Estimates The law enforcement impact fee program requires the use of population data in calculating current levels of service and to be consistent with the population utilized in the County's comprehensive planning and Annual Update and Inventory Report (AUIR) process. This impact fee study considers not only the resident or permanent population of the County, but also the number of seasonal residents and visitors as well. Therefore, for purposes of this technical analysis, the peak season population is used in all population estimates and projections. Peak season population projections were provided by Collier County's Comprehensive Planning Division. As previously mentioned, the law enforcement service area consists of unincorporated county and the City of Everglades. Table B-1 presents the population trends for the law enforcement service area. The projections indicate that the current peak seasonal population is 448,100 and is expected to increase to 526,000 (increase of 79,900) by 2040. The estimated average annual growth rate is approximately one percent. Benesch Collier County October 2024 B-1 Law Enforcement Impact Fee Study DRAFT Table B-1 Population Estimates (Law Enforcement Service Area) EYea:r 2010 PopulationLaw Enforcement Peak Seasonal 344,077 Service Area Jercent Change - 2011 348,982 1.43% 2012 354,754 1.65% 2013 358,895 1.17% 2014 364,916 1.68% 2015 372,650 2.12% 2016 380,266 2.04% 2017 388,455 2.15% 2018 396,880 2.17% 2019 405,486 2.17% 2020 412,972 1.85% 2021 421,755 2.13% 2022 431,696 2.36% 2023 440,527 2.05% 2024 448,099 1.72% 2025 455,014 1.54% 2026 461,248 1.37% 2027 467,566 1.37% 2028 473,970 1.37% 2029 480,458 1.37% 2030 486,024 1.16% 2031 490,644 0.95% 2032 495,303 0.95% 2033 500,003 0.95% 2034 504,744 0.95% 2035 508,818 0.81% 2036 512,216 0.67% 2037 515,631 0.67% 2038 519,060 0.67% 2039 522,508 0.66% 2040 526,039 0.68% Source: Collier County Comprehensive Planning Section (population projections dated May, 2024) Benesch October 2024 Collier County B-2 Law Enforcement Impact Fee Study DRAFT Apportionment of Demand by Residential Unit Type and Size The residential land uses to be used for the law enforcement impact fee calculations include the following: • Single Family (Detached) • Multi -Family • Mobile Home/RV (Tied Down) • Retirement Community (detached and attached) Table B-2 presents the number of residents per housing unit for the residential categories identified above in the law enforcement service area. This analysis includes all housing units, both occupied and vacant. To address fairness and equity issues between land uses, the single family land use is tiered based on two categories of square footage: less than 4,000 square feet and 4,000 square feet or greater. To accommodate the tiering of impact fee assessments for the single family residential land use category, an analysis was completed based on housing unit size and persons per housing unit, comparing nationwide averages to those of Collier County. This analysis utilized national data from the 2021 American Housing Survey (AHS) and data from the 2022 American Community Survey (ACS) to examine this relationship. Nk JE Table B-2 Residents per Housing Unit (Law Enforcement Service Area) 1) Source: 2022 ACS 5-Yr Estimates, Table B25033 (owner occupied and renter occupied), adjusted for peak seasonal population. 2) Source: 2022 ACS 5-Yr Estimates, Table DP04 3) Ratios developed based on national PPH data derived from the 2021 American Housing Survey. 4) Population (Item 1) divided by housing units (Item 2). For single family detached tiers, the residents per housing unit is determined by multiplying the weighted average value (2.69) by the ratio developed from the AHS data (Item 3) Benesch Collier County October 2024 B-3 Law Enforcement Impact Fee Study DRAFT 5) Estimate for retirement community (detached) is based on people per household figures for single family homes, adjusted for the residents over 55 years of age based on information obtained from the 2017 National Household Travel Survey, prepared by the US Department of Transportation. 6) Estimate for retirement community (attached) is based on people per household figures for multi -family homes, adjusted for the residents over 55 years of age based on information obtained from the 2017 National Household Travel Survey, prepared by the US Department of Transportation. Functional Population This study uses functional population as the demand component, which distributes the cost associated with the availability of law enforcement among various land uses based on the density of people at each land use throughout the day. Functional population, as used in the impact fee analysis, is a generally accepted methodology and is based on the assumption that demand for certain facilities is generally proportional to the presence of people at a land use, including residents, employees, and visitors. It is not enough to simply add resident population to the number of employees, since the service -demand characteristics can vary considerably by type of industry. Functional population is the equivalent number of people occupying space within a community on a 24-hour-day, 7-days-a-week basis. A person living and working in the community would have the functional population coefficient of 1.0. A person living in the community but working elsewhere may spend only 16 hours per day in the community on weekdays and 24 hours per day on weekends for a functional population coefficient of 0.76 (128-hour presence divided by 168 hours in one week). A person commuting into the county to work five days per week would have a functional population coefficient of 0.30 (50-hour presence divided by 168 hours in one week). Similarly, a person traveling into the community to shop at stores, perhaps averaging 8 hours per week, would have a functional population coefficient of 0.05. Functional population thus tries to capture the presence of all people within the community, whether residents, workers, or visitors, to arrive at an estimate of effective population that needs to be served. This form of adjusting population to help measure real facility needs replaces the population approach of merely weighting residents two-thirds and workers one-third (Nelson and Nicholas 1992). By estimating the functional and weighted population per unit of land use across all major land uses in a community, an estimate of the demand for certain facilities and services in the present and future years can be calculated. The following paragraphs explain how functional population is calculated for residential and non-residential land uses. Benesch Collier County October 2024 B-4 Law Enforcement Impact Fee Study DRAFT Residential Functional Population Developing the residential component of functional population is simpler than developing the non-residential component. It is generally estimated that people spend one-half to three -fourths of their time at home and the rest of each 24-hour day away from their place of residence. In developing the residential component of Collier County's functional population, an analysis of the county's population and employment characteristics was conducted. Based on this analysis, it was estimated that people, on average, spend 16.6 hours, or approximately 69 percent, of each 24-hour day at their place of residence and the other 31 percent away from home. This analysis is presented in Tables B-3 and B-4. It is important to note that these calculations were reviewed on a countywide basis as well as for the law enforcement service area. There was not a significant difference between the estimated residential functional population coefficient. Therefore, the countywide figure is also utilized for the law enforcement service area. Table B-3 Collier County Population & Employment Characteristics Item/Calculation Step Year 2021 Total workers living in Collier County(l) 150,529 Collier County Population (2) 372,797 Total workers as a percent of population(3) 40.4% School age population (5-17 years)(4) 47,900 School age population as a percent of population(6) 12.8% Population net of workers and school age population (6) 174,368 Other population as a percent of total population(7) 46.8% 1) Source: Census OnTheMap 2021 2) Source: 2021 ACS 5-Year Estimates, Table S0101 3) Total workers (Item 1) divided by population (Item 2) 4) Source: 2021 ACS 5-Year Estimates, Table S0101 5) Total school age population (Item 4) divided by total population (Item 2) 6) Total population (Item 2) less total workers (Item 1) and school age population (Item 4) 7) Population net of workers and school age population (Item 6) divided by total population (Item 2) Benesch Collier County October 2024 B-5 Law Enforcement Impact Fee Study DRAFT Table B-4 Residential Coefficient for Functional Population at Percent of Effective Pop.Group PopulationHours Residence(l) Workers 13 40.4% 5.3 Students 15 12.8% 1.9 Other 20 46.8% 9.4 Total Hours at Residence (4) 16.6 Residential Functional Population Coefficient(5) 69.2% 1) Estimated 2) Source: Table B-3 3) Hours at residence (Item 1) multiplied by percent of population (Item 2). 4) Sum of effective hours. 5) Sum of effective hours (Item 4) divided bY24. >% The resulting percentage from Table B-4 is used in the calculation of the residential coefficient for the 24-hour functional population. These actual calculations are presented in Table B-6. Non -Residential Functional Population Given the varying characteristics of non-residential land uses, developing the estimates of functional residents for non-residential land uses is more complicated than developing the estimates of functional residents for residential land uses. Nelson and Nicholas originally introduced a method for estimating functional resident population, now used widely'. This method uses trip generation data from the Institute of Transportation Engineers' (ITE) Trip Generation Manual and Benesch's Trip Characteristics Database, information on passengers per vehicle, workers per vehicle, length of time spent at the land use, and other variables. Specific calculations include: • Total one-way trips per employee (ITE trips multiplied by 50 percent to avoid double counting entering and exiting trips as two trips). • Visitors per impact unit based on occupants per vehicle (trips multiplied by occupants per vehicle less employees). • Worker hours per week per impact unit (such as nine worker -hours per day multiplied by five days in a work week). 'Arthur C. Nelson and James C. Nicholas, "Estimating Functional Population for Facility Planning," Journal of Urban Planning and Development 118(2): 45-58 (1992). Benesch Collier County October 2024 B-6 Law Enforcement Impact Fee Study DRAFT • Visitor hours per week per impact unit (visitors multiplied by number of hours per day times relevant days in a week, such as five for offices and seven for retail shopping). • Functional population coefficients per employee developed by estimating time spent by employees and visitors at each land use. Table B-5 shows the functional population coefficients for residential and non-residential land uses in Collier County, which are used to estimate the 2024 functional population in Table B-6. Benesch Collier County October 2024 B-7 Law Enforcement Impact Fee Study `J a a O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 u 0 n 0 n 0 V1 0 N 0 V1 0 V1 0 n 0 V1 0 t0 0 n a! E v W O O O O O VO1 O O O 4! O E v t w m 00 E v v 3 o Ol O Ol O oo O Ol O Vl -! V O N o0 oo C1 m o0 o w w s t c 3 N 7 N — � a p 12 e a m E oo oo oo oo oo m m m m u` c 3 t c t w T y > r � v v �- w w ry ry ry ry ry a a v a H N 3 w o v u Q W v v C tA a 4 EL _ In L!1 N L!1 .ti ti I e-i ni oo I o m > o-L -a a� o a v_ c v on o '^ E w `v v W O� O 6 y O O .ti O �n O M N of ° E o ° o. W m cvi H c o m m ry m m N m o (D o w w `v x N o c Y E w �n T 00 > y. a v1 O N N O p ego E O >o u' n a o w c7 m 0o eo m � in Ev '-' O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 v- m a � E a W N N u v p E o E a o 01 Ol Ol O) Ol T Ol 01 Ol s v a v o w ° c c cEF o v w a w `w '" 0 0 3 m 3 c - u v o O- >' x« Q \ O .� O v. O O m O N O .� Q O m v v v v v a x a a y, 'c m m °' °i E Z ."� ."� ."� ."� W n Z z n E E E E E T C J J J J J a+ O �� � o v o 0 0 o oT oT > o w Y= a "O E E E aEi E a T E L L 0 75 C T T T T T v m E y v x E 3 a v p ,K Q i� c ~ ,° 2S v� ,22, n E i, := w .ate m w 3 3 3 3 3 a1O�o ,K Yo a w co s~ u° z E ..r O v G a V N t u `1 v of O M V v .N-i u u c a m m m m o? v v o L v o o c w o o a °' o c0 m c O F > oc v ti r r W N s« v a .�-i .--i o av' u `� o w m_ P v" E n a v v a a o o o o o o_ 3 m m 2 .. w n y u o o o o o o d m n >, T u v s ? n u u u u u u 3 Y > a a Z C U N H L a@+ o2 ii vvi C'J - c � O N U v L � N L.L O U ro Q E C� C U O C LU J 0 DRAFT Table B-6 Functional Population (Law Enforcement Service Area) Population Category P 2024 Peak Season Population Collier County Baseline D. 448,099 Functional Functional Resident (2) Population Coefficient 0.6921 W 310,085 Employment Category Natural Resources 4,921 0.379 1,865 Construction 22,292 0.271 6,041 Manufacturing 5,826 0.270 1,573 Transportation, Communication, and Utilities 7,674 0.271 2,080 Wholesale Trade 6,196 0.272 1,685 Retail Trade 20,720 1.252 25,941 Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate 37,194 0.292 10,861 Services 92,099 0.499 45,957 Government Services 11,934 0.451 5,382 Total Employment by Category Population(4) 101,385 2024 Total Functional Population(5) 411,470 1) Source: Table B-1 for population and 2024 Woods & Poole for employment data for countywide estimates adjusted by the industry distribution in the service area from Census OnTheMap 2021 2) Source: Table B-4 3) The functional population is Collier baseline data (Item 1) multiplied by the functional resident coefficient (Item 2) 4) The total employment population by category is the sum of the employment figures from the nine employment categories (e.g., natural resources, construction, etc.) 5) The total functional population is the sum of the residential functional population and the employment functional population Table B-7 presents the law enforcement service area annual functional population figures from 2010 through 2040, based on the 2024 functional population figure from Table B-6 and the annual population growth rates from the population figures previously presented in Table B-1. Benesch Collier County October 2024 B-9 Law Enforcement Impact Fee Study DRAFT Table B-7 Functional Population (Law Enforcement Service Area) 2010 PopulationYear Functional 315,951 2011 320,455 2012 325,755 2013 329,558 2014 335,087 2015 342,189 2016 349,182 2017 356,702 2018 364,438 2019 372,341 2020 379,215 2021 387,280 2022 396,408 2023 404,517 2024 411,470 2025 417,820 2026 423,544 2027 429,346 2028 435,227 2029 441,185 2030 446,296 2031 450,538 2032 454,816 2033 459,132 2034 463,485 2035 467,226 2036 470,346 2037 473,482 2038 476,631 2039 479,797 2040 483,039 Source: Table B-6 for the 2024 functional population figure and Table B-1 for annual growth rates Benesch October 2024 Collier County B-10 Law Enforcement Impact Fee Study DRAFT Functional Residents by Specific Land Use Category When a wide range of land uses impact services, an estimate of that impact is needed for each land use. This section presents functional population estimates by residential and non-residential land uses. Residential and Transient Land Uses As mentioned previously, functional population estimates by land use need to be developed for each impact fee service area to be analyzed. For residential and transient land uses, these coefficients are displayed in Table B-8. The transient land uses include hotel/all suites hotel, motel, assisted living facility and nursing home. Secondary sources, such as Smith Travel Research (STR), Collier County Convention and Visitors Bureau, and the Florida Department of Elderly Affairs, are used to determine the occupancy rate for these land uses. Non -Residential Land Uses A similar approach is used to estimate functional residents for non-residential land uses. Table B-9 reports basic assumptions and calculations, such as trips per unit, trips per employee, employees per impact unit, one-way trips per impact unit, worker hours, occupants per vehicle trip, visitors (patrons, etc.) per impact unit, visitor hours per trip, and days per week for non- residential land uses. The final column in the tables shows the estimated functional residents per unit by land use. These figures represent the demand component for the law enforcement impact fee program and are used in the calculation of the cost per unit for each land use category in the law enforcement impact fee schedule. �y Benesch Collier County October 2024 B-11 Law Enforcement Impact Fee Study M VU a v •i GJ N v L W fE J N N D 00 m c N C M H cc O H C C O v C LL Ln OMO N O M rl lO N O 01 M C . N rl rl rl O r� r� O N O i u_ E o E O O N ON co C .2 o ON O c d N w O w 7 Op � a O Am w 7 > w m X mto > w r bq Ni NO m .� � o c O O C V1 y >, U O O rOi fl. cc w LA-! m l0 l!1 a O - C u o w p O = O O O N E Q w to O m w w c a o �a> o � w w C E a O N N CD c-I c-I N N a o -^ O 7 w w 'O E to C o m O E to a < m E w a O V O O1 o0 M O1 _cr U N N O .--� w Y N E u i N 7 7 G F E a m > u m m m O O O (u m C Hto 0 w O w X Y os o w E o • u L a w m L .a c 41 w c c-I d V l0 Ln N LO V -;I,N Ol l0 oo c0 O o0 C.00 c0 N to I� !� O m QJ L T 'N n .--I _ �n - N M .--� .--� c-I O N N c-I N "'� +' G C Y t' 7 Y E cL O w~� T Y K O o c " `O E to mcL 3 C C 2 7 O w C U O C O X m c x W t E o Q w (7c O v o p_ O C O N ti O O O O NNN ri N M O O `l U m Lp w w •-'nfp N cL N N N M l0 (7 co �n w U d w w Y w ) lu o 2, t= 3 N�a � v �+ n -a,u� w J 7 7 7 7 7 E o E o 7 O c f6 Y " O fa C O c w T a a a a a a 0 o a o O :T, n c w m o c o ri v'c v w a F y 7 . a w O) -Ow �Em E g o `w x E w 'o c o 6 m > O w O > n U N w Ol O C_� T O L Lq 0 w u y . X n v £ w �tf E O Y u 3 Y w a (y C 7 N N N N w O C U O �n v a a uwi o a H O N Tj w C C d o w i O x L m o_ x u Y a0+ a c w V c u y w c C c a Q R Y f6 C a m m o O o c '^ w N cL Y T c bp o Y w C C w E W r LL H o )o E E w o w w v 7 0 a 0 c to o •N tw w o- a. c L o G� C 1' w U aw+ ? E E 0 O �O L w a w w o v f w O LL o c w E c w E w n — Q v o x nwn °: n 2 v m c a m w a w c w o0 0/ E w ao o EL w a w n o w 'a, v c w ° y0 m •� c w 7 w a w v a 7Ln c �= Q o Q a 'n ac in o r K 1► 2 Q Z N - O M M w V Vl lD Ol O c LU f4 J N CO I N O Q M N O m w O w 1 M Q G] w N w w Gl M N ID N m n Gl n Q m I� w W 1 O Q N 9 O. N G] 0] m O tq 'i O N .i Q w m N 1� m M w Yl l0 N O G O C N1 eY O C C G G G O e'1 G eY ei C M M N ei eel a -I N Ifl ei eel O .-I ei l/1 Ifl Ifl Oi W n o N n 0 O n n In ul N N n o O In 0 O In In 0 0 O O In In 0 0 O O n In 0 O In In 0 0 O O In o O In In n n o m n n o In vl l° n o O n n o o O O n n 0 0 vl N n o O n n m o N Io m n n In o M O n In n n n m m N N n o v1 n 0 O tp oq M Q Q O V m O Lrl 00 m O m Q O m n Q m oq N O m tp N , Q N Q N O O Q ID o0 N w IG m lD o0 M m Q w N tp Q n n n O ti M n o6 o0 N w b m m w O n V hl Ili I� V V O ti IA Ill Q Q Q Q Q rl m Q Q m N N O O O O O N N N N N N N N N N N • tp e-I tO ei t0 t0 e-I ei l° e-I rl •i ei ei N N � rl O Q eY rl Q •Y O rl VI eY Vl Yl e-I rl Ill •i N V1 ei ei Vl Vl e-I rl Ill ei Ill N ei e-I Vl IA e-I ei M M N N M N In In N N m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m n t° Ill n O m 0 Vl O n O N 00 00 m M m N M tD N n Ill m N v Vl N n n M M m W N ID 1l1 N N V m rl rl M M n n m CO n N Ill O M n m M Ill I° O e-I Ill V rl a O ei e-I O �"� O M V N V) Vt rl n ID n N I� M N M W rl N O 'i I� m � tp M IA rl rl M IA 00 rl N 1l1 W M Q Q rl Vl 01 Q m O N N o oo Q Q Q In In o o o m m 0 o -i m m w n m M eo ti eo In q to o Q -i o o In o n In m n n In n ao n 0o Io -i n O IA V1 N Q n V N N N N Q N t0 00 N M O ID N N N \ N I!1 N N Ill A I Q m n n t0 m n fmvl n (vt 00 n M 0 N N m N Vl N N t° Q M rl M M N ei m O Vl lD lD o0 00 N l0 Q N Q IA O a0 n N M op O Q Vl Q n l° N o0 m n O Q N h 0 0 0 0 0 0 C c 0 0 0 C 0 C 0 0 0 0 0 0 C c c c 0 0 0 C C 0 0 c C 0 0 0 0 C c 0 c c 0 0 9 Ol I6 = a` c c °1 v a o v t ¢ v y m H 3 > L U! ten.. £ O W_ Op O o 12O J L o o u u c c o o E o m = `o o u o y In L v o6 t1 u L y LL m Y° v aEi L d Y w ate+ j 3 u V V w w V w Y in H v > 3 'v^ C7 w°>> O O O o0 0 ,v. w �«n Ivi n 3 vl c° c o o o v m N o g o N Q v E v >> �', o 0 E u u v c v> E_ w F7 17 I°i I° o c o m m A m; y c c u� C7 m� � � 2>> c c V =1 =1 zi L m m 2 x Ob O O N Ill N O O N Ill III O 1l1 O O O O N N O W m 0 N C O c-I N O N a m W V a a c� C F V N iu n N n n n �i N oo N N ro ro N m a o ao Vl 1l1 0o ro lD m m o 0o m m M M m m M m M m m m W N vt u Q 2 Al Al.W K N a 4- 0 N U v L � N L.L O U ro Q E c CN C U O C LU J M I m W W N GJ LL N N a -I N M eY AL 00 ei O I� N N n tD W n C e'1 .y N a -I h Q C in O O M O Ifl e'1 C G M O G n O V1 n O N n n O O N N n n O N ill N n O O in �n O N O n n v1 n o m N M oo m O 0 N o0 M O ti 0 00 O m Io Li W 00 O O m m n 00 O m O E N v1 m N v1 rn N N of ut m m N N vl N m m N v1 rn mo D o ti 0q m o ti m otDo n > O N tp 00 N N m n N n 00 N N O O o O O O a N n o Lq DO m o O w a E_ o 0 w a O �G Vf el C C \ M lV N a u _ J 0 O N .-I N N o0 of Q cT o O N 00 O Q 0 o o m n m o 0o n n a - LL Y o o E v ' `o > > a w o c t0 0 `w o u 0 0 0 0 0 0 s o knn v w v o - _ o _ r Q o i y m � x Q - r 3 3 3 3 m- qm o o' + w— a w w a o w V N ill O p— Q a- Y x 512 m m v cw E cw m w C C C A u u u 3�� c - E ~ a a o 3 o n°10 — Z a x s v- o .. Mm Appendix C - Building and land Values Analysis - Supplemental Information 1 'J This appendix provides the additional data and information on building and land value estimates. Building Value Estimates In determining the appropriate unit value for buildings, the following analysis was conducted: • Cost trends since the last study; • Cost estimates for planned law enforcement buildings in Collier County; • Insurance value of the existing inventory; and • Discussions with the County. it The County plans to build a new Forensic Evidence building at a cost of $347 per square foot. This cost estimate excludes the portion of the project for the storage building. During the 2016 impact fee study, the value of primary buildings was estimated at $300 per square foot. Applying Engineering News Records Building Cost Index for the cost changes between 2016 and 2024 resulted in a unit cost of $440 per square foot. The insurance values of existing buildings averaged $223 per square foot for primary buildings and $77 per square foot for support buildings. It is important to note that insurance values represent conservative estimates due to certain parts of structures, such as the foundation, not being insured. Given this data and information, the construction cost for primary buildings was estimated at $350 per square foot. The value of support facilities was estimated at $90 per square foot, based primarily on insurance values. These costs reflect all costs related to constructing buildings (such as design, construction, site preparation, permitting, etc.) with the exception of land purchase. This information is summarized in Table C-1. Benesch Collier County October 2024 C-1 Law Enforcement Impact Fee Study Land Values Table C-1 Law Enforcement Buildings Total Building Value per Square Foot Cost per Square .. Future Construction Estimates �11 Forensic/Evidence Building $347 Cost Estimates from 2016 Study Indexed (2) 2016 Study Cost Estimates - Primary Buildings $300 - Support Buildings $80 Cost Estimates Indexed - Primary Buildings $443 - Support Buildings $118 Engineering News Record (2016-2024) 47.5% Insurance Values (3) Averaged Insured Values - Primary Buildings $223 - Support Buildings $77 Used in the Study: - Primary Buildings $350 - Support Buildings $90 1) Source: Collier County 2) Building cost estimates from Collier County Law Impact Fee Study, October 10, 2016, indexed according to Engineering News Record(2016-2024) 3) Source: Collier County I' To estimate land value associated with law enforcement, the following information was evaluated: • Land value trends since the last study; • Current value of land where law enforcement buildings are located; • Vacant land sales analysis; • Vacant land values as reported by the Property Appraiser; and • Discussions with the County. Benesch Collier County October 2024 C-2 Law Enforcement Impact Fee Study 1 'J The 2016 study estimated land value at $160,000 per acre. Since then, land values increased by approximately 118 percent, which results in an indexed value of approximately $349,000 per acre. The value of parcels where existing law enforcement buildings are located ranges from $29,000 per acre to $1.3 million per acre with an average of $570,000 per acre. Vacant land sales of parcels between one acre and 10 acres countywide between 2018 and 2022 averaged $72,000 per acre over the past five years. This value was almost $400,000 per acre when commercial vacant land was considered. Similarly, the value of all vacant land of one to 10- acre parcels as estimated by Collier County Property Appraiser averaged $51,000 per acre. This figure was $316,000 per acre for commercial vacant land. It is likely that future law enforcement facilities will be built in the eastern parts of the county. An evaluation of the vacant residential sales between 2018 and 2022 versus commercial land sales for 1- to 10-acre parcels in the area east of County Road 951 resulted in an average land value of $55,000 per acre for residential land uses, and $300,000 per acre for commercial land uses. Currently, approximately 25 percent of law enforcement facilities are in residential areas while the remaining 75 percent are located in commercial areas. For the purposes of impact fee calculations, a more conservative ratio of 50 percent is used for commercial and residential locations. As presented in Table C-2, applying these percentages to the estimated land value in residential versus commercial areas results in a combined land value of approximately $180,000 which is considered to be a reasonable estimate for impact fee calculation purposes. Benesch Collier County October 2024 C-3 Law Enforcement Impact Fee Study 111 7� Table C-2 Weighted Average Land Value 1) Reflects a conservative estimate of future land purchases by land use compared to the current distribution of 50% residential and 50% commercial. 2) Land value per acre estimates based on vacant land sales between 2018 to 2022 3) Distribution (Item 1) multiplied by land value per acre (Item 2) for each land use and added. Benesch October 2024 Collier County C-4 Law Enforcement Impact Fee Study 'Ja •o r �i Coii-ier County Prepared for: Prepared by: benesch Collier County Capital Projects Planning, Benesch Impact Fees and Program Management Division 1000 N. Ashley Dr., #400 2685 Horseshoe Drive South Tampa, Florida 33602 Naples, Florida 34104 ph (813) 224-8862 ph (239) 252-8192 E-mail: nkamp@benesch.com DRAFT Collier County Library Facilities Impact Fee Update Study Table of Contents INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................... 1 INVENTORY........................................................................................................... 5 SERVICE AREA AND DEMAND COMPONENT........................................................... 7 LEVEL OF SERVICE.................................................................................................. 8 COST COMPONENT................................................................................................ 10 CREDIT COMPONENT & NET IMPACT COST............................................................ 11 CALCULATED LIBRARY FACILITIES IMPACT FEE SCHEDULE ....................................... 12 IMPACT FEE SCHEDULE COMPARISON.................................................................... 13 Appendices: Appendix A: Building and Land Value Analysis - Supplemental Information Appendix B: Population Estimates — Supplemental Information Benesch Collier County October 2024 i Library Facilities Impact Fee Study DRAFT Introduction With a population of over 400,000, Collier County ranks as the 19th most populous county in Florida. The county is continuing to grow and is estimated to add approximately 110,000 new residents through 2050. In terms of residential permitting, Collier County ranks 19th out of Florida counties with an average of 5,300 new units per year over the past three years. To address additional infrastructure needs, Collier County implemented an impact fee program for library facilities, which was last updated in 2016. To reflect most recent data, the County retained Benesch to prepare an update study. 