DSAC Backup 11/03/2010DEVELOPMENT
SERVICES ADVISORY
COMMITTEE
MEETING
BACKUP
DOCUMENTS
NOVEMBER 3, 2010
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE
AGENDA
November 3, 2010
3:00 p.m.
NOTICE: Conference Room 610
Persons wishing to speak on any Agenda item will receive up to three (3) minutes unless the Chairman adjusts
the time. Speakers are required to fill out a "Speaker Request Form," list the topic they wish to address, and
hand it to the Staff member seated at the table before the meeting begins. Please wait to be recognized by the
Chairman, and speak into a microphone. State your name and affiliation before commenting. During
discussion, Committee Members may direct questions to the speaker.
Please silence cell phones and digital devices. There may not be a break in this meeting. Please leave the room
to conduct any personal business. All parties participating in the public meeting are to observe Roberts Rules
of Order, and wait to be recognized by the Chairman. Please speak one at a time and into the microphone so the
Hearing Reporter can record all statements being made.
I. Call to Order - Chairman
II. Approval of Agenda
III. Approval of Minutes from October 6, 2010 Meeting
IV. Public Speakers
V. Staff Announcements /Updates
A. Public Utilities Division Update — Nathan Beals
B. Fire Review Update — Bob Salvaggio
C. Growth Management Division/Transportation Planning — Jay Ahmad
D. Growth Management Division /Planning & Regulation Update — Jamie French
VI. Old Business
A. Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance [Robert Wiley]
VII. New Business
A. Water and Wastewater Impact Fee Studies [Tom Wides]
B. Library, Government Buildings and Law Enforcement Impact Fees subcommittee update [Amy Patterson]
VIII. Committee Member Comments
IX. Adjourn
Next Meeting Dates
December 1, 2010
GMD Conference Room 610-3:00 pm
January 5, 2011
GMD Conference Room 610 — 3:00 pm
February 2, 2011
GMD Conference Room 610 — 3:00 pm
March 2, 2011
GMD Conference Room 610 — 3:00 pm
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE
AGENDA
November 3, 2010
3:00 p.m.
Conference Room 610
NOTICE:
Persons wishing to speak on any Agenda item will receive up to three (3) minutes unless the Chairman adjusts
the time. Speakers are required to fill out a "Speaker Request Form," list the topic they wish to address, and
hand it to the Staff member seated at the table before the meeting begins. Please wait to be recognized by the
Chairman, and speak into a microphone. State your name and affiliation before commenting. During
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.
Call to Order - Chairman
II. Approval of Agenda
III. Approval of Minutes from October 6, 2010 Meeting
IV. Public Speakers
V. Staff Announcements /Updates
A. Public Utilities Division Update — Nathan Beals
B. Fire Review Update — Bob Salvaggio
C. Growth Management Division/Transportation Planning — Jay Ahmad
D. Growth Management Division /Planning & Regulation Update — Jamie French
VI. Old Business
A. Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance [Robert Wiley]
VII. New Business
A. Water and Wastewater Impact Fee Studies [Tom Wides]
B. Library, Government Buildings and Law Enforcement Impact Fees subcommittee update [Amy Patterson]
VIII. Committee Member Comments
IX. Adjourn
Next Meeting Dates
December 1, 2010 GMD Conference Room 610 —3:00 pm
January 5, 2011 GMD Conference Room 610 — 3:00 pm
February 2, 2011 GMD Conference Room 610 — 3:00 pm
March 2, 2011 GMD Conference Room 610 — 3:00 pm
October 6, 2010
MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Naples, Florida, October 6, 2010
LET IT BE REMEMBERED that the Collier County Development Services
Advisory Committee, having conducted business herein, met on this date at
3:00 PM in REGULAR SESSION in Conference Room #610, Collier County
Growth Management Division/Planning & Regulation, 2800 N. Horseshoe Drive,
Naples, Florida, with the following Members present:
CHAIRMAN: William Varian (Excused)
Vice Chair: David Dunnavant
Ray Allain
James Boughton
Clay Brooker
Laura Spurgeon DeJohn
Dalas Disney
Marco Espinar (Excused)
Blair Foley (Excused)
Regan Henry
George Hermanson
David Hurst
Reed Jarvi
Robert Mulhere
Mario Valle
ALSO PRESENT: Nick Casalanguida, Deputy Administrator, GMD - Planning &
Regulation
Judy Puig, Operations Analyst - Staff Liaison
Jay Ahmad, P.E.., Director - Transportation Engineering
James French, Director - Operations & Regulatory Management
Ed Riley, Fire Code Official - Fire Code Office
Amy Patterson, Impact Fee and Economic Development Manager
Nathan Beals, Project Manager - Public Utilities
Stephen Lenberger, Senior Environmental Specialist
October 6, 2010
I. Call to Order:
Vice Chairman Dunnavant called the meeting to order at 3:05 PM and read the
procedures to be followed during the meeting.
II. Approval of Agenda:
Chan,ye:
Vice Chairman Dunnavant added the topic, Notice for Outstanding Advisory
Committee Nomination Procedures, under Item VII as "C."
James Boughton moved to approve the Agenda as amended. Second by George
Hermanson. Carried unanimously, 9 -0.
III. Approval of Minutes — September I, 2010 Meeting:
Clay Brooker moved to approve the Minutes as presented. Second by Mario Valle.
Carried unanimously, 9 -0.
IV. Public Speakers:
(None)
V. Growth Management Division — Staff Announcements /Updates:
A. Public Utilities Division Update: Nathan Beals, Project Manager
• The Standards Committee has not met during the past two months due to lack
of topics for discussion.
o Meetings will be held at 3:00 PM (Note: time change) on the
third Tuesday of each month in the Risk Management building
• The Administrative Stay for Fire Requirements for RPZs /Metering remains in
place. The Board of County Commissioners directed Public Utilities to return
only once more with a recommendation.
Mr. Beals will contact Judy Puig to schedule a Subcommittee meeting to be
held prior to DSAC's November meeting.
(Laura Spurgeon DeJohn arrived at 3:10 PM.)
Reed Jarvi noted there was a dripping "relief valve" at the water main on the west side
of Vanderbilt Drive, north of I I I`� at the first culvert crossing.
Vice Chairman Dunnavant questioned the parameters and time frame of the BCC's
directive stating a full Cost /Benefit Impact was requested and asked for a progress
report.
Mr. Beals stated a cost benefit and risk analysis was in progress. It was thought the
analysis was to be brought back to the Board in November, but he reviewed the video
recording and noted a specific date was not mentioned.
Vice Chairman Dunnavant is aware of a document which states it was due at the end
of October. fie stated a recommendation concerning the RPZ issue is to be presented
first and then a separate presentation is to be made concerning the revenue /metering
October 6, 2010
issue. He stated he did not think the BCC limited the number of presentations and
urged scheduling the Subcommittee meeting as soon as possible.
(Dalas Disney arrived at 3:12 PM.)
Mr. Beals clarified there will be more than one Subcommittee meeting but only one
presentation to the BCC. He will provide read -ahead materials at least one week in
advance of DSAC's next meeting.
B. Fire Review Update: Ed Riley, Fire Code Official — Fire Code Office
• The Monthly Report was submitted in the Information Packet.
• In August, a total of 697 reviews were conducted.
• The initial Permit for the new Fire Code building was cancelled (with the
cooperation of the City of Naples)
• Will re -apply for a second Permit on October 8`h to save approximately
$49,000 due to the reduction in Impact Fees for Roads
• The funds were donated by the Industry
C. Transportation Planning Division Update: Jay Ahmad, P.E., Director -
Transportation Engineering
• Public Meeting /Workshop will be held on October 7, 2010 to present the result
of the Project Planning and Development Study for Intersection of 951 and 41
Mr. Ahmad provided the following background information:
• DOT conducted its own PD &E Study but the focus was on US 41 and not the
intersection. The Level of Service was projected to 2015.
• Transportation Planning Division hired consultants because it was not satisfied
with the DOT's Study.
• TP's Study conclusions:
• long -term goal — an overpass will best serve the needs of the area
• short -term — build an "at -grade intersection" within the footprint of the
anticipated future overpass
o Level of Service was projected to 2035
An FPL Greenway is under construction
o 12 -foot blacktop pathway will connect Radio to Rattlesnake
o Distance: 3 miles
Construction of Oilwell Road is proceeding on schedule
o Six lanes on the east side between Ave Maria to Oilwell Grade Rd.
• From Everglades to Immokalee, will be a four -lane road
• Anticipated completion of the north side— December, 2010
Question. Is a traffic light scheduled for installation at the intersection of Orange Tree
and Oilwell Road. Will residents be able to make a left turn?
• Yes and yes.
October 6, 2010
Mr. Ahmad stated the at -grade intersection will begin in 2013 and explained the
process:
• The County wants to re- evaluate the FDOT's recommendations
• Public hearings /workshops will be held as required by the Federal government
in order to change the preferred recommendations
• Lanes will be added to the intersection
• The right -of -way will be acquired
• The overpass will be constructed at a future date when traffic volume dictates
Bob Mulhere clarified the intersection has been efficiently designed to function now
and accommodate the overpass when needed.
D. Planning and Regulation Update: James French, Director — Operations and
Regulatory Management
Local artists donated photographs which are on display at the front end
(Ray Allain arrived at 3:24 PM)
Ceiling tiles have been replaced (from Fund 11 I budget)
Installing an ATM machine (through the Tax Collector's office)
Several single- family home applications have been submitted to the Building
Department — very few commercial
In response to a question concerning Mr. Riley's building permit with the City of
Naples, Mr. French stated if a permit is in "apply" status (no inspections have been
completed), it can be pulled and you may re- apply. There is a re- application fee to be
paid.
lie is working with the County Attorney's office, Gary Harrison, and Ed Riley to
review the Florida Building Code and establish a cut -off date. Guaranteed time
standards may raise concerns if there is a high volume of cancellations. There may be
direction from the Board of County Commissioners on this issue.
Suggestion: Add the topic of the process for Florida Specialties to a future Agenda.
Jamie French stated a Site Development Plan application process is under
development:
• even if an SDP application is rejected, it can lead to a simultaneous review
process. For example, as corrections /revisions are made to the SDP on the
land -use side, the Building Department /Fire Review can begin.
He explained the Florida Specialties project where the foot print of a pre -built structure
was expanded to accommodate additional services. The process morphed into an
alternative method of accepting plans on a fast -track basis. He cautioned a developer
runs a risk because if the SDP can't be corrected or the structure is not built to the
correct specifications or the plans have not been approved, whatever has been
constructed may be torn down.
Bob Mulhere's test -case project in Immokalee was described. There was a
comprehensive conceptual Site Plan review with Staff and it was brought to the Board
of County Commissioners for approval. The permit was issued and vertical
October 6, 2010
construction began before the SDP was approved, but there were no critical flaws, and
no ERP ( "Environmental Resources Permit ") issues, i.e., no listed species on the site
no wetland issues.
Modifications were made. The building process began in April and the structure will
be C /O'd before November I". The process may be applicable in limited re-
development opportunities for commercial sites and may impact future businesses.
The County Manager asked for a review of the fast -track process and incentives.
Mr. French noted the Board of County Commissioners formed the Economic Recovery
Task Force (" ERTF "). The Chamber, former elected officials and the Sheriffs office
are involved. The goal is to work with the real estate industry concerning vacant
commercial properties to develop a GIS overlay to pinpoint available structures. The
information will eventually be available on the website.
Dalas Disney described his solid -waste recycling facility project and stated there were
no specialty issues and it was fast - tracked. Documents were finished in seven weeks.
The process was consolidated and permits are anticipated to be issued within a fifteen
day cycle.
Road Impact Fees [added Topic]: Nick Casalanguida, Deputy Administrator,
GMD — Planning & Regulation
• The Board of County Commissioners moved to adopt the Study update which
recommended a 32% reduction in Phase I, effective October 8, 2010
• A 10% reduction will go forward as part of the Utilities component
The Chamber of Commerce requested a 50% reduction and a lock -in for two years.
The BCC Chairman directed special projects that bring jobs to the community ($1 +M)
but may need some assistance to get the project up and running quickly to be brought
before the BCC. It will consider deferral of fees.
School Impact Fees:
Mr. Casalanguida stated the Study will be brought to the BCC on October 12". Staff
will recommend a review of the proposed 50% reduction for one year period with
evaluation at the end of the term. The School Board recommended a two -year 50%
reduction with a rate lock.
A question was asked concerning hiring of a Building Manger.
• A list of interview questions is being compiled.
• A candidate will be selected by the end of the month and an offer will be
extended.
• There have been approximately 60 applicants for the position.
It was noted the certified Building Official is separate from the Administrative Staff
and not subject to influence, as required by the Florida Building Code.
Vice Chairman Dunnavant noted the Minutes referenced the discussion of different
issues relating to RPZs between Fire and Utilities. He asked for a status report.
October 6, 2010
Ed Riley stated he received information which was forwarded to the Fire Marshalls for
their review and comment. A meeting is scheduled for October 14`h to discuss the data
concerning the 50 -psi issue.
VI. Old Business:
A. A -128 Requirements for Spot Surveys /Affidavits: Jamie French
• The issue has been vetted in a form meeting with local licensed engineers
• The Building Blocks is still in draft form and release may be pushed back to
December if necessary
There was a question concerning the difference between the certified plan to be
prepared by a profession architect, land surveyor, or engineer (first paragraph under
Building Permit Applications) and a stamped plan submitted to the County by an
architect or engineer.
Nick Casalanguida stated a spot survey can only be done by a surveyor. The point
was to guarantee the drawings were done by a professional.
A question was asked concerning the second sentence of the third paragraph under
Building Permit Application ( "In lieu of ... ") and whether it established foot print or
elevation of the structure.
Nick Casalanguida clarified if there were no changes to the foot print, the Affidavit
can be submitted.
The first paragraph on Page 2 (third line) referenced a "stop work order." A question
was asked concerning how to repair damages under a stop work order.
Nick Casalanguida stated corrective action removes the stop work order, but no work
is to be done until such time, which is current practice.
There was a discussion concerning the intent of the affidavit and who should sign it.
It was noted the second sentence of the Affidavit ( "Further, I affirm ... ") is an un-
insurable statement and professionals will not accept it.
Also noted, architects are not hired to perform research to verify the information
provided on a previous survey. For example, was the structure legal at that time and is
it still conforming to Code. It was suggested the owner should be the only person to
sign the document.
Suggested Changes:
• New Title: Affidavit in lieu of Certified Plan (to be tiled with Permit)
First sentence of Affidavit
o Remove the phrase "in any way" after "modification"
o Remove the word "legally"
Second sentence:
o Insert the phrase ", to the best of my knowledge, that' following "affirm"
o Remove the word "all"
Third sentence:
o Remove the phrase "in any way" following "nonconformity"
October 6, 2010
• Add a line underneath signature for identification:
o Signed:
(check one) Owner Contractor Design Professional
(Regan Henry left at 4:10 PM)
Nick Casalanguida suggested the entire second sentence is unnecessary and should be
removed from the document.
Consensus: Email the revised document to the members for their approval. If there
are any objections, it will be brought back to the Committee in November.
Robert Mulhere moved to approve the Affidavit in Lieu of Certified Plan, subject to
final review via email, with no objections to same. Second by Dalas Disney.
Carried unanimously, I1-0.
VII. New Business:
A. Update: EMS and Fire Impact Fee Subcommittee: Amy Patterson, Impact Fee
and Economic Development Manager
(An overview of the Fire Rescue Services Study was distributed to the Committee.)
• The Study referred to the two dependent Districts, Ochopee and Isles of Capri
• Last update: 2006
• Total Impact Fees collected: $1,600 (both Districts)
• No plans to expand but new equipment will be purchased as necessary
• Buildings and land were not included in the calculations
• Isles of Capri — fees will be decreased (residential and non - residential)
• Ochopee — fee for residential will be decreased but non - residential will be
increased
• Study will be presented to the Productivity Committee for a recommendation
and to the Board of County Commissioners for a public hearing
Ms. Patterson noted the Fees will be examined again next year
Ed Riley stated the North Naples Fire District cut its Impact Fees by 50% (residential
and non - residential).
Reed Jarvi moved to approve implementing the Alternative Impact Fee Schedule for
Ochopee and Isles of Capri. Second by Mario Valle. The motion failed.
Dalas Disney supported reducing Impact Fees to the greatest extent possible.
Robert Mulhere moved to support the proposed increase to commercial Impact Fees
and reduction to residential Impact Fees as appropriate. Second by Clay Brooker.
Motion carried, 7 — "Yes," 4 — "No." Opposed: Dalas Disney, Reed Jarvi, Mario Valle,
and David Hurst.
BREAK: 4:40 PM
RESUMED: 4:45 PM
October 6, 2010
(An overview of the EMS Study was distributed to the Committee.)
Mario Valle moved to approve the Impact Fee Study as submitted by Staff.
Amy Patterson stated Fees would be reduced by 25% on the residential side and by
30% on the commercial side.
• Methodology was same as the previous study
• Significant reductions in land and building costs
• Plans to add stations in the next few years
Mario Valle noted new EMS stations were built based on potential growth and the
Impact Fees to be collected. The Impact Fees funds were to be used to offset the debt
service. However, based on the reduction in land costs, it will not be possible to
generate the revenue necessary and the debt service will exceed the amount of funds
by approximately 2012.
Robert Mulhere noted money was borrowed based on a revenue stream which no
longer exists but the obligation to pay back remains. One way to pay the debt is to find
a new revenue stream. If the reduction in Impact Fees generates a volume of new
development, some money will be coming in and minimize reliance on Ad Valorem
fees since the Ad Valorem rate has been lowered. He concluded any reduction in Fees
is a shift in the "right direction."
It was predicted that Impact Fees was not the proper funding mechanism.
Dalas Disney equated the concept of Impact Fees is, basically, a Ponzi scheme and
stated when people moved to the area, it worked. He noted when the growth stopped,
Impact Fees — as well as the economy — fell apart.
Mark Twain was quoted: "There are lies, damned lies, and statistics. "
Impact Fees in Collier County add approximately $34,000 to the cost of a single- family
home over 2,500 square feet.
Mario Valle moved to accept the Study as submitted by Staff. Second by Reed Jarvi.
Carried unanimously, H- 0.
Vice Chairman Dunnavant noted Reed Jarvi submitted questions concerning the
Transportation Impact Fees. A memo, prepared by Tindale- Oliver & Associates, Inc.,
responding to his questions was distributed to the Committee.
Mr. Jarvi objected to the responses to the last two questions concerning credit issues
and asked Ms. Patterson to investigate.
Vice Chairman Dunnavant suggested adding the topic to the Agenda for the next
DSAC meeting under "Old Business."
(James Boughton and David Hurst left at 5.00 PM)
October 6, 2010
B. Update: EAC ( "Environmental Advisory Council ") Ordinance Amendment —
Stephen Lenberger, Senior Environmental Specialist
• The EAC Ordinance was revised to adhere to the changes made to the Growth
Management Plan and the Amendments to the Land Development Code.
• The requirement to submit an Environment Impact Statement ( "EIS ")
was eliminated
• Applicable environmental data may be submitted in place of the EIS
• The EAC will review impacts to native vegetation and a project's
environmental sensitivity based on the size
• The Board of County Commissioners approved the amendments to the
Ordinance
• A public meeting /workshop will be held on Friday, October 8`h, to review the
Amendments to the Land Development Code from last cycle
C. Notice for Outstanding Advisory Committee Nomination Procedures: Vice
Chairman Dunnavant
• A nomination form was distributed to the members and must be completed one
month prior to submission to the Board of County Commissioners.
• Anyone may nominate a member.
• Nominations will be accepted in November.
VIII. Committee Member Comments:
Vice Chairman Dunnavant outlined a summary of the BCC meeting regarding
the RPZ issue was presented:
• Utilities requested to defer all issues including the RPZ and Chairman
Varian agreed
• A Subcommittee meeting will be scheduled by Nathan Beals prior to the
next DSAC meeting
• DSAC's report was presented to the BCC by Chairman Varian and the
Commissioners appeared to favor DSAC's recommendation
• The Stay remains in place
• Due to the lack of prudent data from Utilities and a cost /benefit analysis,
the BCC directed all parties to continue and return when the issues were
settled
Next Meeting Dates:
November 3, 2010 — 3:00 PM
December 1, 2010 — 3:00 PM
January 5, 2011 — 3:00 PM
There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned
by order of the Vice - Chairman at 5:05 PM.
October 6, 2010
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
ADVISORY COMMITTEE
David Dunnavant, Vice Chairman
The Minutes were approved by the Board /Committee on
as presented , or as amended
10
Office of the Fire Code Official
Summary of Plan Review Activity
September -10
Architectural Reviews
378
Sprinkler Reviews
61
Underground Reviews
20
Fuel & LP Gas Reviews
2
Hoods 8 FSUP Reviews
12
Alarm Reviews
108
SDP Reviews
44
Total # of Plans Reviewed
625
Number of Work Days
21
Average # of Plans Reviewed per Day
30
ASAP Reviews per Building Department
8 Architectural
36.00 Hrs.
10 AC Change Outs
Bob'.
16 Low Voltage
1 Fire Sprinkler
4.50 Hrs.
2 Tents
Total # of ASAP Reviews'
37
Total ASAP Reviews per Day
2
'Overtime Reviews are not included in this figure
Classes and Seminars attended by FCO.
Scheduled Meetings /Hours'.
Ed:
36.00 Hrs.
Bob'.
6.42 Hrs.
Jackie:
4.50 Hrs.
Ricco.
87.91 Hrs.
Maggie:
5.75 Hrs.
Classes and Seminars attended by FCO.
Participant
9/15 HR Practices, Fort Myers
Ed Riley, Linda Rutkoski
9/20 -9 /30 Executive Fire Officer, National Fire Academy
Robert Salvaggio
Emmitsburg, MD
Total Overtime Hours for the Fire Code Office
'Overtime Hours Reimbursed by Contractors
In addition to the above - mentioned tasks, The Fire Code Official's Office fields
numerous phone calls, walk -ins, field inspections and impromptu meetings.
Office of the Fire Cod. Official
28W N. Horseshoe Or
Naples. FL 34104
Fire Plan Review - Time Frame Summary
September -10
Number Number Average #of tat %of lot Percentages
of of Time in Reviews Reviews Within Time
Reviews Days Days Approved Approved Frames
Architectural Reviews
Total
378
363
0.96
tat Review
258
269
1.04
188
73%
100110 Days
7 Day Max
2nd Review
96
74
0.77
100/3 Days
3rd Review
23
20
0.87
100/3 Days
4th Review
1
0
0.00
100/3 Days
Total 24 Reviews
120
94
0.78
100/3 Days
3 Day Max
Fire Sprinkler Reviews
Total
61
103
1.69
tat Review
39
80
205
24
62%
100 /10 Days
6 Day Max
2nd Review
19
21
1.11
100/3 Days
3rd Review
3
2
0.67
100/3 Days
Total 2 -3 Reviews
22
23
1.05
10013 Days
3 Day Max
Underground Reviews
Total
20
30
1.60
tat Review
10
23
2.30
4
40%
100/10 Days
6 Day Max
2nd Review
8
5
0.63
100/3 Days
3rd Review
2
2
1.00
100/3 Days
Total 2 -3 Reviews
10
7
0.70
10013 Days
1 Day Max
Fuel & LP Gas Reviews
2
0
0.00
Total
tat Review
2
0
0.00
2
100%
100110 Days
0 Day Max
2nd Review
0
0
0.00
Total 2nd Review
0
0
0.00
Hood & FSUP Reviews
12
8
0.67
Total
tat Review
9
6
0.67
7
78%
100110 Days
2 Day Max
2nd Review
3
2
0.57
100/3 Days
Total 2nd Review
3
2
0.67
10013 Days
2 Day Max
F to Alann Reviews
Total
108
84
0.78
tat Review
70
62
0.89
29
41%
100/10 Days
2 Day Max
2nd Review
32
19
0.59
100/3 Days
3rd Review
3
2
0.67
100/3 Days
4th Review
3
1
0.33
100/3 Days
Total 24 Reviews
38
22
0.58
10013 Days
1 Day Max
Summary
tat Review
388
440
1.13
264
66%
100110 Days
Corrections
193
148
0.77
100/3 Days
Overall Totals
581
588
1.01
Office or the Fire core official
2800 N. Horseshoe Or
Naples. FL Nf C6
COLLIER COUNTY
LIBRARY FACILITIES AND ITEMS /EQUIPMENT
IMPACT FEE UPDATE
Prepared for
COLLIER COUNTY
August 30, 2010
Prepared by.
Tindale- Oliver & Associates, Inc.
1000 N. Ashley Dr., #100
Tampa, Florida 33602
ph (813) 224 -8862, fax (813) 226 -2106
r 1 l �•
ndale-Oliver 8,
Planning and F:nginccrit
tg
Ms. Amy Patterson
Impact Fee Manager
Collier County Growth Management Division
2800 North Horseshoe Drive
Naples, Florida 34104
RE: Library Facilities Impact Fee Update Study
Dear Ms. Patterson:
lllC.
August 30, 2010
Enclosed is the Draft Technical Report for the Collier County Library Facilities Impact Fee Update Study.
Once you get a chance to review the report, we will be available to present study findings and respond to
questions. Meanwhile, we look forward to your comments on this draft report.
If you should have any questions concerning this report, please do not hesitate to contact me or Nilgdn
Kamp.
Sincerely,
Tindole- Oliver & Associates, Inc.
Mi
Steven A. I•indale, P.E., AICP
President
1000 North Ashley Drive, Suite 100, Tampa, Florida 33602 • Phone- (813) 224 -8862 • Fax. (813) 226 -2106
1595 South Semoran Boulevard, Building 7, Suite 1540, Winter Park, Florida 32792 • Phone. (407) 657 -9210 • Fax (407) 657 -9106
195 South Central Avenue, Bartow, Florida 33830 • Phone: (863) 533 -8454 • Fax (863) 533 -8481
COLLIER COUNTY
LIBRARY FACILITIES AND ITEMS/EQUIPMENT
IMPACT FEE UPDATE STUDY
Table of Contents
Introduction .....
Facility Inventory
Service Area and Population ....................................................... ...............................
3
Levelof Service .......................................................................... ...............................
5
CostComponent .......................................................................... ...............................
6
CreditComponent ....................................................................... ...............................
9
NetLibrary Impact Cost ............................................................. ...............................
10
Calculated Library Impact Fee Schedule .................................... ...............................
I 1
Classification of Inventory Value for Future Indexing Calculations .........................
11
Appendix A — Supplemental Cost Data
Tindale- Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier County
August 2010 Library Impact Fee Update
DRAFTREPORT
Introduction
Library impact fees are used to fund the capital construction and expansion of library
services related buildings, land, and materials /equipment required to support the
additional library facilities demand created by new growth. Collier County's Library
Facilities Impact Fee was last updated in 2006. Per requirements of the County's impact
fee ordinance and given the high level of fluctuations in the cost component, Tindale-
Oliver & Associates, Inc. (TOA) was retained by Collier County to conduct an update
study. This report presents the results of the Library Facilities Impact Fee Update Study
for the County and will serve as the technical support document in updating the library
impact fee ordinance.
There are several major elements associated with the development of the library facilities
impact fee. These include:
• Facility Inventory
• Service Area
• Population
• Level of Service
• Cost Component
• Credit Component
• Calculated Library Facilities Impact Fee Schedule
The following sections address each of these elements.
Facility Inventory
Table 1 provides a summary of existing library facilities. Currently, Collier County
provides 164,000 square feet of library facilities. Of this, approximately 124,000 square
feet are fully paid for, while the remaining portion is being paid through debt service.
Because debt service on the remaining portions of three libraries is being paid back with
impact fees, this portion (40,000 square feet) is not included in the inventory used to
calculate the impact fee to ensure the new development will not be charged twice for the
same facility.
The current building cost of $265 per square foot was determined based on construction
cost figures and bids for more recently built or bid libraries across the State as well as
discussions with architects. In addition, additional costs associated with site preparation,
Tindale- Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier County
August 2010 1 Library Impact Fee Update
DRAFT REPORT
Table 1
Library Buildings and Land'
Facility Now
Address
Yqr Bain'
Library
Square
Footage 3
Owned
Square
Footage c
Total Square
Footage on
Site s
Total
.
Acres
Acrd per 1,000
sf of Building
Space r
Adjusted
Ades v
Building Valve
s
Immokalee Branch
4171 st Street North
1978/2004
8,035
8,035
28,945
1000
0.345
2.77
$2,129,275
Naples Branch
650 Central Avenue
1965/1992
35011
35.011
35,011
266
0076
266
$9,277,915
Golden Gate Branch
2432 Lucerne Road
1978/2007
17,066
7,850
76 498
12 91
0.169
2.88
S4.522,490
East Naples Branch
8787 Tamiami Trail East
1989
7,168
7.168
7,168
087
0.121
0.87
$1,899520
Estates Branch
1266 Golden Gate Blvd West
1994
11,000
11 000
11,000
2.08
0.189
2.08
$2,915,000
Marco Island Branch
210 South Heathwood Drive
1988/2009
11,684
11,684
11 684
1 51
0.129
1.51
$3,096,260
Headquarters Branch
2385 Orange Blossom Drive
2002
42,401
25,865
5b.401
7.63
0.135
5 72
$11,236,265
Vanderbilt Branch
788 Vanderbilt Beach Road
1981
7,000
7,000
7,000
1.69
0.241
1 69
$1,855,000
South Regional Library
8065 Lely Cultural Parkway
2007
24 845
10,186
154,388
2000
0.130
323
$6,583,925
Total Building Value
164,2101
123,799
388,095
59.35
23.41
$43,515,650
Total Land Value 10
52,106,900
Total Building and Land Value
$45,622,550
Less: Portion Not Owued °
$13,872,121
Owned Building and Land Value
$31,750,429
Building rost per square to rn
$265.00
Land cost per acre
(1) Source: Public Library and Financial Administration & Housing Departments, Collier County
(2) Two different years indicate original construction and addition/renovation dates
(3) Square footage of the indicated facility
(4) Square footage of the library that is paid for (i.e., does not carry a debt service)
(5) Square footage of all buildings on a given parcel
(6) Acreage of the parcel where the building is located. In some cases, this acreage includes other buildings.