4 This report serves as the technical study to support the calculation of the updated library facilities impact fee. Data presented in this report represents the most recent and localized data available at the time of this update study. All data and support material used in this analysis are incorporated by reference as set forth in this document. The figures calculated in this study represent the technically defensible level of impact fee that the County could charge; however, the Board of County Commissioners may choose to discount the fee as a policy decision. Methodology * 'N In developing the County's library facilities impact fee, a consumption -based impact fee methodology is utilized, which is commonly used throughout Florida. A consumption -based impact fee charges new development based upon the burden placed on services from each land use (demand). The demand component is measured in terms of population per unit. A consumption -based impact fee charges new growth the proportionate share of the cost of providing additional infrastructure for use by new growth. Unlike a "needs -based" approach, consumption -based approach ensures that the impact fee is set at a rate that generates revenues sufficient only for new capacity needs and does not generate revenues at a level to correct existing deficiencies. Given this, the County does not need to go through the process of estimating the portion of each capacity expansion project that may be related to existing deficiencies. In addition, per legal requirements, a credit is subtracted from the total cost to account for the value of future non -impact fee funding contributions of new development toward any capacity expansion projects. In other words, case law requires that the new development should not be charged twice for the same infrastructure. Benesch Collier County October 2024 1 Library Facilities Impact Fee Study DRAFT Legal Overview In Florida, legal requirements related to impact fees have primarily been established through case law since the 1980's. Impact fees must comply with the "dual rational nexus" test, which requires that they: • Be supported by a study demonstrating that the fees are proportionate in amount to the need created by new development paying the fee; and • Be spent in a manner that directs a proportionate benefit to new development, typically accomplished through establishment of benefit districts (if needed) and a list of capacity - adding projects included in the County's Capital Improvement Plan, Capital Improvement Element, or another planning document/Master Plan. In 2006, the Florida legislature passed the "Florida Impact Fee Act," which recognized impact fees as "an outgrowth of home rule power of a local government to provide certain services within its jurisdiction." § 163.31801(2), Fla. Stat. The statute — concerned with mostly procedural and methodological limitations — did not expressly allow or disallow any particular public facility type from being funded with impact fees. In fact, which it was initially adopted, the Act largely codified requirements and standards common to the practice already. However, the Legislature has amended the Impact Fee Act numerous times since 2006, significantly affecting the impact fee practice in Florida. For this reason, a summary of the key legislative changes since 2006 is provided: • HB 227 in 2009: The Florida legislation statutorily clarified that in any action challenging an impact fee, the government has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the imposition or amount of the fee meets the requirements of state legal precedent or the Impact Fee Act and that the court may not use a deferential standard. • SB 360 in 2009: Allowed fees to be decreased without the 90-day notice period required to increase the fees and purported to change the standard of legal review associated with impact fees. SB 360 also required the Florida Department of Community Affairs (now the Department of Commerce) and Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) to conduct studies on "mobility fees," which were completed in 2010. • HB 7207 in 2011: Required a dollar -for -dollar credit, for purposes of concurrency compliance, for impact fees paid and other concurrency mitigation required. • HB 319 in 2013: Applied mostly to concurrency management authorities, but also encouraged local governments to adopt alternative mobility systems using a series of tools identified in section 163.3180(5)(f), Florida Statutes. Benesch Collier County October 2024 2 Library Facilities Impact Fee Study DRAFT • HB 207 in 2019: Included the following changes to the Impact Fee Act along with additional clarifying language: o Impact fees cannot be collected prior to building permit issuance; and o Impact fee revenues cannot be used to pay debt service for previously approved projects unless the expenditure is reasonably connected to, or has a rational nexus with, the increased impact generated by the new residential and commercial construction. • HB 7103 in 2019: Addressed multiple issues related to affordable housing/linkage fees, impact fees, and building services fees. In terms of impact fees, the bill required that when local governments increase their impact fees, the outstanding impact fee credits for developer contributions should also be increased. This requirement was to operate prospectively; however, HB 337 that was signed in 2021 deleted that clause and making all outstanding credits eligible for this adjustment. This bill also allowed local governments to waive/reduce impact fees for affordable housing projects without having to offset the associated revenue loss. • SB 1066 in 2020: Added language allowing impact fee credits to be assignable and transferable at any time after establishment from one development or parcel to another that is within the same impact fee zone or impact fee district or that is within an adjoining impact fee zone or district within the same local government jurisdiction, and which receives benefit from the improvement or contribution that generated the credits. Added language indicating any new/increased impact fee not being applicable to current or pending permit applications submitted prior to the effective date of an ordinance or resolution imposing new/increased fees. • HB 1339 in 2020: Required reporting of various impact fee related data items within the annual financial audit report submitted to the Department of Financial Services. • HB 337 in 2021: Placed limits on the amount and frequency of fee increases, but also included a clause to exceed these restrictions if the local governments can demonstrate extraordinary circumstances, hold two public workshops discussing these circumstances and the increases are approved by two-thirds of the governing body. • HB 479 in 2024 (Effective October 1, 2024): Required interlocal agreements between counties and municipalities when both entities collect a transportation impact fee. Placed limits on timing of impact fee study completion and adoption and data used in the studies. The following paragraphs provide further detail on the generally applicable legal standards. Benesch Collier County October 2024 3 Library Facilities Impact Fee Study DRAFT Impact Fee Definition • An impact fee is a one-time capital charge levied against new development. • An impact fee is designed to cover the portion of the capital costs of infrastructure capacity consumed by new development. • The principal purpose of an impact fee is to assist in funding the implementation of projects identified in the Capital Improvements Element (CIE) and other capital improvement programs for the respective facility/service categories. Impact Fee vs. Tax RAA9 • An impact fee is generally regarded as a regulatory function established based upon the specific benefit to the user related to a given infrastructure type and is not established for the primary purpose of generating revenue for the general benefit of the community, as are taxes. • Impact fee expenditures must convey a proportional benefit to the fee payer. This is accomplished through the establishment of benefit districts as needed, where fees collected in a benefit district are spent in the same benefit district. • An impact fee must be tied to a proportional need for new infrastructure capacity created by new development. 7 This technical report has been prepared to support legal compliance with existing case law and statutory requirements and documents the methodology used for the library facilities impact fee calculations, including an evaluation of the inventory, service area and demand component, level of service (LOS), cost, credit, and demand components. Information supporting this analysis was obtained from the County and other sources, as indicated. Benesch Collier County October 2024 4 Library Facilities Impact Fee Study DRAFT Inventory Table 1 provides a summary of existing library facilities within Collier County. Currently, the County provides 173,000 square feet of library facilities located on approximately 27 acres of land dedicated to library facilities. An important part of the impact fee calculations involves estimating the current value of the capital assets. A building cost of $350 per square foot is used based on cost trends since the most recent technical study, cost estimates from the 2023 Annual Update and Inventory Report, insurance values of existing libraries, and discussions with the County. Appendix A provides a more detailed explanation of building value estimates. To estimate the value of land component of library buildings, recent land acquisitions by the County, land values of the existing inventory, recent vacant land sales and the value of vacant land as reported by the Collier County Property Appraiser were evaluated. This analysis resulted in an average land value of $180,000 per acre, and is explained further in Appendix A. These cost estimates result in a total building and land value of $65.4 million, of which $60.6 million is for buildings and $4.8 million is for land. Benesch Collier County October 2024 5 Library Facilities Impact Fee Study O O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lr) - o 0 o Ln o 0 0 0 00 LO N V c-I Ol N O l0 n O N e-1 0 � m m � N 01 LM ci M M n Ol LO LO N N Ln LD LO o0 Ln n O N 00 LT M m N LD N V Ln 0 N .--I Ll1 r-I V). Vl• V} V? Vl• r-I V} V)• r-I iA tO Vf O O O O O O O O O O O O Lc O O O O O Lc O O O O O l0 00 V l0 V 00 l0 N O l0 O O 00 00 00 LD V aq Ol -;I- N" Q O Ol -;T n 'I N Lfl i--1 n M n N N O O M O n 00 N 00 00 ei V} V1• V1• V} V? V1• r1 V)• V} ' V} VF 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ln N 00 oc O ci O 00 O O Ln M Ln M O O O O Z O L, Ln iM rNi Lnr, O Ln oo LOn O 00 N Ol Lfl 00 M 00 V Ln Ln N N Ln N M Ln 4 N' O p VT r-I VT Ln VT i/? Vt• �i iA Vl• r-I in LO �/► n LO 00 n 00 11 N Q7 O N O n lD O0 00 O Ln n LO Cl n OR N N N O N .--I Ln e-I M N LO N Ln � Q V M O LO N 00 0) O M ri -;I- N M ri Z O O O O O O O O O O LO O1 00 O L11 LO tD O n O N N O N ci f\ e-I O N ci ei N Ln w O Q Ol C�-I C m V ti O O 0000 c O V O 0000 cr1 Z oo Ln tD r, ri Ln LD I, 4 N M n —1 r-I Lfl Ln ei N mr-IO O O r O Mwo 00 � O O Z O 00 m v ^ r-I r-I r~-I rN-I cOn n .•i oo o Ln rn 01 o rn o a) m m 00 0) 0 m La fa Lu > O E m m LL m O O O_ V O Z 7 c o °' L o m o > (Dm co i' Y Q C i m -mN Ln VI i �-' U C E _ N C m O -O U ? U y C N 7 J m F O (7 7 O O C m y J h `1 U N n W Ln Ln > Ln -� N W LLD 000 r-I N N 000 i..� .�i O f0 O LL � J m L m ` a)7 m " U V m Y rr V C V C t U J LL i V Q C m L m m U m 00 m` ,,, c m m ,0 Q N O1 ca co O) m C a v m m (7 ar 2 La E m —:t C m > m 3 m pp a m m ti — 7 N to m Id O E 0) a N t Z N N W m m 0) c L 5 C C a > Z (D Lu LL m 2 > L° > am. F m = E N i-� u U Q N bA C � N O U N O w .0 aLn ) O � � 7 _ O 0-0 O v >T CD E Ln -0 O a1 O -0 r y _ 7 Q O O- a O Q) CL Y ~ L v L L) > E 3 cv > a E E n u o °; v a 3 >, Vl +' OQ v Q- a1 U >. c E > v E Q) co —_ to roa — (D �O 0 3 > 3 Q) 00 -0"a a C 41 m > 3 m a O f 41 m (7 (L3 O 'a +.+ Q) C O N 6 > .� 3 Q 10 Q) L -p E a+ C f0 3 ++ r1 ri E 3 O E Ln E E > 4) Q) Ln Q) i) 2 Q U(°u E4a-lw �, L L Lw3� L Q) 4) Q U U Q n Q U 2 a 0ai L L m O L L L f6 m m U 3 i L L O E 3 3 3+ V 3 � _ (n to to J J Q Ln Lu Ln Q x O : ri N M In lD -I - 00 Ol r-I r-I a C 7 O U 4) O U P7 DRAFT Service Area and Demand Component The Collier County Public Library System provides library services to the entire County, thus, the appropriate service area is countywide. The library facilities impact fee program requires the use of population data in calculating current levels of service and impact fee levels. To be consistent with the population utilized in the County's comprehensive planning and Annual Update and Inventory Report (AUIR) process, this impact fee study considers not only the resident or permanent population of the County, but also the number of seasonal residents and visitors as well. Therefore, for purposes of this technical analysis, the peak seasonal population is used in all population estimates and projections. Peak seasonal population projections were provided by Collier County's Comprehensive Planning Division. Appendix B provides further detail on population estimates. Benesch Collier County October 2024 7 Library Facilities Impact Fee Study DRAFT Level of Service Table 2 provides a summary of the current level of service (LOS) for library buildings, in Collier County. To calculate the level of service, the library buildings square feet is divided by the 2024 seasonal peak population. Because some of the library buildings were funded through bonds that are being paid back with impact fee revenues, an additional calculation of owned library square feet is provided. As presented, the achieved level of service calculated based on owned Collier County library buildings is less than the adopted level of service standard. However, the better measure of library services provided to Collier County residents is including all library buildings. As presented, the achieved level of service for all library buildings is 0.35 square feet per resident compared to the adopted level of service standard of 0.33 square feet per resident. The current achieved LOS figures represent the community's investment into library infrastructure while the adopted LOS standards represent the service level intended going forward. For impact fee calculation purposes, the lower of the two measures is utilized to not overcharge new development. The achieved LOS of owned buildings is lower than the adopted LOS. Since the portion not owned is excluded from the total capital asset value later in this report, the LOS of all library buildings is used in the impact fee calculations. Table 2 Current Achieved Level of Service 1) Source: Table 1 2) Source: Appendix B, Table B-1 3) Square feet (Item 1) divided by peak seasonal population (Item 2) 4) Source: Collier County 2023 Annual Update and Inventory Report (AUIR) 5) For impact fee calculation purposes, the lower of the adopted LOS standard vs the achieved LOS is used in the impact fee calculations. The achieved LOS of owned buildings is lower than the adopted LOS. Since the portion not owned is excluded from the total capital asset value later in this report, the LOS based on all buildings is used in the impact fee calculations. Benesch Collier County October 2024 8 Library Facilities Impact Fee Study DRAFT A comparison of the current Collier County LOS, the LOS standard (LOSS), LOS of the other Florida counties, and the State Standards is presented in Table 3. The comparison includes counties with a population of 100,001 to 400,000 and is based on the information obtained from the Library Directory with Statistics, published by the Department of State, Division of Library and Information Services. It should be noted that the current LOS figures included in the table for Collier County represent figures provided by the Division of Library and Information Services and reflect 2022-2023 data with the use of permanent population. Table 3 Level of Service Comparison Ic 1) Source: Department of State, Division of Library & Information Services, 2022-2023 Library Directory with Statistics 2) Source: Collier County 2023 Annual Update and Inventory Report (AUIR) 3) Source: Department of State, Division of Library & Information Services, 2022-2023 Library Directory with Statistics - includes counties with population of 100,001 to 400,000, excluding Collier County 4) Source: Florida Library Association Standards for Florida Public Libraries 2004, 2006 Revision. Standards show Standard 77 and Standard 90 for jurisdictions with a service area population of 100,001 - 750,000. Benesch Collier County October 2024 9 Library Facilities Impact Fee Study DRAFT Cost Component Table 4 provides a summary of library facilities capital assets owned by the County. As shown, total capital asset value associated with library facilities amounts to $65.4 million. However, the County is still paying debt service on a portion of these assets. In addition, it is the Collier County's policy to use impact fee revenues to pay debt service associated with capacity expansion projects. To ensure that new development is not being overcharged for these future payments, the portion of the remaining principal for the expansion portion of South Regional Library and Golden Gate Library that is to be repaid with impact fee revenues is subtracted from the total asset value in Table 4. The resulting owned capital asset value is approximately $60.2 million or approximately $348 per square foot. Table 4 also presents the cost per resident for the impact fee analysis. This cost is calculated by multiplying the owned capital asset value per square foot by the current LOS of 0.35 square feet per resident. As shown, these calculations result in $122 per resident for all library facilities assets considered in the impact fee calculations. Table 4 Total Impact Cost per Resident Description Figure Percent of Total10' Building Value(�) $60,571,700 92.6% Land Value (2) 4 824 000 7.4% Total Building and Land Value (3) $65,395,700 100.0% Less: Portion Not Owned (4) 5 231074 Owned Building and Land Value(5) $60,164,626 Total Library Square Feet (6) 173,062 Owned Building and Land Value per Square Foot (7) $347.65 LOS (Square Feet per Resident)($) 0.35 Total Impact Cost per Resident(9) $121.68 1) Source: Table 1 2) Source: Table 1 3) Sum of building and land value (Items 1 and 2) 4) Source: Collier County Office of Management and Budget 5) Total building and land value (Item 3) less portion not owned (Item 4) 6) Source: Table 1 7) Owned building and land value (Item 5) divided by total library square feet (Item 6) 8) Source: Table 2 9) Owned building and land value per square foot (Item 7) multiplied by the LOS (Item 8) 10) Distribution of building and land value Benesch Collier County October 2024 10 Library Facilities Impact Fee Study DRAFT Credit Component & Net Impact Cost The net library facilities impact cost per resident is the difference between the cost component and the credit component. The County has not allocated any non -impact fee funding for library capacity projects and intends to continue building library capacities with impact fee revenues. As previously presented in Table 4, future debt payments that will be made with impact fees are subtracted from the value of the inventory, which serves as the credit for impact fee calculations. Given that there are no other revenue sources for capacity projects, the total impact cost is equivalent to the net impact cost. If, in the future, the County allocates non -impact fee revenue sources for capacity expansion projects, these calculations should be revised to reflect the new development's contribution from these funding sources. 1) 2) Table 5 Net Impact Cost per Resident Source: Table 4 Collier County has been paying all capacity projects with impact fee revenues. Therefore, there is no revenue credit required. ipact cost per resident (Item 1) less the total credit per resident Benesch October 2024 Collier County 11 Library Facilities Impact Fee Study DRAFT Calculated Library Facilities Impact Fee Schedule Table 6 presents the calculated library facilities impact fee schedule for residential and non- residential land uses, based on the net impact fee cost per resident figures presented in Table 5. Net impact cost per resident decreased by approximately five percent since the 2016 study due to the changes in inventory, cost, and credit components. The remaining differences reflect changes in the demand component since 2016. Table 6 Calculated Library Impact Fee Schedule Residential Land Use Single Family Detached Impact Unit Residents per Unit") Net Impact Costper Resident (2) Calculated Impact Fee (3) Current Adopted Impact Fee (4) Percent Changefs) Less than 4,000 sf du 2.53 $121.68 $307.85 $336.05 -8% 4,000 sf or greater du 3.12 $121.68 $379.64 $376.63 1% Multi -Family du 1.31 $121.68 $159.40 $159.78 0% Mobile Home du 1.92 $121.68 $233.63 $270.11 -14% Retirement Community- Detached (Single Family) du 1.55 $121.68 $188.60 $145.83 29% Retirement Community - Attached (Multi -Family) du 0.79 $121.681 $96.131 $145.83 -34% 1) Source: Appendix B, Table B-2 2) Source: Table 5 3) Source: Residents per unit (Item 1) multiplied by the net impact cost per resident (Item 2) 4) Source: Collier County Capital Project Planning, Impact Fees and Program Management Division 5) Percent change between the calculated impact fee (Item 3) and the current adopted impact fee (Item 4) Benesch Collier County October 2024 12 Library Facilities Impact Fee Study v v a-1 U M Q E N N .v 4- L 4- 4- 0 C O Ln Q E O U v U C6 Q E .N 'v fB N 4 C: D O U N O U w Q D c L O v Y O (U t O i (O Q Ln Q N G N O N � v M � N O O p W V N N O O N � a m rn o °o o m m m N N O N LL �n U) > O N O N N N a �n m ui N o z � � o M N o N ° n m m N L/ o N in � > W � � o O N � N m o 0 0 0 0 M ci N Q N o z v � m 3 ¢ (J Y w w o 0 J g c o m _ E 0 ra t a V) T N LL U � v 00 } c-I � M C M O `-I L � V) LL LL v Q r-I of O 00 N M E M � lD � IS vi v LL. L L v E Q � ra C Q v E L .O a v 0 Ln by N tC L E ++ v a c E I_ Lo E OLn a m v E O o.._ O L m U Q v 4J C 0 v E ,m _0 U- i Q U a E v ca O O v Q 0 U U- E 0 C N c E Z C)_Q O O O to � d Q) L U 0 a E N O�j LL Q O bA O D N > c O CL l6 N N U > O L c > M 0 0 O C U +' 0 0 C O U O N j 1.0 U O N N L L d > (a bA N N > u O O v f0 v H U m v N N N U n 41 I I L L L C) L O O O O M O -O Ln Ln Ln J to 00 ui O °' LL In N . rI W i LL N 0 j u N Q l� E T L > InZ3 U v r L v O > v r 'u v � a�i c � � - c � N v O v Ln U L c C Q'- _T cB � t N U Q i Ln F t 3 u !r fD Q E Ln OU O O N cl v c 0 O ca 0) > LL � U CD � N � L O co Co Q 0 1 ai U1 c > L- � U C m E v fu co c v Q i N bA f6 0 c •- a O O O O O 0 +; N bA U •E T � s= O O L O m N U E a 06 > v U W +� s= v - U O U O 3 >. m L 0 T lU6 � O C v O 0 m N U O 4J p U E LL U Y rI M O o O a Cl. W ui rI ui ui L : L L 7 M 7 7 O l0 O O V) i--I to to N N Cn c N E Q 0 N 0 co w C E c a T c O U O M f0 to u1 O U) 0- E O U 4J Q 0 v LL LL N Ln N LO O }, N t M 0 0 ,- O N U 0 U N U L O } ±� =3 7 U E O 0- v � N N U LL > N 0Op � M N M E O- O on O r-I N M r-I N M � LP1 l0 � DO 41 i--I r-I r-I r-I m ci N 0 N V C , m 0 Appendix A - Building and Land Value Analysis - Supplemental Information DRAFT Appendix A — Building and Land Value Analysis This appendix provides the data and information on building and land value estimates. Building Values In determining the appropriate unit cost for building construction, the following analyses were conducted: • Cost trends since the most recent technical study; • Cost estimates from the 2023 Annual Update Invent • Insurance values of existing libraries; and • Discussions with the County. During the 2016 impact fee study, the value of primary buildings was estimated at $300 per square foot. Applying Engineering News Records Building Cost Index for the cost changes between 2016 and 2024 resulted in a unit cost of $440 per square foot. According to the Collier County 2023 Annual Update Inventory Report, the cost of library buildings is $263 per square foot. The current insurance values of the existing libraries is $228 per square foot for buildings only and $288 for buildings and contents. Insurance values are considered to be conservative estimates since not all components of a building need to be insured. Since 2020, library construction costs observed in other jurisdictions ranged from $300 per square foot to $450 per square foot, with an average of $355 per square foot. Given this data and information, building cost for libraries was estimated at $350 per square foot for impact fee calculation purposes. Land Values To estimate land value associated with library facilities, the following information was evaluated: • Land value trends since the most recent technical study; Benesch Collier County October 2024 A-1 Library Facilities Impact Fee Study DRAFT • Recent land acquisitions; • Current value of land where libraries are located; • Vacant land sales analysis; • Vacant land values as reported by the Property Appraiser; and • Discussions with the County. The 2016 study estimated land value at $64,000 per acre. Since then, vacant residential land values increased by approximately 120 percent, which results in an indexed value of approximately $140,000 per acre. In 2022, Collier County received a donation of a site on Fiddler Creek Parkway and the County allocated 2.72 acres of this site to be utilized for future libraries. According to the Collier County Property Appraiser, the land value of this site is approximately $125,000 per acre. The value of parcels where existing library buildings are located ranges from $50,000 per acre to $1.3 million per acre with an average of $341,000 per acre. Vacant land sales of parcels between one acre and 10 acres countywide averaged $72,000 per acre over the past five years. This value was almost $400,000 per acre when commercial vacant land was considered. r Similarly, the value of all vacant land of one to 10-acre parcels as estimated by Collier County Property Appraiser averaged $51,000 per acre. This figure was $316,000 per acre for commercial vacantland. Given these figures, an average land value of $180,000 per acre is considered to be a reasonable estimate for the impact fee calculations. Benesch Collier County October 2024 A-2 Library Facilities Impact Fee Study Appendix B Population Estimates —Supplemental Information DRAFT Appendix B - Population Estimates The library facilities impact fee program requires the use of population data in calculating current levels of service and for the demand component. To be consistent with the population utilized in the County's comprehensive planning and Annual Update and Inventory Report (AUIR) process, this impact fee study considers not only the resident or permanent population, but also the number of seasonal residents and visitors as well. Therefore, for purposes of this technical analysis, the peak seasonal population is used in all population estimates and projections. Peak seasonal population projections were provided by Collier County's Comprehensive Planning Division. Table B-1 presents the peak seasonal population trends for Collier County. The projections indicate that the current peak seasonal population of the county is approximately 491,800 and is expected to increase to 582,700 (increase of 90,900) by 2040. The estimated average growth rate is approximately 1 percent per year. Benesch Collier County October 2024 B-1 Library Facilities Impact Fee Study DRAFT .40 Table B-1 Collier County Population Estimates (Countywide) Population Source: Collier County Comprehensive Planning Section (population projections dated May 2024) Benesch October 2024 Collier County B-2 Library Facilities Impact Fee Study DRAFT Apportionment of Demand by Residential Unit Type and Size The residential land uses to be used in the library facilities impact fee calculations include the following: • Single Family (Detached) • Multi -Family • Mobile Home/RV (Tied Down) • Retirement Community (detached and attached) Table B-2 presents the number of residents per housing unit for the residential categories identified above in Collier County. This analysis includes all housing units, both occupied and vacant. ro! ' To address fairness and equity issues between land uses, the single family land use is tiered based on two categories of square footage: less than 4,000 square feet and 4,000 square feet or greater. To accommodate the tiering of impact fee assessments for the single family residential land use category, an analysis was completed based on housing unit size and persons per housing unit. This analysis utilized national data from the 2021 American Housing Survey (AHS) and data from the 2022 American Community Survey (ACS) to examine this relationship. Table B-2 Residents per Housing Unit 1) Source: 2022 ACS 5-Yr Estimates, Table B25033 (owner occupied and renter occupied), adjusted for peak seasonal population. 2) Source: 2022 ACS 5-Yr Estimates, Table DP04 3) Ratios developed based on national PPH data derived from the 2021 American Housing Survey. 4) Population (Item 1) divided by housing units (Item 2). For single family detached tiers, the residents per housing unit is determined by multiplying the weighted average value (2.58) by the ratio developed from the AHS data (Item 3). 5) Estimate for senior adult housing - detached (single family) is based on people per household figures for single family homes, adjusted for the residents over 55 years of age based on information obtained from the 2017 National Household Travel Survey, prepared by the US Department of Transportation. Benesch Collier County October 2024 B-3 Library Facilities Impact Fee Study DRAFT 6) Estimate for senior adult housing - attached (multi -family) is based on people per household figures for multi -family homes, adjusted for the residents over 55 years of age based on information obtained from the 2017 National Household Travel Survey, prepared by the US Department of Transportation. Benesch October 2024 Collier County B-4 Library Facilities Impact Fee Study Ll 116:0 rw z \ g.: 3( •" "ate k 1 f r .0 1 I Collier County Parks and Recreation Impact Fee Update Study DRAFT Report October 31, 2024 0 DRAFT Collier County Parks and Recreation Impact Fee Study Table of Contents INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................ INVENTORY...................................................................................................................... SERVICE AREA AND DEMAND COMPONENT...................................................................... LEVELOF SERVICE............................................................................................................. COST COMPONENT........................................................................................................... CREDIT COMPONENT & NET IMPACT COST....................................................................... CALCULATED PARKS AND RECREATION IMPACT FEE .......................................................... IMPACT FEE SCHEDULE COMPARISON............................................................................... Appendices: ***46h, Appendix A: Land Value Analysis -- Supplemental Information Appendix B: Population Estimates -- Supplemental Information 1 5 8 9 12 16 17 19 Benesch Collier County October 2024 i Parks and Recreation Impact Fee Study DRAFT Introduction With a population of over 400,000, Collier County ranks as the 19th most populous county in Florida. The county is continuing to grow and is estimated to add approximately 110,000 new residents through 2050. In terms of residential permitting, Collier County ranks 19th out of Florida counties with an average of 5,300 new units per year over the past three years. To address additional infrastructure needs, Collier County implemented an impact fee program for parks and recreational facilities, which was last updated in 2015. To reflect most recent data, the County retained Benesch to prepare an update study. This report serves as the technical study to support the calculation of the updated parks and recreation impact fee. The data presented in this report represents the most recent and localized data available at the time of this update study. All data and support material used in this analysis are incorporated by reference as set forth in this document. The figures calculated in this study represent the technically calculated level of impact fee that the County could charge; however, the Board of County Commissioners may choose to discount the fees as a policy decision. Methodology � A V In developing the County's parks and recreation impact fee, a consumption -based impact fee methodology is utilized, which is commonly used throughout Florida. A consumption -based impact fee charges new development based upon the burden placed on services from each land use (demand). The demand component is measured in terms of population per unit. A consumption -based impact fee charges new growth the proportionate share of the cost of providing additional infrastructure for use by new growth. Unlike a "needs -based" approach, consumption -based approach ensures that the impact fee is set at a rate that generates revenues sufficient only for new capacity needs and does not generate revenues at a level to correct existing deficiencies. Given this, the County does not need to go through the process of estimating the portion of each capacity expansion project that may be related to existing deficiencies. In addition, per legal requirements, a credit is subtracted from the total cost to account for the value of future non -impact fee funding contributions of new development toward any capacity expansion projects. In other words, case law requires that the new development should not be charged twice for the same infrastructure. Benesch Collier County October 2024 1 Parks and Recreation Impact Fee Study DRAFT Legal Overview In Florida, legal requirements related to impact fees have primarily been established through case law since the 1980's. Impact fees must comply with the "dual rational nexus" test, which requires that they: • Be supported by a study demonstrating that the fees are proportionate in amount to the need created by new development paying the fee; and • Be spent in a manner that directs a proportionate benefit to new development, typically accomplished through establishment of benefit districts (if needed) and a list of capacity - adding projects included in the County's Capital Improvement Plan, Capital Improvement Element, or another planning document/Master Plan. In 2006, the Florida legislature passed the "Florida Impact Fee Act," which recognized impact fees as "an outgrowth of home rule power of a local government to provide certain services within its jurisdiction." § 163.31801(2), Fla. Stat. The statute — concerned with mostly procedural and methodological limitations — did not expressly allow or disallow any particular public facility type from being funded with impact fees. In fact, which it was initially adopted, the Act largely codified requirements and standards common to the practice already. However, the Legislature has amended the Impact Fee Act numerous times since 2006, significantly affecting the impact fee practice in Florida. For this reason, a summary of the key legislative changes since 2006 is provided: • HB 227 in 2009: The Florida legislation statutorily clarified that in any action challenging an impact fee, the government has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the imposition or amount of the fee meets the requirements of state legal precedent or the Impact Fee Act and that the court may not use a deferential standard. • SB 360 in 2009: Allowed fees to be decreased without the 90-day notice period required to increase the fees and purported to change the standard of legal review associated with impact fees. SB 360 also required the Florida Department of Community Affairs (now the Department of Commerce) and Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) to conduct studies on "mobility fees," which were completed in 2010. • HB 7207 in 2011: Required a dollar -for -dollar credit, for purposes of concurrency compliance, for impact fees paid and other concurrency mitigation required. • HB 319 in 2013: Applied mostly to concurrency management authorities, but also encouraged local governments to adopt alternative mobility systems using a series of tools identified in section 163.3180(5)(f), Florida Statutes. Benesch Collier County October 2024 2 Parks and Recreation Impact Fee Study DRAFT • HB 207 in 2019: Included the following changes to the Impact Fee Act along with additional clarifying language: o Impact fees cannot be collected prior to building permit issuance; and o Impact fee revenues cannot be used to pay debt service for previously approved projects unless the expenditure is reasonably connected to, or has a rational nexus with, the increased impact generated by the new residential and commercial construction. • HB 7103 in 2019: Addressed multiple issues related to affordable housing/linkage fees, impact fees, and building services fees. In terms of impact fees, the bill required that when local governments increase their impact fees, the outstanding impact fee credits for developer contributions should also be increased. This requirement was to operate prospectively; however, HB 337 that was signed in 2021 deleted that clause and making all outstanding credits eligible for this adjustment. This bill also allowed local governments to waive/reduce impact fees for affordable housing projects without having to offset the associated revenue loss. • SB 1066 in 2020: Added language allowing impact fee credits to be assignable and transferable at any time after establishment from one development or parcel to another that is within the same impact fee zone or impact fee district or that is within an adjoining impact fee zone or district within the same local government jurisdiction, and which receives benefit from the improvement or contribution that generated the credits. Added language indicating any new/increased impact fee not being applicable to current or pending permit applications submitted prior to the effective date of an ordinance or resolution imposing new/increased fees. • HB 1339 in 2020: Required reporting of various impact fee related data items within the annual financial audit report submitted to the Department of Financial Services. • HB 337 in 2021: Placed limits on the amount and frequency of fee increases, but also included a clause to exceed these restrictions if the local governments can demonstrate extraordinary circumstances, hold two public workshops discussing these circumstances and the increases are approved by two-thirds of the governing body. • HB 479 in 2024 (Effective October 1, 2024): Required interlocal agreements between counties and municipalities when both entities collect a transportation impact fee. Placed limits on timing of impact fee study completion and adoption and data used in the studies. The following paragraphs provide further detail on the generally applicable legal standards. Benesch Collier County October 2024 3 Parks and Recreation Impact Fee Study DRAFT Impact Fee Definition • An impact fee is a one-time capital charge levied against new development. • An impact fee is designed to cover the portion of the capital costs of infrastructure capacity consumed by new development. • The principal purpose of an impact fee is to assist in funding the implementation of projects identified in the Capital Improvements Element (CIE) and other capital improvement programs for the respective facility/service categories. Impact Fee vs. Tax • An impact fee is generally regarded as a regulatory function established based upon the specific benefit to the user related to a given infrastructure type and is not established for the primary purpose of generating revenue for the general benefit of the community, as are taxes. • Impact fee expenditures must convey a proportional benefit to the fee payer. This is accomplished through the establishment of benefit districts as needed, where fees collected in a benefit district are spent in the same benefit district. • An impact fee must be tied to a proportional need for new infrastructure capacity created by new development. 1W mak T This technical report has been prepared to support legal compliance with existing case law and statutory requirements and documents the methodology used for the parks and recreation impact fee calculations, including an evaluation of the inventory, service area and demand component, level of service (LOS), cost, credit, and demand components. Information supporting this analysis was obtained from the County and other sources, as indicated. Benesch Collier County October 2024 4 Parks and Recreation Impact Fee Study DRAFT Inventory Collier County parks and recreation facilities are classified into three different types of parks: neighborhood, community, and regional parks, based on the information provided in the County's Annual Update & Inventory Report (AUIR) and Parks & Recreation Master Plan (PRMP). Of these, only the community and regional parks are included in the impact fee calculations. Neighborhood parks are excluded since they primarily serve only the immediate neighborhood and offer a limited number and type of facilities. Table 1 provides an inventory of community and regional parks and recreation facilities along with the facilities that are available at each park location, based on information provided in the Collier County PRMP and AUIR as well as by the County staff. The parks and recreation inventory used for the impact fee analysis includes 54 parks (29 regional parks and 25 community parks) located throughout Collier County. Of the County owned parks, Naples Zoo is not included in the inventory used for impact fee calculations. Although the County owns the land, the Zoo leases land from the County and charges a fee to the public to enter the facility. Given that this park is not open to the public without a fee and generates revenue for the County, it is appropriate to not charge new development for this park. In addition, in the case of parks that are located on properties owned by the School District, only the recreation facilities are included in the inventory. Benesch Collier County October 2024 5 Parks and Recreation Impact Fee Study r ha R� .I I Y a C M O i u I N ti cc v � .0 m H Y C O U OJ i r m li Y a DRAFT Service Area and Demand Component Collier County provides park services and recreation facilities to all Collier County residents and visitors. Regional parks are typically larger and/or offer types of facilities targeting residents throughout Collier County, such as beach and boat access. On the other hand, community parks tend to be relatively smaller in size and typically draw visitors from the unincorporated County, as municipalities in Collier County have similar types of community and neighborhood parks targeting residents within their immediate geographic area. To ensure that new growth is receiving direct benefit from the parks and recreation impact fee and consistent with the methodology used to develop the current adopted impact fee, the impact fee for regional parks is calculated on a countywide basis and is charged to all new development throughout Collier County while the impact fee for community parks is charged only to development within the unincorporated county. "LI A A. To accurately determine the demand for parks and recreation services, this impact fee study considers not only the resident or permanent populations of the county, but also the seasonal residents and visitors. Therefore, for purposes of this technical analysis, the peak seasonal population is used and subsequent references to population in this report pertain to the peak seasonal population of Collier County, unless otherwise noted. Peak seasonal population figures for both countywide and unincorporated Collier County are prepared by the County's Comprehensive Planning Section (dated May 2024). Appendix B provides additional details on population estimates. I Benesch Collier County October 2024 8 Parks and Recreation Impact Fee Study DRAFT Level of Service Table 2 presents the calculation of the current LOS for each park type included in the inventory, as well as Collier County's adopted LOS standards according to the most recent AUIR. As presented, in terms of community parks, Collier County's current achieved LOS is 1.14 acres per 1,000 residents compared to the adopted LOS standard of 1.20 acres per 1,000 residents. For regional parks, Collier County's current achieved LOS is 2.96 acres per 1,000 residents compared to the adopted LOS standard of 2.70 acres per 1,000 residents. While the achieved LOS indicates the investment made by the community, the adopted LOS standard provides the intended/goal LOS. For impact fee calculation purposes, the lower of the two measures is utilized to not overcharge new development. Given this, the achieved LOS standard of 1.14 acres per 1,000 residents is utilized in the calculation of the community park impact fee and the adopted LOS standard of 2.70 acres per 1,000 residents is utilized in the calculation of the regional park impact fee. It Table 2 Current Level of Service & Adopted Level of Service Standard Park Type Inventory Achieved Adopted LOS Classification.LOS (3) Calculations (4) Parks and Recreation Level of Service (Acres per 1,000 Residents) Community 509 1.14 1.20 1.14 Regional 1,457 2.96 2.70 2.70 Total 1,966 4.10 3.90 3.84 2024 Service Area Population (5) Community Parks (Unincorporated County) 447,642 Regional Parks (Countywide) 491,779 1) Source: Table 1 2) Inventory acres (Item 1) divided by each park classification associated population (Item 5) multiplied by 1,000. 3) Source: Collier County 2023 Annual Update & Inventory Report (AUIR); Parks and Recreation Facilities 4) Level of service utilized in the parks and recreation impact fee calculations. 5) Source: Appendix B, Table B-1 Table 3 presents a comparison of the parks and recreation adopted LOS standards of Collier County to those adopted by other Florida counties. As presented, Collier County's adopted LOS standard is in the range of standards adopted by other communities. Benesch Collier County October 2024 9 Parks and Recreation Impact Fee Study DRAFT Table 3 Adopted Level of Service Comparison LOS Standard Jurisdiction (Acres per 000 Marion County(l) 2.00 Miami -Dade County (2) 2.75 Monroe County (3) 3.00 Collier County(4) 3.90 Lake Countylsi 4.00 Palm Beach County (6) 4.82 Broward Countyi'l 6.00 Lee County(8) 6.80 Osceola County(9) 10.00 Charlotte County (10) 10.00 Sarasota County(11) 12.00 Hendry County(12) 22.00 St. Lucie County(13) 28.70 1) Source: Marion County 2035 Comprehensive Plan, Recreation and Open Space Element - 2.00 parks and recreation facility acres per 1,000 persons 2) Source: Miami -Dade County Comprehensive Development Master Plan, Recreation and Open Space Element - 2.75 acres of local recreation and open space per 1,000 permanent residents in unincorporated areas 3) Source: Monroe County Comprehensive Plan, Recreation and Open Space Element- 1.5 acres per 1,000 functional population of passive, resource -based neighborhood and community parks and 1.5 acres per 1,000 functional population of activity -based neighborhood and community parks within each of the Upper Keys, Middle Keys, and Lower Keys subareas. 4) Source: Collier County 2023 Annual Update & Inventory Report (AUIR); Parks and Recreation Facilities 5) Source: Lake County Comprehensive Plan, 2030 Planning Horizon, Concurrency Management Element - 4.00 acres per 1,000 residents 6) Source: Palm Beach County Comprehensive Plan; Recreation and Open Space Element - 3.31 regional park acres per 1,000 residents and 1.22 district park acres per 1,000 residents and 0.29 acres per 1,000 for beach 7) Source: Broward County Comprehensive Plan Land Use Plan, Parks/Conservation Policy 2.5.1 and 2.5.2 - 3.00 community park acres per 1,000 permanent residents and 3.00 regional park acres per 1,000 permanent residents 8) Source: Lee County Comprehensive Plan as amended Nov 2021 Capital Improvements Element - Regional Parks - 6 acres of developed regional park land open for public use per 1,000 total seasonal County population for all of Lee County. Community Parks - 0.8 acres of developed community park land open for public use per 1,000 unincorporated Lee County permanent population. 9) Source: Osceola County Comprehensive Plan 2040, Parks and Recreation Element, Policy 8-1.2 2 Parks and Resource Indicators. One community park per 15,000 population, provision of regional parks at ten acres per 1,000 population, and provision of recreational trails at one mile per 1,500 population. 10) Source: Charlotte County 2050 Comprehensive Plan, Recreation and Open Space Data and Analysis - 6.00 acres per 1,000 residents of active/multi-purpose park land and 4.00 acres per 1,000 residents of passive park land 11) Source: Sarasota County Comprehensive Plan, Chapter 2 - Parks, Preserves, and Recreation - 12.00 acres per 1,000 residents of developable park land Benesch Collier County October 2024 10 Parks and Recreation Impact Fee Study DRAFT 12) Source: Hendry County Comprehensive Plan; Concurrency Management Element - 20.00 regional park acres per 1,000 population and 2.00 community park acres per 1,000 population 13) Source: St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan, Recreation and Open Space Element - 5.00 community park acres per 1,000 unincorporated residents, 2.50 community park acres per 1,000 countywide residents, and 21.2 acres per 1,000 population countywide Benesch October 2024 Collier County 11 Parks and Recreation Impact Fee Study DRAFT Cost Component The total cost per resident for parks and recreation facilities consists of two components: the cost of purchasing and developing land for each park and the cost of facilities and equipment located at each park. Recreational Facility Cost The first step in calculating the total cost for parks and recreation services in Collier County involves estimating the current value of recreational facilities. When available, the value for the parks facilities is estimated based on recent bids or recent facilities built by the County. When recent bid/purchase information was not available, unit costs from the County's insurance reports and recent costs for similar facilities from other jurisdictions as well as estimates provided by the County were used. As presented in Table 4, the total park facility value is $100 million for community parks and $89 million for regional parks, for a combined total of $189 million, including construction and architectural design and engineering (A&E) costs. It should be noted that the improvements to the North Collier Regional Park were funded with a bond issue, which is being repaid with impact fee revenue. To ensure that new development is not being overcharged for these future payments, the portion of the remaining principal for these improvements that is to be repaid with impact fee revenue ($18 million) is removed from the total value of the facilities of regional parks, as shown in Table 4. This adjustment results in an owned facility value of $71 million (down from $89 million) for regional parks. These figures result in recreational facility value of $224 per resident for community parks, and $144 per resident for regional parks. Benesch Collier County October 2024 12 Parks and Recreation Impact Fee Study DRAFT Table 4 Parks and Recreation Facilities and Equipment Cost per Resident Amphitheater amphitheater $360,000 1 $360,000 2 $720,000 $1,080,000 Baseball Field field $550,000 5 $2,750,000 0 $0 $2,750,000 Basketball Court court $51,600 26 $1,341,600 4 $206,400 $1,548,000 Basketball Pavilion pavilion $474,400 1 $474,400 0 $0 $474,400 Bath House sq.ft. $221 0 $0 3,418 $755,378 $711,371 Boardwalk boardwalk $133,000 0 $0 1 $133,000 $133,000 Boat Ramp Lane ramp lane $525,000 2 $1,050,000 16 $8,400,000 $9,450,000 Bocce/Shuffleboard Court court $6,600 24 $158,400 2 $13,200 $171,600 Bocce Ball Cover cover $16,600 1 $16,600 0 $0 $16,600 Cabana cabana $15,650 0 $0 3 $46,950 $46,950 Campgrounds campground $16,000 0 $0 10 $160,000 $160,000 Canoe/Kayak Launch launch $22,400 0 $0 6 $134,400 $134,400 Concession Area/Stand/Trailer/Building sq.ft. $199 7,108 $1,414,492 17,964 $3,574,836 $4,989,328 Dockmaster dockmaster $504,000 0 $0 2 $1,008,000 $1,008,000 Fishing/Dock/Pier dock $92,000 0 $0 6 $552,000 $552,000 Dog Park park $11,000 2 $22,000 1 $11,000 $33,000 Dog Park Shelter shelter $5,000 1 $5,000 0 $0 $5,000 Garden Cover cover $21,000 0 $0 1 $21,000 $21,000 Gazebo gazebo $14,3001 4 $57,200 0 $0 $57,200 Gazebo/Pier gazebo/ pier $207,500 0 $0 1 $207,500 $207,500 Handball Court court $25,000 4 $100,000 0 $0 $100,000 Horseshoes pit $1,860 1 $1,860 1 $1,860 $3,720 Learning Center center $111,600 0 $0 1 $111,600 $111,600 Little League Field field $490,000 9 $4,410,000 0 $0 $4,410,000 Maintenance Building/Shed sq. ft. $121 12,759 $1,543,839 9,4321 $1,141,272 $2,685,111 Multipurpose Facility sq.ft. $223 24,356 $5,431,388 34,396 $7,670,308 $23,201,696 Multiuse Field (Football/Soccer) field $550,0001 25 $13,750,000 10 $5,50Q000 $19,250,000 Nature/Cultural/Historical Centers sq.ft. $322 0 $0 21,439 $6,903,358 $6,903,358 Parking Garage garage $8,280,000 0 $0 1 $8,280,000 $8,280,000 Parking Space(Boat/Trailer) parking space $5,320 10 $53,200 375 $1,995,000 $2,048,200 Parking Space (Car) parking space $2,660 3,000 $7,980,000 3,267 $8,690,220 $16,670,220 Paved Multiuse Pathway/Trail mile of trail $158,400 12.00 $1,900,800 9.101 $1,441,440 $3,342,240 Pickleball Courts court $22,830 73 $1,666,590 6 $136,980 $1,803,570 Picnic Cover cover $6,600 0 $0 4 $26,4001 $26,400 Picnic Pavilion pavilion $46,000 24 $1,104,000 38 $1,748,000 $2,852,000 Picnic Shelter shelter $17,600 2 $35,200 7 $123,200 $158,400 Playground playground $163,800 12 $1,965,600 8 $1,310,400 $3,276,000 Racquetball Court court $58,750 24 $1,410,000 0 $0 $1,410,000 Recreation Facility (indoor) sq.ft. $231 75,358 $17,407,698 0 $0 $17,407,698 Restroom sq.ft. $204 5,557 $1,133,628 3,1751 $647,700 $1,781,328 Roller Hockey Rink rink $562,500 1 $562,500 0 $0 $562,500 Skate Park skate park $550,000 2 $2,100,000 0 $o $1,100,000 Softball Field field $535,000 15 $8,025,000 7 $3,745,000 $21,770,000 Sun n' Fun Lagoon play area $15,000,000 0 $0 1 $15,000,000 1 $1s,-,- Splash Park park $822,000 1 $822,000 0 $0 $822,000 Swimming Pool pool $2,939,600 3 $8,818,800 0 $0 $8,818,800 Tennis Court court $68,500 37 $2,534,500 2 $137,000 $2,671,500 Tennis/Pickleball Combo Courts court $68500 13 $890,500 0 $0 $890,500 Track track $122:000 1 $922,000 0 $0 $922,000 Volleyball Court court $3,000 5 $15,000 1 $3,000 $18,000 Recreational FacilityValuelbl T $91,233,795 $80,556,402 $171,790,197 Architecture, Engineering, and Inspection @ 10% 171 12, 123 380 8 255 440 17 179 020 Total Recreational Facility Value(8) $100,357,175 $88,612,042 $188,969,217 Less: Portion Not Owned(" $0 $17,745,823 $17,745,823 Owned Recreational Facility Valuet1o) $100,357,175 $70,866,219 $171,223,394 Total Population ail 447,642 491779 Total Recreational Facility Value per Resident (12) $771 $144.10 $368.29 1) Source: Table 1 2) Based primarily on estimates provided by Collier County, costs from 2019 Collier County Parks and Recreation Impact Fee Update Study indexed according to Engineering News Record, and recent cost information obtained from other jurisdictions 3) Source: Table 1 4) Unit value (Item 2) multiplied by the number of units per facility (Item 3) 5) Sum of the value of recreational facilities at community and regional parks 6) Sum of recreational facility values 7) Facility value multiplied by 10 percent, based on information provided by Collier County 8) Sum of the recreational facility value (Item 6) and the architecture, engineering, and inspection cost (Item 7) 9) Source: Collier County Office of Management and Budget 10) Total recreational facility value (Item 8) less the portion not owned (Item 9) 11) Source: Appendix B, Table B-1 12) Owned recreational facility value (Item 10) divided by total population (Item 11) Benesch Collier County October 2024 13 Parks and Recreation Impact Fee Study DRAFT Land Cost Because of recent fluctuations in land values statewide and given that a large portion of park infrastructure consists of land, a detailed analysis of land values for each type of park (and the geographic subareas within the county) was conducted. This analysis takes into consideration recent vacant land sales of similar size parcels by geographic area, current land value of the existing parks and other vacant parcels, as reported by the Collier County Property Appraiser as well as trends in vacant land values since the last study. Although the County's inventory includes beach and coastal parcels with high land values, because the County is not intending to purchase additional beach/coastal land in the near future, these parcels were valued at the same cost as inland properties. More specifically, the following analysis was conducted: • A review of countywide vacant land value increase since the last technical study, as reported by Collier County Property Appraiser. • A review of vacant land sales in subareas of the county for 2018 through 2022 was conducted to understand current land value by geographic area. In addition, the vacant land analysis was conducted for different acreage levels. Resulting land values were used for parks located in each geographic area. • A review of just market value inland properties in each geographic area as well as for different parcel -size groups from the Property Appraiser database was conducted and results were compared to the sales data and data compiled during the previous interim analysis. Appendix A provides the data used for this analysis. The cost of land for parks and recreation facilities includes more than just the purchase cost of the land. Landscaping/site improvement and utilities/paving costs are also considered. These costs can vary greatly, depending on the type of services offered at each park. Based on information provided by the County, as well as information from similarly sized jurisdictions and park types, basic landscaping, site preparation, and irrigation costs were estimated at $10,000 per acre for community parks, and $40,000 per acre for regional parks, as presented in Table 5. These land costs are converted to land value per resident using the LOS presented previously, which results in a land cost of $180 per resident for community parks and $745 per resident for regional parks. Benesch Collier County October 2024 14 Parks and Recreation Impact Fee Study DRAFT Table 5 Land Cost per Resident Variable Park Class Community M Regiom Land Purchase Cost per AcreM $148,000 $236,000 Landscaping, Site Prep., and Irrigation Cost per Acre (2) 10000 40000 Total Land Cost per Acre (3) $158,000 $276,000 LOS (Acres per 1,000 Residents)(4) 1.14 2.70 Total Land Cost per Residents) $180.12 $745.20 1) Source: Table A-2, rounded to the nearest hundred 2) Source: Based on discussion with County staff and information from other Florida jurisdictions 3) Sum of land purchase cost per acre and landscaping, site preparation, and irrigation cost per acre (Items 1 and 2) 4) Source: Table 2 5) Land cost per acre (Item 3) multiplied by the LOS (Item 4), divided by , Total Impact Cost per Resident M%" '. Table 6 presents the total impact cost per resident for parks and recreation facilities in Collier County. The total cost is $404 per resident for community parks and $889 per resident for regional parks. ` _ Ap%% Table 6 Total Impact Cost per Resident 1) Source: Table 4 2) Source: Table 5 3) Sum of recreational facility cost per resident (Item 1) and land cost per resident (Item 2) 4) Distribution of total impact cost per resident (between facility and land cost) Benesch Collier County October 2024 15 Parks and Recreation Impact Fee Study DRAFT Credit Component & Net Impact Cost The net parks and recreation impact cost per resident is the difference between the cost component and the credit component. In recent years, the County has funded capacity expansion projects with impact fees and the one percent local government infrastructure surtax. The one percent local government infrastructure surtax was repealed on December 31, 2023, and the County does not intend to reimplement this funding mechanism. This funding source is not included in the credit calculations since it is unlikely to be used in future years. Given that the County plans to use impact fee revenues for future parks and recreation facilities expansion, there is no revenue credit needed for other funding sources. Future debt payments that will be made with impact fees are subtracted from the value of the inventory (see Table 4). As presented in Table 7, the total impact cost is equivalent to the net impact cost. If, in the future, the County allocates non -impact fee revenue sources for capacity expansion projects, these calculations should be revised to reflect the new development's contribution from these funding sources. et Impact Cos per Resident Total Impact Cost per Resident(l) $404.31 $889.30 Total Revenue Credit per Resident(2) $0.00 $0.00 Net Impact Cost per Resident(3) $404.31 $889.30 1) Source: Table 6 2) County plans to use impact fee revenues for future parks and recreation capacity expansion projects; no credit is needed. 3) Total impact cost per resident (Item 1) less the total revenue credit per resident Benesch Collier County October 2024 16 Parks and Recreation Impact Fee Study H LL Q w o - ca o N ao v O v 0J U 4- V O O N i 4= N N y O a-1 U w Ln QJ C }' dO +J m O C C _ 4• M }, U in C _0 cB O T v C U L U C O C L Q1 O) i E Q1 Q O Q O N U Ln a � � to NO a, > m C N O Q Q Y Q O � � Q N C al c Al v -0 C Cn Wj�11 4 O !EC W a a-+ LPL Q N o 4-1 E > 4- u C O C 4+ O O m CL m Q U E u U _ voo� OLn C) Ln U y �1 m Y a� U ' 4 W Q V +' m v ) Q L Y� E E Y Ln O c6 M U Q nz is v a°—o o (A C +, D C i `—' a� E o m U m E u d U N O U ra = V V) 41 N U Y C }J (U i Q C O i� CU U" T L J+ E C C 0 00 O m U V a, a E }' ^ L ii N V cn ° Q jL U 0 0 0 0 M ItT O O O N c-I N M c-I M N M N O 00 M O 00 Il N N 00 N M I- Ln 1.0 M Ln M (.0 LI) r-1 M Ln O) O Itt r- Q) -tt tn• � in• in• in• in• N (3) 0) O 00 0) -4 fV C 00 R* Ln N N 0) 00 Ln Ln O M LA X LO M r-I r. i/1• i/1• i/1• i/1• i--I M M "i CA M ri �t tT ItT ItT IZT IZT O O O O O O Kt Kt Kt Kt Kt Kt V)- V)- -V� -V� vi- V)- Lff LD I� N lD -,t Lli m N lD 00 00 N M ri ri ri O LL (6 a1 LL 0A +' c � in O U i o a L a O o O E E > _ w L aj O U O U E c: (B O O C C U- p Li v E E C O ai in inc.O inc M C E O 0 � U 4C1cu E Q a1 W . ra � C � n3 �, N E U E � � UA U —' O (V a a, o -a c v v E L LL Q1 Q U C aJ O D U E a + U C c a a) D C a a U Q O M — co E } Q U ro E U s m v c E Y 7 O X D O L Uon QJ a) a) v .v 0_ m D_ O t Q H U U U U v U c U U U aJ 7 7 U cn 7 LLLr L° a r-I N M -�t Ln 4 O LN U L Q) a) LL O U U O_ E C O «s a1 U N C to Ln Y d n ri It N O N U 0) to � a) O C , m 0 LL 0 0 0 0 0 0 l'D O Ln O m m M lD N N M N :1- O O Ln O m oo m rn m lD O N ri lD N N M -1 N N -i V)- V)- M N 00 w N Ln 01 l0 01 %* Ln N N ri ri e-I AA i/i- O O O O O O ri cn c» ri r» m of ai ai ai of of M N -1 N Ln M Ln ri m m Ln r- N M ri e4 r4 O 7 7 7 7 7 7 .f6 L.L. fB 41 � � }J C � N CU O t m a) a-+ aj m Q w t a f C — C U v o_ 7 Z3 (6 N i a O E E O O O O O 4 — E a + E ca _ E O & (A � aJ a1 U- °� E E N o v v O +' J O O in1 1 1 1�i IaOC oOC M c E O v 1 � U N m E a v tin .E C N +, E m v to U +' O U1 �+ d a� v O � � C 41 N (B N O Q U E v (9 C � a a, F E a Q yO 41U -0 a o �, E (� v a U (O E U H a� a m C E +, 70 X O 6 ^ 7 U N N N N A)on CL a rho a O t Q H U U U U U N C U U Q U U 7 7 N 7 U Le) U) chin a ri N M ItT Ln A 00 -1 It N O N V C O m 0 DRAFT Impact Fee Schedule Comparison As part of the work effort in updating Collier County's parks and recreation impact fee program, a comparison of parks and recreation impact fee schedules was completed for other Florida jurisdictions. Table 10 presents this comparison. As presented, Collier County's fee is on the high end of fees imposed by these jurisdictions. Benesch Collier County October 2024 19 Parks and Recreation Impact Fee Study DRAFT Table 10 Parks and Recreation Impact Fee Comparison Date of Last Adoption Single Family Multi -Family Mobile Home Single Family County 000 00 Update(l) Percent(l) 00 Lake County(3) 2022 Varies $276 $228 $171 $291 Charlotte County(4) 2021 100% $312 $246 $249 $312 Hernando County(5) 2021 100% $491 $358 $375 $491 Bay County(6) 2005 50% $330 $261 $336 $660 Citrus County (7) 2021 100% $661 $509 $628 $661 Alachua County(8) 2023 100% $836 $543 $543 $836 Flagler County(9) 2021 42% $399 $160 $372 $950 Volusia County (10) 2022 100% $1,028 $968 $968 $1,028 St. Johns County(11) 2018 100% $1,692 $1,359 $1,359 $1,346 Lee County(12) 2018 52.5% $806 $610 $591 $1,535 Martin County(13) 2023 100% $1,674 $1,674 $1,674 $1,674 Polk County(14) 2024 100% $1,864 $1,396 $1,276 $1,864 Indian River County(15) 2020 40% $819 $468 $471 $2,048 Nassau County(16) 2019 100% $2,049 $1,330 $2,219 $2,049 Orange County(17) 2022 Varies $2,246 $1,492 $1,694 $2,246 Osceola County(18) 2019 100% $2,305 $1,118 $1,699 $2,305 Palm Beach County(19) 2022 Varies $1,225 $1,123 $1,123 $2,332 Sarasota County(20) 2016 100% $2,719 $2,204 $1,880 $2,719 St. Lucie County(�1) 2022 Varies $2,560 $2,285 $1,677 $2,728 Hillsborough County(22) 2020 65% $2,145 $1,710 $1,710 $3,300 Collier County-Calculated(23) 2024 N/A $3,321 $1,755 $2,496 $3,321 Collier County -Current Adopted(24) 2015 100% $3,628 $1,685 $2,862 $3,313 Manatee County(25) 2024 Varies $1,947 $1,128 $726 $3,342 Pasco County(26) 2022 100% $3,450 $3,450 $3,450 $3,450 Miami -Dade County(27) N/A N/A $2,849-$4,529 $1,765-$2,658 $2,849-$4,529 N/A 1) Represents the date of the most recent studv and portion of the maximum calculated fee for each respective county that is actually charged. Fees may have been lowered/raised through indexing or policy discounts. Does not account for moratoriums/suspensions. 