(7) Acres (Item 6) divided by the total square footage (Item 5) multiplied by 1,000
(8) Acres per 1,000 square feet of building space (Item 7) multiplied by square footage (Item 3) divided by 1,000
(9) Square footage (Item 3) multiplied by building cost per square foot (Item 12)
(10) Adjusted acres (Item 8) multiplied by the land cost per acre (Item 13)
(11) Source: Office of Management and Budget, Collier County
(12) Based on costs of recently built/bid libraries and discussions with architects (see Appendix A for further detail)
(13) Based on an evaluation of land use characteristics of existing libraries, future planned library locations and land values in these areas (see
Appendix A)
Tindale- Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier County
August 2010 2 Library Impact Fee Update
DRAFTREPORT
furniture/fixture /equipment, fees, and other expenses were added to the base construction
cost based on a review of cost distribution of most recently built libraries and other
buildings. The final building cost reflects both the recent decrease in construction costs
and the tendency to construct buildings with simpler designs and /or finishes in order to
reduce overall cost. Trends in the construction costs and further information on total
building cost are presented in Appendix A.
In addition to building value, land values were estimated for future land purchases.
Discussions with Public Library Department representatives suggested that future
libraries are more likely to be built in the eastern part of county, and more specifically
within the Golden Gate, Immokalee, and Big Corkscrew Fire District areas. Land value
was determined through a review of land use characteristics of existing libraries and land
values in three primary segments of the county (west of 1 -75, between 1 -75 and CR 951,
and east ofCR 951). This analysis resulted in an average land value of $90,000 per acre.
Further details on land value estimates are presented in Appendix A.
Service Area and Population
The Collier County Library System provides library services to the entire Collier County,
and as such, the library service area is determined to be countywide. To accurately
determine demand for library 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 seasonal
population was used in all population estimates and projections. Peak seasonal
population projections used in the impact fee analysis reflect figures provided by Collier
County's Comprehensive Planning Department and were calculated by increasing the
County's annual permanent population by 20 percent. The estimates provided by the
County suggest an average annual increase of two percent in population through 2029.
Residential land uses to be used in the Collier County library impact fee calculations
include the following:
• Single Family Detached
• Multi - Family
• Mobile Home /RV (Tied down)
Tindale- Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier County
August 2010 3 Library Impact Fee Update
DRAFTREPORT
Table 2 presents the number of residents per housing unit countywide for the residential
categories included in the County's fee schedule. Different from the previous study, this
analysis uses peak seasonal population and includes all housing units, both occupied and
vacant.
To address fairness and equity issues between land uses, as well as to address affordable
housing issues, the single family land use is continued to be tiered based on three
categories of square footage: less than 1,500 square feet, 1,500 to 2,499 square feet, and
2,500 square feet or more. 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 2007 American Housing Survey
(AHS) and data from the 2000 Census data for Collier County to examine this
relationship.
To calculate the tiering for the three different categories, national residents per unit ratios
for each housing unit category were applied to the total residents per housing unit ratio
for single family detached land use.
Table 2
Persons per Housing Unit
Housing Type
Population(l)
Rousing
Units
Ratio"'
Residents
Aoustmg Uufis
Single Family Detached
162,266
56,869
2.85
- Less than 1,500 square feet
92%
2.62
- 1,500 to 2,499 square feet
100%
2.85
2,500 square feet or more
111%
3.16
Multi Famil
110,142
75,775
1.45
Mobile HomeIRV (Tied Down)
23,0521
10,772
2.14
(1) Source: 2000 Census, Table H -33, adjusted for seasonal population based on the ratio of
peak seasonal to permanent population for the year 2000 using population figures provided
by the Collier County Comprehensive Planning Department (dated June 11, 2010)
(2) Source: 2000 Census, Table H -30
(3) Ratios developed based on national persons per household data derived from the 2007
American Housing Survey
Tindale- Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier County
August 2010 4 Library Impact Fee Update
DRAFTREPORT
Level of Service
The following table provides a summary of the current level of service (LOS) for library
buildings, books, other library materials, and computers in Collier County. The peak
population is obtained from the County's Comprehensive Planning estimates.
Table 3
Collier County Library System - 2010 Level of Service
Category
2010
$quart Footage/
Conutr
Peak
Populationz
CurccutLevot
oat�
Adop"Level
o scrvlee°
Library Buildings (owned)'
123,799
404,032
0.31
N/A
Librar'Buildin s (all)
164,210
404,032
0.41
0.33
Library Books'
686,753
404,032
1.70
187
Other Library Coll ecnon
60.796
404,032
0 -I5
Compmers
159
404,032
0 00039
N/A
(1) Source: Table I for the buildings and Public Library Department, Collier County for other
items
(2) Source: Comprehensive Planning Division, Collier County
(3) Square footage /count (Item 1) divided by population (Item 2)
(4) Source: Public Library Department, Collier County
(5) Includes only the facilities that are paid for
(6) Includes 34,433 audio books and 4,500 electronic books
(7) Includes only the computers available for public use
It should be noted that two different calculations of the current LOS for buildings were
provided in the table. One of these calculations includes only the buildings owned by the
County. The other includes all existing buildings, which better reflects the service
County residents are currently receiving. As presented in the table, the County's current
LOS is below the adopted LOS standard when only the owned buildings are included.
However, when all buildings are included (which is a better measure of the service
provided to County residents), the provided LOS is above the standard. For impact fee
calculations, not to overcharge new development, the level of service that is based only
on the buildings that are fully paid for is used.
In terms of books and other library materials, the current LOS of 1.85 items per person
(sum of the LOS for library books and other library collection) is almost at the adopted
LOS standard. The County does not have adopted standards for computers.
A comparison of the current Collier County LOS, the LOS standard (LOSS), LOS of the
other Florida counties, and the State Standards are presented in Table 4. The comparison
Tindale- Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier County
August 2010 5 Library Impact Fee Update
DRAFTREPORT
includes counties with a population of 100,000 to 750,000, 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 FY 2007 data
with the use of permanent population. To be able to provide an "apples -to- apples"
comparison, 2007 data is used for Collier County and its peer group.
Table 4
Current Level of Service and Level of Service Standards
(Fiscal Year 2007)
- Category
Collier County
Other FL
Counties t
FLA Pubiic
Litusury Stand
s; .
Current
LOS
Adopted LOS
Standard
Essential
Eabanceer
xiewpiary
Libre ?Buildin s all) — sf ercapita
0.39
033
0.39
0.60
0.70
1.00
Library Books -- books per capita
1.77
N/A
154
N/A
N/A
N/A
All Library Collections -- items per capita
2.07
1 87
1.79
2.00
300
4.00
Computers -- computers per 1,000 people
0.41
N/A
0.51
0.33
0.50
1.00
(1) Source: Department of State, Division of Library & Information Services, 2008 Library
Directory with Statistics (reflects FY 07 figures) for the current LOS, and Table 2 for the
adopted LOS standard
(2) Source: Department of State -- Division of Library & Information Services — 2008 Library
Directory with Statistics (reflects FY 07 figures) — includes counties with population of
100,001 to 750,000, excluding Collier County.
(3) Source: Florida Library Association, Standards for Florida Public Libraries, 2006
Cost Component
Costs are calculated separately for facilities and items /equipment. Facility costs are
based on the estimated cost to add the next library building, and the cost of library items
and equipment is based on the average value per unit.
Library Buildings and Land Value per Person
Table 5 summarizes the calculation of library facility and land values. The total impact
cost or total value per resident for library buildings and land in Collier County is $80.
Tindale- Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier County
August 2010 6 Library Impact Fee Update
DRAFTREPORT
Table 5
Library Building and Land Value
Element
Figure
Building Value
$43,515,650
Land Value I
JLM 900
Total Building and Land Value
$45,621550
Less: Portion Not Owned 1
$13,872,121
Net Building and Land Value
$31,750,429
Total Owned Library Square Footage
123,799
Total Owned Building and Land Value per
Square Foot
$256.47
LOS -- Owned Square Foot per Resident 2
0.31
Total Owned Building and Land Value per
Resident 3
$79.51
(1) Source: Table 1
(2) Source: Table 3
(3) Total owned building and land value per square foot multiplied by
LOS — Owned square foot per resident
Library Items /Equipment Value per Person
The library items /equipment value was estimated using the average value per unit
provided by the County. Table 6 illustrates these figures. The total value per person for
library items and equipment in Collier County is $48.
Tindale- Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier County
August 2010 7 Library Impact Fee Update
DRAFTREPORT
Table 6
Library Items /Equipment Value
Library Item/Equipment
Count t
Volt Value t
I Total Value
Books:
Books
647,820
$25.00
$16,195,500
Electronic Books
4,500
$37.00
$166,500
Audio Books
34,433
$45.00
$1,549,485
686,7531
$17,911,485
Average Value
$26.08
Volumes per Resident 2
1.70
Impact Cost per Resident -- Books
$44.34
Other Library Items:
Compact Disks
7,3001
$15.00
$109,500
Adult Kits
327
$90.00
$29,430
Juvenile Kits
1,302
$25.00
$32,550
CD -roms
300
$25.00
$7,500
DVDs
51,567
$20.00
J1,9LI 340
Total
60,796
$1,210,320
Average Value
$19.91
Volumes per Resident 2
0.15
Impact Cost per Resident -- Other Library Items
$2.99
Library Equipment:
Public Computers
159
$850.00
$135,150
Items per Resident 2
0.00039
Impact Cost per Resident -- Computers
$0.33
Total Library Items/Equipment Value per Resident
$47.66
(I ) Source: Public Library Department, Collier County
(2) Source: Table 3
(3) Includes only the computers available to the public
Tindale- Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier County
August 2010 8 Library Impact Fee Update
DRAFTREPORT
Summary of Library Asset Values per Person
Table 7 presents the total library capital asset values, which amounts to $127 per person.
Table 7
Summary of Capital Asset Value
Element
Itep ntY�htie
per Capita
Buildings and Land'
$79.51
Library Materials /Equipment
47.66
Total Capital Cost
$127.17
(1) Source: Table
(2) Source: Table 6
Credit Component
To avoid overcharging new development, a review of library capital expenditures from
2006 to 2010 that were funded with non - impact fee revenue sources was completed. The
purpose of this review was to determine any potential revenues generated by new
development, other than impact fees, that are being used or will be used to fund the
expansion of capital facilities, land, and materials for the County's libraries program.
This review suggests that historically the County used donations and grants to fund a
portion of capacity expansion. As such, it is appropriate to provide a credit.
Capital Improvement Credit
Table 8 summarizes the library related capital expansion projects that are funded by
donations or state grants. The table includes recent historic expenditures for the years
2006 through 2010. The average annual capital expansion expenditure during this five -
year period is $1.07 per resident, which amounts to $15 over a 25 -year period (shown in
Table 9). This figure is calculated by dividing the average annual total capital
expenditure amount for the five -year period by the County's average population during
the same time period. A review of the 2009 AMR information on libraries indicated that
over the next five years the County will fund all additional library material with impact
fees and there are no other capacity expansion projects. As such, the credit based on the
data for the past five years represents a generous credit, resulting in a conservative impact
fee.
Tindale- Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier County
August 2010 9 Library Impact Fee Update
DRAFTREPORT
Table 8
Capital Improvement Creditl'1
Capital Investment
Zbbti•203b
Source
Impact Cost
Marco Island Branch
$1,131,000
Donations
Golden Gate Branch
$500,000
State Construction Grant
South Regional Library
$500,000
State Construction Grant
5%
Capitalization Period (in years)
Total Capital Expansion Expenditures
$2,131,000
Annual Capital Expansion Expenditures
$426,200
Net Impact Cost per Functional Resident a
Average Population (2006 -2010) 2
399,976
Annual Capital Expansion Expenditures per Person
$1.07
(I) Source: Public Library Department, Collier County
(2) Source: Comprehensive Planning Division, Collier County
Net Library Facilities Impact Cost
The net impact fee per residence is the difference between the Cost Component and the
Credit Component. `fable 9 summarizes the calculation of the net library impact cost per
resident.
Table 9
Net Library Facilities Impact Cost
Calculation Step
Impact
Cost
Revenue
Credits
Impact Cost
Total Impact Cost per Resident 1
$127.17
Impact Credit
Average Annual Capital Improvement Credit 2
$1.07
Capitalization Rate
5%
Capitalization Period (in years)
25
Capital Improvement Credit per Resident 3
($15.08)
Net Impact Cost
Net Impact Cost per Functional Resident a
$112.091
(1) Source: 'f able 7
(2) Source: Table 8
(3) The present value of the capital improvement credit per functional resident (Item 2)
at a discount rate of 5 percent with a capitalization period of 25 years. The discount
rate is determined based on the current debt service schedules.
(4) Total impact cost per resident (Item I ) less capital improvement credit per resident
(Item 3)
Tindale- Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier County
August 2010 10 Library Impact Fee Update
DRAFTREPORT
Calculated Library Impact Fee Schedule
The calculated library impact fee for each residential land use is presented in Table 10.
The net impact cost per resident calculated in the previous section is applied to the
average persons per unit by land use. The resulting total impact fees per dwelling unit
range from $162 for the multi - family residential land use to $354 for single family land
use with 2,500 square feet or more space.
Table 10
Library Impact Fee Schedule
Residential Land Use
Impact
Unit
Residents
per Unit t
Net Cost
per
z
Resident
Total
Impact
Fee a
Current
Fee a
Percent
s
Change
Single Family Detached:
Less than 1,500 square feet
du
1 2.62
$112.09
$293.68
$530.17
-45%
1,500 to 2,499 square feet
du
1 2.85
$112.09
$319.46
$583.19
-45%
2,500 square feet or more
du
1 3.16
$112.09
$354.20
$631.97
-44%
Multi - Family
du
1.45
$112.09
$162.53
$424.14
-62%
Mobile Homes
du
2.14
$112.09
$239.87
$523.80
54%
(I) Source: 'Fable 2
(2) Source: 'fable 9
(3) Source: People per household (Item I) multiplied by net cost per resident (Item 2)
(4) Source: Collier County Impact Fee Schedule (Effective February 14, 2010)
(5) Difference between the current fee (Item 4) and the calculated fee (total impact cost, Item 3)
The variation in the percent change among land uses is due to the adjustment to demand
component, which now includes all occupied and vacant units and peak population as
opposed including only the occupied units. This approach is consistent with the AUIR
and reflects the impact of all residents (seasonal and permanent).