2) Represents the full calculated single family fee from each respective technical study 3) Source: Source: Lake County, Planning and Zoning. Impact fees adopted in compliance with the 50% limit phasing requirements per F.S. 163.31801. Fees shown effective January 2, 2027. 4) Source: Charlotte County Planning & Zoning. Fee shown is com m unity park impact fee. The regional/specialty parks impact fee was adopted at 0%. Fee shown for multi -family reflects fee for multi -family (1-2 stories). All fees include 2.55% administrative fee. 5) Source: Hernando County Planning Division. Fees adopted in compliance with the 50% limit per F.S. 163.31801. Fees shown are fully phased rates effective July 7, 2025. 6) Source: Bay County Planning and Zoning. 7) Source: Citrus County Land Development Division 8) Source: Alachua County Ordinances 23-18, 23-19, and 23-20. Fees adopted in compliance with the 50% limit phasing requirements per F.S. 163.31801. Fees shown reflect fully phased -in fees effective March 1, 2027. 9) Source: Flagler County Planning and Zoning Department. Fees adopted in compliance with the 50% limit phasing requirements per F.S. 163.31801. Fees shown reflect fully phased -in fees effective March 15, 2025. 10) Source: Volusia County Growth and Resource Management Department. Fee shown is the sum of local and district/coastal park impact fees. 11) Source: Source: St. Johns County Benesch Collier County October 2024 20 Parks and Recreation Impact Fee Study DRAFT 12) Source: Lee County Department of Community Development. Fee shown reflects sum of community and regional park fees. 13) Source: Martin County Services, Impact Fees. Fees adopted in compliance with the 50% limit per F.S. 163.31801. Fees shown effective January 1, 2028. 14) Source: Polk County Building & Construction Department. Fees shown effective January 1, 2027 following a three-year phasing. 15) Source: Indian River County Community Development. 16) Source: Nassau County Building Department 17) Source: Orange County Impact Fee Administration; Community, Environmental & Development Services Department. Fees adopted in compliance with the phasing requirements and 50% limit per F.S. 163.31801. Fees shown reflect Phase 4 fees effective January 1, 2025. 18) Source: Osceola County Impact and Mobility Fees Office 19) Source: Palm Beach County Planning, Zoning and Building Department. Fees adopted in compliance with the 50% limit phasing requirements per F.S. 163.31801. Fees shown effective January 1, 2026. 20) Source: Sarasota County Planning and Development Services 21) Source: St. Lucie County Planning & Development Services Department. Fees adopted in compliance with the phasing requirements and 50% limit per F.S. 163.31801. Fees shown effective October 1, 2025. 22) Source: Hillsborough County Development Services Department. Mobile home fee reflects residential 1,250- 1,499 sq. ft. tier. 23) Source: Table 8,9 24) Source: Collier County Capital Project Planning, Impact Fees, and Program Management Division. Fee shown is the sum of Community and Regional Park fees. 25) Source: Manatee County, Development Services. Fees adopted in compliance with the 50% limit phasing requirements per F.S. 163.31801. Fees shown reflect fully phased -in fees effective January 1, 2028. 26) Source: Pasco County Central Permitting Department 27) Source: Miami -Dade County Development Services Division. Fees vary based on district and unit type. Benesch Collier County October 2024 21 Parks and Recreation Impact Fee Study DRAFT Appendix A - Land Value Analysis - Supplemental Information DRAFT Appendix A - Land Value Analysis This appendix provides the back-up data and information on land value estimates. Because Collier County does not intend to purchase high value beach and coastal properties, land value estimates represent inland land values. As explained previously, several steps were undertaken to determine the land values for the impact fee calculations. These include: • A review of vacant land just value trends in Collier County over time. • A review of vacant land sales in subareas of the county for 2018 through 2022 to understand current land values by geographic area. In addition, the vacant land analysis was conducted for different acreage levels. Resulting land values were compared to sales used in the last study to understand level of increase. The resulting estimates are used for parks located in each geographic area. • A review of just market value of inland properties in each geographic area as well as for different parcel -size groups from the Property Appraiser database. Figure A-1 presents the residential vacant land value changes estimated by the Collier County Property Appraiser since 1980s. Land values are estimated to increase by 113% since 2019, when the data for the interim analysis was obtained. Table A-1 presents the estimated land value per acre by region used in the 2019 interim technical study, as well as the indexed value per acre to Benesch Collier County October 2024 A-1 Parks and Recreation Impact Fee Study DRAFT 80.00% — 60.00% 40.00% 20.00% — 0.00% n O` -20.00% — -40.00% Figure A-1 Collier County Vacant Residential Land Values 3-year Average Change O N N m C Vl la I� W Ol O m V vl lD I� W m O .--i N m V Vl lD I� 0 aac0-1I 0ac0il 0ac0il 0Qc0i1 0ac0il 0ac0il 0ar0-lI 0ar0-lI 0Or0-1I 0Or01l ci ci ci ci ci ci ar-lI ar-lI arll ari O O O O O O O O Oeel /D IW M oN N NM M M M M M M Ol Ol Ol 0, O0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N NN Source: Florida Department of Revenue, Florida Property Valuations and Tax Databook Table A-1 Indexed Land Value Estimates Marco Island $325,000 $692,250 North Naples - 0.5 - 5 acres $325,000 $692,250 - Greater than 5 acres $300,000 $639,000 Golden Gate - 0.5 - 5 acres $40,000 $85,200 - Greater than 5 acres $110,000 $234,300 East Naples - 0.5 - 5 acres $155,000 $330,150 - Greater than 5 acres $80,000 $170,400 Immokalee/Big Corkscrew - 0.5 - 5 acres 1 $20,000 $42,600 - Greater than 5 acres $30,000 $63,900 Residential Vacant Land Value Increase (2019-2023)(3) 113% 1) Source: Collier County Parks and Recreation Impact Fee Study, Draft Report, August 20, 2019 2) The 2019 estimates (Item 1) indexed according to the residential vacant land value increase (Item 3) 3) Source: Florida Department of Revenue, Florida Property Valuations and Tax Databook Benesch Collier County October 2024 A-2 Parks and Recreation Impact Fee Study DRAFT Inland Land Values Table A-2 provides the estimated land values per acre for each region, which are based on the analysis shown in Tables A-3 through A-12. For each region, recent sales of vacant parcels were reviewed and compared to the sale prices of vacant property in the same region during the last technical study. Estimated value per acre in each region is also compared to the estimates used in the last two technical studies to provide a trend analysis. Consistent with the last two technical studies, land value estimates for the East Naples area are also used for the Central Naples areas. Similarly, estimates for other areas are used for the parks withir Benesch October 2024 Collier County A-3 Parks and Recreation Impact Fee Study DRAFT Table A-2 Collier County Inland Land Values District A= Park Caxambas Park Park Class R Total Ac off .20 alue per Acre $500,000 Total Land Value $2,100,000 Collier Boulevard Boating Park R .50 $500,000 $250,000 Tigertail Beach Park R 1.60 $500,000 $15,800,000 Marco South Marco Beach Access R .00 $500,000 $2,500,000 Goodland Boating Park R .00 $500,000 $2,500,000 Mar -Good Harbor Park R .50 $500,000 $1,250,000 Isles of Capri Paddlecraft Park R .00 $500,000 4 500 000 Marco -- Subtotal 57.80 $28,900,000 Conner Park R .00 $450,0001 $2,250,000 Cocohatchee River Park R .56 $415,000 $3,137,400 Barefoot Beach Access R .00 $450,000 $2,250,000 Barefoot Beach Preserve R 59.60 $415,000 $66,234,000 Barefoot Beach State Land R 86.00 $415,000 $77,190,000 Clam Pass Park R 5.00 $415,000 $14,525,000 North Naples North Gulfshore Beach Access R .50 $450,000 $225,000 Vanderbilt Beach R .00 $450,000 $2,250,000 Vanderbilt Beach Access Q Locations) R .45 $450,000 $202,500 North Collier Regional Park R 07.70 $415,000 $86,195,500 Pelican Bay Community Park C 15.00 $415,000 $6,225,000 Veterans Community Park C 43.64 $415,000 $18,110,600 Vineyards Community Park C 35.50 $415,000 $14,732, 000 North Naples -- Subtotal 705.95 $293,527,500 Golden Gate Community Park C 35.00 $70,000 $2,450,000 Golden Gate Community Center C 21.00 $70,000 $1,470,000 Golden Gate Paradise Coast Sports Park R 95.98 $70,000 $13,718,600 Golden Gate Golf Course R 12.00 $70,000 $7,840,000 Golden Gate Greenway C 3.001 $50,000 150 000 Golden Gate -- Subtotal 366.98 $25,628,600 East Naples Community Park C 47.00 $105,000 $4,935,000 Cindy Mysels Community Park C 5.00 $225,000 $1,125,000 East Naples Sugden Regional Park R 20.00 $105,000 $12,600,000 Bay Street Parcels R .34 $225,000 $301,500 Bayview Park R .27 $125,000 783 750 East Naples -- Subtotal 179.61 $19,745,250 Eagle Lakes Community Park C 32.00 $150,000 $4,800,000 South Naples Manatee Community Park C 60.00 $150,000 $9,000,000 Port of the Islands R .55 $150,000 832 500 South Naples -- Subtotal 97.55 $14,632,500 Freedom Park R 5.16 $105,000 $2,641,800 Central Naples Gordon River Greenway R 9.00 $105,000 8 295 000 Central Naples -- Subtotal 104.16 $10,936,800 Benesch October 2024 Collier County A-4 Parks and Recreation Impact Fee Study DRAFT Table A-2 (Continued) Collier County Inland Land Values District Park Immokalee Community Park Park Class C Total Acres 23.00 Value per Acre $35,000 Total Land Value $805,000 Immokalee Sports Complex C 14.00 $35,000 $490,000 Airport Park C 19.00 $35,000 $665,000 Immokalee Immokalee South Park C 3.45 $30,000 $103,500 Tony Rosbough Community park C 7.00 $35,000 $245,000 Ann Oleski Park (Lake Trafford) R 2.30 $30,000 $69,000 Pepper Ranch R 50.00 $35,000 1750 000 Immokalee -- Subtotal 1 118.751 1 $4,127,500 Max A. Hasse Community Park C 20.00 $70,000 $1,400,000 Vanderbilt Extension Community Park C 125.10 $70,000 $8,757,000 Urban Estates Big Corkscrew Island Regional Park R 152.00 $50,000 $7,600,000 Rich King Greenway R 37.50 $105,000 3 937 500 Urban Estates -- Subtotal 1 334.601 1 $21,694,500 All Parks - Inland Acreage 1,965.40 $213,286 $419,192,650 Community Parks -- Inland Acreage 508.69 $148,349 $75,463,600 Regional Parks - Inland Acreage 1,456.71 $235,963 $343,729,050 Note See Tables A-3 through A-12 for estimated cost per acre in each region V. -qRVAA Benesch October 2024 Collier County A-5 Parks and Recreation Impact Fee Study C X an Lr) O M O ON N N m C U N E °�° > c o i Q V a' fD Co Q Q N a > L } i= E aJ L Q io ro N O C C 0 d LZ LZ — a M T >, >, O a -a -a -a O Ln Ln U) E a) a) v o ai LL LL LL i U U U > v o O O O E v E a) v a) v L L L L U U U V ca (O f0 f0 to 'a N Ln Ln L L L L O O �a > LL a a a a) v > > > 40# D o E O O O 0 U U U U L a) VI a) a) a) co N — -0 co a) O O O U U U U YO O U U Ln U Ql N Ln N Ln �N W > 0 ci N M LL 1� a IF N O N U a) to � (3) 0 c U co N N 0 N F- LL Q/ I.I. O O O O c 00 c 00 O Ln e le ' i/i i/h O O OCD 0 O o O m 0 m m Ln o N O m m O 0 O 0 o Ln Lri f) 0 0 L() O Ln Ln N N N i/)• IA. 0 0 O O O 0 Ln ' Ln ' V)- V} h v i a a, OO a c a) v C J I L V l6 L U (6 Ln Ln i) c s N V) ) c s 4+ (6 L C (O L W c;C7 V �' o v C7 T 7 N LL v u fu Q E c 0 a! cr- U a! C m v O LI) Ln c O U Lri v N •— a) O -0 U E 6 a) u Q 7 a, O Ln V) 5.1 c O Z cB E 0 c c O � v o N � O N y m E 7 Q w a IF N 0 N U aJ a) O c + a) U m 0 LL Q 0 c L 0 E Q L Q O a T o 4% L Q m O U1 L T d _ L 0 Q U v L -0 T 7 U u 41 � U 7 .� O LL N * N m E W GJ OP a > m m J GJ m Q c a, /O V O O O O L r4 N 1. CO CO O O Lfl I�% tI� tIf O O O O c c O0 O O C O C o `n 0 Ln vn M O to c-I 0 0 o O Lr O' r- c» t/} N VI v aj a` N to Q) cu ° J u u f0 Ln Lit v t v v ru t bvl U (o 4, L Im = U M 4, L t . ro .r W Ln o Q)v (D Ln o v CD v v W .7 C O �o E L 0 C O v m O O N c-I N Cf1 � 00 a It N O N U 41 a) O C U m 0 F- LL Q 0 O L O O f6 E Q� L Q O a T '- a-+ � L o w 0 O N d T T f0 L ro O Q U N L -a u U O ai v U ::3 O LL N * H cu ++ m E 4A H W GJ O � Q > J N 4^1 C m Z ca W 0 O 0 O L 0 M Ln Ln N 0 4A- V11- O O O O LLr) .--1 r 1 Ln O Ln 00 ri V} O O O O o n 0 Ln O O O O O O O NLn O i/1- rN-I i/)- Qj a V) LI) v v a J L U f6 L U f0 Ln Ln L C L C C) L G) a) t a.i U M L U M ++ L o Ln w ro C -C Ln w co W o C7 � oU V O Q Q E L L.L = T T 7 � !n !n a) a) 0) L.L LL Q U U � f6 f6 � E E C C 0 0 � +� u +� L L U U � Q _0 - O c c 0 L L E a- a. Q T T C Z5 o o O o U N U LT -0 v O •� N •� ON m NO O C) O O a U -0 U N a) N v E v m E Q to LO Ln LO Q Lu D N a) LL t U (SS O_ E C O 4-1 a1 L U a) C fB Ln Y d a E E F— LL Q O C L O v �, L E Q L Q O Q to L O v L a ca O a) a _ L O Q' U a) L v 0 U O O U v v U 7 .� O LL Ln * 4A W H W GJ 3 N M � J a ' v H IA O Uw MM4I W N a, m Y O E O O O O O Ln rl O Ln en m 4A 4A. O O O O O M M O O N O O ij)- -L/)- O C O 0 o 0 0 0 Ln Ln rl N O O O O Ln Ln v 0 a v v a J L U ru L U m Ln Ln L C n C cu L Ol i) L y ++ U (O a L = U (6 + L C3 Ln +' o Ln 0) h W Ln o a) C7 U Ln o a) C7 LN i i LO SZ SZ C aC � � C L Ll U- = T T T O O O (n (n Ln a) a) a) i L L Li a v Z E E E C O C O C O N v L v L v L a C C C O L L L C l6 a f6 a f6 a L o c c Ln c 0 Z3 r, o O 0 o 0 U U N U 0) 0 a) a) N a) O O fa Q O N U L O C) U 0 0 U O v N -0 E N L) a1 a L � L U } L E LO LN Ln 7 LO Q W D N a) LL. t U LSS O_ E C O 4-1 a1 L U a) C fB Ln Y a 0 Q DRAFT Appendix Population Estimates Supplemental Information DRAFT Appendix 6 - Population Estimates Consistent with the previous studies and the County's Annual Update and Inventory Report (AUIR), this analysis uses peak seasonal population. Because regional parks tend to have a countywide service area, countywide population figures are used in the calculation of regional parks impact fee. Similarly, because community parks serve primarily the unincorporated county, unincorporated county population is used in the calculation of community parks impact fee. As presented in Table B-1, the current countywide peak population is 491,800 while the unincorporated county peak population is estimated at 447,600. Based on population projections provided by the County, the peak seasonal population estimates is projected to reach 582,700 countywide and 525,500 in the unincorporated county by 2040. Residential land uses to be used in the Collier County parks and recreation pact fee calculations include the following: ` -dipw _ • Single Family (Detached) • Multi -Family • Mobile Home/ RV Park (tied down) • Retirement Community (detached and attached) Table B-2 presents the number of residents per housing unit for the residential categories identified above for all of Collier County, while Table B-3 presents similar information for the unincorporated county. To address fairness and equity issues, the single family land use is tiered based on two categories of square footage: less than 4,000 square feet and 4,000 square feet and greater. is To accommodate the tiering of impact fee assessments for the single family residential land use category, an analysis was completed based on housing unit size and persons per housing unit. This analysis utilized data from the 2021 American Housing Survey (AHS) and data from the 2020 Census as well as 2022 American Community Survey (ACS) 5-Year estimates to examine this relationship. In addition, as part of this study, a separate category is developed for retirement community/age restricted housing to reflect fewer people residing in these types of housing. Benesch Collier County October 2024 B-1 Parks and Recreation Impact Fee Study DRAFT Table B-1 Collier County Peak Season Population Year 2010 Peak Seasonal •.. 387,183 Percent Chane - UnincorporatedCountywide Peak Seasonal Population 343,593 Percent Change - 2011 392,180 1.3% 348,497 1.4% 2012 398,107 1.S% 354,268 1.7% 2013 402,268 1.0% 358,404 1.2% 2014 408,351 1.5% 364,414 1.7% 2015 416,402 2.0% 372,134 2.1% 2016 424,603 2.0% 379,740 2.0% 2017 433,359 2.1% 387,921 2.2% 2018 442,240 2.0% 396,342 2.2% 2019 451,303 2.0% 404,945 2.2% 2020 455,059 0.8% 412,542 1.9% 2021 464,155 2.0% 421,307 2.1% 2022 474,235 2.2% 431,240 2.4% 2023 483,487 2.0% 440,073 2.0% 2024 491,779 1.7% 447,642 1.7% 2025 499,426 1.6% 454,553 1.5% 2026 506,406 1.4% 460,784 1.4% 2027 513,483 1.4% 467,098 1.4% 2028 520,660 1.4% 473,498 1.4% 2029 527,936 1.4% 479,983 1.4% 2030 534,305 1.2% 485,545 1.2% 2031 539,741 1.0% 490,160 1.0% 2032 545,233 1.0% 494,816 0.9% 2033 550,781 1.0% 499,512 0.9% 2034 556,384 1.0% 504,248 0.9% 2035 561,339 0.9% 508,319 0.8% 2036 565,633 0.8% 511,713 0.7% 2037 569,960 0.8% 515,123 0.7% 2038 574,320 0.8% 518,549 0.7% 2039 578,714 0.8% 521,992 0.7% 2040 1 582,721 0.7% 525,516 0.7% Source: Collier County Comprehensive Planning Section (population projections dated May, 2024) Benesch October 2024 Collier County B-2 Parks and Recreation Impact Fee Study Table B-2 Residents per Housing Unit (Countywide) 1) Source: 2022 ACS 5-Yr Estimates, Table B25033 (owner occupied and renter occupied), adjusted for peak seasonal population. 2) Source: 2022 ACS 5-Yr Estimates, Table DP04 3) Ratios developed based on national PPH data derived from the 2021 American Housing Survey. 4) Population (Item 1) divided by housing units (Item 2). For single family detached tiers, the residents per housing unit is determined by multiplying the weighted average value (2.58) by the ratio developed from the AHS data (Item 3). 5) Estimate for senior adult housing - detached (single family) is based on people per household figures for single family homes, adjusted for the residents over 55 years of age based on information obtained from the 2017 National Household Travel Survey, prepared by the US Department of Transportation. 6) Estimate for senior adult housing - attached (multi -family) is based on people per household figures for multi -family homes, adjusted for the residents over 55 years of age based on information obtained from the 2017 National Household Travel Survey, prepared by the US Department of Transportation. I Table B-3 Residents per Housing Unit (Unincorporated County) 1) Source: 2022 ACS 5-Yr Estimates, Table B25033 (owner occupied and renter occupied), adjusted for peak seasonal population. 2) Source: 2022 ACS 5-Yr Estimates, Table DP04 3) Ratios developed based on national PPH data derived from the 2021 American Housing Survey. 4) Population (Item 1) divided by housing units (Item 2). For single family detached tiers, the residents per housing unit is determined by multiplying the weighted average value (2.70) by the ratio developed from the AHS data (Item 3). Benesch Collier County October 2024 B-3 Parks and Recreation Impact Fee Study DRAFT 5) Estimate for retirement community (detached) is based on people per household figures for single family homes, adjusted for the residents over 55 years of age based on information obtained from the 2017 National Household Travel Survey, prepared by the US Department of Transportation. 6) Estimate for retirement community (attached) is based on people per household figures for multi -family homes, adjusted for the residents over 55 years of age based on information obtained from the 2017 National Household Travel Survey, prepared by the US Department of Transportation. Benesch October 2024 Collier County B-4 Parks and Recreation Impact Fee Study Prepared for: Collier County Capital Projects Planning, Impact Fees and Program Management Division 2685 Horseshoe Drive South Naples, Florida 34104 ph (239) 252-8192 benesch Prepared by: Benesch 1000 N. Ashley Dr., #400 Tampa, Florida 33602 ph (813) 224-8862 E-mail: nkamp@benesch.com DRAFT Collier County Road Impact Fee Update Study Table of Contents INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................... 1 Methodology........................................................................................................................ 1 LegalOverview..................................................................................................................... 3 DEMANDCOMPONENT.................................................................................................... 7 TravelDemand..................................................................................................................... 7 Interstate & Toll Facility Adjustment Factor........................................................................ 7 State Road Adjustment Factor............................................................................................. 8 LandUse Updates................................................................................................................ 8 COSTCOMPONENT........................................................................................................... 10 CountyRoadway Cost.......................................................................................................... 10 Vehicle -Miles of Capacity Added per Lane Mile.................................................................. 13 Cost per Vehicle -Mile of Capacity........................................................................................ 14 CREDIT COMPONENT........................................................................................................ 15 Capital Improvement Credit................................................................................................ 15 PresentWorth Variables...................................................................................................... 16 CALCULATED ROAD IMPACT FEE SCHEDULE...................................................................... 18 Road Impact Fee Calculation............................................................................................... 20 Road Impact Fee Comparison.............................................................................................. 20 ROAD IMPACT FEE BENEFIT DISTRICTS.............................................................................. 22 DistrictBoundaries............................................................................................................... 22 Impact Fee Revenue Use Across Districts............................................................................ 23 RegionalRoads..................................................................................................................... 23 Benefit Districts Recommendations.................................................................................... 25 Appendices: Appendix A: Demand Component Appendix B: Cost Component Appendix C: Credit Component Appendix D: Calculated Road Impact Fee Schedule Benesch Collier County October 2024 i Road Impact Fee Update Study DRAFT Introduction With a population of approximately 400,000, Collier County is continuing to experience growth. The County ranks 19t" out of 67 Florida counties with a projected increase of 110,000 persons by 2050. In terms of residential permitting, Collier County ranks 191" out of Florida counties with an average of 5,300 new units per year over the past three years. This continuing growth requires additional capital facilities. Collier County's Road Impact Fee Ordinance was originally adopted in January 1985 to assist the County in providing adequate transportation facilities for expected growth. The fee was last updated in 2019. In accordance with the County's impact fee ordinance requirements and to reflect most recent and localized data, Collier County retained Benesch to update the technical study that will be the basis for the updated fee schedule. This report serves as the technical study to support the calculation of the updated impact fees. Data presented in this report represent the most recent and localized data available at the time of this update study. All data and support material used in this analysis are incorporated by reference as set forth in this document. The figures calculated in this study represent the technically defensible level of impact fees that the County could charge; however, the Board of County Commissioners may choose to discount the fees as a policy decision. Methodology The methodology used for the road impact fee study continues to follow a consumption -based impact fee approach in which new development is charged based upon the proportion of vehicle - miles of travel (VMT) that each unit of new development is expected to consume of a lane mile of roadway network. Under this methodology, the fees assess a proportionate share cost for a portion of the transportation network in the county, including classified City and County roadways, excluding state roads, local/neighborhood roads and interstate highways/toll facilities. Generally, neighborhood roads are the obligation of the developer and are part of the site/subdivision approvals. Toll facilities are funded by toll revenues through Florida Turnpike Enterprise or local toll authorities and interstate highways are funded with earmarked federal and statewide strategic intermodal systems funds and planned for at the state level with minimal local input and limited or no local funding. Benesch Collier County October 2024 1 Road Impact Fee Update Study DRAFT Included in this document is the necessary support material used in the calculation of the road impact fee. The general equation used to compute the impact fee for a given land use is: [Demand x Cost] — Credit = Fee The "demand" for travel placed on a transportation system is expressed in units of Vehicle -Miles of Travel (daily vehicle -trip generation rate x the trip length x the percent new trips [of total trips]) for each land use contained in the impact fee schedule. Trip generation represents the average daily rates since new development consumes trips on a daily basis. The "cost" of building new capacity typically is expressed in units of dollars per vehicle -mile of roadway capacity. A. The "credit" is an estimate of future non -impact fee revenues generated by new development that are allocated to provide roadway capacity expansion. The impact fee is considered to be an "up front" payment for a portion of the cost of building a vehicle -mile of capacity that is directly related to the amount of capacity consumed by each unit of land use contained in the impact fee schedule, that is not paid for by future tax revenues generated by the new development activity. These credits are required under the supporting case law for the calculation of impact fees where a new development activity must be reasonably assured that they are not being charged twice for the same level of service. More specifically, the input variables used in the fee equation are as follows: Demand Variables: • Trip generation rate • Trip length • Trip length adjustment factors • Percent new trips Cost Variables: • Roadway cost per lane -mile • Roadway capacity added per lane mile constructed Credit Variables: • Equivalent gas tax credit (pennies) • Present worth Benesch Collier County October 2024 2 Road Impact Fee Update Study DRAFT • Fuel efficiency • Effective days per year Legal Overview In Florida, legal requirements related to impact fees have primarily been established through case law since the 1980's. Impact fees must comply with the "dual rational nexus" test, which requires that they: • Be supported by a study demonstrating that the fees are proportionate in amount to the need created by new development paying the fee; and • Be spent in a manner that directs a proportionate benefit to new development, typically accomplished through establishment of benefit districts and a list of capacity -adding projects included in the County's Annual Update of Inventory Report (AUIR) and Capital Improvement Element, or another planning document/Master Plan. In 2006, the Florida legislature passed the "Florida Impact Fee Act," which recognized impact fees as "an outgrowth of home rule power of a local government to provide certain services within its jurisdiction." § 163.31801(2), Fla. Stat. The statute — concerned with mostly procedural and methodological limitations — did not expressly allow or disallow any particular public facility type from being funded with impact fees. In fact, which it was initially adopted, the Act largely codified requirements and standards common to the practice already. However, the Legislature has amended the Impact Fee Act numerous times since 2006, significantly affecting the impact fee practice in Florida. For this reason, a summary of the key legislative changes since 2006 is provided: • HB 227 in 2009: The Florida legislation statutorily clarified that in any action challenging an impact fee, the government has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the imposition or amount of the fee meets the requirements of state legal precedent or the Impact Fee Act and that the court may not use a deferential standard. • SB 360 in 2009: Allowed fees to be decreased without the 90-day notice period required to increase the fees and purported to change the standard of legal review associated with impact fees. SB 360 also required the Florida Department of Community Affairs (now the Department of Commerce) and Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) to conduct studies on "mobility fees," which were completed in 2010. • HB 7207 in 2011: Required a dollar -for -dollar credit, for purposes of concurrency compliance, for impact fees paid and other concurrency mitigation required. Benesch Collier County October 2024 3 Road Impact Fee Update Study DRAFT • HB 319 in 2013: Applied mostly to concurrency management authorities, but also encouraged local governments to adopt alternative mobility systems using a series of tools identified in section 163.3180(5)(f), Florida Statutes, including: o Adoption of long-term strategies to facilitate development patterns that support multi -modal solutions, including urban design, and appropriate land use mixes, including intensity and density. o Adoption of an area -wide level of service not dependent on any single road segment function. o Exempting or discounting impacts of locally desired development, such as development in urban areas, redevelopment, job creation, and mixed use on the transportation system. o Assigning secondary priority to vehicle mobility and primary priority to ensuring a safe, comfortable, and attractive pedestrian environment, with convenient interconnection to transit. o Establishing multi -modal level of service standards that rely primarily on non - vehicular modes of transportation where existing or planned community design will provide adequate level of mobility. o Reducing impact fees or local access fees to promote development within urban areas, multi -modal transportation districts, and a balance of mixed -use development in certain areas or districts, or for affordable or workforce housing. Also, under HB 319, a mobility fee funding system expressly must comply with the dual rational nexus test applicable to traditional impact fees. Furthermore, any mobility fee revenues collected must be used to implement the local government's plan, which serves as the basis to demonstrate the need for the fee. Finally, under HB 319, an alternative mobility system, that is not mobility fee -based, must not impose upon new development any responsibility for funding an existing transportation deficiency. • HB 207 in 2019: Included the following changes to the Impact Fee Act along with additional clarifying language: o Impact fees cannot be collected prior to building permit issuance; and o Impact fee revenues cannot be used to pay debt service for previously approved projects unless the expenditure is reasonably connected to, or has a rational nexus with, the increased impact generated by the new residential and commercial construction. Benesch Collier County October 2024 4 Road Impact Fee Update Study DRAFT • HB 7103 in 2019: Addressed multiple issues related to affordable housing/linkage fees, impact fees, and building services fees. In terms of impact fees, the bill required that when local governments increase their impact fees, the outstanding impact fee credits for developer contributions should also be increased. This requirement was to operate prospectively; however, HB 337 that was signed in 2021 deleted this clause and making all outstanding credits eligible for this adjustment. This bill also allowed local governments to waive/reduce impact fees for affordable housing projects without having to offset the associated revenue loss. • SB 1066 in 2020: Added language allowing impact fee credits to be assignable and transferable at any time after establishment from one development or parcel to another that is within the same impact fee zone or impact fee district or that is within an adjoining impact fee zone or district within the same local government jurisdiction, and which receives benefit from the improvement or contribution that generated the credits. In addition, added language indicating any new/increased impact fee not being applicable to current or pending permit applications submitted prior to the effective date of an ordinance or resolution imposing new/increased fees. • HB 1339 in 2020: Required reporting of various impact fee related data items within the annual financial audit report submitted to the Department of Financial Services. • HB 337 in 2021: Placed limits on the amount and frequency of fee increases, but also included a clause to exceed these restrictions if the local governments can demonstrate extraordinary circumstances, hold two public workshops discussing these circumstances and the increases are approved by two-thirds of the governing body. • HB 479 in 2024 (Effective October 1, 2024): Required interlocal agreements between counties and municipalities when both entities collect a transportation impact fee. Placed limits on timing of impact fee study completion and adoption and data used in the studies. The following paragraphs provide further detail on the generally applicable legal standards applicable here. Impact Fee Definition • An impact fee is a one-time capital charge levied against new development. • An impact fee is designed to cover the portion of the capital costs of infrastructure capacity consumed by new development. • The principle purpose of an impact fee is to assist in funding the implementation of projects identified in the Capital Improvements Element (CIE) and other capital improvement programs for the respective facility/service categories. Benesch Collier County October 2024 5 Road Impact Fee Update Study DRAFT • Examples of impact fee eligible projects include new road construction, lane addition projects, turn lane additions and intersection improvements. Impact Fee vs. Tax • An impact fee is generally regarded as a regulatory function established based upon the specific benefit to the user related to a given infrastructure type and is not established for the primary purpose of generating revenue for the general benefit of the community, as are taxes. • Impact fee expenditures must convey a proportional benefit to the fee payer. This is accomplished through the establishment of benefit districts, where fees collected in a benefit district are spent in the same benefit district. • An impact fee must be tied to a proportional need for new infrastructure capacity created by new development. A. This technical report has been prepared to support legal compliance with existing case law and statutor Benesch Collier County October 2024 6 Road Impact Fee Update Study DRAFT Demand Component Travel Demand The amount of transportation system consumed by a unit of new development is calculated using the following variables and is a measure of the vehicle -miles of new travel a unit of development places on the existing roadway system: • Number of daily trips generated; 6^66 • Average length of those trips; and • Proportion of travel that is new travel, rather than travel that is already on the transportation system. I%L,A. N The trip characteristics variables were primarily obtained from two sources: • Trip characteristics surveys conducted throughout Florida (Florida Studies Database), including studies conducted in Collier County. This database was used to determine trip length, percent new trips, and the trip generation rate for several land uses. • Institute of Transportation Engineers' (ITE) Trip Generation reference report (11th Edition), which is used primarily for trip generation rates. Interstate & Toll Facility Adjustment Factor This variable was used to recognize that interstate highway and toll facility improvements are funded by the State (specifically, the Florida Department of Transportation) using earmarked State and Federal funds or through toll revenues. As mentioned previously, generally, impact fees are not used to pay for these improvements and the portion of travel occurring on the interstate/toll facility system is subtracted from the total travel for each use. To calculate the interstate and toll (I/T) facility adjustment factor, the 2045 loaded highway network' file was generated for the District 1 Regional Planning Model (D1RPM v2). A select zone analysis was run for all traffic analysis zones located within the Collier County in order to differentiate trips with an origin and/or destination within the county versus trips that simply passed through the county. 1 The "loaded highway network" refers to the final travel demand model roadway network with all traffic volumes assigned (or loaded) to each model roadway link Benesch Collier County October 2024 7 Road Impact Fee Update Study DRAFT The analysis reviewed trips on all interstate and toll facilities within Collier County, including, Interstate 75. The limited access vehicle -miles of travel (Limited Access VMT) for county - generated trips with an origin and/or destination within county was calculated for the identified limited access facilities. Next, the total VMT was calculated for all county -generated trips with an origin and/or destination within Collier County for all roads, including limited access facilities. The I/T adjustment factor of 20.8 percent was determined by dividing the total limited access VMT by the total County VMT. Total County VMT reduced by this factor is representative of only the roadways that are eligible to be funded with road impact fee revenues. Appendix A, Table A- 1 provides further detail on this calculation. State Road Adjustment Factor *%, This variable was used to exclude the portion of the travel that occurs on state roadway facilities. To calculate this adjustment factor, the 2045 VMT distribution was calculated using D1RPM v2 projections, which estimated that 26 percent of the travel in Collier County is handled by State roads. Appendix A, Table A-2 provides further detail on this calculation. Land Use Updates P%, X '1% As part of this update study, the following land uses were revised/added to the County's fee schedule to better reflect types of new development projects being permitted in Collier County. Single Family (Attached) & Multi -Family Tiering The ITE 11t" Edition Trip Generation reference report made adjustments to certain residential categories. Based on these adjustments, a single family (attached) land use was added to the schedule and the multi -family tiering (by floor) was condensed. The updated configurations are as follows: • Single Family (Attached); per dwelling unit. Includes any single-family housing unit that shares a wall with an adjoining dwelling unit, whether the walls are for living space, a vehicle garage, or storage space • Multi -Family (Low -Rise, 1-3 floors); per dwelling unit • Multi -Family (Mid/High-Rise, 4+ floors); per dwelling unit In addition to the land use re -alignments, the unit of measure for the following uses have been updated: Benesch Collier County October 2024 8 Road Impact Fee Update Study DRAFT • Movie Theater; from per "screen" to per "1,000 sf" • Church; from per "seat" to per "1,000 sf" • Day Care Center; from per "student" to per "1,000 sf" • Nursing Home; from per "bed" to per "1,000 sf" • Tire Superstore; from per "service bay" to per "1,000 sf" • Low -Turnover Restaurant; from per "seat" to per "1,000 sf" • High -Turnover (Sit -Down) Restaurant; from per "seat" to per "1,000 sf" Benesch Collier County October 2024 9 Road Impact Fee Update Study DRAFT Cost Component Cost information from Collier County and other counties in Florida was reviewed to develop a unit cost for all phases involved in the construction of one lane -mile of roadway capacity. Appendix B provides the data and other support information utilized in these analyses. County Roadway Cost This section examines the right-of-way (ROW), construction, and other cost components associated with county roads with respect to transportation capacity expansion improvements in Collier County. In addition to local data, bid data for recently completed/on-going projects and recent construction bid data from roadway projects throughout Florida were used to supplement the cost data for county roadway improvements. The cost for each roadway capacity project was separated into six components: design, right-of-way (ROW), construction, construction engineering/inspection (CEI), mitigation, and urban overpass/major intersection costs. Design and CEI `'� The design and CEI cost factors for county roads are estimated as a percentage of the construction cost per lane mile. These factors were determined based on a review of cost ratios from local projects (Design:z:10 percent in Collier County) and data from other jurisdictions throughout Florida (Design z11 percent; CEI =9 percent). For purposes of this study, the design cost for county roads is estimated at 10 percent of the construction cost per lane mile and CEI cost is estimated at nine (9) percent of the construction cost per lane mile. Additional details are provided in Appendix B, Tables B-1 and B-2 for design cost and Table B-7 for CEI cost. itRight -of -Way The ROW cost reflects the total cost of the acquisitions along a corridor that were necessary to have sufficient cross-section width to widen an existing road or, in the case of new construction, to build a new road. As part of this analysis, the most recent ROW acquisition data for Vanderbilt Beach Road Extension project (Phase I from Weber Blvd to 16t" St NE) was reviewed. The ROW for this improvement was acquired over several years, as far back as 2006. Each acquisition was then indexed to current dollars resulting in a 71-percent ROW -to -construction cost ratio. Given the dated nature of those early acquisitions, a second analysis was prepared, which considered only recent acquisition costs (2020+) for this ratio. ROW acquired since 2020 was separated from the total ROW costs and indexed to present day dollars using recent trends Benesch Collier County October 2024 10 Road Impact Fee Update Study DRAFT in just value per acre for vacant land in Collier County. With these adjustments applied, the ROW - to -construction factor for the Vanderbilt Beach Road Extension was calculated at 47 percent. Additional details are provided in Appendix B, Table B-3. In addition to local data, the ROW -to -construction cost ratios from other jurisdictions throughout Florida were reviewed. The ROW factors ranged from 10 percent to 60 percent. Additional details are provided in Appendix B, Table B-4. Based on this data and input from Collier County, the ROW cost for county roads is estimated at 45 percent of the construction cost per lane mile. Construction Cost _ The construction cost for county roads was based on recently completed projects and future estimates in Collier County and in other jurisdictions in Florida. A review of recent transportation projects in Collier County identified four capacity expansion projects: • Veteran's Memorial Blvd from E. of Livingston Rd to New High School • Whippoorwill Ln from Pine Ridge Rd to Livingston Rd • Vanderbilt Beach Rd Ph. II from US 41 to E. of Goodlette-Frank Rd • Wilson Blvd from Golden Gate Blvd to Immokalee Rd The costs for these improvements ranged from approximately $1.4 million per lane mile to $6.4 million per lane mile. The construction cost for new roadway projects averaged $1.5 million per lane mile while cost of lane addition improvements averaged $6.3 million per lane mile. Given this cost differential, a weighted average cost was calculated based on the percentage of new construction versus lane addition projects in the 2045 LRTP Needs Plan, which resulted in $3.8 million per lane mile. Additional details are provided in Appendix B, Table B-5. In addition to local projects, recent improvements from other counties throughout Florida were reviewed to increase the sample size. This review included over 185 lane miles of lane addition and new road construction improvements completed between 2014 and 2023 with a weighted average cost of approximately $3.5 million per lane mile. Additional details are provided in Appendix B, Table B-6. Based on local projects, a construction cost estimate of $3.8 million per lane mile is used in the impact fee calculation for urban design (curb & gutter) improvements. Based on discussions with Collier County, it is anticipated that all future roadways are likely to have urban design Benesch Collier County October 2024 11 Road Impact Fee Update Study DRAFT characteristics. Mitigation Mitigation cost estimates were developed based on cost data received for two recent projects in Collier County: • Goodland Drive from San Marco Road to Harbor Place • Vanderbilt Beach Road Extension from Collier Blvd to 16t" St NE The costs for these projects ranged from $34,000 per lane mile to $133,000 per lane mile with a weighted average cost of approximately $38,000 per lane mile, which is used in the road impact fee calculation. Additional details are provided in Appendix B, Table B-8. Urban Overpass/Malor Intersections Urban overpass/major intersection cost estimates were developed based on cost data received for eight on-going/planned improvements in Collier County: _ • US 41 (SR 90) Tamiami Trail East @ Goodlette-Frank Road Immokalee Road @ Livingston Road Immokalee Road @ 1-75 Immokalee Road @ Logan Blvd Golden Gate Pkwy @ Livingston Road US 41 @ Collier Blvd Pine Ridge Road @ Livingston Road Pine Ridge Road @ 1-75 The total cost of these improvements was then divided by the total lane miles of county road needs projects in the 2045 Long Range Transportation Plan, resulting in a cost of approximately $544,000 per lane mile. Additional details are provided in Appendix B, Table B-9. Table 1 summarizes the county road cost estimates for county roads while Table 2 provides a comparison to the cost estimates used to calculate the current Collier County road impact fee rates. As shown, the county road cost estimate is approximately 11 percent higher than last study. Benesch Collier County October 2024 12 Road Impact Fee Update Study DRAFT Table 1 Estimated Total Cost per Lane Mile for County Roads Cost Phase Cost per Lane Design(l) Mile $380,000 Right -of -Way (2) $1,710,000 Construction (3) $3,800,000 CEI (4) $342,000 Mitigation (5) $38,000 Urban Overpass/Major Intersection(6) 544 000 Total Cost $6,814,000 1) Design is estimated at 10% of construction costs 2) ROW is estimated at 4S% of consl 3) Source: Appendix B, Table B-5 4) CEI is estimated at 9% of constru( 5) Source: Appendix B, Table B-8 6) Source: Appendix B, Table B-9 Note: All figures rounded to nearest Table 2 Total Cost per Lane Mile Comparison for County Roads Cost Phas MKI Design Cost per Lane Mile (2019)(1) IF $385,000 Cost per Lane % Change (2) Mile (2024) (2019-2024) $380,000 -1% Right -of -Way $1,208,000 $1,710,000 42% Construction $3,500,000 $3,800,000 9% CEI $315,000 $342,000 9% Mitigation $74,000 $38,000 -49% Urban Overpass/Major Intersection 523 000 544 000 4% Total Cost $6,005,000 $6,814,000 13% 1) Source: Collier County Road Impact Fee Update Study, October 2019 2) Source: Table 1 Vehicle -Miles of Capacity per Lane Mile An additional component of the roadway impact fee equation is the capacity added per lane -mile of roadway constructed. The vehicle -miles of capacity (VMC) is an estimate of capacity added per lane mile for county roadway improvements in the Collier County 2045 LRTP. As shown in Table 3, each lane mile will add approximately 9,300 VMC. Additional details are provided in Appendix B, Table B-10. Benesch Collier County October 2024 13 Road Impact Fee Update Study DRAFT Table 3 Weighted Average Vehicle -Miles of Capacity per Lane Mile 1) Source: Appendix B, Table B-10 2) Source: Appendix B, Table B-10 3) Vehicle -miles of capacity added (Item 2) divided by lane miles added (Item 1), rounded to nearest 00 Cost per Vehicle -Mile of Capacity The roadway cost per unit of development is assessed based on the cost per vehicle -mile of capacity. As shown in Table 4, based on information presented in Tables 1 and 3, the cost per VMC for travel within the county is approximately $733. ,IR The cost per VMC figure is used in the road impact fee calculation to determine the total cost per unit of development based on vehicle -miles of travel consumed. For each vehicle -mile of travel that is added to the county roadway system, approximately $718 of capacity is consumed. Table 4 Average Cost per Vehicle -Mile of Capacity Added 1) Source: Table 1 2) Source: Table 3 3) Average VMC added per lane mile (Item 2) divided by cost per lane mile (Item 1) Benesch Collier County October 2024 14 Road Impact Fee Update Study DRAFT Credit Component Capital Improvement Credit The credit component of the impact fee accounts for the existing County funding sources that are allocated to roadway capacity expansion projects (excluding impact fee funds). This section summarizes the credit calculations for non -impact fee contributions. Additional details are provided in Appendix C. The present value of the portion of non -impact fee revenues generated by new development over a 25-year period that is expected to fund capacity expansion projects was credited against the cost of the system consumed by travel associated with new development. In order to provide a connection to the demand component, which is measured in terms of travel, the non -impact fee dollars were converted to a fuel tax equivalency. County Credit A review of the County's historical expenditures and FY 2024-2028 Annual Update and Inventory Report (AUIR) Transportation Work Program indicated that a combination of impact fees, fuel tax revenues, sales tax revenues, and grants are used to fund roadway capacity expansion. Although Collier County allocated some funding from the local government infrastructure surtax, this tax was repealed on December 31, 2023 and there are no plans to re -instate. Given this, no credit is provided for the surtax. The review of other available revenue sources indicated that Collier County allocates an equivalent of 4.3 pennies for the portion of fuel tax and grant revenues toward roadway capacity expansion improvements. Additionally, the County is using gas tax revenues to retire debt service used to fund roadway capacity expansion improvements. The fuel tax revenues allocated for Series 2014 bond totals approximately an equivalent of 7.2 pennies of additional county credit. As shown in Table 5, a total fuel tax equivalent revenue credit of 11.5 pennies is incorporated into impact fee calculations for County expenditures. Benesch Collier County October 2024 15 Road Impact Fee Update Study DRAFT Table 5 Equivalent Pennies of Gas Tax Revenue 1) Source: Appendix C, Table C-2 2) Source: Appendix C, Table C-3 3) Source: Appendix C, Table C-1 4) Average annual expenditures divided by the value per penny (Item 4) divided by 100 Present Worth Variables MF jo lq%�, • Facility Life: The roadway facility life used in the impact fee analysis is 25 years, which represents the reasonable life of a roadway. • Interest Rate: This is the discount rate at which gasoline tax revenues might be bonded. It is used to compute the present value of the gasoline taxes generated by new development. The discount rate of 3.7 percent was used in the impact fee calculation based on information provided by Collier County. Fuel Efficiency The fuel efficiency (i.e., the average miles traveled per gallon of fuel consumed) of the fleet of motor vehicles was estimated using the quantity of gasoline consumed by travel associated with a particular land use. Appendix C, Table C-7 documents the calculation of fuel efficiency value based on the following equation, where "VMT" is vehicle miles of travel and "MPG" is fuel efficiency in terms of miles per gallon. Fuel�'. fCl E{l`l2C = VM j- � �M�Vehicle Type .Y Roadway Type MPGVehicle Type Roadway Type The methodology uses non -interstate VMT and average fuel efficiency data for passenger vehicles (i.e., passenger cars and other 2-axle, 4-tire vehicles, such as vans, pickups, and SUVs) Benesch Collier County October 2024 16 Road Impact Fee Update Study DRAFT and large trucks (i.e., single -unit, 2-axle, 6-tire or more trucks and combination trucks) to calculate the total gallons of fuel used by each of these vehicle types. The combined total VMT for the vehicle types is then divided by the combined total gallons of fuel consumed to calculate, in effect, a "weighted" fuel efficiency value that reflects the existing fleet mix of traffic on non -interstate roadways. The VMT and average fuel efficiency data were obtained from the most recent Federal Highway Administration's Highway Statistics 2022 (updated February 2024). Based on the calculation completed in Appendix C, Table C-7, the fuel efficiency rate to be used in the updated impact fee equation is 19.47 miles per gallon. Effective Days per Year An effective 365 days per year of operation was assumed for all land uses in the proposed fee. However, this will not be the case for all land use categories since some uses operate only on weekdays (e.g., office buildings) and/or only seasonally (e.g., schools). The use of 365 days per year, therefore, provides a conservative estimate, ensuring that non -impact fee contributions are adequately credited against the fee. �, 1� Benesch Collier County October 2024 17 Road Impact Fee Update Study DRAFT Calculated Road Impact Fee Schedule Detailed impact fee calculations for each land use are presented in Appendix D, which includes the major land use categories and the impact fees for the individual land uses. For each land use, Appendix D illustrates the following: • Demand component variables (trip rate, trip length, and percent of new trips); • Total impact fee cost; • Annual capital improvement credit; • Present value of the capital improvement credit; and • Net road impact fee. It should be noted that the net impact fee illustrated in Appendix D is not necessarily a recommended fee, but instead represents the technically calculated impact fee per unit of land use that could be charged in Collier County. For clarification purposes, the following presents the calculation steps of the net impact fee for the single-family residential detached land use category (ITE LUC 210) using information from the impact fee schedules included in Appendix D. For each land use category, the following equations are utilized to calculate the net impact fee: T Net Impact Fee = Total Road Impact Cost — Capital Improvement Credit \A/hprp- Total Road Impact Cost = ([Trip Rate x Trip Length x % New Trips] / 2) x (1 — Interstate/Toll Facility Adjustment Factor) x (Cost per Vehicle -Mile of Capacity) Capital Improvement Credit = Present Value (Annual Capital Improvement Credit), given 3.7% interest rate & a 25-year facility life Annual Capital Improvement Credit = ([Trip Rate x Total Trip Length x % New Trips] / 2) x (Effective Days per Year x $/Gallon to Capital) / Fuel Efficiency Benesch Collier County October 2024 18 Road Impact Fee Update Study DRAFT Each of the inputs has been discussed previously in this document; however, for purposes of this example, brief definitions for each input are provided in the following paragraphs, along with the actual inputs used in the calculation of the fee for the single-family detached residential land use category (<4,000 sq. ft.): • Trip Rate = the average daily trip generation rate, in vehicle-trips/day (7.30) • Assessable Trip Length = the average trip length on collector roads or above, for the category, in vehicle -miles (5.88) (excluding local neighborhood roads) • Trip Length Adjustment Factor = used to adjust the trip length for travel occurring on non - state roads (74%) • Adjusted Trip Length = the assessable trip length multiplied by the trip length adjustment factor (5.88 * 74% = 4.35) • Total Trip Length = the assessable trip length plus an adjustment factor of half a mile, which is added to the trip length to account for the fact that gas taxes are collected for travel on all roads including local roads (4.35 + 0.50 = 4.85) • % New Trips = adjustment factor to account for trips that are already on the roadway (100%) • Divide by 2 = the total daily miles of travel generated by a particular category (i.e., rate*length*% new trips) is divided by two to prevent the double -counting of travel generated between two land use codes since every trip has an origin and a destination • Interstate/Toll Facility Adjustment Factor = discount factor to account for travel demand occurring on interstate highways and/or toll facilities (20.8%) • Cost per Lane Mile = unit cost to construct one lane mile of roadway, in $/lane -mile ($6,814,000) • Average Capacity Added per Lane Mile = represents the average daily traffic on one travel lane at capacity for one lane mile of roadway, in vehicles/lane-mile/day (9,300) • Cost per Vehicle -Mile of Capacity = unit of vehicle -miles of capacity consumed per unit of development ($6,814,000/ 9,300 = $732.69) • Present Value = calculation of the present value of a uniform series of cash flows, gas tax payments in this case, given an interest rate, "i," and a number of periods, "n;" for 3.70% interest and a 25-year facility life, the uniform series present worth factor is 16.1295 • Effective Days per Year = 365 days • .$/Gallon to Capital = the amount of equivalent gas tax revenue per gallon of fuel that is used for capital improvements, in $/gallon ($0.115) • Fuel Efficiency = average fuel efficiency of vehicles, in vehicle-miles/gallon (19.47) Benesch Collier County October 2024 19 Road Impact Fee Update Study DRAFT Road Impact Fee Calculation Using these inputs, a net impact fee can be calculated for the single-family residential detached (<4,000 sf) land use category as follows: Road Impact Fee: Total Impact Cost = ([7.30 * 4.35 * 1.0] /2) * (1- 0.208) * ($732.69) _ $9,214 Annual Cap. Improv. Credit = ([7.30 * 4.85 * 1.0] /2) * 365 * ($0.115 /19.47) _ $38 Capital Improvement Credit = $38 * 16.1295 = $613 � Net Impact Fee = $9,214 — $613 = $8,601 Road Impact Fee Comparison �A& As part of the work effort in developing Collier County's road impact fee program, a comparison of calculated fees to road/transportation impact fee schedules adopted in other jurisdictions was completed, as shown in Table 6. Note that differences in fee levels for a given land use can be caused by several factors, including the year of the technical study, adoption percentage, study methodology including variation in costs, credits, and travel demand, land use categories included in the fee schedule, etc. Benesch Collier County October 2024 20 Road Impact Fee Update Study 000 0 N 000 I, N N O V c-I o 1p N VI I� O 00 VT V} V? lA N �y m Nlo a LT N o t/T VT [h O N V1 N 00 Ool O^l pcpppI V N O � O O mm In N N o c-I M N cy V In pf n 0 N 0 o o o D V1 V? p V o o N O p p pp oo 00 O 0 r r, ry o O N N o N � N Np o � O) 0 N 0 O N o In ID 0 N � a) V W c Vl i/T i/T N � O of w 00 N Ln n Il a) 1l1 O O N v`6i v~i amit v1Oi �fl o u1 �pOp n N oo �A oo G) M oo N N pq w O U O O e-I O c-I O e-I w t c o a Q C ` T OfL � 0 o w C O C O = N y w w N oO Q V Z J K lN0 V V N N o O V) Oi fY1 0 O c-1 VT c-I r-I N O 1/T Vf V? M o '-I O N 1 lD 00 t0 N N O t/} O � VT N VT m1 O � V n m o N Ol � O�1 l0 Vml r-I N O 00 N i/T N �y 1/F Vf m ll m w oo rn N ry L V} l N o C 11 V i/Y o0 N 0 O VT V} N � n a) N o m M .-I N N M Ol tD 0 O O L} L} Vf Vf N o ooi -tr O O p V1 N m m va m m a In m m N ' O V oo N vai a16n .tD-i N ti m N m N o1 oo m O O i/} LT 'A e�-I N oo Lm o O 0 o N. I, c lo O1 N O 1/1 VT Vl N o o)V1 M N o 16 m N O � in o p N ,o)-� N O 'A ta/F V�f• N N oo O1 00 pNppp N P O o N ey .ti c-I r-I ate+ .iw O -O C N Q a O_ u O _ r6 p «O w _ N o ccu y L - N V1 Z JQ O K Q a> c v Y o �n 0 V w a o °- V � w LL c O u m n E v 0 O � C O. E O O E O w N O C O O C N ~ N J O � O o C J O w tp � N N y O O � N N C 0 p o w CZ,> N w J a 0 L C O. w O > w w X C •+ w 'o « O c c 3 0 0 L O � v w w o w a Ci m rvf v1 � LL E LLw LL v E E E w w N Q w N V � N O N C C o0 _ �M 0 U c � w N N Cm N aJ+ 0 N i O 3 N w •+ c E c > « Ow0 U N L O c c n a 3 Ow Ow H O u W E C > C C - 0 o a v N w E w a ou E L O O w w w t' u O. w E p 0 3 E 3 m y LL w M w'2 w c i o m w E E y o w c w C 5 tlU > w o 6 twi E W E co QEN aE u a., w > O. d 0 C y by O C v W E _ •� a>= E� c :tE 0 m E o 0 0 m O= O CWE C a y E w d E w. 0 m Q N C p E> N ♦' � .a £ �. O C w V O d C ° O .o Q'�'uc?