Classification of Inventory Value for Future Indexing
Calculations
Currently, Collier County indexes its library impact fees on an annual basis. This reduces
the likelihood of a situation where major adjustments become likely during updates due
to the time between the adjustments. Table I I presents the classification of the inventory
for future indexing purposes. This distribution will be used until the technical study is
updated next time.
Tindale- Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier County
August 2010 11 Library Impact Fee Update
DRAFT REPORT
Table 11
Classification of Inventory Value
(1) Source: Table 5 for land and building values, Table 6 for contents value
(2) Distribution of inventory (Item 1) divided by total cost
Tindale- Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier County
August 2010 12 Library Impact Fee Update
APPENDIX A
Supplemental Cost Data
DRAFTREPORT
Construction Cost Estimate
In determining the appropriate unit cost for building construction, the following analyses
were conducted:
A review of recently built libraries and other buildings in Collier County;
A review of recently built libraries throughout Florida; and
• Discussions with architects regarding recent fluctuations in construction costs.
The last three library expansion projects in Collier County included one new library built
in 2007, and two expansion projects constructed in 2007 and 2009. As such, construction
costs associated with these libraries, which ranged from $240 to $310 per square foot
(excluding costs associated with site preparation, furniture /fixture /equipment, permits,
etc.), are unlikely to reflect the recent decrease in building costs.
TOA collected building construction cost information from libraries located in the
following counties:
• Broward
• Citrus
• Escambia
• Hillsborough
• Indian River
• Lake
• Lee
• Martin
• Miami -Dade
• Palm Beach
• Union
• Volusia
The data obtained was organized by bid date (as available) and construction cost trends
between 2005 and 2009 were calculated, which are presented in Tables A -1 and A -2 as
well as Figure A -1. Unit costs for each year were calculated using two approaches: a
weighted average using the square footage of each library and a straight average of unit
costs.
Tindale- Oliver & Associates, Inc.
August 2010
W
Collier County
Library Impact Fee Update
DRAFT REPORT
Table A -1
Recently Built Florida Libraries
Construction Cost'
(1) Source: Individual Library Representatives
Note: Because bid year date was not available for Indian River, Lee, and Miami -Dade County
libraries, these were not included in this calculation. Construction costs for libraries in these
three counties ranged from $250 to $570 per square foot.
Table A -2
Summary of Construction Cost
By Bid Year'
(1) Source: Table A -1
(2) Sum of total construction cost from Table A -I
divided by sum of square footage for each bid year
(3) Average of construction cost per square foot from
Table A -1 for each bid year
Tindale - Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier County
August 2010 Library Impact Fee Update
A -2
DRAFT REPORT
Figure A -1
Construction Cost per Square Foot
Source: Table A -2
Given this information and discussions with architects, a construction cost of $170 per
square foot was found to be reasonable. This construction cost does not include costs
associated with site preparation, professional services, permitting, furniture /fixture/
equipment, etc. Based on recently built libraries and other buildings within Collier
County, these additional costs are estimated to amount to 55 percent of the construction
cost, for a total building cost of $265 per square foot. Table A -3 provides the calculation
of the final building cost per square foot.
Table A -3
Total Building Cost per Square Foot
Building Cost
Component
r
Construction Cost
ForepFoot
170
Site preparation 2
$51
Other 3
43
Total
$264
(1) Source: Information from Table A -2 as well as
discussions with architects
(2) Based on historical data, site preparation cost
is estimated at 30% of the construction cost.
(3) Includes costs such as furniture /fixture /equipment,
permits, etc., and is estimated to amount 25%
of the construction cost based on historical data.
Tindale- Oliver & Associates, Inc.
August 2010
A -3
Collier County
Library Impact Fee Update
DRAFT REPORT
Land Value Estimate
In order to determine land value for future library land purchases, the value of the parcels
where existing libraries are located as well as land value in areas where future libraries
are expected to be built were evaluated. Table A -4 provides a summary of land value of
the existing libraries.
Table A -4
2010 Land Value of Current Inventory(l)
Library Description
Location
Acres
2410 Land
Value per
Acre
Total Land
Value '
Immokalee Branch
417 1 st Street North
2.77
$7,500
$20,775
Naples Branch
650 Central Avenue
2.66
$375,000
$997,500
East Naples Branch
8787 Tamiami Trail East
0.87
$435,598
$378,970
Estates Branch
1266 Golden Gate Blvd West
2.08
$18,000
$37,440
Marco Island Branch
210 South Heathwood Drive
1.51
$87,500
$132,125
Headquarters Branch
2385 Orange Blossom Drive
5.72
$175,000
$1,001,000
Vanderbilt Branch
788 Vanderbilt Beach Road
1.69
$740,516
$1,251,472
South Regional Library
8065 Lely Cultural Parkway
3.23
$47,602
$153,754
Golden Gate Branch
2432 Lucerne Road
2.88
$435,600
$1,254,528
Total
23.41
$5,227,564
Weighted Average
$223,305
Average
$258,035
(1) Source: Property Appraiser, Collier County
The land value included in the previous impact fee study was $237,000 per acre. This
value was determined based on vacant land sales in 2004 and 2005. As presented in
Table A -5, this value is adjusted based on changes to property values since 2005 as
published by the Collier County Property Appraiser, which results in a current estimated
value of $226,000.
Tindale- Oliver & Associates, Inc.
August 2010
A -4
Collier County
Library Impact Fee Update
DRAFT REPORT
Table A -5
Adjusted Land Values
Time Frame
Land Value(l) ,
Property Value
Change (2)
All
$237,000
$20,181
- 2005 to 2006
$310,020
30.81%
- 2006 to 2007
$326,916
5.45%
- 2007 to 2008
$308,216
-5.72%
- 2008 to 2009
$264,603
- 14.15%
- 2009 to 2010
$226,236
- 14.50%
(1) 2005 land value reflects the average land value per acre included in
the 2006 Library Impact Fee Report, which was based primarily on
2005 data.
(2) Source: Property Appraiser, Collier County
Based on discussions with Public Libraries Department representatives, it is our
understanding that the most of the future libraries will be located in the eastern part of the
County, more specifically within the Immokalee, Big Corkscrew, and Golden Gate Fire
District boundaries. It is important to note that libraries tend to be built in more
urbanized areas. Given the location of existing and future planned libraries, land values
were evaluated in three geographic areas of the county: west of I -75, between 1 -75 and
County Road (CR) 951, and east of CR 951. In addition, parcels with one to ten acres
were separated to better reflect the acreage range needed for libraries.
Table A -6
2010 Just Value per Acre
All Vacant Parcels (1 to 10 acres)
Area
Residential.
Com creial
All
East of 951
$20,181
$219,219
$24,605
Between I -75 & 951
$47,670
$386,560
$58,914
West of I -75
$137,521
$374,105
$205,833
Urban Area
$43,486
$3191985
$81,131
Countywide
$42,182
$302,180
$34,243
As presented in Table A -6, the value of parcels differs significantly in residential versus
commercial areas. In addition, the values decrease toward the eastern part of the county.
Tindale- Oliver & Associates, Inc.
August 2010
A -5
Collier County
Library Impact Fee Update
DRAFT REPORT
The analysis suggested that the land values west of I -75 are representative of current
inventory while the area between I -75 and CR 951 is likely to represent the value of
future library land. Although the values east of CR 951 are lower, this is primarily due to
lack of urbanization. It is expected that future libraries in this area will be built only after
the area becomes more urbanized. Given these analyses, the average value per acre for
the area west of I -75 is estimated at $205,000, and the average land value per acre for the
area between I -75 and CR -951 is estimated at $60,000. Further, it is assumed that 20
percent (1 out 5) of the future libraries will be built in more expensive areas, and the rest
will be built on lower cost land. Table A -7 provides this analysis. Given this analysis,
$90,000 per acre is found to be a reasonable land value estimate for impact fee
calculation purposes.
Table A -7
Weighted Land Value
Laud Value per
Geograhic Area Distributiuu � Acre41
West of I -75 20% $205,000
Between I -75 and CR 951 80% $60,000
Weighted Average Land Value (3) $89,000
(1) Estimated
(2) Estimated based on the analyses summarized shown in Tables A -4 through A -6
(3) Distribution (Item 1) multiplied by land value per acre (Item 2) for each land use
and added
Tindale- Oliver & Associates, Inc.
August 2010
A -6
Collier County
Library Impact Fee Update
COLLIER COUNTY
LAW ENFORCEMENT IMPACT FEE STUDY
DRAFT REPORT
Prepared By:
Tindale- Oliver & Associates, Inc.
Tampa, Florida
September 27, 2010
073061 -02.10
W l'indalC Oliver & Associates, 111C. A _ Planning and EngincerinK
September 27, 2010
Ms. Amy Patterson
Impact Fee Manager
Collier County Growth Management Division
2800 North Horseshoe Drive
Naples, Florida 34104
RE: Law Enforcement Facilities Impact Fee Update Study
Dear Ms. Patterson:
Enclosed is the Draft Technical Report for the Collier County Law Enforcement Facilities Impact Fee
Update Study. Once you get a chance to review the report, we will be available to present study findings
and respond to questions. Meanwhile, we look forward to your comments on this draft report.
If you should have any questions concerning this report, please do not hesitate to contact me or Nilgun
Kamp,
Sincerely,
Tindale- Oliver & Associates, Inc.
Steven A. Tindale, P.E., AICP
President
1000 North Ashley Drive, Suite 100, Tampa, Florida 33602 • Phone: (813) 224 -8862 • Fax (813) 226 -2106
1595 South Semoran Boulevard, Building 7, Suite 1540, Winter Park, Florida 32792 • Phone. (407) 657 -9210 • Fax. (407) 657 -9106
195 South Central Avenue, Bartow, Florida 33830 • Phone'. (863) 533 -8454 • Fax (863) 533 -8481
DRAFT
Table of Contents
Introduction ...... ...............................
Inventory and Value of Capital Assets
Service Area and Population ....................................................... ............................... 6
Levelof Service .......................................................................... ............................... 21
CostComponent .......................................................................... ............................... 21
CreditComponent ....................................................................... ............................... 23
Net Law Enforcement Impact Cost ............................................. ............................... 26
Calculated Law Enforcement Impact Fee Schedule ................... ............................... 26
Appendix A — Inventory Details
Appendix B — Building and Land Values Supplemental Information
Tindale- Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier County
September 2010 i Law Enforcement Impact Fee Study
DRAFT
Introduction
Law enforcement impact fees are used to fund the capital construction and expansion of
police service related land, facilities and capital equipment required to support the
additional police service demand created by new growth.
Tindale- Oliver & Associates, Inc, (TOA) was initially retained by Collier County in 2004
to develop a law enforcement impact fee program and again in 2006 to conduct an update
of the cost and credit components of the law enforcement impact fee, which relied
primarily on 2005 data. To comply with the technical study update requirements of the
impact fee ordinance and to ensure that the impact fee calculations are based on the most
recent and local data available, the County has retained TOA to conduct a comprehensive
update of the County's law enforcement impact fee program. This report presents the
results of the law enforcement impact fee study for the County and will serve as the
technical support document for the calculated law enforcement impact fee schedule.
There are several major elements associated with the development of the law
enforcement impact fee. These include:
• Capital Asset Inventory
• Service Area and Population
• Level of Service
• Cost Component
• Credit Component
• Net Law Enforcement Impact Cost
• Calculated Law Enforcement Impact Fee Schedule
Inventory and Value of Capital Assets
According to information provided by the Collier County Facilities Management
Department, the County has approximately 265,000 square feet of building space used to
provide law enforcement facilities. 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.
Table 1 shows a summary of the CCSO building inventory. Inventory details are
presented in Appendix A, Table A -1.
Tindale- Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier County
September 2010 1 Law Enforcement Impact Fee Study
DRAFT
Table 1
Land and Building Inventory
Bu44ing Type
Primary Buildings
Land
S+uare
Teat)
263,171
Building Value
. per Squil
$270
Total Building &
Land Vaineol
$71,056,170
Support Buildings
1,994
$75
$149,550
Total
265,1651
$71,205,720
Total Acreage (4)
27.39
Land Value per Acres)
$170,000
$4,656,300
Total Building and Land Value (6)
$75,862,020
(1) Source: Appendix A, Table A -1
(2) Source: Appendix B
(3) Building value per square foot (Item 2) multiplied by the square feet (Item 1)
(4) Source: Appendix A, Table A -]
(5) Source: Appendix B
(6) Sum of total building value and land value
An important part of the impact fee calculations involves estimating the current value of
the capital assets. The most recent law enforcement facilities were bid in 2006 and 2008,
and were built in 2009. Given the recent decrease in construction costs, these projects do
not reflect current building costs. As such, the value of existing buildings is determined
based on a review of insurance values of the existing inventory and discussions with
architects. Based on this analysis, an average unit value of $270 per square foot was used
for primary buildings and $75 per square foot for support facilities. These figures
represent a decrease of approximately 10 percent from the current adopted building
values.
In terms of estimating current land values, an analysis was conducted to determine 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. In addition, land use
characteristics of the areas where existing facilities are located were also evaluated. Both
vacant land sales and the current value of vacant parcels as reported by the Collier
County Property Appraiser were evaluated to determine the differentiation in land values
in different parts of the county and for different land uses. This analysis resulted in an
average value of $170,000 per acre, and is explained further in Appendix B. This figure
represents approximately 55 percent decrease in average land value per acre from the
current adopted figure.
Tindale - Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier County
September 2010 2 Law Enforcement Impact Fee Study
DRAFT
In addition to the land and buildings inventory, the CCSO also has the vehicles and
equipment to perform its law enforcement duties. Table 2 summarizes the equipment
inventory. Equipment included in this list follows the State's definition of capital assets
for all equipment except for weapons and tasers. Florida Statue 274 defines capital assets
as items that have a minimum value of $1,000 and one year of useful life. Although
weapons and tasers have an average value of less $1,000, the CCSO qualifies them as
capital assets since they are considered sensitive material /equipment.
It should be noted that the total equipment value increased by approximately $20 million
since the last update study. Approximately $10 million of this increase is due to the
CCSO providing a more complete inventory and current value of certain items, such as
the vehicles. Because the equipment list is extensive, typically the cost provided by the
CCSO is historical purchase prices. As information becomes available, the CCSO
provides current value of certain items. The remaining increase is due to a combination
of increased units, use of different types /model of certain items with a higher value, and
update of current values.
Given this large increase, to provide a conservative estimate, only the value of vehicle
and equipment purchases made since the last study were added to the inventory value
included in the previous study. These purchases are listed in Table 15. The
equipment /vehicle inventory should be monitored carefully over the next couple of years,
and if the total value continues to be large, it should be reflected in the impact fee
calculations to capture the full cost of providing law enforcement services in Collier
County.