�Uvv� d C J X 0 10 O J aw+ w N V v °1 JO c c mUvo o 0 w� °' U E� ou `m c-O E _ C w n- w Y Q u 3 1 1 1 V Vm N w N a u u u u u u u u u u u N J J J J J J J J J J J U w CL O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o N N N V1 VI VI N N N N N a 10 O � .ti N M a N lO r Op Ol � .ti .i .ti U co 0 DRAFT Road Impact Fee Benefit Districts As part of the update of the road impact fee program, the existing impact fee benefit districts (illustrated in Map 1) were reviewed. One of the dual rational nexus test requirements is the proof of benefit to fee -paying development by ensuring that funds collected are spent on eligible capital improvements projects that benefit the fee payers. Establishing benefit districts enhances this proof, showing a close connection to the fee -payer and their resulting benefit, by restricting revenues to specific areas of the county where the fee is collected. Benefit district boundaries are typically influenced by geographic (i.e., lakes and rivers) or man-made boundaries/barriers (i.e., roads, highways, municipal limits) that in some way restrict traffic. District Boundaries Currently, Collier County has eight road impact fee districts. Within these districts, Collier County charges the same roadway impact fee rate, except for Districts 7 and 8, where no fee is charged. Revenues collected in each district are placed into separate funds and can only be used to fund improvements within the corresponding benefit district. For example, revenues collected in District 2 are placed into an individual account and are only eligible to fund roadway capacity improvements within District 2. However, exceptions are made for projects that span multiple adjacent districtS2. In those cases, funds from the two adjacent districts can both be used for the improvement. The establishment of benefit districts restricts the impact fee funds to a smaller area with the intent of providing a direct benefit (via new road construction, lane additions, intersection improvements, etc.) to the fee payer. In regard to the geographic boundaries of the districts, no changes are recommended to the existing districts. As shown in Table 7, impact fee revenues collected in Districts 1, 2, 4, and 6 are all close -to or above 20 percent of total road impact fee revenues. Development in District 5 is picking with the on -going development of the Immokalee area while District 3 (City of Naples) is built -out with little room for new development, explaining the low revenue generation. However, because this District's boundaries correspond to the city limits, no boundary changes are recommended. If the City annexes additional land in the future, the District 3 boundary should be expanded to capture this additional area. Based on a review of the revenue collection levels and municipal and geographical boundaries, it is recommended that the current boundaries are maintained. z Collier County Code of Ordinances, Section 74-203 (a) Benesch Collier County October 2024 22 Road Impact Fee Update Study DRAFT Table 7 Road Impact Fee Revenues by District Year FY 2013 District 3WI N. Naplef%& $1,240,684 District 2 ' GG City jr $588,898 Irbistrict 3 Naples .,S. $92,357 District 4 Naples/Marco $3,903,897 District 5 Immokalee $412,290 District 6 GG Estates $220,830 To .OM $6,458,956 FY 2014 $2,169,998 $1,047,911 $245,144 $4,901,467 $1,092,370 $605,410 $10,062,300 FY 2015 $3,906,462 $923,682 $810,145 $2,524,126 $1,164,597 $1,685,489 $11,014,501 FY 2016 $5,671,025 $3,290,503 $257,659 $5,449,590 $1,048,531 $2,915,399 $18,632,707 FY 2017 $6,024,515 $2,208,132 $556,345 $4,270,044 $1,532,470 $4,682,168 $19,273,674 FY 2018 $8,752,533 $3,802,869 $241,412 $7,571,809 $1,289,761 $4,920,881 $26,579,265 FY 2019 $6,577,304 $5,879,639 $690,940 $5,169,181 $1,826,503 $8,162,193 $28,305,760 FY 2020 $5,093,752 $5,126,954 $513,291 $3,010,955 $1,522,187 $6,564,057 $21,831,196 FY 2021 $4,312,986 $6,080,816 $233,123 $5,714,446 $2,191,347 $7,828,394 $26,361,112 FY 2022 5 784 183 3 046 766 115 629 6 202 411 4 441 645 $11.379,598 $30.970.232 Total $49,533,442 $31,996,170 $3,756,045 $48,717,926 $16,521,701 $48,964,419 $199,489,703 % 24.8% 16.1% 1.9% 24.4% 8.3% 24.5% 100.0% Source: Collier County Transportation Engineering Department Impact Fee Revenue Use Across Districts -W%J0 X As previously mentioned, for certain projects, revenues from adjacent districts can be pooled together. Although this approach creates some flexibility, it requires an evaluation of each project on a case -by -case basis and does not recognize regional roads that benefit multiple districts. Given this, Benesch identified regional roads in the county, which is discussed further in the following subsection. Regional Roads 41W#SN6 For purposes of the benefit districts analysis, "regional roads" refer to corridors which serve a significant portion of the county and are essential to moving traffic across or through the county, rather than serving as connectors to larger roads. From an impact fee perspective, improvements to these corridors provide benefit to all districts, whether they are located within or adjacent to every transportation district because they are major connectors across the county (east -west or north -south, etc.). As such, it is appropriate that future capacity improvements to the corridors classified as "regional" would be eligible for funding from all the impact fee districts in Collier County. The process for classifying regional roads is based primarily on the data obtained from the travel demand model on trip lengths and traffic volumes along major roadways. Corridors with long lengths and high volumes suggest that these roads as significant regional roads. Benesch Collier County October 2024 23 Road Impact Fee Update Study DRAFT Model Trip Length Validation The initial regional roads analysis was included as part of the 2015 impact fee update study'. As previously mentioned, this list was determined through a review of model trip lengths, traffic volumes, and discussions with Collier County. The initial list of regional roads included: • US 41 (Tamiami Trail) • Collier Boulevard • Oil Well Road • Camp Keais Road • Immokalee Road Since the time of the previous impact fee report, several other segments have been examined for potential re-classification as a "regional road" for impact fee purposes. The following segments were deemed to serve the entire county and have been added to the regional roads network: • Logan/Santa Barbara Boulevard from County Line to Rattlesnake Hammock Road o Contingent upon the completion of the extension north to Bonita Beach Road in Lee County4 • Vanderbilt Beach Road from US 41 (Tamiami Trail) to Everglades Boulevard o Contingent upon the completion of the planned extension east to Everglades Blvd' Table 8 presents the full list of designated "regional roads." Table 8 Regional Roads in Collier County US 41 (Tamiami Trail) Lee County Line Miami -Dade County Line Collier Boulevard Immokalee Road Marco Island Bridge Oil Well Road Immokalee Road Camp Keais Road Camp Keais Road Immokalee Road Oil Well Road Immokalee Road US 41 (Tamiami Trail) Camp Keais Road Logan/Santa Barbara Boulevard Lee County Line Rattlesnake Hammock Rd Vanderbilt Beach Road US 41 (Tamiami Trail) Everglades Boulevard s Collier County Transportation Impact Fee Update Study, January 2015 Classification of Logan/Santa Barbara Boulevard, May 2016 5 Classification of Vanderbilt Beach Road, May 2023 Benesch Collier County October 2024 24 Road Impact Fee Update Study DRAFT As part of this update study the model trip lengths of all regional roads were re-examined to verify that they still meet the criteria for the "regional" classification. For travel demand, the FDOT District 1 Regional Planning Model (D1RPM v2) was used. Major arterial roadways within the county were divided into multiple segments. A "select -link" analysis was conducted on each of these segments using the existing 2045 scenario of the D1RPM. A select -link analysis determines the characteristics of the travel demand of a particular link in the model network. It allows the origin and destination of the traffic traveling on the analyzed link to be identified. For example, it measures the trip length of every car that passes by a specific point on a specific road. The select link analysis was used in order to determine the amount and route of traffic traveling on the county's major arterial roadways. The multiple select -link analysis allowed the studied roadways to be evaluated to determine the total projected volume and trip length along the corridor. Ar A. As shown on Map 1, all regional corridors (with the exception of the northern portion of US 41) have higher than average trip lengths, determined through the select link analysis. The average trip length countywide is approximately 9.2 miles, while the corridors identified on Map 1 range from 7.2 miles to 61.2 miles, with trip lengths increasing as the select links move further away from the City of Naples and the urban core. These relatively longer trip lengths indicate that drivers are utilizing these specific corridors for long distance trips across Collier County. Collier Boulevard is the County's primary north -south connector, while Immokalee Road and Oil Well Road provide east -west connections for the northern part of the county. Benefit Districts Recommendations Based on a review of geographic barriers, historical impact fee revenue, travel, and traffic volume, it is recommended that Collier County continues forward with the existing benefit district alignments. Additionally, identified "regional roads" should be eligible for impact fee funding from any benefit district, even if the improvement is not located within or adjacent to a funding district. The travel demand and traffic characteristics of these corridors highlight their importance in moving traffic and connecting neighborhoods throughout the entire county. It is recommended that in future updates Collier County continue to monitor travel and traffic along major corridors to confirm this list of regional roads as well as to identify any additional regional -type roadways that may emerge. Benesch Collier County October 2024 25 Road Impact Fee Update Study 4 a m C = 0 w Q +- C f6 O JUV Y � >, b4 r J w 3 J d i Gl ♦+ O Q fq C U .y L N r N J O Q• U O H U04 am �d 0 o > U co E N £ a U� N {p L £ co a � E co o of £ £ m ro m r� o 18 saPel/6Jan3 ' V to £ 18 uosllM N M C a £ E V N E m M � TT le Jalllo� � .0.. M / 1/ Q £ 01 E £ _ £ O £ � O o m 0 o � � t � O � I I £ E 0 N DRAFT Appendix Demand Component DRAFT Appendix A: Demand Component This appendix presents the detailed calculations for the demand component of the road impact fee study. Interstate & Toll Facility Adjustment Factor Table A-1 presents the interstate and toll facility adjustment factor used in the calculation of the road impact fee. This variable is based on data from the District 1 Regional Planning Model v2), specifically the 2045 projected vehicle -miles of travel of all county -generated trips on all in - county roadways. It should be noted that the adjustment factor excludes all external -to -external trips, which represent traffic that goes through Collier County, but does not necessarily stop in the county. This traffic is excluded from the analysis since it does not come from development within the county. The I/T adjustment factor is used to reduce the VMT that the impact fee charges for each land use. IVVTableA-1 Interstate/Toll Facility Adjustment Factor Source: D1RPM v2, 2045 Trip Length Adjustment Factor Table A-2 presents the trip length adjustment factor for non -state roads used in the calculation of the road impact fee. This variable is based on data from the District 1 Regional Planning Model v2), specifically the 2045 projected vehicle -miles of travel of all county -generated trips on all in - county roadways. Table A-2 Trip Length Adjustment Factor Source: MUM v2, 2045 Benesch Collier County October 2024 A-1 Road Impact Fee Update Study DRAFT Florida Studies Trip Characteristics Database The Florida Studies Trip Characteristics Database includes approximately 345 studies on 40 different residential and non-residential land uses collected over the last 30 years. Data from these studies include trip generation, trip length, and percent new trips for each land use. This information has been used in the development of impact/multi-modal/mobility fees and the creation of land use plan category trip characteristics for communities throughout Florida and the U.S. Benesch estimates trip generation rates for all land uses in an impact fee schedule using data from studies in the Florida Studies Database and the Institute of Transportation Engineers' (ITE) Trip Generation reference report (111h edition). In instances, when both ITE Trip Generation reference report (111" edition) and Florida Studies trip generation rate (TGR) data are available for a particular land use, the data is typically blended together to increase the sample size and provide a more valid estimate of the average number of trips generated per unit of development. If no Florida Studies data is available, only TGR data from the ITE reference report is used in the fee calculation. `'� The trip generation rate for each respective land use is calculated using machine counts that record daily traffic into and out of the site studied. The traffic count hoses or video cameras are set at entrances to residential subdivisions for the residential land uses and at all access points for non-residential land uses. The trip length information is obtained through origin -destination surveys that ask respondents where they came from prior to arriving at the site and where they intended to go after leaving the site. The results of these surveys were used to estimate average trip length by land use. The percent new trip variable is based on assigning each trip collected through the origin - destination survey process a trip type (primary, secondary, diverted, and captured). The percent new trip variable is then calculated as 1 minus the percentage of trips that are captured. Benesch has published an article entitled, Measuring Travel Characteristics for Transportation Impact Fees, ITE Journal, April 1991, on the data collection methodology for trip characteristics studies. Benesch Collier County October 2024 A-2 Road Impact Fee Update Study DRAFT Table A-3 Land Use 151: Mini -Warehouse Total a # Trip Length Location ���aa®aaaa Size (1,000 sf) Date Interviews Trip Gen Rate Time Period ngth Interviews ��il Source ���aa�aaaa ���aa®aaaa ���aa�aaaa ����aa�aaaa ����aa®aaaa Total Size 545.0 6 Awrage Trip Length: n/a ITE 880.0 16 11111Fff Weighted Average Trip Length: n/a Blended total 1,425.0 Weighted Percent New Trip Average: - Weighted Average Trip Generation Rate: ITE Average Trip Generation Rate: Blend of FL Studies and ITE Average Trip Generation Rate: Table A-4 Land Use 210! Single Family - Detached 1.47 1.45 LAB Total # # Trip Length Location Size / Units Date Interviews Interviews Trip Gen Rate Time Period Trip Length Percent New Tn VMT Source C*, IL Sarasota County ::rr::Itl ®�mm�r ��� �Sarasota � County Sar.," 0, FL Co, ��®®�■spa® Sarasota County S.r-1: FL Sarasota County Sarasota Co, FL Sarasota County vveignceo—rage inpueneranon aace. i.aa Collier Cou Collier Co, FL 90 Dec-99 91 12.80 8a-6p 11.40 141.12 Tindale Oliver Collier Co, FL T.Dec-99 889 7.80 8a-6p 6.40 49.92 Tindale Oliver Total Size 1,260 55 655 0 Average Trip Length: 7.59 Benesch Collier County October 2024 A-3 Road Impact Fee Update Study DRAFT Table A-5 LUC 215: Single Family Attached Housing Blended total 3,276 Weighted Average Trip Generation Rate: 4.97 ITE Average Trip Generation Rate: 7.20 Blend of FL Studies and ITE Average Trip Generation Rate: 6.77 Table A-6 LIIC 220/221 /222! Multi-Family/Anartment Total h g Trip Length �lllllllllllllllllllllllllllllMVMT Location Size /Units Date Interviews Interviews Trip Gen Rate Time Period Source ���mm�aaaa tea®ate MEW Ioral Yrze Weighted Aver eTrip Length: 5.21 Table A-7 Land Use 240: Mobile Home Park Total % g Trip Length Location Size / Units Date Interviews Interviews Trip Gen Rate Time Period Trip Length Percent New Trips VNR Source �m�mm��®ate 1111111111111T. IMF. —RIP. 1111-4111 otal -e 4,111 Y t"., Average trip length: 9.89 Weighted Average Trip Length: 4.60 Weighted Average Trip Generation Rate: 4.17 Table A-8 Land Use 251: Retirement Communitv - Detached (Single Familv) Total g g Trip Length —rce Location Size / Units Date Interviews Trip Gen Rate Interviews Time Period Trip Length Percent New Trips VMT ions 7r� verage rnp Lengrn: ITE 93i90 15 Wei hted Avera eTri Len h: SA2 Blended total 19,167 Weighted Average Trip Generation Rate: 2.75 ITE Average Trip Generation Rate: 4.31 Blend of FL Studies and ITE Average Trip Generation Rate: 3.54 Table A-9 Land Use 252: Retirement Community - Attached (Multi -Family) Sun City Center, FL 208 Oct-91 726 726 2.46 24h r. 3.28 8.07 Tindale Oliver Total Size 208 1 Average Trip Length: 3.28 ITE 432 6 Weighted Average Trip Length: 3.28 Blended total 640 Weighted Average Trip Generation Rate: 2.46 ITE Average Trip Generation Rate: 3.24 Blend of FL Studies and ITE Average Trip Generation Rate: 2.99 Benesch Collier County October 2024 A-4 Road Impact Fee Update Study DRAFT ITE 720 4 Blended total 992 Table A-10 Land Use 253: Assisted Living/Congf Table A-11 Land Use 310: Hotel Care Facility iE --- Total # Interviews # Trip Length Interviews ��®�aa�aaaa ����aa®aaaa ����aa�aaaa ®�aa�aaaa ®�aa�aaaa ���aa�� ■aaa ®�aa�aaaa ����aa�aaaa ����aa�aaaa ����aa®aaaa ���aa®aaaa ���aa�aaaa ®�aa�aaaa �0�aa®a■ ®�aa®ate �aa �aa ����aa®a■ ����aa�a■ �aa saa ���aa�a■ �aa �0aaa�a■ r e Co, F a� �aa �aaOrange County Orange Co, FIL �aaa�a� �aaa�ae asOrange sa County Orange County Orange ��a®a�o�► �a-a��■e sOrange �aOrange a County County ���aaa®aa�■tea ��aaa�aaaa ���aa�aaaa ���aa�aaaa ���aa�aaaa iotal)ize lu,lt34 36 lb4 Average Trip Length: ITE 11.036 7 Weighted Average Trip Length: Blended total 11,220 Weighted Percent New Trip Average: 66.3 Weighted Average Trip Generation Rate: ITE Average Trip Generation Rate: Blend of FL Studies and ITE Average Trip Generation Rate: Table A-12 Land Use 320: Motel I Total # # Trip Length Location Size (Rooms( Date Interviews Trip Gen Interviews Rate Time Period Trip Length Percent New Trj_ Source i eca iuv verage rnp Lengsn: ITE 654 6 Weighted Avera e Trip Length: 4.Z Weighted Percent New Trip Average: 76.6 Table A-13 Benesch Collier County October 2024 A-5 Road Impact Fee Update Study DRAFT Table A-14 Land Use 445: Movie Theater Blended total 86.7 Weighted Percent New Trip Average: 87.4 Weighted Average Trip Generation Rate: 84.31 ITE Average Trip Generation Rate: 78.09 Blend of FL Studies and ITE Average Trip Generation Rate: 82.30 Table A-15 Land Use SISS: Dav Carp Center Total # # Trip Length Location Size (1,000 sf) Date Interviews Interviews Trip Gen Rate Time Period Trip Length Percent New Trips VMT iota mrerage rnp r.engm: ITE 135.0 27 Weighted Average Trip Length: 2.03 Blended total 150.6 Weighted Percent New Trip Average: 73.2 Weighted Average Trip Generation Rate: 66.99 ITE Average Trip Generation Rate: 47.62 Blend of FL Studies and ITE Average Trip Generation Rate: 49.63 Table A-16 Weighted Percent New Trip Average: 89.0 Weighted Average Trip Generation Rate: 2.86 ITE Average Trip Generation Rate: 3.06 Blend of FL Studies and ITE Average Trip Generation Rate: 3.02 &0111*1 Table A-17 Land Use 710: General Office Building Total # # Trip Length Location Sarasota Co, FL Size (1,000 sf) 14.3 Date Trip Gen Rate Time Period Memiew Interviews Jun-93 14 1 14 1 46.85 11.30 529.41 Source Sarasota County Gwinnett Co, GA 98.0 Dec-92 4.30 5.40 Street Smarts Gwinnett Co, GA 180.0 Dec-92 3.60 5.90 Street Smarts Pinellas Co, FL 187.0 Och89 431 388 18.49 1 7a-Sp 6.30 90.0 104.84 Tindale Oliver St. Petersburg, FL 262.8 Sep-89 291 274 7a-Sp 3.40 94.0 Tindale Oliver 5 736 ve Arage Trip Length: 6A6 Weighted Average Trip Length: 5.15 Weighted Percent New Trip Average: 92.3 Table A-18 LUC 720: Small Medical/Dental Office Buildine: 10.000 sf or Less Site 1 2.100 35 35 22 22 13 13 70 70 23.33 23.33 11.11 11.11 22.22 Site 2 3.000 40 40 52 52 53 53 145 145 48.33 48.33 16.11 16.11 32.22 Site 3 2.000 28 28 19 21 24 26 71 75 23.67 25.00 11.84 12.50 24.34 Site 4 1 1.000 30 30 52 52 57 57 139 139 46.33 46.33 46.33 46.33 92.66 Site 5 1 3.024 31 32 43 43 24 24 98 99 32.67 33.00 10.80 10.91 21.71 Site 6 1.860 22 24 19 17 11 11 52 52 17.33 17.33 9.32 9.32 18.64 Average 17.59 17.71 35.30 Average (excluding Site 4) 11.84 11.99 Benesch Collier County October 2024 A-6 Road Impact Fee Update Study DRAFT Table A-19 Land Use 720! Mediral-Dental Clffire Ruildina Total # # Trip Length Location Size (1,000 sf) Date Interviews Interviews Trip Gen Rate Time Period Trip Length Percent New Trips VMT Source Hernando Co, Fl.����� Charlotte C., Fl. ����aa�aaaa ��®�aa�aaaa i� ins verage rnp Lengim Weighted Average Trip Length: 5.55 Weighted Percent New Trip Average: 88.9 Average Trip Generation Rate: ITE Average Trip Generation Rate: Blend of FL Studies and RE Average Trip Generation Rate: Table A-20 V%6' land tlse 770- Rosiness Park 32.59 36.00 34.21 Total # # Trip Length Location Size (1,000 sf) Date Interviews Interviews Trip Gen Rate Time Period Trip Length Percent New Tllllllllllllllllllll' Source lotal)Ize 191.L 9 Average Tfip Leng[M1: 4.90 ITE 6288.0 16 eighted Ave rage Trip Length: 5.38 Blended total 6,579.2 Weighted Percent New Trip Average: 98.8 Weighted Average Trip Generation Rate: ITE Average Trip Generation Rate: Blend of FL Studies and ITE Average Trip Generation Rate: IN'l Table A-21 Land Use 920/921/922: Retail/Shonnine Center 17.22 12.44 12.65 Total # # Trip Length Location Size (1,000 sf) Date Interviews Interviews Trip Gen Rate Time Period Trip Length Percent New Trips VMT Source �a�� saa�aa St. Petersburg, Fl. P�a�a Hillsborough Co, FL��aaaa��a Hillsborough ��aaaa��a �a�mmaa®tea su o,s o venrge -up rernsm; I Benesch Collier County October 2024 A-7 Road Impact Fee Update Study DRAFT 4.00 3.50 2.50 2.00 c a a 1.50 1.00 Figure A-1 LUC 820-822: Retail/Shopping Center — Florida Curve Trip Length Regression ---------- -�+••• ♦ ---- ----------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Regression Equations: <100,000 sq ft: y = 0.7284x^0.2405 0.50 ! ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 100,000+ sq ft: y = 0.0012x + 2.1686 0.00 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 Square Footage Source: Regression analysis based on FL Studies data for LUC 820. This curve, along with the average development size presented in the ITE 11" Edition Handbook, was used to estimate the trip length for retail uses Figure A-2 LUC 820-822: Retail/Shopping Center — Florida Curve Percent New Trips Regression 90% 80% 70% Q- 60% 50% z 40% a U v 30% a 20% 10% 0% 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 Square Footage Source: Regression analysis based on FL Studies data for LUC 820. This curve, along with the average development size presented in the ITE 111h Edition Handbook, was used to estimate the percent new trips for retail uses Benesch Collier County October 2024 A-8 Road Impact Fee Update Study DRAFT Table A-22 Land Use R60/R41: New/Used Autmmrthile Sala, Total # # Trip Length Location Size (1,000 sf) Date Interviews Interviews Trip Gen Rate Time Period Mh Percent New Trips VMT Source ���aa®aaaa ���aa�aaaa ���aa�aaaa ���aa�aaaa -111, mall®�aa�aaaa ���aaa®aaaa ����aa�aaaa Total Size 618.0 10 288 Average Trip Length: 9.60 ITE (840) 648.0 18 Weighted Average Trip Length: 4.60 ITE (841) 28.0 14 weighted Percent New Trip Average: 78.5 Blended total 1,294.0 Weighted Average Trip Generation Rate: 21.04 ITE Average Trip Generation Rate (LUC 840): 27.84 ITE Average Trip Generation Rate (LUC 841J: 27.06 Blend of FL Studies and ITE Average Trip Generation Rate: 24.58 Table A-23 Total# Land Use 850: Supermarket #Trip Length Location Palm Harbor, FL 1 Size (1,000 sf) 62.0 1 Date i mervic- Aug-89 1 16 Trip Gen Rate Time Period Trip Length Percent New TrpllllOANP�M Interviews 1 62 106.26 1 9a-4p 2.08 56.0 123.77 Source Tindale Oliver Total Size 62.0 1 163 Average Trip Length: 2.08 ITE 1144.0 22 Weighted Average Trip Length: 2.08 Blended total 1,206.0 Weighted Percent New Trip Average: 56.0 Weighted Average Trip Generation Rate: 106.26 ITE Average Trip Generation Rate: 93.84 Blend of FL Studies and ITE Average Trip Generation Rate: 94AS 1* Table A-24 Land Use 851: Convenience Store Location �a�maaa�aa Size (1,000 sf) Date In= --__-�- Source �a��maa®tea �a�mmaa�®a �a�moaa®tea otal 6He 12.1 9 1,291 AVerage trap Lengrn: 1.39 ITE 24.0 8 elghted Average Trip Length: 1.07 Blended total 36.1 Weighted Percent New Trip Average: 40.8 36.1 Weighted Average Trip Generation Rate: 694.30 ITE Average Trip Generation Rate: 762.28 -"�kx Blend of FL Studies and ITE Average Trip Generation Rate: 739.50 Table A-25 Land Use 880/881: Pharmacv with and without Drive-Throueh Window Location Site (1,000 sf) F Total# Interviews #Trip Length' Interviews Gen Rate MMM�Trip Percen! VMT Source Total Size 38.2 3 1,542 Average Trip Length: Z.0] ITE (LUC 880) 66.0 6 Weighted Average Trip Length: 2.08 ITE(LUC 881) 209.0 16 Weighted Percent New Trip Average: 32.4 Blended total 312.2 Average Trip Generation Rate: 103.03 ITE Average Trip Generation Rate (LUC 880): 90.08 ITE Average Trip Generation Rate (LUC 881): 108.40 Blend of FL Studies and ITE Average Trip Generation Rate: 103.86 Table A-26 Land Use 890: Furniture Store Total # # Trip Length Location Size (1,000 sf) Date Interviews Interviews Trip Gen Rate Time Period Trip Length Percent New Tr� VIll MT Source .on size -1.-rage i np Lengtn: 177.6 Weighted Avera eTri 4 Length: .06 ITE 779.0 19 Weighted Percent New Trip Average: 77.8 Blended total 956.60 Average Trip Generation Rate: 6.06 ITE Average Trip Generation Rate: 6.30 Blend of FL Studies and ITE Average Trip Generation Rate: 6.26 Benesch Collier County October 2024 A-9 Road Impact Fee Update Study DRAFT Table A-27 Land Use 912! Bank/Savings w/Drive-Thru Total # # Trip Length Location Size (1,000 sf) Date Trip Gen Rate Interviews Interviews Time Period Trip Length Percent New Trips VMT Source ®�mma�®tea ®gym®ate®tea ���mma�®tea M.11 M. iotai Sue 25.2 14 1,4u/ Average Tnp Length: 2.38 ITE 114.0 19 Weighted Average Trip Length: 2.41 Blended total 139.2 Weighted Percent New Trip Average: 46.2 116.7 Weighted Average Trip Generation Rate: ITE Average Trip Generation Rate: Blend of FL Studies and ITE Average Trip Generation Rate: Table A-28 11041111111L Land Use 931: Low -Turnover Restaurant 246.66 100.35 103.73 98.0 Weighted Average Trip Generation Rate: 110.63 ITE Average Trip Generation Rate: 83.84 Blend of FL Studies and ITE Average Trip Generation Rate: 86.03 N"'Table A-29 Land Use 932: Hieh-Turnover (Sit -Down) Restaurant Total # # Trip Length Location Size (1,000 sf) Date Interviews Interviews Trip Gen Rate Time Period Trip Length Percent New Trips VMT Source ���aa��saaa ���aa®�saaa ����aa�aaaa ����aa�aaaa ���aa�aaaa ���aa�aaaa ®�aa�aaaa ���aaa®aaaa ��aaa�aaaa ���aa�aaaa ���aa�aaaa ���aa�aaaa ���aa�aaaa iotal)Ize lu4.y 2S l,lu2 Average Trip Length: 3.0] ITE 250.0 50 Weighted Avera e Trip Length: 3.17 Blended total 444.9 Weighted Percent New Trip Average: 70.8 Weighted Average Trip Generation Rate: 98.67 ITE Average Trip Generation Rate: 107.20 Blend of FL Studies and ITE Average Trip Generation Rate: 103A6 Benesch Collier County October 2024 A-10 Road Impact Fee Update Study DRAFT Table A-30 Land lisp 934! Fast Fnnd Restaurant with Drive-Thrnu¢h Windnw Total # t! Trip Length Location �a�maaa�aa Sire (1,000 sf) Date Interviews Interviews Trip Gen Rate Time Period Trip Length Percent New Trips VMT Source �a��aaaa�a �a�maaa��a �a��maa®tea ���aa�aaaa total -o 4a.a 1C 4,4b3 Average irlp Lengm: L.11 ITE 213.0 71 Weighted Average Trip Length: 2.05 Blended total 261.8 Weighted Percent New Trip Average: 57.9 34.0 Weighted Average Trip Generation Rate: ITE Average Trip Generation Rate: Blend of FL Studies and ITE Average Trip Generation Rate: Table A-31 Land llsa 947- Autmmnhila Cara Cantor 530.19 467.48 479.17 Total# #Trip Length Location Size(1,000 sf) Date Interviews Interviews Trip Gen Rate Time Period Trip Length Percent New Trips VMT rc Soue F. Ing��®maw®tea Orange Co, FL��mma���aa ���aaa®aaaa ��aaa�aaaa iot "I —age rnp wrigim ITE 102.0 6 Weighted Average Trip Length: 3.62 Blended total 188.2 Weighted Percent Nev, Trip Average: 72.2 Table A-32 Weighted Percent New Trip Average: 23.0 Convenience Store/Gas Station (ITE LUC 945) - Mid -Size Blend ITE 48 Conv. Store 2,000 to 3,999 sf: ITE 5 Conv. Store 4,000 to 5,499 sf: 53 Blend of ITE Average Trip Generation Rates for Convenience Store/Gas Station 2,000 to 5,499 sf: Table A-33 Land Use 947: Self -Service Car Wash 265.12 257.13 264.38 Total # # Trip Length Location Size (Bays) Date Interviews Trip Gen Rate Time Period Trip Length Interviews Percent New Trig_ Source iiu verage rnp wrigm: Total Size (TGR) 19 2 Weighted Average Trip Length: 2.38 ITE 5 1 Weighted Percent New Trip Average: 67.7 Blended total 24 Weighted Average Trip Generation Rate: 27.09 ITE Average Trip Generation Rate: 108.00 Blend of FL Studies and ITE Average Trip Generation Rate: 43.94 Benesch Collier County October 2024 A-11 Road Impact Fee Update Study DRAFT Table A-34 Blended total 100.0 Weighted Percent New Trip Average: 79.7 Table A-35 Land Use N/A: Dance Studio Collier Co, FL 1.111 lul-1: 31121 Tindal:Oliver Collier Co, FL 20.48 Jul-O8 17.19 Tindal:Oliver Collier Co, FL 8.705 Jul-08 23.89 Tindale Oliver Total Size 36.2 3 Average Trip Length: n/a Weighted Average Trip Generation Rate: 21.33 Single Family Residential Trip Generation Rate Tiering N6, As part of this study, the single family residential trip generation rate tiering was included to reflect a tiering analysis to ensure equity by the size of a home. To facilitate this, an analysis was completed on the comparative relationship between housing size and household travel behavior. This analysis utilized data from the 2022 National Household Travel Survey (NHTS) and the 2021 American Housing Survey (AHS) to examine overall trip -making characteristics of households in the United States. Table A-36 presents that trip characteristics being utilized in the calculated road impact fee schedule for the single family (detached) land use. The 2022 NHTS database was used to assess average annual household vehicle miles of travel (VMT) for various annual household income levels. In addition, the 2021 AHS database was used to compare median annual family/household incomes with housing unit size. It is important to recognize that the use of the income variable in each of these databases is simply to provide a convenient linking mechanism between household VMT from the NHTS and housing unit size from the AHS. Table A-36 Calculated Single Family Trip Characteristics Source: Appendix A, Table A-4 *Does not include the trip length adjustment factor Benesch Collier County October 2024 A-12 Road Impact Fee Update Study DRAFT The results of the NHTS and AHS analyses are included in Tables A-37 and A-38. First, the data shown in Table A-37 indicates that the average income in the U.S. for families/households living in housing units smaller than 4,000 square feet in size ($65,290) is lower than the overall average income for the U.S. ($66,289). In Table A-38, annual average household VMT was calculated from the NHTS database for several different income levels and ranges related to the resulting AHS income data in Table A-37. Table A-37 Annual Income by Housing Size 2021 AHS Average Income Data by Housing Size Less than 4,000 sf Annual Income(l) $65,290 1,500 to 2,499 sf $74,416 4,000 sf or more $93,443 Average of All Houses $66,289 &I Source: American Housing Survey for the United States in 2021 1) Weighted average of annual income for each tier ` Table A-38 NHTS VMT Annual VMT by Income Category 2022 NHTS Travel Data by Annual Daily Ratio to Normalized Days Annual HH Income VMT/HH VIVIT Mean to 0. Total (All Homes) 15,545 365 42.59 1.000 - Average of $65,290 15,428 365 42.27 0.992 0.935 Average of $74,416 16,496 365 45.19 1.061 1.000 Average of $93,443 17,885 365 49.00 1.151 1.085 Source: 2022 National Household Travel Survey Database, Federal Highway Administration To calculate a corresponding trip rate for the new tiers it was necessary to rely on comparative ratios. As an example, consider the $65,290 annual income category. First, it was determined that the average annual household VMT for this income level is 15,428 miles. This figure was then compared to the overall average annual VMT per household in the U.S. and normalized to the average of the $74,416 (16,496 miles) category to derive a ratio of 0.992. It should be noted that the $74,416 (1,500-2,499 square feet) category is not an impact fee tier, but rather the average home size that corresponds with the Florida Studies data shown in Table A-36. Next, the normalized ratio was applied to the daily VMT for the average single family housing unit size (less than 4,000 square feet) to generate a daily VMT of 42.94 for the tier, as shown in Benesch Collier County October 2024 A-13 Road Impact Fee Update Study DRAFT Table A-39. This daily VMT figure was then divided by the assessable trip length of 5.88 miles to obtain a trip generation rate of 7.30 trips per day. Table A-39 Trip Generation Rate by Single Family Land Use Tier Assessable Daily Ratio to Estimation of Trip Rate by Tier Trip Rate �l� Trip Length (2) VMT(3) Mean (4) Single Family (Detached) Less than 000 sf:: •� • 4,000 sf or larger 1) Daily VMT (Item 3) divided by assessable trip length (Item 2) for each tier 2) Source: Table A-36 3) Ratio to the mean (Item 4) multiplied by the total daily VMT for the 1,500 to 2,499 sq tier 4) Source: Table A-38 Table A-40 illustrates the impact that the trip generation rate tiers for the single family (detached) land use have on the County's calculated roadway impact fee rate. It Table A-40 Net Impact Fee by Single Family Land Use Tier 1) Source: Table A-39, Item 1 2) Source: Table A-36 3) Source: Appendix D, Table D-1 Demand Variable Changes Since the last demand component update in 2019, the trip generation rate (TGR), trip length (TL), and percent new trips (PNT) has changed for several land uses. Tables A-41 through A-44 present the change in each variable for each land use for the 2024 update. Benesch Collier County October 2024 A-14 Road Impact Fee Update Study DRAFT Table A-41 Percent Change in Gross VMT of Impact Fee Land Uses RESIDENTIAL: Sin le Family (Detached)- Less than 4,000 sf du 21.67 21.46 -1.0%TGRu date, see Table A-42 210 Sin le Famil (Detached)-4,000 sf and rester du 26.46 24.90 -5.9% TGR u date, see Table A-42 215 Single Family(Attached) du 19.90 - New land use 220 Multi-Famil Housin (Law -Rise, 1-3 floors) du 18.67 17.56 -5.9%Primaril due to TGRu date, see Table A-42 221/222 Multi-Famil H.us in (Mid/Hi h-Rise, 4+Floors) du 13.87 11.83 -14.7%Primaril due to TGR u date, see Table A-42 231 Mid -Rise Residential w/Ground-Floor Commercial du 8.77 4.43 49.5% Primarily due to TGR u date, see Table A-42 232 High -Rise Residential w/Ground-Floor Commercial du 5.13 5.47 6.6% Primaril due to TGRu date, see Table A-42 240 Mobile Home Park du 9.59 9.59 0.0% No than e 251 Retirement Community - Detached (Single Family) du 9.49 9.59 1.1%TGRu date, see Table A-42 252 Retirement Community- Attached (Multi -Family) du 5.46 4.90 -10.3%TGR update, see Table A-42 254 Assisted -Wing bed 2.42 2.421 0.D% No change 310 LODGING: Hotel room 9.93 9.94 0.1% TGR update, see Table A-42 3. All Suites HotelI room 1 7.991 7.87 -1.4%TGR update, see Table A-42 320 1Motel room 1 5.601 5.601 0.0% No change 416 RECREATION: Campground/RV Park site 3.73 3.73 0.0% No change 420 Marina berth 6.38 6.38 0.0% No change 430 Golf Course hole 30.35 30.62 0.9% No change n/a Bundled Golf Course hole 9.10 9.18 0.9% No change 445 Movie Theater 1,000 sf 112.17 80.19 - Unit of measure change n/a Dance Studio/Gymnastics 1,000 sf 25.34 25.34 0.0% No change 520 Elementary School (Private) student 2.22 2.67 20.3% TGR update, see Table A-42 522 Middle/Junior High School (Private) student 2.50 2.47 -1.2%TGR update, see Table A-42 525 High School (Private) student 2.69 2.57 4.5%TGR update, see Table A-42 540 University/Junior College(7,500 or fewer students)(Private) student 5.29 5.29 0.0% No change 550 University/Junior College (more than 7,500 students) (Private) student 3.97 3.97 0.0% No change 560 Church 1,000 sf 0.77 13.44 - Unit of measure change 565 Day Care Center 1,000 sf 3.03 36.77 - Unit of measure change 610 Hospital 1,000 sf 24.58 24.70 0.S%TGR update, see Table A-42 620 Nursing Home 1,000 sf 3.481 7.78 - Unit of measure change 710 OFFICE. General Office S,000 sf 23.07 25.68 11.3%TGR update, see Table A-42 Medical Office/Clinic 10,000 sq ft or less 1,000 sf 58.85 58.85 0.0% No change 720 Medical Office/Clinic greaterthan 10,000 sq ft 1,000 sf 84.27 84.491 0.3%TGR update, see Table A-42 770 Business Park (Flex -Space) 1,000 sf 1 30.29 30.291 0.0% No change 822 RETAIL: Retal 6,000 sfgla or less 1,000 sfgla 16.39 11.89 -27.5% TGR update, see Table A-42 822 Retail 6,001 to 40,0D0 sfgla 1,000 sfgla 29.64 19.34 -34.8% TGR, TL & PNT update, see Tables A-42, A43, and A-44 821 Retail 40,001to 150,000 sfgla 1,000 sfgla 37.57 37.33 -0.6% TGR, TL & PNT update, see Tables A-42, A43, and A-44 820 Retail greater than 150,000 sfgla 1,000 sfgla 37.57 38.86 3.4% TGR, TL & PNT update, see Tables A-42, A43, and A-44 840/841 New/Used Auto Sales 1,000 sf 44.66 44.66 0.0% No change 849 Tire Superstore 1,000 sf 25.52 17.01 - Unit of measure change 850 Supermarket 1,000 sf 62.11 55.03 -11.4% TGR update, see Table A-42 851 Convenience Market, 24 hrs 1,000 sf 230.43 162.21 -29.6%TGR & TL update, see Tables A-42 and A-43 862 Home Improvement Superstore 1,000 sf 23.38 23.38 0.0% No change 880/881 Pha rmacywith&w/o Drive-Thru 1,000 sf 34.73 34.56 -0.5% TGR update, see Table A-42 890 Furniture Store1 1,000 sf 1 9.891 9.891 0.0% No change 911 SERVICES: Bank/Savings w/out Drive-Thru 1,000 sf 33.60 32.78 -2.4% TGR update, see Table A-42 912 Bank/Savin w/Drive-Thru 1,000 sf 58.09 58.69 1.0% TGR update, see Table A-42 930 Fast Casual Restaurant 1,000 sf 187.37 57.75 -69.2% TGR update, see Table A-42 931 Low -Turnover Restaurant 1,000 sf 3.14 104.00 - 2 of measure than e 932 Hi h-Turnover (Sit -Down) Restaurant 1,000 sf 4.92 116.43 - Unit of measure chan e 934 Fast Food Restaurant w/Drive-Thru 11000 sf 286.86 284.87 -0.7% TGR update, see Table A-42 934.1 Fast Food w/Drive-Thru with Two Meals 11000 sf 264.40 264.40 0.0% No change 941 Quick Lu be service bay 33.41 33.41 0.0% No change 944 Gas Station w/Convenience Market <2,000 sq ft fuel pas. 19.98 19.98 0.0% No change 944 Gas Station w/Convenience Market 2,000-5,499 sq ft fuel pos. 23.85 30.71 28.8%TGR update, see Table A-42 945 Gas Station w/Convenience Market 5,500+sgft fuel pos. 26.77 40.16 50.0% TGR update, see Table A-42 947 Self -Service Car Wash service bay 32.57 32.57 0.0% No change 948 Automated Car Wash 1,000 sf 105.25 105.25 0.0% No change n/a Luxury Auto Sales 11000 sf 33.25 33.25 0.0% No change 110 INDUSTRIAL' General Light Industrial 1 1,000 sf 1 12.281 12.05 -1.9% TGR update, see Table A-42 140 Manufacturing 1 1,000 sf 9.73 11.76 20.9%TGR update, see Table A-42 150 Warehousing 1,000 sf 4.31 4.23 -1.9% TGR update, see Table A-42 151 Mini -Warehouse 1,000 sf 2.41 2.36 -2.1%TGR update, see Table A-42 n/a Mine/Commercial Excavation 1 1,000 cy 1 0.07 0.071 0.0% No change Gross VMT = TGR * TL * PNT / 2 Individual variables are shown in Tables A-42 through A-44 Benesch Collier County October 2024 A-15 Road Impact Fee Update Study DRAFT Table A-42 Percent Change in Trip Generation Rate of Impact Fee Land Uses Jilt RESIDENTIAL: Single Family (Detached) - Less than 4,000 sf du 7.37 7.30 -0.9% Updated tiering to AHS 2021 & NHFS 2022 210 Single Family (Detached) -4,000 sf and greater du 9.00 8.47 -5.9% Updated tiering to AHS 2021 & NHTS 2022 215 Single Family Attached du 6.77 - New land use 220 Multi -Family Housing (Low -Rise, 1-3 floors) du 7.32 6.74 -7.9% Re -alignment of multi -family land uses in ITE 11th Edition 222/222 Multi -Family Housing (Mid/High-Rise, 4+floors) du 5.44 4.54 -16.5% Re -alignment of multi -family land uses in ITE 11th Edition 231 Mid -Rise Residential w/Ground-Floor Commercial du 3.44 1.70 -50.6% Updated TGR in ITE 11th Edition 232 High -Rise Residential w/Ground-Floor Commercial du 2.01 2.10 4.5% Updated TGR in ITE 11th Edition 240 Mobile Home Park du 4.17 4.17 0.0% No change 251 Retirement Community - Detached (Single Family) du 3.50 3.54 1.1% Updated TGR in ITE 11th Edition 252 Retirement Community - Attached (Multi -Family) du 3.33 2.99 -10.2%Updated TGR in ITE lltIn Edition 254 Assisted Living bed 2.60 2.60 0.0% No change 310 LODGING: Hotel room 5.55 5.56 0.2% Updated TGR in ITE 11th Edition 311 All Suites Hotel 4.46 4.40 -1.3% Updated TGR in ITE 11th Edition 320 IMotel room 1 3.351 3.35 0.0% No change 416 RECREATION: Campground/RV Park site 1.62 1.62 0.0% No change 420 Marina berth 2.41 2.41 0.0% No than e 430 Golf Course hole 30.38 30.38 0.0% No change n/a Bundled Golf Course hole 9.11 9.11 0.0% No change 445 Movie Theater 1,000 sf 114.83 82.30 - Unit of measure change from "screen" to "1,000 sf' n/a Dance Studio/Gymnastic 1,000 sf 21.33 21.33 0.0% No change 520 INSTIMIO Elementary School (Private) student 1.89 2.27 20.1% Updated TGR in ITE 11th Edition 522 Middle/Junior High School (Private) student 2.13 2.10 -1.4% Updated TGR in ITE 11th Edition 525 High School (Private) student 2.03 1.94 -4.4% Updated TGR in ITE 11th Edition 540 University/Junior College (7,500 or fewer students) (Private) student 2.00 2.00 0.0% No change 550 University/Junior College (more than 7,500 students) (Private) student 1.50 1.50 0.0% No change 560 Church 1,000 sf 0.44 7.60 - Unit of measure change from "seat" to "1,000 sf" 565 Day Care Center 1,000 sf 4.09 49.63 - Unit of measure change from "student" to "1,000 sf' MEDICAL: 610 Hospital1 1,000 sf 1 10.721 10.771 0.5%1 Updated TGR in ITE loth Edition 620 Nursing Home 1 1,000 sf 1 3.021 6,75 -1 Unit of measure change from "bed" to "1,000 sf' 710 OFFICE: General Office 11000 sf 9.74 30.84 11.3%Updated TGR in ITE 11th Edition Medical Office/Clinic 30,000 s ft or less 1,000 sf 23.83 23.83 0.0% No change 720 Medical Office/Clinic greater than 20,000 sq It 1,000 sf 34.121 34.211 0.3% Updated TGR in ITE 11th Edition 770 Business Park (Flex -Space) 1,000 sf 12.651 12.651 0.0% No change 822 Retail 6,000 sfgla or less 1,000 sfgla 75.05 54,45 -27.4% Re -alignment of retail/shopping land uses in ITE 11th Edition 822 Retail 6,001 to 40,000 sfgla 1,000 sfgla 75.05 54.45 -27.4% Re -alignment of retail/shopping land uses in ITE 11th Edition 821 Retail 40,001to 150,000 sfgla 1,000 sfgla 37.75 67.52 78.9% Re -alignment of retail/shopping land uses in ITE 11th Edition 820 Retail greater than 150,000 sfgla 1,000 sf la 37.75 37.01 -2.0% Re -alignment of retail/shoppingretail/shopping land uses in ITE 11th Edition 840/842 New/Used Auto Sales 1,000 sf 24.58 24.58 0.0% No change 949 Tire Superstore 1,000 sf 3a55 20.37 - Unit of measure change from "service bay" to "1,000 sf' 850 Su ermarket 1,000 sf 106.64 94.48 -11.4% U dated TGR in ITE 11th Edition 851 Convenience Market, 24 hrs 1 1,000 sf 739.50 739.50 0.0% No change 862 Home Improvement Superstore 1,000 If 30.74 30.74 0.0% No change 880/881 Pharmacy with & w/o Drive-Thru 1,000 sf 104.37 103.86 -0.5% Updated TGR in ITE lath Edition for LUC 881 890 Furniture Store 1,000 sf 6.26 6.26 0.0% No change 911 Bank/Savings w/out Drive-Thru 1,000 sf 59.39 57.94 -2.4% Updated TGR in ITE 11th Edition 912 Bank/Savings w/Drive-Thru 1,000 sf 102.66 103.73 1.0% U dated TGR in ITE llth Edition 930 Fast Casual Restaurant 1,000 sf 315.17 97.14 -69.2%Updated TGR in ITE 11th Edition (ITE data revision) 931 Low -Turnover Restaurant 1,000 sf 2.60 86.03 - Unit of measure change from "seat" to "1,000 sf' 932 High -Turnover (Sit -Down) Restaurant 11000 sf 4.37 103.46 - Unit of measure change from "seat" to "1,000 sf' 934 Fast Food Restaurant w/Drive-Thru 1,000 sf 482.53 479.17 -0.7% Updated TGR in ITE 11th Edition 934.1 Fast Food w/Drive-Thru with Two Meals 1,000 sf 409.25 409.25 0.0% No change 941 quick Lube service barifih, 40.00 40.00 0.0% No change 944 Gas Station w/Convenience Market <2,000 sq ft fuel o 172.01 172.01 0.0% No change 944 Gas Station w/Convenience Market 2,000 -5,499 sq ft fuel pos. 205.36 264.38 28.7% Re -alignment of as station w/ conv. land uses in ITE 11th Edition 945 Gas Station w/Convenience Market 5,500+sq ft fuel pos. 230.52 345.75 50.0% Re -alignment of gas station w/ conv. land uses in ITE 11th Edition 947 Self -Service Car Wash s ice bay 43.94 43.94 0.0% No change 948 Automated Car Wash 1,000 sf 142.00 142.00 0.0% No change n/a Luxury Auto Sales 1,000 sf 16.30 16.30 0.0% No change 110 INDUSTRIAL: General Light Industrial 1,000 sf 4.96 4.87 -1.8% Updated TGR in ITE 11th Edition 140 Mmufacturin 1,000 sf 3.93 4.75 20.9% U dated TGR in ITE 11th Edition 150 Warehousing 1,000 sf 1.74 1.72 -1.7% Updated TGR in ITE 11th Edition 151 Mini Warehouse 1,000 sf 1.49 1.46 -2.0% Updated TGR in ITE 11th Edition n/a Mine/Commercial Excavation 1,000 0.01 0.01 0.0% No chan e See Appendix D for additional information Benesch Collier County October 2024 A-16 Road Impact Fee Update Study DRAFT Table A-43 Percent Change in Assessable Trip Length of Impact Fee Land Uses RE LAL: Single Family(Detached)- Less than 4,000 sf du 5.88 5.88 0.0% No change 210 Single Family (Detached) -4,000 sf and greater du 5.88 5.88 0.0% No change 215 Single Family (Attached) du 5.98 - New land use 220 Multi -Family Housing (Low -Rise, 1-3 floors) du 5.10 5.21 2.2%Re-alignment of FL Studies Database(SFA studies separated) 221/222 Multi -Family Housing (Mid/Hi h-Rise, 4+floors) du 5.10 5.21 2.2%Re-alignment of FL Studies Database(SFA studies separated) 231 Mid -Rise Residential w/Ground-Floor Commercial du 5.10 5.21 2.2%Re-ali n ent of FL Studies Database (SFA studies separated) 232 High -Rise Residential w/Ground-Floor Commercial du 5.10 5.21 2.2%Re-align ment of FL Studies Data base (SFA studies separated) 240 Mobile Home Park du 4.60 4.60 0.0% No change 251 Retirement Community- Detached (Single Family) du 5.42 5.42 0.0%No change 252 Retirement Community du 3.28 3.28 0.0%No change 254 Assisted Living LODGING: bed 1 2.59 2.59 0.0% No change 310 IHotel room 5.42 5.42 0.0%Nochange uites Hotel 5.42 5.42 0.0% No chan e el 4.34 4.34 0.0% No change pground/RV Park site 4.60 4.60 0.0% No change ina berth 5.88 5.88 0.0%No change Course rBundled hole 2.22 2.24 0.9% Slight increase due to LUC 445(proxy use) update dled Golf Course hole 2.22 2.24 0.9%Sli ht increase due to LUC 445 ( ro use) u date ie Theater 1,000 sf 2.22 2.24 0.9% U dated unit of measure, sli ht variation in TL wei hied avers e ce Studio/Gymnastics ITUTIONS520 1,000 sf 2.97 2.97 0.0%No change Eementary School(Private) student 2.94 2.94 0.0% No change 522 Middle/Junior High School (Private) student 2.94 2.94 0.0% No change 525 High School (Private) student 2.94 2.94 0.0% No change 540 University/Junior College (7,500 or fewer students)(Private) student 5.88 5.88 0.0%Nochange 550 University/Junior College (more than 7,500 students)(Private) student 5.88 5.88 0.0%Nochan e 560 Church 11000 sf 3.911 3.931 0. 5%1 Update to the FL Studies Database for LUC 820 565 Day Care Center 1,000 sf 2.031 2.031 0.0% No ch a nge 610 Hospital 1,000 sf 5.88 5.88 0.0% No change 620 Nursing Home 1,000 sf 2.59 259 0.0% No change 710 OFFICE: General Office 1,000 sf 5.15 5.15 0.0%No change Medical Office/Clinic lO,000s Ior less 1,000 sf 5.55 5.55 0.0%Nochan e 120 Medical Office/Eli nic greater than 10,000 sq ft 11000 sf 5.551 5.551 0.0%No change 770 Business Park (Flex -Space) RETAIL 1,000 sf 5.381 S.381 0.0% No change 822 Retail 6,000 sfgla or less 1,000 sfgla 1.12 1.12 0.0% No change 822 Retail 6,001 to 40,000 sfgla 1,000 sfgla 1.58 1.48 -6.3%Re-alignment of retail/shopping tiers in ITE 11th Edition 821 Retail 40,001to 150,000 sf la 1,000 sfgla 2.69 1.94 -27.9% Re -alignment of retail/shoppingretail/shopping tiers in ITE 11th Edition 820 Retail greater than 150,000 sfgla 1,000 sfgla 2.69 2.80 4.1% Re -alignment of retail/shoppingretail/shopping tiers in ITE 11th Edition 940/941 New/Used Auto Sales 1,000 sf 4.60 4.60 0.0% No change 849 Tire Superstore 11000 sf 2.32 2.32 0.0% No change 850 Supermarket 1,000 sf 2.08 2.08 0.0% No change 851 Convenience Market, 24 hrs 1,000 sf 1.52 1.07 -29.6% Update to the FLStudies Database 862 Home Improvement Superstore 1,000 sf 2.34 2.34 0.0%No change 880/881 1 Pharmacy with&w/o Drive-Thru 1,000 sf 2.081 2.081 0.0%No change 890 Furniture Store 1,000 sf 4.051 4.05 0.0% No change 911 SERVICES Bank/Savings w/out Drive-Thru 11000 sf 2.46 2.46 0.0% No change 912 Bank/Savings w/Drive-Thru 1,000 sf 2.46 2.46 0.0% No change 930 Fast Casual Restaurant 1,000 sf 2.05 2.05 0.0%No change 931 Low -Turnover Restaurant 1,000 sf 3.14 3.14 0.0% No change 932 High-Turnover(Sit-Down) Restaurant 1,000 sf 3.17 3.17 0.0% No change 934 Fast Food Restaurant w/Drive-Thru 1,000 sf 2.05 2.05 0.0% No change 934.1 Fast Food w/Drive-Thru with Two Meals 1,000 sf 2.19 2.19 0.0% No change 941 Quick Lube service bay 2.32 2.32 0.0% No change 944 Gas Station w/Convenience Market <2,000 sq ft fuel pos. 1.01 1.01 0.0% No change 944 Gas Station w/Convenience Market 2,000 - 5,499 sq ft fuel pos. 1.011 1.01 0.0% No change 945 Gas Station w/Convenience Market 5,500+sq ft fuel pos. 1.01 1.01 0.0% No change 947 Self -Service Car Wash s ice bay 2.A 2.18 0.0% No change 948 Automated Car Wash 1,000 sf 1 2.181 2.18 0.0%1 No chan e n/a Luxury Auto Sales 1 1,000 sf 1 4.801 4.80 0.0% No change 110 INDUSTRIAL: General Light Industrial 1 1,000 sf 1 5.381 5.381 0.0%1 No change 140 Manufacturing 11,000 sf 5.38 5.38 0.0%No change 150 Warehousing 1,000 sf 5.38 5.38 0.0% No change 151 Mini -Warehouse 1 1,000 sf 1 3.511 3.511 0.0% No change n/a Mine/Commercial Excavation 1 1,000 cy 1 14.821 14.821 0.0% No change See Appendix D for additional information Trip length values do not include the trip length adjustment factor Benesch Collier County October 2024 A-17 Road Impact Fee Update Study DRAFT Table A-44 Percent Change in Percent New Trips of Impact Fee Land Uses RE IAL: Single Family(Detached)-Less than 4,000 sf du 100% 100% 0.0% No change 210 Single Family (Detached) -4,000 sf and greater du 100% 100% 0.0% No change 215 Single Family (Attached) du 100% - New land use 220 Multi -Family Housing (Low -Rise, 1-3 floors) du 100% 100% 0.0% No change 221/222 Multi-FamilyHousing(Mid/Hi h-Rise, 4+floors) du 100% 100% 0.0% No change 231 Mid -Rise Residential w/Ground-Floor Commercial du 100% 300% 0.0% No change 232 High -Rise Residential w/Ground-Floor Commercial du 100% 100% 0.0% No change 240 Mobile Home Park du 100% 100% 0.0% No change 251 RetirementCommunity- Detached (Single Family) du 300% 100%11 0.0% No change 252 RetirementCommunity-Attached(Multi-Family) du 100% 10D% 0.0%No change 254 Assisted Living LODGING. bed 72% 12% 0.0% No change 310 Hotel room 66% 66% 0.0%No chan e 311 All Suites Hotel room 66% 66% 0.0% No change 320 Motel room 77% 77% 0.0% No change 416 Campground/RV Park site 100% 100% 0.0% No change 420 Marina berth 90% 90% 0.0% No change 430 Golf Course hole 90% 90% 0.0% No change n/a Bundled Golf Course hole 90% 90% 0.0% No change 445 Movie Theater 1,000 sf 88% 87% -1.1% U dated TGR unit of measure, sli ht variation in PNT weight d average n/a Dance Studio/Gymnastics INSTITUTIONS 1,000 sf 80% 80% 0.0% Nochange 520 Elementary School (Private) student 80% 80% 0.0% No change 522 Middle/Junior High School (Private) student 80% 80% 0.0% No change 525 High School (Private) student 90% 90% 0.0% No change 540 University/Junior College (7,500 or fewer students)(Private) student 90% 90% 0.0%No chan e 550 University/Junior College (more than 7,500 students)(Private) student 90% 90% 0.0%No chan e 560 Church 11000 sf 90% 90% 0.0%No change 565 Day Care Center 1,000 sf 73% 73% 0.0% No ch a nge 610 Hospital 1,000 sf 78% 78% 0.0% No change 620 Nursing Home 1,000 sf 89% 89% 0.0%No change 710 OFFICE: General Office 1,000 sf 92% 92% 0.0%N2 change Medical Office/Clini c lf1,000s Ior less 1,000 sf 89% 89% 0.0%No change 720 Medical Office/Eli nic greater than 10,000 sq It 11000 sf 89% 89%1 0.0%No change 770 Business Park (Flex -Space) RETAIL 1,000 sf 89% 89%1 0.0% No change 822 Retail 6,000sfgla or less 1,000 sfgla 39% 39%1 0.0% No change 822 Retail 6,001 to 40,000 sfgla 1,000 sfgla 50% 49% -4.0%Re-alignment of retail/shopping tiers in ITE llth Edition 821 Retail 40,001to 150,000 sfgla 1,000 sfgla 74% 57% -23.0% Re-ali nment of retail/sho in tiers in ITE llth Edition 820 Retail greater than 150,000 sfgla 1,000 sfgla 74% 75% 1.4% Re-ali nment of retail/sho in tiers in ITE llth Edition 940/941 New/Used Auto Sales 11000 sf 79% 79% 0.0% No change 849 Tire Superstore 11000 sf 72% 72% 0.0% No change 850 Supermarket 1,000 sf 56% 56% 0.0% No change 851 Convenience Market, 24 firs 1,000 sf 41% 41% 0.0% No change 862 Home Improvement Superstore 1,000 sf 1 65% 65% 0.0% No change 880/881 1 Pharmacy with &w/o Drive-Thru 1,000 sf 32% 32% 0.0% No change 890 Furniture Store 1,000 sf 78% 78% 0.0% No change 911 SERVICES Bank/Savings w/out Drive-Thru 1,000 sf 46% 46% 0.0% No change 912 Bank/Savings w/Drive-Thru 11000 sf 46% 46% 0.0% No change 930 Fast Casual Restaurant 1,000 sf 58% 58% 0.0% No change 931 Low -Turnover Restaurant 1,000 sf 77% 77% 0.0% No change 932 High -Turnover (Sit -Down) Restaurant 1,000 sf 71% 71% 0.0% No change 934 Fast Food Restaurant w/Drive-Thru 1,000 sf 58% 58% 0.0% No change 934.1 Fast Food w/Drive-Thru with Two Meals 1,000 sf 59% 59% 0.0% No change 941 Quick Lube service bay 72% 72% 0.0% No change 944 Gas Station w/Convenience Market <2,000 sq ft fuel pos. 23% 23% 0.0% No change 944 Gas Station w/Convenience Market 2,000 - 5,499 sq ft fuel pos. 23% 23% 0.0% No change 945 Gas Station w/Convenience Market 5,500+sq ft fuel pos. 23% 23% 0.0% No change 947 Self -Service Car Wash s ice bay 68% 68%1 0.0% No change 948 Automated Car Wash 1,000 sf 68% 68% 0.0%1 No chan e n/a Luxury Auto Sales 1,000 sf 85% 85%1 0.0% No change INDUSTRIAL: 110 General Light Industrial 1 1,000 sf 1 92% 92%j 0.0%1 No change 140 Manufacturing 1,000 sf 92% 92% 0.0%No change 150 Warehousing 1,000 sf 92% 92% HE No change 151 Mini -Warehouse 1 1,000 sf 1 92% 92%1 0.0% No change n/a Mine/Commercial Excavation 1 1,000 cy 1 97% 97%1 0.0% No change See Appendix D for additional information Benesch Collier County October 2024 A-18 Road Impact Fee Update Study DRAFT Appendix Component DRAFT Appendix B: Cost Component This appendix presents the detailed calculations for the cost component of the road impact fee update. Supporting data and estimates are provided for all cost variables, including: • Design • Right -of -Way • Construction • CEI • Mitigation • Urban Overpass/Major Intersections • Roadway Capacity Design hh, I% The design cost factor for county roads is estimated as a percentage of the construction cost per lane mile. This factor was determined based on a review of design -to -construction cost ratios from local improvements and from other jurisdictions throughout Florida. As shown in Table 13- 1, local factors ranged from seven (7) percent to 17 percent with a weighted average of 10 percent. As shown in Table B-2, design cost percentage experienced by jurisdictions throughout Florida ranges from six (6) percent to 14 percent with a weighted average of 11 percent. For purposes of this study, the design cost for county roads is estimated at 10 percent of the construction cost per lane mile. it Table B-1 Design Cost Factor for County Roads — Collier County Description Veteran's Memorial Blvd E. of Livingston Rd Design New High School $695,000 $9,531,999 7.0% Whippoorwill Ln Pine Ridge Rd Livingston Rd 697 361 $4,023,089 17.0% Total $1,392,361 $13,555,088 10.0% Source: Collier County Benesch Collier County October 2024 B-1 Road Impact Fee Update Study DRAFT Table B-2 Design Cost Factor for County Roads — Other Florida Jurisdictions MIN 2013 County Hernando County Roadways (Cost per Design Constr. $198,000 $1,980,000 Lane Mile) Design Ratio 10% 2013 Charlotte $220,000 $2,200,000 10% 2014 Indian River $159,000 $1,598,000 10% 2015 Collier $270,000 $2,700,000 10% 2015 Brevard $242,000 $2,023,000 12% 2015 Sumter $210,000 $2,100,000 10% 2015 Marion $167,000 $2,668,000 6% 2015 Palm Beach $224,000 $1,759,000 13% 2017 St. Lucie $220,000 $2,200,000 10% 2017 Clay $239,000 $2,385,000 10% 2019 Collier $385,000 $3,500,000 11% 2019 Sumter $315,000 $2,862,000 11% 2020 Indian River $291,000 $2,647,000 11% 2020 Hillsborough $484,000 $4,036,000 12% 2020 lHernando $232,000 $2,108,000 11% 2021 Manatee $308,000 $2,800,000 11% 2021 Flagler $258,000 $2,582,000 10% 2022 Lake $215,000 $2,145,000 10% 2022 Volusia $188,000 $2,350,000 8% 2023 Manatee $546,000 $3,900,000 14% Average $269,000 $2,527,000 11% Source: Each respective jurisdiction Right -of -Way The ROW cost reflects the total cost of the acquisitions along a corridor that are necessary to have sufficient cross-section width to widen an existing road or, in the case of new construction, build a new road. Collier County has been purchasing ROW for the extension of Vanderbilt Beach Road (from Collier Blvd to 16t" Street NE). The ROW purchases for this improvement have been on -going for several years. Therefore, past acquisition costs were indexed to present day dollars using the recent trends in just value per acre increases for vacant land in Collier County. As shown in Table B-3, the total indexed ROW cost is approximately 71 percent of the construction cost for the improvement. However, a portion of these acquisition costs occurred several years back and are dated compared to the construction cost figure. To determine a more Benesch Collier County October 2024 B-2 Road Impact Fee Update Study DRAFT accurate representation of the ROW -to -construction ratio, the recent portion of the acquisition costs (anything acquired since 2020) were separated from the total ROW costs and indexed to present day dollars. With these adjustments applied, the ROW -to -construction factor for the Vanderbilt Beach Rd Ext. was calculated at approximately 47 percent. In addition to local data, the ROW -to -construction cost ratios from other jurisdictions throughout Florida were reviewed. As shown in Table B-4, the ROW factors ranged from 10 percent to 60 percent with a weighted average of 36 percent. For purposes of this study, the ROW cost for county roads is estimated at 45 percent of the construction cost per lane mile. This estimate was based on the adjusted factor calculated for the Vanderbilt Beach Road Extension and discussions with Collier County. Table B-3 Right -of -Way Cost Factor for County Roads — Collier County IM 01 fit -of -Way Construction ROW -to - Cost Cost Construction Ratio New Construction Vanderbilt Beach Rd Ext. Ph I Weber Blvd 16th St NE $41,877,878 $135,657,917 31% Alternate ROW Cost (all acquisitions, indexed to current $)(�): $96,960,000 $135,657,917 71% Alternate ROW Cost (2020+ acquisitions, indexed to current $)Izl: $64,212,000 $135,657,917 47% Source: Collier County 1) Present day cost of $41.9 million of ROW acquisitions. ROW figure rounded to nearest $000 2) Present day cost of ROW acquisitions made since 2020. ROW figure rounded to nearest $000 t Benesch Collier County October 2024 B-3 Road Impact Fee Update Study DRAFT Table B-4 Right -of -Way Cost Factor for County Roads — Other Florida Jurisdictions MIN 2013 County gdl& Hernando County Roadways (Cost per MOW Constr. $811,800 $1,980,000 Lane Mile) ROW Ratio 41% 2013 Charlotte $1,034,000 $2,200,000 47% 2014 Indian River $656,000 $1,598,000 41% 2015 Collier $863,000 $2,700,000 32% 2015 Brevard $708,000 $2,023,000 35% 2015 Sumter $945,000 $2,100,000 45% 2015 Marion $1,001,000 $1,668,000 60% 2015 Palm Beach $721,000 $1,759,000 41% 2017 St. Lucie $990,000 $2,200,000 45% 2017 Clay $954,000 $2,385,000 40% 2018 Collier $1,208,000 $3,500,000 35% 2019 Sumter $1,202,000 $2,862,000 42% 2020 Indian River $529,000 $2,647,000 20% 2020 Hillsborough $1,448,000 $2,897,000 50% 2020 Hernando $844,000 $2,108,000 40% 2021 Manatee $1,120,000 $2,800,000 40% 2021 Flagler $258,000 $2,582,000 10% 2022 Lake $1,073,000 $2,145,000 50% 2022 Volusia $470,000 $2,350,000 20% 2023 Manatee $741,000 $3,900,000 19% Average $879,000 $2,420,000 36% Source: Each respective jurisdiction Construction The construction cost for county roads (curb & gutter, urban section design) was based on local projects in Collier. A review of local construction cost data from recent years identified two new construction projects and two lane addition projects: • Veteran's Memorial Blvd from E. of Livingston Road to New High School (0 to 4 lanes) • Whippoorwill Lane from Pine Ridge Road to Livingston Road (0 to 2 lanes) • Vanderbilt Beach Road Phase II from US 41 to E. of Goodlette-Frank Road (4 to 6 lanes) • Wilson Blvd from Golden Gate Blvd to Immokalee Road (2 to 4 lanes) As shown in Table B-5, the construction costs for the new road construction improvements were lower than those for lane addition improvements. To calculate a weighted average cost per lane mile, the average cost per lane mile for new construction ($1.5 million) and lane additions ($6.3 Benesch Collier County October 2024 B-4 Road Impact Fee Update Study DRAFT million) were weighted by the distribution of new construction and lane addition improvements in the 2045 LRTP (county roads only). In addition to local improvements, recent bids/completed projects from other communities throughout Florida were reviewed to increase the sample size of data. This review included approximately 185 lane miles of improvements across 15 different counties, averaging $3.5 million per lane mile (all improvements have curb & gutter design characteristics). Additional details are provided in Table B-6. Based primarily on a review of the local projects, a construction of $3.8 million per lane mile for county roads (curb & gutter) was utilized for the road impact fee calculation. Benesch Collier County October 2024 B-5 Road Impact Fee Update Study m O K T C 0 O U It'll O u c 0 .V It'll O U 3 O z u 0 V m W V V Of a o Ln N M ONO N V pOp O ID V r. Ln V1 M M n Ifl ey 00 M m n Q M M ao t/T t/T N t/T t/T N N W Oml Ol W O a0 OC1 Im LfLn .-I jo Ln m N o o o o v a n N 01 N IN oo V un N N N n ti O N e-I e-I c-I M .6 06 u u u u O o O O O O V O N O O <NOV C o O m c a w $ p `o _ ¢O l7 c '> o a3 z w -C O > cc c O a m s e v m u m J m a (7 c 3 w o w � v c m � N O J J O O O C _ O W w 00 d c C O O m ` G � Y 5 = p a N N w O C Q c w w o p m a Z 9 m w 3 s o— o c e d w > 3� 3F- 3 3 z" �> O m m m Q of of n m ri oniem N N m O1 M ry m rl M m n N N 0 N is of e4 O m m N N 0 0 M O ri o rG O ry ao N L f o O1 O m . 0 kc V1 m ry V F ti n m n O oo I � n N m m ni�e�n L 1 N Q o Q V1 m Lr I I n n w a+ NNN m ill tp Q in Oo M m m ..iv e 1 N o O O O n N N m N N O tp O a vi M O1 m Io V T ti V�1 tp a of N n m lo r,iri N N v m n O M O m N M ill 6 N N n m Vf ill m n o n Q tD M ei N m m o' Q O ill .r w �O n N m m o n o n 0 Vt o in o n N n M rl N m N 0 0 Q M m ill M N N Q n n n n W ill o+ m n ill W 00 rl N Q m m �n Ol M w w m n m Q N a ei N m m m Q m O1 O n W m Q v n o N o ro O n tp �G N �o Vf Ol Gl c mm O a ul N �o ti eo�menutOiN�o oieo.:e vivm Na oum m m.iO-i .:o voiN N�.iv om rrvimo vac �n N N N N N a a N m N N N N rl N N N N N N C o o Qommmmg �o m N m PI: or m oQm o n N N om m m o.+mg J J 3 J J J J J J J J J 3 J J J J J o7J o3 s a > > v u o7i o7J s s > > u v o7i o7i s s > > u u oil o7i s s > > v u o3 ci} s s > 3 u v O o7J o3 s a > > u u O o7i o7J s s > > u v o7i 07i s s > > u u ID o 0 0 s s > > u v O oa oz s a > > u u o o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Q 0 0 Q o o Q m 0 0 N 0 0 Q Q 0 0 N N Q N N Q Q N N N N O N N N N O N N v Q in n n n m m m m m m m m m m v Q Q Q 0 0 N N 0 0 N N 0 0 N N 0 0 N N 0 0 N N 0 0 N N 0 0 N N 0 0 N N 0 0 N 0 0 N N x E 76 a O 3 3 a Vf a3+ w U N V C hot u '0x- K VI 3 x co a+ > Y zo- v T oIN 0 0 OD 2i a m o o o Q N Vwl O Vwf T m j j m n m m _ z u d o o E HK O c O D O 9 Y V w Q u 2 w T w u 3 O O x m o> x u O m 3 v o � W m - a ou 0 yc c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c G L L L L L L N � Q 7 U 0o m m m L L L L oo m o Z Z O w O ma w w m m 0 w `o ms 0 0 o o m m w w m O T m m O O- o o— m O: -O N w o 'w s s E E E E s s o 0 ._ > m — — = = F w O x 0 0 0 x x x d a 0 0 a s= s H u m �n v� 00 �Mto vnoi N N 00 01 a lNoo Lf N n 00 Nm o m N N V V rtnri N VF M V m N N V 00 Ili a VF N N l-0i Of L° Nc- i/� VF Vm1 N m aN ti N tp NN m rf N ti n� l.ni k° m i/� N n M o aNi cr k° m N iA N Nn e.