Tindale- Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier County
September 2010 3 Law Enforcement Impact Fee Study
DRAFT
Table 2
Equipment Inventory
Equipment Descri tion
Number o'
Unitstil
Unit Cost}
Total Costal
Furniture
104
$8,095
$841,856
Office Equipment
99
$2,901
$287,206
Recording Equipment
19
$2,231
$42,392
Minor Recording Equipment
21
$6,929
$145,500
Minor Computer Equipment
639
$3,604
$2,303,177
Desktop Computers
719
$1,550
$1,114,450
ITD
4
$1,680
$6,719
Major Computer Equipment
219
$28,425
$6,225,149
Computer Software
112
$23,077
$2,584,581
Laptop Computers
1,064
$4,100
$4,362,400
Minor Appliances
1
$3,221
$3,221
Security
13
$3,833
$49,827
Recreation and Training Equipment
14
$11,054
$154,752
Minor Recreation and Training Equipment
14
$6,938
$97,131
Medical Equipment
571
$1,746
$997,057
All Classes of Weapons
690
$362
$250,010
Tasers
30
$385
$11,543
Range Equipment
5
$15,791
$78,954
Photo
6
$3,753
$22,516
Digital Camera
28
$1,890
$52,931
Camera
29
$1,827
$52,986
In -Car Video
419
$5,000
$2,095,000
Camera Equipment
51
$6,007
$306,374
Projector
23
$3,411
$78,452
Digital Camcorder
16
$2,611
$41,779
Camcorder
11
$2,422
$26,640
Utilities
4
$14,809
$59,235
Boat Equipment
32
$6,404
$204,924
Boats
10
$41,069
$410,686
Aircraft
2
$390,933
$781,865
Minor Communication Equipment
89
$18,504
$1,646,842
Tindale- Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier County
September 2010 4 Law Enforcement Impact Fee Study
DRAFT
Table 2 (continued)
Equipment Inventory
E III went Descri t14n :
Number a
unit
Unit CQSt�1)
Total Cost9l
Aircraft Equipment
36
$22,744
$818,773
Communication Equipment
57
$15,069
$858,935
Mobile and Portable Radios
1,422
$3,368
$4,789,296
Books
1
$1,453
$1,453
Night Vision
77
$4,437
$341,629
Polygraph Equipment
4
$3,725
$14,900
Traffic Equipment
20
$3,893
$77,855
Other Detection
31
$5,740
$177,945
Evidence Gathering
118
$6,550
$772,847
Radars
524
$2,869
$1,503,277
Lasers
60
$3,600
$216,000
Traffic Control
6
$12,655
$75,929
Protection
91
$1,985
$180,657
Sedans
583
$25,334
$14,769,722
Vans
49
$27,247
$1,335,103
Pickup Trucks
177
$27,500
$4,867,500
SUVS
40
$29,600
$1,184,000
Specialty Vehicles
69
$13,392
$924,051
Other Vehicles
16
$6,208
$99,323
Special Operations/ Specialty Equipment/
76
$6,256
$475,459
Diving Equipment
28
$1,680
$47,050
K -9 Dog
12
$9,162
$109,938
K -9 Dog Equipment
1
$1,253
$1,253
Hand Tools
5
$1,610
$8,049
Shop Machinery and Equipment
110
$5,336
$587,011
Lab Equipment
11
$6,558
$72,141
Total
8,682
$59,646,251
Value Included in the Study (4)
$45,820,385
(1) Source: CCSO
(2) Source: CCSO
(3) Number of units (Item 1) multiplied by the unit cost (Item 2)
(4) Calculated as the sum of the value of the inventory included in the 2006 ($41.3 million) and
the value of items purchased since the last study that were not included in the 2006 study (a
portion of expenditures in FY 2006, and expenditures in FY 2007 through FY 2009, see
Table 15 for further detail).
Tindale- Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier County
September 2010 5 Law Enforcement Impact Fee Study
DRAFT
Service Area and Population
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.
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 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 will be used in all
population estimates and projections, unless otherwise noted. Peak seasonal population
projections used in the impact fee analysis reflect figures provided by Collier County's
Comprehensive Planning Department and are calculated by increasing the County's
annual permanent population by 20 percent.
Table 3 presents the population trends for the law enforcement service area of
unincorporated Collier County and Everglades City. The projections indicate that the
population of this service area is projected to increase by nearly 45 percent between 2010
and 2029.
Tindale- Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier County
September 2010 6 Law Enforcement Impact Fee Study
DRAFT
Table 3
Unincorporated County plus Everglades City
Peak Seasonal Population
Year
Peak Season.
Po'AWatit n Figure
Pement
Change,
2000
265,947
2001
280,750
5.57%
2002
296,983
5.78%
2003
313,767
5.65%
2004
328,690
4.76%
2005
340,572
3.61%
2006
349,741
2.69%
2007
353,108
0.96%
2008
352,886
- 0.06%
2009
353,773
0.25%
2010
357,515
1.06%
2011
364,476
1.95%
2012
371,572
1.95%
2013
378,807
1.95%
2014
386,182
1.95%
2015
394,290
2.10%
2016
403,159
2.25%
2017
412,227
2.25%
2018
421,498
2.25%
2019
430,978
2.25%
2020
440,067
2,11%
2021
448,747
1.97%
2022
457,599
1.97%
2023
466,625
1.97%
2024
475,830
1.97%
2025
484,484
1.82%
2026
492,566
1.67%
2027
500,784
1.67%
2028
509,141
1.67%
2029
517,638
1.6771-/.
Source: Collier County Comprehensive Planning Department
June 11, 2010)
Tindale- Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier County
September 2010 7 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 facilities impact fee
calculations include the following:
• Single Family Detached
• Multi - Family
• Mobile Home /RV (Tied Down)
Table 4 presents the number of residents per housing unit for the residential categories
identified above in Collier County. This analysis includes all housing units, both
occupied and vacant.
To address fairness and equity issues between land uses, as well as to address affordable
housing issues, the single family land use is tiered based on three categories of square
footage: less than 1,500 square feet, 1,500 to 2,499 square feet, and greater than 2,500
square feet. To accommodate the tiering of impact fee assessments for the single family
residential land use category, an analysis was completed based on housing unit size and
persons per housing unit, comparing nationwide averages to those of Collier County.
This analysis utilized national data from the 2007 American Housing Survey (AHS) and
data from the 2000 Census data for Collier County to examine this relationship.
To calculate the tiering for the three different categories, national residents per unit ratios
for each housing unit category were applied to the total residents per housing unit ratio
for single family detached land use.
Table 4
Residents per Housing Unit
fioasing=Ty c .
P4 ulatia0l
Housing Units4 �1
Ratio l
Residents r .
Housin U01ts
Single Family Detached
138,924
45,678
3.04
- Less than 1,500 sf
92%
2.80
- 1,500 to 2,499 sf
100%
3.04
- 2,500 sf or greater
111%
3.37
Multi Family
90,817
55,319
1.64
Mobile Home /RV (Tied Down )
22,901
10,601
2.16
(1) Source: 2000 Census, Table H -33, adjusted for peak seasonal population, based on the ratio
of permanent to peak seasonal population (20 %)
(2) Source: 2000 Census, Table H -30
(3) Ratios developed based on national persons per household data derived from the 2007
American Housing Survey
Tindale- Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier County
September 2010 8 Law Enforcement Impact Fee Study
DRAFT
Functional Population
Since Collier County Sheriff's Office (CCSO) provides law enforcement services to all
residents, workers, and visitors, more than the peak seasonal resident population needs to
be considered. Traditionally, population was used as the basis of current and future
demand for certain facilities. In the case of law enforcement facilities, the higher the
nonresident daytime population is, the greater the need for service relative to the resident
population. Moreover, it is not enough to simply add resident population to the number
of employees, since the service - demand characteristics of employees can vary
considerably by type of industry. Using unweighted population and employment data to
estimate facility needs may result in substantial error.
Functional population is the equivalent number of people occupying space within a
community on a 24- hours - per -day, 7- days - per -week basis (Nelson and Nicholas 1992).
A person living and working in the community will have a functional population
coefficient of 1.0. A person living in the community but working elsewhere may spend
only 16 hours per day in the community on weekdays and 24 hours per day on weekends
for a functional population coefficient of 0.76 (128 -hour presence divided by 168 hours
in one week). A person commuting into the community to work five days per week
would have a functional population coefficient of 0.30 (50 -hour presence divided by 168
hours in one week). Similarly, a person traveling into the community to shop at stores,
perhaps averaging 8 hours per week, would have a functional population coefficient of
0.05.
Functional population thus tries to capture the presence of all people within the
community, whether residents, workers, or visitors, to arrive at a total estimate of
effective population needing to be served. By estimating the functional and peak
seasonal 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 in a future
year can be calculated. The following paragraphs explain how functional population is
calculated for residential and nonresidential land uses.
Residential Functional Population
Developing the residential component of functional population is simpler than developing
the nonresidential component. It is generally estimated that people spend one -half to
three - fourths of their time at home and the rest of each 24 -hour day away from their place
of residence. In developing the residential component of Collier County functional
population, an analysis of the County's population and employment characteristics was
Tindale - Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier County
September 2010 9 Law Enforcement Impact Fee Study
I IMAR MA
conducted. Based on this analysis, it was estimated that people, on average, spend 16.4
hours, or approximately 68 percent, of each 24 -hour day at their place of residence and
the other 32 percent away from home. This analysis is presented in Tables 5 and 6.
Table 5
Collier County
Population and Employment Characteristics
Item/Ca><calatifln 8te p
Figure
Workers who live and work in Collier County(l)
95,020
Workers who live in Collier County but work elsewhere (2)
8,048
Total workers living in Collier County (3)
103,068
Collier County Census 2000 Population (4)
251,377
Total workers as a percent of populations)
41.0%
School age population (5 -17 years)(6)
36,507
School age population as a percent of population (7)
14.5%
Population net of workers and school age population (8)
111,802
Other population as a percent of total population(9)
44.5%
(1), (2) Source: Bureau of Transportation Statistics, Census Transportation Planning
Package (CTPP) 2000 Part 3 (figures for Year 2000)
(3) Sum of the workers who live and work in Collier County (Item 1) and workers who
live in Collier County but work elsewhere (Item 2)
(4), (6) Source: US Census Bureau, 2000 Census
(5) Total workers living in Collier County (Item 3) divided by total population (Item 4)
(7) School age population (Item 6) divided by total population (Item 4)
(8) Total population (Item 4) less total workers living in Collier County (Item 3) and
school age population (Item 6)
(9) Population net of workers and school age population (Item 8) divided by total
population (Item 4)
Tindale- Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier County
September 2010 10 Law Enforcement Impact Fee Study
l ME
Table 6
Residential Coefficient for Functional Population
Population
Group
Hours at
Residence(l)
Percent of
Fnpulatiow"
Effective
Hours(3)
Workers
13
41.0%
5.3
Students
15
14.5%
2.2
Other
20
44.5%
8.9
Total Hours at Residence (4)
16.4
Residential Functional Population Coefficient (5)
68.3%
(1) Estimated
(2) Source: Table 5
(3) Hours at residence (Item 1) multiplied by percent of population (Item 2)
(4) Sum of the effective hours
(5) Sum of effective hours (Item 4) divided by 24
The resulting percentage from Table 6 is used in the calculation of residential coefficient
for the 24 -hour functional population. These calculations are presented in Table 7.
Tindale- Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier County
September 2010 11 Law Enforcement Impact Fee Study
DRAFT
Table 7
General Functional Population Coefficients
Journey -to - -
Population/
ITE
Employee
Tripper
One �G'ay
Work
Daily
Visitors per
Visitor Horn's
Days per
Ronctional
Category
LUC
Hours In
P1aceui
Trips per
Employee")
per
Occupants
T
Em to ee ai
per Trip ��
Week s'
. Population
Coefficient �' t
Trip (4)
p pt'7
Population
7.00
0.683
Natural Resources
N/A
9.00
102
1.51
1.32
1.38
0.09
100
7.00
0.379
Construction
110
9.00
3.02
151
1.321
1.38
0.09
1.001
5.00
0.271
Manufacturing
140
9.00
2.13
1.07
1.32
138
0.06
1.00
5.00
0.270
Transportation, Communication, Utilities
110
9.00
3.02
1.51
1.32
1.38
0.09
1.00
5.00
0171
Wholesale Trade
150
9.00
3.89
1.95
1.32
1.38
0.12
1.00
5.00
0.271
Retail Trade
820
9.00
6512
32.61
1.24
1.73
15.98
1.50
7.00
1.374
Finance, Insurance, Real Estate
710
9.00
332
1.66
1.24
1.73
0.81
1.00
5.00
0.292
Services""
N/A
9.001
27.351
13.681
1.24
1.73
6.70
1.00
6.00
0.561
Government..
730
9.00
11.95
5.98
1.24
1.73
2.93
1 001
7.00
0.497
(1), (7) Assumed
(2) Trips per employee represents all trips divided by the number of employees and is based on Trip Generation 8th Edition (Institute of Transportation Engineers 2008) as follows:
ITE Code 110 at 3.02 weekday trips per employee, page 90.
ITE Code 140 at 2.13 weekday trips per employee, page 161.
ITE Code 150 at 3.89 weekday trips per employee, page 190.
ITE Code 710 at 3.32 weekday trips per employee, page 1196.
ITE Code 730 at 11.95 weekday trips per employee, page 1248.
ITE Code 820 based on blended average of trips by retail center size calculated below, adapted from page 1500_
Trips per retail employee from the following table:
Assumed Trip Rate Trip Rate Sq Ft per
Trips per
Weighted
Retail Scale Center Size per hsj per sf Employee '12r
Employee Share
Trips
Neighborhood <50k sq.ft. 25 110.32 0.110 802.45
88.27 40.0%
35.31
Community 50k - 200k sq.ft. 125 62.81 0.063 975.16
61.44 30.0%
18.43
Regional 200k - 500k sq.ft. 350 43.80 0.044 1,043.00
45.89 200%
9.18
Super Reg. 500k -1000k sq.ft. 750 33.55 0.034 676.00
22.98 10.0%
2.30
Sum of Weighted Trips /Sq.Ft
65.22
(3) Trip per employee (Item 2) multiplied by 0.5.
(4) Journey -to -Work Occupants per Trip from 2001 Nationwide Household Travel Survey (FHWA 2001) as follows:
1.32 occupants per Construction, Manufacturing, TCU, and Wholesale trip
1.24 occupants per Retail Trade, FIRE, and Services trip
(5) Daily Occupants per Trip from 2001 Nationwide Household Travel Survey (FHWA 2001) as follows:
1.38 occupants per Construction, Manufacturing, TCU, and Wholesale trip
1.73 occupants per Retail Trade, FIRE, and Services trip
(6) [Daily occupants per trip (Item 5) multiplied by one -way trips per employee (Item 3)] - [(Journey -to -Work occupants per trip (Item 4) multiplied by one -way trips per employee (Item 3)]
(8) Typical number of days per week that indicated industries provide services and relevant government services are available.