-I m o N VF ti N am6 l.c-I a .+ N N N n on om m m VF N t0 O O+i lnc a m L} N O O N N m H N N N ul M W n ll .� W O O m m v O ul m .-I N .i Ol Ol 00 v � t�1 N m V O N O °1 o N W W n N tp n V M 01 m N M n m m O N .i 1.1 m m m M 00 lm n M .i M N t0 N N Vf O Ot Ol V N N m m N m V O O 00 V V m to n N .ill n M ul M . . m v aa O N Ol O N N .ti O 01 m tp V N n V 00 Qi 01 Ol ao m V °1 m m V m <0 N 00 m m ao Qi 00 N V N M M l0 .i m n n n Ot m O l0 m .i Ot m N m m n O V M lD O1 lD I� N n m N N Q 0 N N N W O N N O N vi .mi l0 V Oi 0 COf ry a V t�.1 o N W O l00 W m O w V Vm1 N V O N r O V lN0 W N O O o O w Obi N C N .Oi N n M OD O O N lG m O a N N a O m l0 lG a t° o (n a O O1 N m N n N n N W N N m l0 m n N a o m n a o N O I� N C O O m O V C C O O O O U o J J J J J J 3 J J J J J J J J J J J J J J 3 J J 3 J J l7 o oD' 0 a a J J u v o lo 0 0 a a J J u u l7 Q Q3 0 a a J J u v o l7 o3 0 a a J J u u Q 0 0 oz a a J J v u L9 Lp ca (Z a a J J u u V 0 o6 ca a a J J u u Lp o oM o6 a a J J u u o l7 0 oz a a J J u u Q o 0 o+J a a J J u u l7 ID ca oz a a J J u v lo l7 oz 0 a a J J u u ID 0 o6 oz a a J J v u l7 0 0 o6 a a J J u v 0 0 a J u O V V O V V R V V V R Q N V a V N N V O o V O N V O V o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 oN o 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 N � ry ry O O ry O ry N O ry N O ry N 0 0 0 N ry Q ry O O ry O O ry v v 0 0 N N v N 0 0 N N N N 0 0 N N N to 0 0 N N m lc .� 0 0 N N to 0o .� .i 0 0 N N m m .� .� 0 0 N N m oo .i .� 0 0 N m m .y .i 0 0 N N o 0 ry N 0 0 N N 0 0 N ry 0 0 N N 0 0 ry ry 0 0 N N 0 0 ry ry 0 0 N N .+ m ry ry 0 0 N N M ry 0 N N m 9 o u J C J V N o N ti v >�°. w lj a w > ¢ "' c v s S a m =m r E n m c m c s O z w o o z vu N m H "^o L T a u TN T Jy o c¢¢ _ �e $ry mE A �c°a a cL aim a+ o (.7 Z 0 .n. Z % L m m N N 0 .-I N L C M U u C VI o Q w Z= — .y O N V 2« Z m � m m � a a -o \ a - w w z m F o c w Ln N L c ¢ utOi Q o@ a > m v ry E m L •� a ° o m E N N 'o IDm v o n J >• N n 'o N z � v v m a u ^ z m z E s N ° yum 3�w W >.d wam o v o¢ E � aacw3 o oilva v'°> ¢> m m v v ¢> °` E t Y y o o >. >9� m eo vi o¢ t o o o v E ¢> c w $ E g 2 J y 3 L J a u= L o z z 3 z u =° uc`+ o v x" 3 u v u 3 z° a =° u w u° x° o s u v3i LL u s v o o N v N N n N o c V C7 V C U � a m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m c o J c U •� s m s s m m s m m s m m s m m¢ m m m m m m s c ro s m m s a a tv a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a N N Z a a 3 J a a J J J J J J J J a a J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J a J J a J M mN Q M m C N N O O O � N a N N N V Z N Q W N O N W W N N N -aN m ARN C N m m m N N Z m S> v '� � S> T DRAFT Construction Engineering/Inspection The CEI cost factor for county roads was estimated as a percentage of the construction cost per lane mile. This factor was determined based on a review of CEI-to-construction cost ratios from other jurisdictions throughout Florida. As shown in Table B-7, recent CEI factors for county roads ranged from 3 percent to 17 percent with a weighted average of nine (9) percent. For purposes of this study, the CEI cost for county roads was calculated at nine (9) percent of the construction cost per lane mile. Table B-7 CEI Cost Factor for County Roads — Other Florida Jurisdictions Year 2013 Wounty Hernando County Roadways (Cost per CEI Constr. $178,200 $1,980,000 Lane Mile) CEI Ratio 9% 2013 Charlotte $220,000 $2,200,000 10% 2014 Indian River $143,000 $1,598,000 9% 2015 Collier $270,000 $2,700,000 10% 2015 Brevard $344,000 $2,023,000 17% 2015 Sumter $147,000 $2,100,000 7% 2015 Marion $50,000 $1,668,000 3% 2015 Palm Beach $108,000 $1,759,000 6% 2017 St. Lucie $198,000 $2,200,000 9% 2017 Clay $191,000 $2,385,000 8% 2019 Collier $315,000 $3,500,000 9% 2019 Sumter $258,000 $2,862,000 9% 2020 Indian River $238,000 $2,647,000 9% 2020 Hillsborough $363,000 $4,036,000 9% 2020 Hernando $189,000 $2,108,000 9% 2021 Manatee $252,000 $2,800,000 9% 2021 Flagler $232,000 $2,582,000 9% 2022 Lake $172,000 $2,145,000 8% 2022 Volusia $259,000 $2,350,000 11% 2023 Manatee $429,000 $3,900,000 11% Average $228,000 $2,477,000 9% Source: Each respective jurisdiction Benesch Collier County October 2024 B-8 Road Impact Fee Update Study DRAFT Mitigation County Roads Mitigation cost estimates were developed based on cost data received for two recent projects in Collier County: • Goodland Dr from San Marco Rd to Harbor PI • Vanderbilt Beach Rd Ext. from Collier Blvd to 16th St NE As shown in Table B-8, the weighted average cost per lane mile for the two county roads projects is approximately $38,000 per lane mile. Benesch Collier County October 2024 B-9 Road Impact Fee Update Study F- LL Q 0 T c c 3 O U L N O U ai U L 7 O N O m DRAFT Urban Overpass/Major Intersection The urban overpass cost estimate was based on eight on-going/planned improvements along county and state roads in Collier County. These projects are estimated to have a total cost of approximately $135 million, as shown in Table B-9. This total was then divided by the total lane miles of road capacity improvements in the Needs Plan from the 2045 Long Range Transportation Plan (Table B-10) to develop an urban overpass cost per lane mile. The resulting cost of approximately $544,000 per lane mile is used in the road impact fee calculation. Table B-9 Urban Overpass/Major Intersection Costs — County & State Roads US 41 (SR 90)(Tamiami Tr E) @ Goodlette-Frank Rd 2045 CFP (2026-2030) $13,000,000 Immokalee Rd @ Livingston Rd 2045 CFP (2026-2030) $38,000,000 Immokalee Rd @ 1-75 (DDI) Study $9,000,000 Immokalee Rd @ Logan Blvd (CFI) 2045 CFP (2036-2045) $17,500,000 Golden Gate Pkwy @ Livingston Rd 2045 CFP (2026-2030) $24,500,000 US 41 @ Collier Blvd 2045 CFP (2031-2035) $17,250,000 Pine Ridge Rd @ Livingston Rd (CFI) n/a $6,600,000 Pine Ridge Rd @ 1-75 (DDI) Moving into design $8,800,000 Total Urban Overpass/Major Intersection Cost $134,650,000 Total 2045 Needs Plan (Cost Feasible/Unfunded) Lane Miles Added (2) 247.38 Total Urban Overpass/Major Intersection Cost per Lane Mile(3) $544,000 1) Source: Collier County 2) Source: Table B-10 3) Total urban overpass cost divided by the total lane miles that are projected to be constructed in the Needs Plan of the 2045 Long Range Transportation Plan (Item 2), rounded to thousands Roadway capacity ` 'J As shown in Table B-10, the average capacity per lane miles was based on the projects in the Collier County 2045 Long Range Transportation Plan's cost feasible and unfunded roadway projects lists. The listing of projects reflects the mix of improvements that will yield the vehicle - miles of capacity (VMC) that will be built in Collier County. The resulting weighted average capacity per lane mile of approximately 9,300 and several other variables from the table were used in the road impact fee calculations. Benesch Collier County October 2024 B-11 Road Impact Fee Update Study �o� m Ory ry com m o?oS rZMm of o?o eao c mm cim°+c+oie Ow voi o v"i o 0 o uu'i ao m a ry o m oo °..° o m n ro m �' vtDi m oo vrvi m n n v1pi m 1n N .`+ o ry a vai vmi �n n o m n ' a' m a �c m �c �c w m ' c arO1i �c rn �c M °i �c � o n ni o �c m ' c m m e a o .. ni e m ~ N O O 00 O O 00 O O O W M rl m O V 'I ei 0 0 rl ei 0 m V . rl 0 0 I N rl 0 0 ei ei 0 0 N M rl 0 0 1� r M M 0 O T Om1 rl 'I O m O m ei rl 0 0 m v^1 ei M 0 0 m 'I 0 0 M m 0 0 O'�1 'I M 0 0 rl •i 0 m rl rl m 'I 'I N 0 M 'I 0 0 ei 'i 0 0 rl r1 0 M 0 0 rvry 0 0 m m ry 0 0 0 m rvry 0 0 0 0 m 0 4 v ry �N 0 0 0 0 .i °� v ni inNm 0 0 a0 N v m 0 0 mmm 0 0 of m m ry 0 0 t° N M rvm 0 0 m.y 0 0 M vi m.i 0 0 O O O O v e v�m.i 0 0 M m �n .yN 0 0 m 0 0 vi cc m o 0 0 oc N v m 0 0 ro ro o a 0 0 N m m 0 0 ti 0 ri in .y 0 0 0 M m .y .i 0 0 tp M rvN 0 0 m.y 0 0 m in inm m 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 om v �� v v om m r v ry o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 m m 0 om umi v �� v v om om v v m o v ry o m 0 0 0 0 0 0 o ry m oo o m is M vi v o 661 vrvi loll. mDo rn n . am .im m.roro� w v Li m o amm o om n m N . ... ron o It oom ni °a ry N v a m N a e v a v v a v ry a ry v a ry m a v m m v m m v v m ry a N e N a m �n a e_ 0 0 0 0 0 o ry ry v o ry N o 0 0 o ry N o o a ry ry o e o 0 o ry o 0 o N e e N o tD ry voi ono vry om�o om�o niory .rvi .P.m m ma o rn m ea rvorvniory nm o r'aim o ovry . . m .o i .-.. . . .� �o N iommo m ao mm vrvi d d v d d v o v E 0 w vac o 0 E E 0 0 w vvvov 0 v E 0 3 w 0 0 E E 0 0 0 0 E E 0 0 w ovLL 0 v E 0 3 w 0- E v 0 w 3 v v 3 vvLL E E 0 0 w w v v 'S 3 �ovvm�ovm�v E E 0 0 w E E 0 0 o E E 0 0 0 0 E E 0 0 o E v 0 w 'S e 0 E v 0 w 3 d v 'S 'S v 0 E v 0 w 'S d v vww 0 o E E 0 0 0 no E E 0 o v ' 3 3 3 3 3 3 v v i a c v a d 3 a ry v 3 v ry 3 3 c a ry ry 3 3 a c a 3 c ry v 3 ry ry 3 3 rv� c 3 ry 3 3 a c� i 3 z" z" z" z" z" z" 3 3 3 z" 3 3 3 3 3 z" 3 3 z" z" z" 3 3 z" z" 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 z" 3 z" z" z" 3 z" z" zo 3 3 3 3 z" w - E _ > s ° a u m 1 a 1 o m m U. - «m u=;m« azm"'um ..z�m-°om > a �z w a a m m M u o o o o '^ m` A c a o - Z m°> m > `o o `w o t7 c 3 E 3 v a o v v c -°'° u E N c N a v Z n w E c 3 E .� "' `� °, u v u N E u o = `�° E EOa V' �vi�>170m �v�3 rmiwuQ33d E>Ou�m"wom�7wm3 Ei7-m3`a u°s' E u m w AR > w s _ 3 >3. s 1p 3 v otj a w J'-^o =-o�mov..m� am'°mdmxm wa r993 0.0�.oN mNo m °.Nz E `wpm m� a�vi N r va cc-> a >o F 00 �zc�>o o�oo _mum>"c�_wo>" or m`m 'rvu3 u"� ��>"a °' - a>, a>'a_ �� wod ntiao'° x�x w�om�E _�3 > m w E - ��' F. _ 01 m > > a u o° o a> o a `m N E w o m s¢ w m _ w a v a -o _ _ _ _ _ _ > - m m m m m = _ wwmmmmE���ovvavEEq-cc.33ca��a �aY„oama �aavE� mm'm'm'm'muuu°u �w' �� °��� ���€ £Y� °92'o'o6....>>a £z > o u > > o o v u > > o o u v > > o o u u > > o O v u > > o o u u > > o o u u > > o o u u > > o o u u > > o o u u > > o o u u > > o o u u > > o o u u > > o o u u > > o o u u > > o o u u > > o o u u > > o o u u > > o o u u > > o o u u > > o o u u > > o o u u > > o o u u > > o O u u > o u m1O v. w- o w o O m v DRAFT Appendix Credit Component DRAFT Appendix C: Credit Component This appendix presents the detailed calculations for the credit component. County fuel taxes that are collected in Collier County are listed below, along with a few pertinent characteristics of each. 1. Constitutional Fuel Tax (2C/gallon) • Tax applies to every net gallon of motor and diesel fuel sold within a county. Collected in accordance with Article XII, Section 9 (c) of the Florida Constitution. • The State allocated 80 percent of this tax to Counties after first withholding amounts pledged for debt service on bonds issued pursuant to provisions of the State Constitution for road and bridge purposes. • The 20 percent surplus can be used to support the road construction program within the county. • Counties are not required to share the proceeds of this tax with their municipalities. 2. County Fuel Tax (1C/gallon) • Tax applies to every net gallon of motor and diesel fuel sold within a county. • Primary purpose of these funds is to help reduce a County's reliance on ad valorem taxes. • Proceeds are to be used for transportation -related expenses, including the reduction of bond indebtedness incurred for transportation purposes. Authorized uses include acquisition of rights -of -way; the construction, reconstruction, operation, maintenance, and repair of transportation facilities, roads, bridges, bicycle paths, and pedestrian pathways; or the reduction of bond indebtedness incurred for transportation purposes. • Counties are not required to share the proceeds of this tax with their municipalities. 3. Ninth -Cent Fuel Tax (IC/gallon) • Tax applies to every net gallon of motor and diesel fuel sold within a county. • Proceeds may be used to fund transportation expenditures. • To accommodate statewide equalization, this tax is automatically levied on diesel fuel in every county, regardless of whether a County is levying the tax on motor fuel at all. • Counties are not required to share the proceeds of this tax with their municipalities. 4. 15t Local Option Tax (up to 6C/gallon) • Tax applies to every net gallon of motor and diesel fuel sold within a county. • Proceeds may be used to fund transportation expenditures. Benesch Collier County October 2024 C-1 Road Impact Fee Update Study DRAFT • To accommodate statewide equalization, all six cents are automatically levied on diesel fuel in every county, regardless of whether a county is levying the tax on motor fuel at all or at the maximum rate. • Proceeds are distributed to a county and its municipalities according to a mutually agreed upon distribution ratio, or by using a formula contained in the Florida Statutes. 5. 2nd Local Option Tax (up to 5C/gallon) • Tax applies to every net gallon of motor and diesel fuel sold within a county. • Proceeds may be used to fund transportation expenditures needed to meet requirements of the capital improvements element of an adopted Local Government Comprehensive Plan. • Proceeds are distributed to a county and its municipalities according to a mutually agreed upon distribution scheme, or by using a formula contained in the Florida Statutes. Each year, the Florida Legislature's Office of Economic and Demographic Research (EDR) produces the Local Government Financial Information Handbook, which details the estimated local government revenues for the upcoming fiscal year. Included in this document are the estimated distributions of the various fuel tax revenues for each county in the state. The 2023- 24 data represent projected fuel tax distributions to Collier County for the current fiscal year. Table C-1 shows the distribution per penny for each of the fuel levies, and then the calculation of the weighted average for the value of a penny of fuel tax. The weighting procedure takes into account the differing amount of revenues generated for the various types of fuel taxes. It is estimated that approximately $1.89 million of annual revenue will be generated for the County from one penny of fuel tax in Collier County. Benesch Collier County October 2024 C-2 Road Impact Fee Update Study DRAFT Table C-1 Estimated Fuel Tax Distribution Allocated to Capital Programs for Collier County & Municipalities, FY 2023-24(1) of Total Distribution Tax Levy per GallonAmount Distribution perPenny Constitutional Fuel Tax $0.02 $4,895,814 $2,447,907 County Fuel Tax $0.01 $2,164,967 $2,164,967 9th Cent Fuel Tax $0.01 $1,976,101 $1,976,101 1st Local Option (1-6 cents) $0.06 $10,992,939 $1,832,157 2nd Local Option (1-5 cents) $0.05, $8,306,266 $1,661,253 Total $0.15 $28,336,087 Weighted Average per Penny(2) $1,889,072 1) Source: Florida Legislature's Office of Economic and Demographic Research, http://edr.state.f1. us/content/local-government/reports/ -- 2) The weighted average distribution per penny is calculated by taking the sum of the total distribution and dividing that value by the sum of the total levies per gallon (multiplied by 100). Capital Improvement Credit For the calculated impact fee, the capital improvement credit includes capacity -expansion expenditures for roadway improvements in Collier County. County Capital Protect Funding h6,% A review of the County's historical expenditures and the FY 2024-2028 Annual Update and Inventory Report (AUIR) Transportation Work Program indicates that a combination of fuel tax revenues, impact fees, sales tax, and grants are used to fund transportation capacity expansion improvements. Due to repeal of the sales tax (effective Dec. 31, 2023), the tax credit does not include sales tax revenues. As shown in Table C-2, Collier County allocates approximately an equivalent of 4.3 pennies for non -impact fee revenues dedicated to capacity expansion projects that are paid on an annual basis (excluding debt service), such as new road construction, lane additions, and intersection improvements. Benesch Collier County October 2024 C-3 Road Impact Fee Update Study DRAFT Table C-2 County Fuel Tax Equivalent Pennies Historical; 2018-2023 Grant Revenues(l) $22,113,504 6 $1,889,072 $0.020 Fuel Tax Revenues (2) $33,608,377 6 $1,889,072 $0.030 Total $55,721,881 6 $1,889,072 $0.049 Future;2024-2028 AUIR_Grant Revenues (3) $34,578,000 5 $1,889,072 $0.037 Total $34,578,000 5 $1,889,072 $0.037 TOTAL Total $90,299,881 11 $1,889,072 $0.043 1) Source: Table C-4 2) Source: Table C-4 3) Source: Table C-5 4) Source: Table C-1 5) Cost of projects divided by number of years divided by revenue from 1 penny (Item 3) divided by 100 Collier County is currently using fuel tax revenues to retire debt of the Series 2014 Fuel Tax Bond Issue where the proceeds are used to fund capacity expansion improvements. As shown in Table C-3, a credit of 7.2 pennies is allocated toward outstanding debt service related to capacity addition projects. Table C-3 County Debt Service Fuel Tax Equivalent Pennies M do @19111VAIIZIII� Fuel Tax Bond Issue, Series 2014M $27,292,416 2 $1,889,072 $0.072 Total 1 $27,292,416 1 $0.072 1) Source: Table C-6 2) Source: Table C-1 3) Cost of projects divided by number of years divided by revenue from 1 penny (Item 3) divided by 100 Benesch Collier County October 2024 C-4 Road Impact Fee Update Study DRAFT Table C-4 Collier County - Historical Transportation Expenditures Gas Tax Funded 33431 LAP 433177 - Golden Gate Pkwy $2,649 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,649 33475 LAP 430871 Adaptive Traffic Control Equip $156,901 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $156,901 33524 Turn lane locations on Pine Ridge Rd $0 $89,280 $0 $0 $0 $0 $89,280 60016 Minor Turn Lane Intersection Improvement $551,707 $335,715 $891,603 $8,950 $241,654 $168,134 $2,197,763 60040 Golden Gate Blvd/Wilson-Everglades $1,212,830 $45,369 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,258,199 60065 Randall Blvd Imm to Oil Well Rd $133,0891 $72,968 $13,821 $350 $0 $3,369 $223,597 60066 Congestion Mgt Fare Share Intersection $0 $14,255 $0 $0 $68,950 $1,882,436 $1,965,641 60073 Davis Boulevard Road Widening $0 $0 $0 $490,400 $0 $0 $490,400 60085 TIS Review $140,422 $77,093 $367,583 $120,854 $448,593 $492,948 $1,647,493 60132 Imm Rd @ CR 951 (Broken Back Rd) $972,855 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $972,855 60145 Golden Gate Blvd (20th to Everglades) $78,439 $563,232 $5,268,854 $168,299 $259,390 $155,785 $6,493,999 60148 Airport Rd & Davis Intersection $7 $2 $0 $0 $0 $0 $9 60163 Traffic Study/Advanced Planning $60,355 $101,204 $302,180 $99,195 $171,021 $1,070,752 $1,804,707 60168 Vand Beach/CR 951-8th (338) $0 $7 $232 $0 $0 $222,202 $222,441 60171 Multi Project Right of Way - Transportation $244 $27 $27 -$69 $667 $19,402 $20,298 60172 Traffic Signals $517,753 $565,111 $779,112 $195,455 $281,321 $2,336,309 $4,675,061 60178 Vanderbilt Drive Improvements $4,155 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $4,155 60190 Airport Rd North of Vanderbilt Road $555,103 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $555,103 60192 Lake Trafford Rd @ N 19th St Improv $517,555 $1,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $518,555 60198 Veterans Memorial Rd $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $100,000 $100,000 60200 Goodland CRA 92A Roadway Improvements $0 $3,300 $212,602 $511,907 $1,958,468 $373,006 $3,059,283 60214 Immokalee-Woodcrest Way Intersection $0 $0 $389,178 $839,798 $0 $0 $1,228,976 60215 Triangle Blvd -Price Street $0 $0 $14,338 $138 $0 $185,524 $200,000 60230 Randall Blvd @ 8th St Int Impr $0 $0 $0 $0 $681,692 $125,272 $806,964 60233 Corkscrew Rd @ Wildcat Run Im 0 $0 $0 $21,267 $0 $825,121 $846,388 60242 Randall Blvd @ Everglades Blvd Int $0 $0 $0 $206 $811,965 $297,330 $1,109,501 60243 Livingston Rd at Vanderbilt Beach Rd $0 $0 $0 $542,439 $0 $0 $542,439 60244 Livingston Rd at Immokalee Rd $0 $0 $0 $342,940 $0 $0 $342,940 60245 Logan Boulevard N. of Immokalee Rd $0 $0 $0 $203,877 $36,500 $66,420 $306,797 60252 VBR at Logan Blvd Intersection Improvements $0 $0 $0 $0 $184,695 $105,305 $290,000 61001 Tree Farm-Woodcrest $747,682 $580,038 $ $0 $0 $0 $1,327,720 65061 CR 951-R/W $0 $0 $139,035 $0 $0 $0 $139,035 68056 Collier Blvd Golden Gate to Green 7 413 L I L I S-01 LO 1 S 1815 9 228 Total $5,659,159 $2,448,6011 $8,378,5651 $3,546,0061 $5,144,9161 $8,431,130 $33,608,377 rant Funded 33464 Logan Blvd Ext $1,314,704 60129 Wilson/Benfield Ext (Lord's Way to City Gate N) $7,942,600 60190 Airport Rd North of Vanderbilt Road $12,8S6,200 Total $22,113,504 Source: Collie Benesch Collier County October 2024 C-5 Road Impact Fee Update Study DRAFT Table C-5 Collier County — AUIR Summary CapacityAUIR Total Total Estimated ���Kiiiiil for Work Program Expenditures Total - Capacity Expansion Projects(l) $197,270,000 - Revenues Available to Fund Capacity Expansion (New Projects) - Sales Tax $29,800,000 $14,996,000 - Impact Fees (including interest & fund balance) $147,696,000 $147,696,000 - Grant Funds $39,293,000 $34,578,00 - Fuel Tax (including interest & fund balance) $112,874,000 Total $329,663,000 $197,270,000 Source: Collier County Table C-6 Collier County — Gas Tax Bond Issue, Series 2014 46 P, Interest FY 2023 $8,455,0000 a$466,513 FY 2024 $12,965,000 $705,587 $13,670,587 FY 2025 $13,265,000 356 829 $13,621,829 Total 1 $26,230,000 $1,062,416 $27,292,416 Payments Remaining 2 Annual Average Payment $13,646,208 Source: Collier County Benesch Collier County October 2024 C-6 Road Impact Fee Update Study F- LL Q OC o M 0 lfl 0 00 t l0 I:t N 00 61 Ql 01 O O O O O O O O O O O O o o 0 0� o O O O o O O o 00 m cvi p M N r-I 00 N M Q� rV 00 I- ^• 00 Ln M N M M Ln n1 00 O o O o (Z O O O o O O O O O O O O O O M lfl Cl —1 OMp N N N ^` Ln M O 00 00 O O O O O O O O O O (::� O O O O O O O O fV N Ql M� 00 ;t N nj rW-I N m Ln Ln O` N N 00 to 3 f6 L � G! M L 3 L a D L L L s s s a+ O O O H I O O O -_ N O by Q. E bA E 00 0) R* rn L' ai • N e-I M r-I N w O Ln M Ln m m a Ln m 0) a� 00 06 rn tp rn rn � ti Ln c I 00 Ql ti I� lD n O m oo to a� m r- o O lD 00 Lr M M N C1 00 O ey 00 ONl` N LNn cr I� M L r-i N r-i 00 M N O r4 u1 -ZT N O 00 lD N M Ln m Ch rn O N O • Ln c�-I rt OM1 3 OC f6 L � M i L � L a M L L L aj a O O O H L M 0 w a c 0 U N 0 U M rl ID '-I r r, r- rl lD 00 N M 00 Ln .-I 01 O rl rl O1 W W O1 W I- O O N c C • Ol 01 of V lD m ll Ln rl N 01 rl � O rl LD Ol N Ln llID N O O1 LD L > l� 00 lD N M M N O Ln rl Ln LO 1, 01 O rl m J N m M Ln N Y co 00 ^ a° Q N i H Y a u 00 wll r-I 00 � N N rl c-I N ' n M D- N m m M lD O1 N O O� rl rl m N I� ry N c-I 1� N LO of rt N M N N 01 O N cV ci m m ci Ol m L C L Ll N rn m rl N O 14 n M M M N M 01 M m M vu0i j O Rr Ln Y • w N L C N O O � W O N N V rL O1 O ID N n 01 N O co 0 O rl M N LD 01 l 00 O W00 N m OP N W1 0 tD rl LO M 01 at N V N (0 Lp 00 6 Ln M M Ln 00 N Ln O 01 (p m m N N m 00 00 4T lD N V rl 01 rl -0 Y rL rn rn 00 Q rl O1 e-I 00 N Ln N 01 00 -�t m C C 0i Ln N N O m O a w v m N u L •b0 N ID l0 N O 1p n O1 V 00 al V1 00 01 ` L 3 Ln LO O N rl rl N N rl n 00 6O) N N w M rl - M M rl 00 Il N 0) ll (n LO O Ln 00 O O c-I O 0) O Ln 00 00 LD m rl O v m 00 m V lD m rl > o w s rl c-I N c-I N N M 00 N N m Y LL - i O J 0 V I- N O mI- 00 mIl O O O O1 l� m m m m N N N 01 01 N Ln Ln ^ LO M 00 r1 O7 Ol 00 O m 01 O V M Ll1 N LO 01 N ry 00 Ln M N LD O N C N .T, C H H H Ln N W00 M rl 00 H M 00 O rl rl •_ '~-I e^i m NO Y O OU N — '0 mow m Vl n ID V wO1 V O1 00 N O M r-I 'T O rl 00 1, H n 00 In LD V � H Ln 00 w V LD 01 H N O LD 00 1p c Z O Ol c+1 M V <D .-4 -�f V c-I l� Ol M LO Vl Ol O H Ln N O N H M M V 0o LO lD H O m V O O1 m a> O W rl rl r, O m j a 3 b c x 'o E w m rl H m O m 01 Ln N V .� N V Ln lD o 0) rn rn H Ln 00 V H ll O1 O rl ^ a x N O LO N N rl LD n M c-I m al <D LD W u 00 L c-I N N w N m N H 00 rl V 01 H ll N Ln H m m rn m a o o v = N L vOi L O Lp . m D Q O o t V M V LD M O rl Ol N N � M V I, Ln O V 00 LD N LO O O 00 O n ll1 3 N -O •- • rl N N lD 00 N O ll LD It fYl Ln C O! m .--i N of t0 N N rl N w u t n o. • .'It -I c^-I ID R In LnC > N > b O 0 > > N O E = T o v > v O 3 m a I� n LD Ln 1, N O O Ln O M '-I lO if M C n Ol Ol Il N ri wm M 'r i O O E t I� o0 In rl 01 l, l0 00 V 00 LD c-1 V N d O L 0 u 00 01 H O 00 00 1, r,O O � O T �' D .-: -tt N N O ll Ln M M 00 `-I 00 -tt N H N N W M c-I V1 H O N O = — m LO 00 O .0 00= D C O y T N > L E 0 E Y W Y > > O .-. H V e, C O C N C f0 f0 f0 3 j > O 00 �0x51 al m O m fl_ m m a c m Y = a a 'E a o OL `m w a m r m> c 3 m > >' a a v _ `x Y > > L ti > C 6 N W « u O) a+ CC v n c o a °u c u m E m U O p C t0 E_ 0) O 0) O 0 C y N L = E o 3 .`. O 0l L v° n r o o E N w E c r v> v Y N ? N Q Y K 0) ? d N C O 01 N O N O L L K L O N E .� O) 0J 01 :EOl N E u M O Z O O Q c O Q o H > 0) > w> Z v Q 0_ LL Q> Q w E o v m o s u N N -y m ;� w ` 2 o > m c ` LL Q >, > C c0 a+ N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N m a 0 O -O E N N N 0 0 0 N 0 N N 0 0 N" 0 0 N N N N N N O 0 0 0 O O O1 m L D M N y~ m N N N N N N N N N N N N N N w r o0 -0 L0 F t0 J O VI L > Y 0 � O Ln V N L +-+ •O Q U Z) v LL U f4 Q ro O DRAFT Appendix Calculated Road Impact Fee Schedule DRAFT Appendix D: Calculated Road Impact Fee Schedule This appendix presents the detailed fee calculations for each land use in the Collier County road impact fee schedule. Benesch Collier County October 2024 D-1 Road Impact Fee Update Study } It # ! \ \ ( \ } i } } } } 7!®* \\j\ \ \\)\ \ § § ) § § § § § § \ \ \ \\-fu \ }\ \ \ \ \ \ A 4 m@ m@ g u m r B n, ■!@¥ q ® 2 _ _ E/< <i: 56 ! ! ! ! 5 5 ! ! ! ! § ! ] § ] ] !ci ! \ ! § | | [ ! ) ! ! ( ( ) ) \ ra m 1.2 : ; ! 7 } § at ) § } 7 7 ) § } } $ 7 } } } i k 7 $ ! ) \ } \ } ) } \ } ) 6 } } } ( } 'It } \ ) } \ } 4 } ( \ } } } \ \\\\ \ \ \ \ \ \} \ \/� \ ! K « ; ■ § EIm,i ! ! . \ \\\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \\�\} -31 \ \ \ \ \ \ * ; g ! ; m ; P 2 ; ; ! $ ! m ■ @ a @ m a ! q a @ m : :: � : : : to tb \ } \ < \ \ } lz \ \ } } \ \< } \ \ \\\ / \\ \ ! ! ] 6 § ] 2 ] 2 In j § § 2 \ § \ ! \ [ | \ ! [ 2 § ) \ ( ( ( } \ ( ( ( \ ( \ \ ( \ ( ( ( ( } ( ( \ \ oo Lr _\ - —_—_ k !!i / ±■ / \§ $■ ! ! ! i 2 § § 2 ! ! } i ! J )| ! ! ) ! ! Im v v L S � 3 3m Q Q V Q m ¢_ - v a a a' — E a ¢¢ 1° ¢ E' v E E E E E S a a a d m$¢ O a a a� a o a 10 ¢ E y E E E E c Q r r x � 4 f r _ _ _ E W - a> N a O V v m v — N A E o a u a o n N p V v L1 o m a �a s v a v v T c � � m E v m w O ac a v Y L a+ — E 3 v > v T N L O W N E O p O a N N E o > •- a o c `w_ O m +• y 3 c `w -a v c 0 c E O i EE p W j a0 bD O C N V O V w — T a C N a0+ - C u N y '• m Y K i V o n v T m n m N O n - E E E c > o o 0 a ¢ 0 c a F o� w U) O pj ry a 0 Y LL m mu o � w J M v v a o a > o o y c F v a > ' a o Y o v 0 c� a o E ° u d E � v ° o o c R a 0 3 0 Z E p a � pO Q n e rn m O O y o o y o T T O - M n a N N ruo O m b V Y O E LL H T O J T c ry — > O c 3 o v c a m -o J � 0 u m O u E ! s O R N w 9 c c H o J v o 3a ul E, e m a v v a o 0 - o u s w o o o 3 m�i o 0 u� T'o s i'2"0 y Y m n 0 v E V w n v s c o E 3• g o f0 41 c c ,� v 'o 0 0 �- I m o m c _ _ c o nmmZ 0-m0 � n n ZM n � O o o O o u c 3 v t u a`w wac aw m� _� 75 O r v° N N a c w 5 T O o C N N W Z v0i ti r�ma�n �n noom v u co THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK From: Heather Yilmaz Cc: Gino Santabarbara Bcc: Clay Brooker; Nick Kouloheras; Mario Valle; BillVarian; Bob Mulhere; Robert Mulhere Subject: RE: ONE WAY COMMUNICATION: DSAC-Impact Fee Subcommittee Meeting August Schedule I List of Meeting Questions Date: Wednesday, July 30, 2025 12:29:09 PM Attachments: DSAC- IFR 07.16.2025 Draft Meeting Questions vl HCY.docx image001.ong imaoe002.ong image003.ong image004.r)ng imaae005.rng imaoe006.ona CountvL000-FullColor 948165c4-9665-4lb4-9162-fbbl6abff557.ona Facebook 0522f546-5e75-4698-95f9-fl5590a3defe.ona Instaoram a8da4774-4b5b-4adl-8d23-20e69b3b605d.ona X-Twitter 8d678efc-bdl4-44ce-97cf-7fbab1003b00.ona Youtube 0078f7fl-7789-4afd-a015-50689felf99b.ona 311IconforSionature 655c7bb5-b2bb-49a0-9737-5ae8a4da3ba6.ona ONE WAY COMMUNICATION: Please only respond to me and do not respond or include other committee members in this correspondence. During the July 16th DSAC-Impact Fee Review subcommittee meeting, the committee recommended putting together a list of questions that were posed during the meeting for the consultant to review and respond during the August 27th meeting. Please feel free to add more detail to the attached list or suggest additional questions for consideration. Thank you. Respectfully, Heather Heather Yilmaz Management Analyst I Operations & Regulatory Management Office:239-252-8389 2800 Horseshoe Dr. N. Naples, FL 34104 Heather.Yilmaz&colliercountyfl.aov From: Heather Yilmaz <Heather.Yilmaz@colliercountyfl.gov> Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2025 10:27 AM Cc: Gino Santabarbara <Gino.Santabarbara@colliercountyfl.gov> Subject: ONE WAY COMMUNICATION: DSAC-Impact Fee Subcommittee Meeting August Schedule ONE WAY COMMUNICATION: Please only respond to me and do not respond or include other committee members in this correspondence. During the July 16th DSAC-Impact Fee Review subcommittee meeting, the committee recommended rescheduling the August 20th meeting to August 27th, maintaining the start time of 3:00 PM, due to a scheduling conflict. Please respond to me only if this date works with your schedule. If the date is not suitable, I will suggest alternative dates in August for consideration. The goal is to complete the review in August and be ready to present the studies during the September 3rd DSAC meeting with a recommendation to move forward to the Board of County Commissioners'. Thank you for your time and participation Respectfully, Heather Heather Yilmaz Management Analyst I Operations & Regulatory Management Office:239-252-8389 2800 Horseshoe Dr. N. Naples, FL 34104 Heather.Yilmaz(a colliercountyfl.aov Under Florida Law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by telephone or in writing. DSAC-IFR Review Subcommittee Meeting Meeting Date: July 16, 2025 Subcommittee Questions 1. Nick Kouloheras — Correctional Facilities: LOS-Based off national standards, how involved is the Sherriff in the number of beds, LOS? 2. Clay Brooker — Correctional Facilities: How does the study occur and determine elementary school institution? How is the information determined in table 8 pp.17? 3. Nick Kouloheras — Correctional Facilities: The value that is given on Eastern lands that was given. Most of the growth will be to the east of the county in the new villages and towns. There is a type of credit given and the value given, how is this determined? The data in value between what is given and the appraised value, what is the formula and the delta to determine the information? 4. Nick Kouloheras — Law Enforcement Facilities LOS — Break down and explain the deficiency. 5. Clay Brooker — Government Buildings What makes Collier County buildings so much higher than other counties in Florida? 6. Nick Kouloheras — Government Buildings Consider lowering impact fee — factor in current land holdings and explain the method. 7. Robert Mulhere - Government Buildings • 8-10 Villages 3 Towns o Ave Maria o Big Cypress o TBD 8. Robert Mulhere — Government Buildings Is the current cost of land $75K/acre? What is the obligation to meet LOS? What is the method used for O & M? There is a need across the county. 9. Nick Kouloheras — Government Buildings Would we be better off combining library facilities with a Parks & Rec facility? Similar to what we are doing with Fire and EMS. 10. Rescheduled DSAC-IFR meeting to August 27t" to accommodate schedules and invite consultant to attend via WebEx. 11. Robert Mulhere — September 3rd DSAC Meeting Suggestion: Time Certain for Consultant to attend via WebEx 1 1 Page