(9) The equation to determine the Functional Population Coefficient per Employee for all land -use categories except residential
includes the following:
((Days ner Week x Employee Hours in Place) + (Visitors per Employee x Visitor Hours per Trio x Days per Week)
(24 Hours per Day x 7 Days per Week)
(10) Trips per employee for the services category is the average trips per employee for the following service related land use categories: quality restaurant, high - turnover restaurant, supermarket, hotel, motel,
(11) Includes Federal Civilian Government, Federal Military Government, and State and Local Government categories.
12) Square feet per retail employee from the Energy Information Administration from Table B -1 of the Commercial Energy Building Survey, 2003
Tindale- Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier County
September 2010 12 Law Enforcement Impact Fee Study
DRAFT
Nonresidential Functional Population
Given the varying characteristics of nonresidential land uses, developing estimates of
functional residents for nonresidential land uses is more complicated than developing
estimates of functional residents for residential land uses. Nelson and Nicholas originally
introduced a method for estimating functional resident population, now used
internationally.' This method uses trip generation data from the Institute of
Transportation Engineers' (ITE) Trip Generation Manual and TOA's Trip Characteristics
Database, information on passengers per vehicle, workers per vehicle, length of time
spent at the land use, and other variables. Specific calculations include:
• Total one -way trips per employee (ITE trips multiplied by 50 percent to avoid
double counting entering and exiting trips as two trips).
• Visitors per impact unit based on occupants per vehicle (trips multiplied by
occupants per vehicle less employees).
• Worker hours per week per impact unit (such as nine worker hours per day
multiplied by five days in a work week).
• Visitor hours per week per impact unit (visitors multiplied by number of hours per
day times relevant days in week such as five for offices and seven for retail
shopping).
• Functional population coefficients per employee developed by estimating time
spent by employees and visitors at each land use.
Table 7 also shows the functional population coefficients for nonresidential
uses /categories in Collier County. The functional population coefficients in Table 7 were
used to estimate the County's functional population in Table 8.
' Arthur C. Nelson and James C. Nicholas, "Estimating Functional Population for Facility Planning,
Journal of Urban Planning and Development 118(2): 45 -58 (1992).
Tindale- Oliver & Associates, Inc. collier county
September 2010 13 Law Enforcement Impact Fee Study
DRAFT
Table 8
Functional Population - Year 2010
Po tion Category
Coilior.County -
Basetior Data {W
FunetionaI R"Went
- Coeocientol .
Functional
Population (3)
2010 Peak Season Population
357,515
0.683
244,183
Non - Residential Population Fm to gees and Visitors)
Natural Resources
7,022
0.379
2,661
Construction
11,427
0271
3,097
Manufacturing
2,9341
0.270
792
Trans ortation, Warehousing, and Utilities
2,580
0271
699
Wholesale Trade
3,496
0.271
947
Retail "Trade
15,030
1.374
20,651
Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate
23,524
0.292
6,869
Services
64,226
0561
36,031
Government Services
11,696
0.497
5,813
Total Non - Residential Population by Category(')
77,560
2009 Total Functional Populations)
321,743
Ratio of Functional Population to Residential Population
90,0%
(1) Source: Table 3 for the 2010 population. To determine the employment within the law
enforcement service area, the ratio of employment in unincorporated county and Everglades
City to the countywide employment was determined, based on socioeconomic employment
data developed for the Collier County 2035 Long Range Transportation Plan. This ratio is
then applied to the countywide population figure from Woods and Pool to determine the
employment figure within the law enforcement service area.
(2) Source: Table 7
(3) Functional population is calculated by multiplying Collier County 2010 baseline data (Item l)
by the functional resident coefficient (Item 2).
(4) The total non - residential population by category is the sum of the employment and visitor
figures from the nine categories (e.g., construction, manufacturing, etc.)
(5) The total functional population is the sum of the residential functional population (244, 183)
and nonresidential functional population (77,560)
Table 9 presents the County's annual functional population figures from 2000 through
2029, based on the 2010 functional population figure from Table 8 and the annual
population growth rates from the population figures previously presented in "Fable 3.
Tindale- Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier County
September 2010 14 Law Enforcement Impact Fee Study
DRAFT
Table 9
Unincorporated Collier County and Everglades City
Functional Population
(2000 -2029)
Year
FunedQual POPUllten
Projectiods'
2000
238,811
2001
252,184
2002
266,811
2003
282,019
2004
295,556
2005
306,196
2006
314,463
2007
317,608
2008
317,290
2009
31 8,242
2010
321,743
2011
327,856
2012
334,085
2013
340,433
2014
346,901
2015
354,186
2016
361,978
2017
369,942
2018
378,081
2019
386,399
2020
394,513
2021
402,403
2022
410,451
2023
418,660
2024
427,033
2025
434,720
2026
442,110
2027
449,626
2028
457,270
2029
465,044
Source: Table 8 for the 2010 population Figure. Figures
for other years are based on the respective annual
growth rates peak population figures provided in
Table 3.
Tindale- Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier County
September 2010 15 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 previously mentioned, the average number of persons per housing unit in Collier
County was calculated for the single family, multi family, and mobile home /RV (tied
down) land uses, based on information obtained from the 2000 Census. Besides the
residential land uses, the table also includes transient land uses such as hotels, motels,
nursing homes, and adult living facilities (ALF). Secondary sources, such as the local
Convention and Visitors Bureau (CVB) and the Florida Department of Elderly Affairs,
are used to determine the occupancy rate for hotel, motel, and nursing home land uses.
As mentioned before, different functional population coefficients must be developed for
each of the impact fee areas to be analyzed. For residential and transient land uses, these
coefficients are displayed in 'Fable 10.
Nonresidential Land Uses
A similar approach is used to estimate functional residents for nonresidential land uses.
'Fable 1 1 reports basic assumptions and calculations, such as trips per unit, trips per
employee, employees per impact unit, one -way trips per impact unit, worker hours,
occupants per vehicle trip, visitors (patrons, etc.) per impact unit, visitor hours per trip,
and days per week for nonresidential land uses. The final column in the tables shows the
estimated functional resident coefficients by land use. These coefficients by land use
create the demand component for the law enforcement facilities impact fee program and
will be used in the calculation of the cost per unit for each land use category in the impact
fee schedule.
Cindale- Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier County
September 2010 16 Law Enforcement Impact Fee Study
O
L�
r
F
�I
A
N
a�
N
C
J
,N
L
Rf
C
CL)
0
N
N
V
LL
v yry. rn
O
OM
1
n'o
n
c
p vi
N
N
•-'
0
0
0
0
w C E p w
V °
Pr. -g
o
�•�w o
N
q
WE o .� a
L C
O I O O C
V
u
cO i iC 4j
b p N O
U
O
O
00
u
y
ro
a
oo O x
1.
7D
0000000
0000
C
° N C7
n
In
�noM
w C O rn
G w wCG� a~i
O ` C ` N
w y
r •`�
.. ;c.
N
Ki
M^
N
..
+O
1 .r y H o
4
U
V M'GC7 d
H a ° p ? a0i
° u gQ °w X33
Cl
V
N
N
'n
j v '= 8 .� .2
y 4" O p
.. ~
N
N
N
N
M
M
`p
N
y' V p W N p O
CL
V
.fl
00-0 0 o
s ° o .� w~
o
b
•o
4D
o
°o
o
� e.
'�q+
,.,
a � � y w. �. A • A
0000
° a >
v
m
3
y o.S
o
N
u
a
L
CL
A
y C L o ID VC W aCi
'
i
w C
Oc
y
%
a;
y
ca
w
7 �v, a y
b 0000 p w p .a
Qkfj
�"ybQ?- aH�°do
cv
E c W v b $
p
00 N C
'C
....
O
W
yNy
N ' 5
N
Cn
�3v�WiUa���°°�
GG
cnFx
2Q:
"L9
0
U a�
�w
U
w
C
Cd
.-w
..w
c�3
.O
O
N ~
� o
N
H �
r
Ar
W
E*
w
A
AN
W
N
C
J
A=
W
L
0
Z
N
.j.r
A�
W
�N
V
C
LL
O V]
U a�
O U
U G.
E
E
7Uw
W
U
C
U
O
V)
Q
� O
� N
b
c
H �
9 d V
4
r
O
O
O
O
O
W
N
00
N
V
N
N
�.
po
N
N
N
v
a a.
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
V�
a
3 ca'
L
O
O
O
O
V
N
a0
r
�
vt
V
V
r
y
N
Vl
M
V1
Vl
M
M
M
M
M
a
y
p
—
F
b
a
H
v
0
�n
o
�
0
as
4
u
yU„
r
s
C7
e
w
x
a
U
5
0
0
0
0
o
a
O V]
U a�
O U
U G.
E
E
7Uw
W
U
C
U
O
V)
Q
� O
� N
b
c
H �
^U)
W
N
C
J
a:+
L
"a M
Al
0 0
vZ
T L
T 0
_( N
B
i
N
N0
1�
Y
V
C
LL
O
r
i �yy
G i+
voi v01 b� O O N h N O O Voi N� 8, m N ern �. S n N h N h c! S
0 0 0 0 0 0
a
,L
o H
r C W P b 00 O � M N P 00 00 � P h O v1 O N pp O 00 y
O M ! V Vl V 00 r P r M y Oy 00 O N er P N P 10 M V1
M M M M M M M M M N N N V� V1 N N
!y 'C
G_ a
� o
3 x
0
N
t. 'c
G
W 0.
..I OI bI MI �I �I NI —I �I NI rl PI �I NI NI NI �) MI bl WI
(VI [VI hl OI WI tVl (`ll (VI tVl OI �+il Vil OI GI OI �I N) OI �-�) h
aW ` N z z z z z z z z N C m z z z z^ O z 4
P �D M oo ao r M �o vi M ao 0 o ao 0o M
P IN N a � h � � 00 W N 7 00
a rv' P �O r 00 V `D O oo N O P N P N h �D P fV
00 CO 00 00 00 00 00 00 N W 00 DO 00 00 00 00 00 P P Q� T P P P P P
.r a
8 H y h H a y H p H p y H
8 8 8 8 8 8 8$ 8 �� 8 �� N
•� •• 0 0 25 25 25 25 � ti �
N d D
w o« S S S g
a rt a s a" x P21,
a z
.". w S � . � Yn ❑ 3 `�
'� aF � � � Vi F• °o '� v w `°
o
5q
0
V a�
a� a.
o
U
C�
Ti
U
W
�i
W
�l
1..1
F,
C)
N
O
CA
Q
O
O
N
co E
H v]
I13'M_M I
Table 11 (continued)
Functional Residents for Non - Residential Land Uses
Tindale- Oliver & Associates, Inc- Collier County
September 2010 20 Law Enforcement Impact Fee Study
gag Way
Ytsitor
Functional
ITIr
'irlpsker
'Trips Per
Employees
Fattor {a
Worker
Qtcnpanfs
Hanrsper'
Days Per
itesident
Laud Use
lmpat# Unit
LUGpI
TIai #QI
E nploptxpl
Yer Unity
5Q•fet
Hours
Per'Tript�
Uuitors
Tripes
Week('
Coef Kient""
Industrial
Light Industrial
1,000 sf
110
1 6971
3 021
2311
3491
91
138
2,511
1.00
5
0.69
Mini - Warehouse
1,000 sf
151
2501
56281
0041
1.251
9
1 381
1691
0.75
7
0.07
Business Park (Flex Space)
1,000 sf
1 770
12981
4041
3 211
6491
91
1 381
5 751
0751
51
099
Sources:
(1) Land use code found in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (TIE) Trip Generation Handbook, 8th Edition
(2) Land uses and trip generation rates consistent with those included in the 2008 Transportation Impact Fee Update Study
(3) Trips per worker from FfE Trip Generation Handbook, 8th Edition, when available
(4) Trips per impact unit divided by trips per person (usually employee). When trips per person are not available, the employees per unit is estimated.
(5) Trips per unit (Item 2) multiplied by 50 percent
(6)1(9), (10) Estimated
(7) Nationwide Personal Transportation Survey
(8) [(One -way Tnps/Unit X Occupants/Tnp) - Employees].
(1 I) [(Workers X Hours/Day X Days/Week) +(Visitors X Hours/Visit X Days/Week)]/(24 Hours x 7 Days)
(12) Trip rate is for 50,000 sf.
(13) Trip rate is for 75,000 sf,
(14) Tnp rate is for 150,000 sf
(15) Trip rate is for 300,000 sf
(16) Tnp rate is for 600,000 sf
(17) Trip rate is for 125,000 sf.
(18) Trip rate is for 175 000 sf
(19) Trip rate is for 500,000 sf
(20) Trip rate is for '00'000 sf
21) Trip rate is for 1,200,000 sf
Tindale- Oliver & Associates, Inc- Collier County
September 2010 20 Law Enforcement Impact Fee Study
DRAFT
Level of Service
Based on the information provided by the County, Collier County's 2010 level of service
(LOS) is 0.74 square feet of primary law enforcement building per peak resident. Table
12 presents the calculation of the existing LOS.
While the 2010 LOS for all buildings is 0.74 square feet per peak resident, in order to
calculate the law enforcement facilities impact fee, the LOS, or square feet per functional
resident must be calculated. Table 12 also illustrates the calculation of the current LOS
using the total functional residents within the county. The current LOS of primary law
enforcement building space is 0.82 square feet per functional resident.
Table 12
Current Level of Service
(Per Peak Seasonal and Functional Resident)
Cam anent
2010
Total Square Feet of Primary BuildingsM
263,171
Peak Seasonal Population (2)
357,515
LOS (Square Feet per Peak Resident)
0.74
Functional Population (3)
321,743
LOS (Square Feet per Functional Resident)
0.82
(1) Source: Table 1
(2) Source: Table 3
(3) Source: Table 8
Cost Component
The cost component of the study evaluates the cost of capital items, including buildings,
land, vehicles, and equipment. It should be noted that a portion of the law enforcement
buildings was funded through bond /commercial paper issues. The debt service on some
of these issues is being paid back with impact fee revenues. As such, the outstanding
principal associated with debt service that will be paid back with impact fee revenues is
subtracted from the total inventory value to ensure that the new development will not be
charged twice for the same facility. Table 13 provides a summary of all capital costs,
which amounts to approximately $342 per square foot of law enforcement facilities.
Tindale - Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier County
September 2010 21 Law Enforcement Impact Fee Study
DRAFT
Table 13
Total Capital Cost
Total Land Value(i)
$4,656,300
5%
Total Building Value(z)
$71,205,720
44%
Total Equipment Value (3)
$45,820,385
51%
Total Capital Asset Value (4)
$121,682,405
Less: Portion Not Paid for
$31,778,501
Net Buildings, Land and Equipment Value (6)
$89,903,904
Total Building Square Footage (Primary Buildings)')
263,171
Total Capital Value per Square Foot (8)
$341.62
(1) Source: Table 1
(2) Source: Table 1
(3) Source: Table 2
(4) Sum of total land (Item 1), building (Item 2), and equipment (Item 3) costs.
(5) Source: Office of Management and Budget
(6) Total capital asset cost (Item 4) less the portion not paid for (Item 5)
(7) Source: Table 1
(8) Net value of assets (Item 6) divided by total building square footage (Item 7)
(9) Percent of total capital value to be used for future indexing calculations. Percentages are
based on net asset value (e.g., land percentage is calculated as
$4,656,300 / $89,903,904 = 5 %, and buildings percentage is calculated as
($71,205,720 - $31,778,501) / $89,903,904 = 44 %).
Total Impact Cost per Functional Resident
Table 14 presents the unit cost for the impact fee analysis. This unit cost was calculated
as the total capital cost of $342 per square foot multiplied by the LOS of 0.82 square feet
per functional resident. As shown in the following table, the total impact cost per
resident is $280 for law enforcement buildings.
Tindale - Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier County
September 2010 22 Law Enforcement Impact Fee Study
DRAFT
Table 14
Total Impact Cost per Functional Resident
Component
Figure
Total Capital Asset Value per Square Foot
LOS (Square Feet per Functional Resident)(')
0.82
Total Capital Asset Value per Functional Resident (3)
$280.13
(1) Source: Table 13
(2) Source: Table 12
(3) Total capital asset value per square foot (Item 1) multiplied by the LOS (Item 2)
Credit Component
To avoid overcharging development for the law enforcement impact fee, a review of the
capital financing program for law enforcement services 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 facilities, land, and
equipment expansion for the law enforcement program.
Credit for Capital Expansion Expenditures
The review of the capital expansion expenditures for FY 2005 to FY 2009 was completed
and reviewed with the CCSO.
The CCSO has three different sources for capital expansion expenditures:
• General Fund
• Grants
• Donations
Table 15 summarizes the capital expansion expenditures over a five -year period. This
table also specifies the funding source for each purchase. The annual revenue per
functional resident was calculated as the average capital expenditures for expansion
during the five -year period divided by the average functional resident population during
those years. This results in $4.54 per functional resident, which represents approximately
50 percent reduction from the previous study. During the previous study, the County was
using non - impact funding to build law enforcement buildings, which were subsequently
built. However, over the past five years as well as during the next five years, the County
did not spend and has no plans to spend non - impact fee funds to built additional law
enforcement buildings. As such, the associated credit decreased.
Tindale- Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier County
September 2010 23 Law Enforcement Impact Fee Study
DRAFT
Table 15
Capital Expansion Expenditures(')
$uildn ui meat
FY 2445
FY2005
FY 2007
FY 2048
FY 2009
Total
Donations
Vehicles
$0
Communication Equipment
$0
IT Equipment
$0
Other Equipment
$36,555
$16,478
$17,359
$547,286
$617,678
Office Furniture /E ui ment
1
$0
Subtotal -- Donations
$0
$36,555
$16,478
S17,3591
5547,286
$617,678
General Fund
Buildings
$520,000
$520,000
Vehicles
$150,000
$448,320
$50,000
$648,320
Communication Equipment
$36,000
$108,000
$14,400
$142,539
$300,939
IT Equipment
$18,000
$48,000
$6,000
$72,000
Other Equipment
$41,600
$13,600
$15,000
$44,392
$114,592
Office Furniture/E ui ment
$62,334
$62,334
Subtotal -- General Fund
$204,000
5645,920
$604,000
$15,000
$249,265
$1,718,185
Grants
Vehicles
N/A *
$95,000
N/A *
Communication Equipment
$797,988
IT Equipment
$23,935
$1,095
$1,147,573
Weapons
$1,935
Software
$85,560
Other Equipment
$13,194
$395,805
$20,456
$225,357
Office Furniture
$14,160
$659,824
Subtotal -- Grants
$1,330,396
$27,354
$419,740
$202,111
$2,832,677
$4,812,277
Total Capital Expansion Expenditures (2)
$1,534,3961
$709,8291
$1,040,218
$234,470
$3,629,229
$7,148,141
Average Annual Capital Expansion Expenditures (3)
$1,429,628
Total Annual Capital Expansion Expenditures per Functional Resident (4)
$4.54
Annual Functional Population
1 306,1961
314,463
317,608
317,290
318,242
Average Functional Residents per Year (FY 2005 -FY 2009)(5)
314,760
(1) Source: Sheriff's Office and Growth Management Division, Collier County
(2) Sum of expenditures from all three sources
(3) Total capital expansion expenditures divided by five years
(4) Average annual capital expansion expenditures (Item 3) divided by average functional
residents per year (Item 5)
(5) Source: Table 7
Credit for Debt Service on Capital Expansion Expenditures
Any outstanding bond issues related to law enforcement facilities expansion will also
result in a credit to the impact fee. Collier County funded Sheriff's CID Building and
Sheriff's Administration Office expansion (Building "J" addition) through debt service.
The debt service is being paid back with revenues from general fund. Outstanding bond
issues related to law enforcement facility expansion expenditures are presented in Table
16.
Tindale- Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier County
September 2010 24 Law Enforcement Impact Fee Study
DRAFT
The impact fee credit is calculated by determining the present value of the total payments
related to the bond issue that remain and then dividing it by the average annual
population estimated over the life of the bond issue. The resulting credit for law
enforcement facilities- related debt is $13 per functional resident, which is approximately
40 percent lower that the debt service credit given during the last study. The debt service
credit calculations during the last study included the same buildings and because a
portion of debt has been paid over the past five years, the associated debt service credit
decreased.
Table 16
Bond Debt Credit Analysis
(1), (2), (3), & (4) Source: Office of Management and Budget, Collier County
(5) Source: Table 9
The total credit per functional resident is presented in Table 19, and it is equal to the
addition of the present value of the capital improvement credit and the debt service credit.
Table 17
Credit per Functional Resident
Component/Calculation Step
gure
Total Capital Improvement Credit per Functional ResidentM
oiai
Capitalization Period (in years)(2)
Arc ;"ipnnat
Capitalization Rate (3)
Number of
Years
Itemaiaiug
°interest
Present"
?alue of
Functional
Pp 14, tion Credit per '
Bond Issue -"
Yearsiit -
Ruin
�, �
Law'
liatet FnTorc "oht
payments.
Ilufu.." Functional
Fuudiu iay
Rap�ainkug
Reinaii Resident
issue Period
20 -year Debt Service
(Law Enforcement
Facilities' Share)
20
10
Variable $6,013,988
$4,562,077
363,343 $12.56
(1), (2), (3), & (4) Source: Office of Management and Budget, Collier County
(5) Source: Table 9
The total credit per functional resident is presented in Table 19, and it is equal to the
addition of the present value of the capital improvement credit and the debt service credit.
Table 17
Credit per Functional Resident
Component/Calculation Step
gure
Total Capital Improvement Credit per Functional ResidentM
$4.54
Capitalization Period (in years)(2)
25
Capitalization Rate (3)
5%
Future Credit per Functional Resident (4)
$63.99
Debt Service Credit (5)
$12.56
Total Revenue Credit (6)
$76.55
(1) Source: Table 15
(2) Capitalization period is estimated at 25 years, which is typically when major
renovations or replacement of capital facilities become necessary.
(3) Capitalization rate is estimated at five percent.
(4) Present value of $4.54 (Item 1) over a 25 -year period with a capitalization rate at 5
percent
(5) Source: Table 16
(6) Sum of future credit per functional resident (Item 4) and debt service credit (Item 5)
Tindale- Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier County
September 2010 25 Law Enforcement Impact Fee Study
DRAFT
Net Law Enforcement Impact Cost
The net impact fee per functional resident is the difference between the cost component
and the credit component. Table 18 presents the calculation of the net law enforcement
impact cost per functional resident.
Table 18
Net Impact Cost
Impact Cost
Capital Cost per Functional ResidentM $280.13
Impact Credit
Total Revenue Credit(2) ($76.55)
Net Impact Cost
Net Impact Cost per Functional Resident (3) $203.58
(1) Source: Table 14
(2) Source: Table 17
(3) Capital cost per functional resident (Item 1) less total revenue credit (Item 2).
The first section of Table 18 shows the total impact cost per functional resident as $280.
The second section shows a revenue credits for the law enforcement impact fee of $77
per functional resident.
The net impact cost per functional resident (third section of the table) is the difference
between the total impact cost per functional resident of $280 and the total revenue credit
of $77. These figures result in a net impact cost per functional resident of $204, which is
approximately 25 percent higher than the previous study because the inventory was
increased through additional buildings and other capital assets. Although due to the
decrease in costs, the overall value of the inventory included in the study decreased,
because the credit decreased at a greater rate since the last study, the net cost per resident
increased.
Calculated Law Enforcement Impact Fee Schedule
The law enforcement impact fee schedule was developed for residential and
nonresidential land uses and is illustrated in Table 19. Throughout the report a
comparison of updated figures to those included in the 2006 was provided. Although the
Tindale- Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier County
September 2010 26 Law Enforcement Impact Fee Study
DRAFT
net cost per functional resident increased by approximately 25 percent compared to the
2006 study, due to interim indexing, the total fee increased by 12 percent. This change in
fee varies for some of the land uses because of the changes to the demand component.
Table 19 also presents the difference between the current and calculated fees and an
explanation of the effect of changes to the demand component.
Tindale - Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier County
September 2010 27 Law Enforcement Impact Fee Study
DRAFT
Table 19
Calculated Impact Fee Schedule
Land Use
Impact unit
Functionhl
Population
lt)
Coefficient:
Net Impact
Cast a* $204
p er Functianal
Residentt �1
Current
Fee (s)
Percent
Change B)
Reason for Change
Residential
Single Family:
Less than 1,500 square feet
du
1.91
$388.84
$322.45
21%
Updated data based on use of peak population.
1,500 to 2,499 square feet
du
2.08
$423.45
$358.67
18%
2,500 square feet or more
du
2.30
$468.23
$39128
20%
Multi Family
du
1.12
$228.01
$193.83
18%
Mobile Home /RV (tied down)
du
1.48
$301.30
$268.10
12%
Transient, Assisted, Group
Hotel
room
0.74
$150.65
$103.26
46%
Updated residents per unit, occupancy rates from the
Collier County CVB, and worker hours.
Motel
room
0.69
$140.47
$103.26
36%
Nursing Home
bed
0.72
$146.58
$173.90
-16%
Updated residents per unit, occupancy rate from the
Florida Department of Elderly Affairs Collier County
Profile, and worker hours.
Assisted Living Facility (ALF)
du
0.89
$181.19
N/A
N/A
N/A
Recreational
RV Park
site
0.54
$109.93
N/A
N/A
N/A
Marina
berth
0.19
$38.68
$30.79
26%
Update worker hours and occupants per trip.
Golf Course
18 holes
19.44
$3,957.60
$3,811.33
4%
Update worker hours and occupants per trip.
Movie Theater with Matinee
screen
5.98
$1,217.41
$980.01
24%
Updated trip generation rate, trips per worker, worker
hours, occupants per trip, visitor hours per trip.
Institutions
Elementary School
student
0.06
$12.21
$16.30
-25%
Updated worker hours and occupants per trip.
Middle School
student
0.07
$14.25
$19.92
-28%
High School
student
0.08
$16.29
$21.75
-25%
University/Junior College with 7,500 or fewer students
student
0.10
$20.36
N/A
N/A
N/A
University/Junior College with more than 7,500 students
student
0.07
$14.25
N/A
N/A
N/A
Church
1,000 sf
0.57
$116.04
$92.38
26%
Updated worker hours and occupants per trip.
Day Care
student
0.05
$10.18
$9.06
12%
Updated worker hours and occupants per trip.
Hospital
1 1,000 sf
1.55
$315.55
$360.49
-12%
Updated trip generation rate, worker hours, and
occu ants per trip.
Tindale- Oliver & Associates, Inc.
September 2010
28
Collier County
Law Enforcement Impact Fee Study
DRAFT
Table 19 (continued)
Calculated Impact Fee Schedule
Land Use
Impact Unit
Functional
Population
{`Oe elenttrl
Net Impact
Cost @ $204
per Functional
Resident( �1
Current
M
F4C
Percent
(4)
Change
Reason for, Changef19
Office and Financial
Office 50,000 SF or less
1,000 sf
1.42
$289.08
$228.25
27%
Updated worker hours and occupants per trip.
Office 50,001 - 100,000 SF
1,000 sf
1.21
$24633
$195.64
26%
Office 100,001 - 200,000 SF
1,000 sf
1.03
$209.69
$166.65
26%
Office 200,001 - 400,000 SF
1,000 sf
0.88
$179.15
$141.29
27%
Office greater than 400,000 SF
1,000 sf
0.80
$162.86
$128.62
27%
Medical Office
1,000 sf
1.72
$350.16
$28621
22%
Updated trip generation rate, worker hours, and
occupants per trip.
Retail, Gross Square Feet
Specialty Retail
1,000 sf
1.69
$344.05
$355.04
-3%
Updated trip generation rate, worker hours, occupants
per trip, and visitor hours per trip.
Retail 50,000 SF or less
1,000 sfgla
2.45
$498.77
$574.23
-1A0%,I.o
Updated worker hours, occupants per trip, and visitor
pe r trip.
Retail 50,001 - 100,000 SF
1,000 sfgla
2.46
$500.81
$539.81
'hours
Retail 100,001 - 150,000 SF
1,000 sfgla
2.25
$458.06
$585.10
-2
Retail 150,001 - 200,000 SF
1,000 sfgla
2.75
$559.85
$548.88
2%
Updated worker hours and occupants per trip.
Retail 200,001 - 400,000 SF
1,000 sfgla
2.34
$476.38
$476.41
0%
Retail 400,001 - 600,000 SF
1.000 sf la
2.44
$496.74
$494.54
0%
Retail 600,001 - 1,000,000 SF
1,000 sfgla
142
$492.66
$490.90
0%
Retail over 1,000,000
1,000 sfgla
2.09
$425.48
$431.12
-1%
New and Used Auto Sales
1,000 sf
1.71
$348.12
$344.18
1%
Updated trip generation rate, worker hours, and
occupants per trip.
Tire Superstore
service bay
1.34
$272.80
$295.27
-8%
Updated trip generation rate, trips per worker, worker
hours, and occupants per trip.
Supermarket
1,000 sf
2.05
$417.34
$411.21
1%
Updated trip generation rate and worker hours.
Convenience Store
1,000 sf
5.47
$1,113.58
$874.94
27%
Updated trip generation rate, employees per unit, and
worker and visitor hours.
Convenience Store with Gas Pumps
fuel pos.
4.35
$885.57
$1,268.03
-30%
Updated worker hours, occupants per trip, and visitor
hours per trip.
Home Improvement Superstore
1,000 sf
1.78
$362.37
$474.61
-24%j
Updated worker hours and occupants per trip.
Tindale - Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier County
September 2010 29 Law Enforcement Impact Fee Study
DRAFT
Table 19 (continued)
Calculated Impact Fee Schedule
Land Use
impact Unit
Functional
Population
Coefficientt'1
Net Impact
Cost @ $204
per Functional
Resident)
Current
Fee Es)
Percent
+C hange t4)
Reason for Changesl .
Retail, Gross Square Feet (Continued)
Pharmacy/Drug Store
1,000 sf
1.93
$392.91
$418.45
-6%
Updated trip generation rate, worker hours, and
occupants per trip.
Furniture Store
1,000 sf
0.24
$48.86
N/A
N/A
N/A
Bank/Savings Walk -in
1,000 sf
2.57
$523.20
$398.53
31%
Updated worker hours and occupants per trip.
Bank/Savings Drive -in
1,000 sf
2.28
$464.16
$324.25
43%
Updated trip generation rate, trips per worker, worker
hours, and occupants per trip.
Quality Restaurant
seat
0.22
$44.79
N/A
N/A
N/A
High- Turnover Restaurant
seat
0.27
$54.97
N/A
N/A
N/A
Fast Food Rest w/ Drive -Thru
1,000 sf
9.01
$1,834.26
$2,007.11
-9%
Updated trip generation rate, worker hours, and
occupants per trip.
Quick Lobe
service bay
1.16
$236.15
$199.27
19%
Updated worker hours.
Gas /Service Station
fuel pos.
1.98
$403.09
$44181
-9%
Updated worker hours and visitor hours per trip.
Self Service Car Wash
service bay
0.61
$124.18
$35123
-65%
Updated trip generation rate based on a local study,
and worker hours.
Automated Car Wash
1,000 sf
1.61
$327.76
N/A
N/A
N/A
Luxury Auto Sales
1,000 sf
1.11
$225.97
N/A
N/A
N/A
Industrial
Light Industrial
1,000 sf
0.69
$140.47
$112.31
25%
Updated worker hours and occupants per tri p.
Mini - Warehouse
1,000 sf
0.07
$14.25
$12.68
12%
No change in demand.
Business Park (Flex Space)
1,000 sf
0.99
$201.54
$163.03
24%
Updated trip generation rate, worker and visitor
hours, and occupants per trip.
(1) Source: Table 10 for residential land uses and Table 11 for nonresidential land uses
(2) Functional population coefficient multiplied by net impact cost per functional resident from Table 18 based on residential or nonresidential
land use type.
(3) Collier County Impact Fee Schedule (effective February 14, 20 10)
(4) Percent change between the current and calculated fees
(5) Provides an explanation of changes to the demand component that impact the final fee, and indicates the land uses where the demand was not
changed since the last study.
N/A - Indicates a new land use category or a different unit, which makes it difficult to compare to the existing fee.
Tindale- Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier County
September 2010 30 Law Enforcement Impact Fee Study
Inventory Details
DRAFT
Table A -1
Law Enforcement Facilities Inventory(')
Name of Structure
Main Buildin s:
Address
Square
Feet01
Total Square
Footage on
Sit&
Acres ")
Acres per 1,000
sf of Bldg
Space['`)
Land
(Acres)")
2010 PA Value
per Acre
Total Land
Value
2010 Insurance
Value per sf
(bldgs only)
Building "J" Addition - 1 st floor
3301 E- Tamiami Trail, Naples
16,445
1,491,521
1
45.28
0.030
0.493
$435,639
$923,555
$191
Building "J" Addition - 2nd floor
3301 E. Tamiami Trail, Naples
16,458
0A94
$191
Building "J" Sheriff 2nd Floor (Old bldg)
3301 E. Taniiami Trail, Naples
29,159
0 875
$191
Building "J" Sheriff 1st Floor (Old bldg)
3301 E Tamiami Trail, Naples
8,592
0258
$191
GG Sheriffs Substation
4707 Golden Gate Parkway, Naples
5,067
76,498
12.91
0 169
0 856
$435,664
$372,928
$237
Marco Sheriffs Substation
990 N Barfield Drive, Marco
3,647
3,647
0.88
0.241
0 879
$1,067,220
$938,086
$172
SO Range Trailer
4441 70th Avenue NE
1,440
2,427
6.77
2789
4.016
$5,500
$22,088
$54
Immokalee SO Substation
112 S. 1st Street, Naples
8,249
23,042
7.42
0322
2 656
$87,140
$231,444
N/A
Sheriff Control Investigation Division
(CID) Building
2373 S. Horseshoe, Naples
35,050
35,050
3.89
0.111
3.890
$385,000
$1,497,650
$129
N. Naples Substation
776 Vanderbilt Beach Road
3,326
53,650
3 63
7068
0.226
$740,521
$167,358
$175
Special Operations Building
160 Aviation Drive
56,380
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
$286
Emergency Services Center
8075 Lely Cultural Blvd.
44,133
154,388
20.00
0 130
5.737
$47,602
$273,093
$337
Fleet and Purchasing
2885 County Barn Road
33,865
82,847
9.63
0.116
3.928
$50,000
$196,400
$224
Golden Gate Estates Temporary Substation
1169 Oil Well Road
1,360
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Subtotal - Main Buildings
263,171
24.308
Wei htedAvera a
$236
Strai th Average
5200
Support Facilities:
SO Vo -Tech Trailer
4441 70th Avenue NE
777
2,427
6.77
2.789
2.168
$5,500
$15,147
N/A
SO Ran e Control Bldg. #1
4441 70th Avenue NE
105
0.293
$71
SO Range Control Bldg. 92
4441 70th Avenue NE
105
0.293
$71
Sheriffs Forensic Shed 1
112 S. 1st Street, Naples
285
23,042
7.42
0.322
0.092
0.098
$87,140
$28,233
$50
$127
Immokalee Sheriffs Fuel Island
112 S. 1st Street, Naples
305
Sheriffs Forensic Shed 2
112 S. 1st Street, Naples
417
0.134
$50
Subtotal - Support Buildings
1,994
3.078
TOTAL All Buildings)
265,165
27.39
$4,665,982
WAAe
8170,378
873
$304,166
874
Weighted Average Acreage er 1,000 Square
0
(1) Source: Facilities Management Department and Property Appraiser, Collier County
Tindale- Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier County
September 2010 A -1 Law Enforcement Impact Fee Study
APPENDIX B
Building and Land Values
Supplemental Information
DRAFT
Building Value Estimates
In determining the appropriate unit value for buildings, the following analysis was
conducted:
• A review of recently built law enforcement buildings in Collier County;
• Insurance value of the existing inventory; and
• Discussions with architects.
The most recent construction of law enforcement buildings involved two buildings:
• The Special Operations Center, which was bid in 2006, and completed in 2008 for
a construction cost of approximately $254 per square foot and a total cost of $319
per square foot; and
• CCSO Fleet Maintenance Facility, which was bid in 2008, and completed in 2009
for a construction cost of approximately $205 per square foot, and a total cost of
$284 per square foot.
Given that these buildings were bid approximately two to four years ago, they do not
reflect the cost decreases experienced over the past year or two.
Discussions with architects suggested a 10 to 20 percent decrease for construction costs
from 2006 bids, which provided a range of $200 to $230 per square foot for the Special
Operations Center and a range of $165 to $185 for the Fleet Maintenance Facility.
As presented in Appendix A, Table A -1, TOA evaluated the 2010 insurance values of law
enforcement buildings, which provided an average weighted construction cost of $236
per square foot for primary buildings and $73 per square foot for support buildings.
When a straight (unweighted) average was calculated, the unit cost became $200 per
square foot for primary buildings and $74 per square foot for support buildings. It should
be noted that insurance values are considered to be a conservative estimate because
insurance companies exclude the value of the foundation and other more permanent parts
of the structure since they would not have to be rebuilt if the structure is damaged or lost.
Using the unit figures for primary buildings, the total building value was calculated and
presented in Table B -I.
As shown in Table B -1, additional costs such as the site preparation, permitting,
professional services, etc. were added based on the ratio of these costs to construction
Tindale- Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier County
September 2010 B -1 Law Enforcement Impact Fee Study
DRAFT
costs in the case of recently built facilities. This analysis provided a total building value
range of $270 to $318 per square foot. For impact fee calculations, the low end of this
range, or $270 per square foot, is used for primary buildings. For support facilities, based
on the insurance values, $75 per square foot is used.
Table B -1
Law Enforcement Buildings
Total Building Value per Square Foot
Building Cost Component
Cost per Square
Foot (Weighted Ins
Vatne)
Cost per Square
Foot (Straigth
AYg ixalue)
percent
Added (4)
Construction CostM
$236
$200
Site preparation (2)
$35
$30
15.0%
Other (3)
47
40
20.0%
Total
$318
$270
(1) Source: Insurance values ofexistingbuildings
(2) The ratio of site preparation cost to the construction cost is determined based on recently
built law enforcement buildings. Cost per square foot is calculated by applying the ratio
to the construction (e.g., $236 x .15 = $35 for primary buildings).
(3) The ratio other costs to the construction cost is determined based on recently built law
enforcement buildings. Cost per square foot is calculated by applying the ratio to the
construction (e.g., $236 x .20 = $47 for primary buildings).
(4) Additional percentage for indicated costs based on recently built buildings
Land Value Estimates
In order to determine land value associated with law enforcement buildings, the
following information was evaluated:
• Current value of land where law enforcement buildings are located;
• Land value in areas where future law enforcement buildings are planned to be
located;
• Vacant land sales analysis; and
• Land use characteristics of areas where law enforcement facilities are located.
Tindale- Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier County
September 2010 B -2 Law Enforcement Impact Fee Study
DRAFT
Based on the Collier County Property Appraiser database, the current average value of
land where existing law enforcement buildings are located is approximately $170,000,
which is shown in Appendix A, Table A -1.
There are two law enforcement buildings that are planned for the future. One of these
will be located in the Big Corkscrew Fire District and the other in the East Naples Fire
District. In addition, only about 25 percent of law enforcement buildings are located in
residential areas while the rest is located in more commercial areas or areas with mixed
uses. An evaluation of the vacant residential versus commercial land values for I to 10-
acre parcels in these two districts resulted in an average land value of $42,000 per acre
for residential land uses, and $230,000 per acre for commercial land uses. This
information is presented in Table B -2.
Table B -2
2010 Vacant Land Values(l)
Area
2010-Just-Value of All
Vacant Parcels 1 to 10 acres
Residential
Commercial:
East Naples
$66,332
$320,845
,Big Corkscrew
$17,804
$139,503
Avera a
$42,068
$230,174
( I ) Source: Property Appraiser, Collier County
Resulting average values for residential and commercial parcels are weighted using the
current combination of parcels (25 percent residential and 75 percent commercial) as well
as by using a more conservative ratio of 40 percent residential and 60 percent
commercial. As presented in Table B -3, this analysis resulting in a value ranging from
$155,000 to $185,000. Given that the current value of land where existing parcels is
within this range, an average value of $170,000 per acre is used in the impact fee
calculations. This figure is also consistent with the sales prices of 1 to 10 -acre vacant
parcels in these districts.
Tindale- Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier County
September 2010 B -3 Law Enforcement Impact Fee Study
DRAFT
Table B -3
Estimated Land Value(l)
Land Use Type
''Mtributlion(t)
Land Val 'per
Acre
Dialer (�
Lash st a per
Acre
Residential
25%
$42,000
40%
$42,000
Commercial
75%
$230,000
60%
$230,000
Weighted Average Land Value i4)
$183,000
$154,800
(1) Based on the existing mix of land uses where law enforcement facilities are located
(2) Source: Table B -2
(3) A hypothetical distribution that would provide a more conservative approach
(4) Average calculated based on the distribution and land value of each land use
Tindale- Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier County
September 2010 B -4 Law Fnforcement Impact Fee Study
COLLIER COUNTY
GENERAL GOVERNMENT BUILDINGS
IMPACT FEE UPDATE STUDY
DRAFT REPORT
Prepared By:
Tindale- Oliver & Associates, Inc.
Tampa, Florida
September 14, 2010
073060-02 . 10
I indale Oliver & Associates, Inc.
.� Pl.utning and 1?.n;;iuccring
September 14, 2010
Ms. Amy Patterson
Impact Fee Manager
Collier County Growth Management Division
2800 North Horseshoe Drive
Naples, Florida 34104
RE: Government Buildings Impact Fee Update Study
Dear Ms. Patterson:
Enclosed is the Draft Technical Report for the Collier County General Government Buildings Impact Fee
Update Study. Once you get a chance to review the report, we will be available to present study findings
and respond to questions. Meanwhile, we look forward to your comments on this draft report.
If you should have any questions concerning this report, please do not hesitate to contact me or Nilgun
Kamp.
Sincerely,
Tindale - Oliver & Associates, Inc.
Steven A. Tindale, P.E., AICP
President
1000 North Ashley Drive, Suite 100, Tampa, Florida 33602 • Phone: (813) 224 -8862 • Fax (813) 226 -2106
1595 South Semoran Boulevard, Building 7, Suite 1540, Winter Park, Florida 32792 • Phone'. (407) 657 -9210 • Fax: (407) 657 -9106
195 South Central Avenue, Bartow, Florida 33830 • Phone (863) 533 -8454 • Fax (863) 533 -8481
DRAFT
Table of Contents
Introduction...................................... ...............................
FacilityInventory ................................. ...............................
Service Area and Population ................ ...............................
Level of Service ................................... ...............................
Cost Component ................................... ...............................
CreditComponent ................................ ...............................
Net Government Buildings Impact Cost .............................
Calculated Government Buildings Impact Fee Schedule ...
Appendix A — Collier County Government Buildings Inventory
Appendix B — Building and Land Values — Supplemental Information
1
1
3
18
18
20
22
23
Tindale- Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier County
September 2010 i Government Building Impact Fee Study
DRAFT
Introduction
Government buildings impact fees are used to fund the capital construction and
expansion of government services related to land, facilities and capital equipment
required to support the additional government service demand created by growth.
Tindale- Oliver & Associates, Inc. JOA) was retained by Collier County in 2003 to
prepare the technical study for the development of the government buildings impact fee
program. The ordinance to implement the government buildings impact fee program was
adopted in 2004. TOA was subsequently retained by Collier County in 2005 to update
the general government building impact fee, with the updated fee schedule adopted in
2006. To comply with the technical study update requirements of the impact fee
ordinance and to ensure that the government buildings impact fee is calculated based on
the most recent and local data available, the County retained TOA to conduct a
comprehensive update of the County's government buildings impact fee program.
This report presents the results of the General Government Building Impact Fee Update
Study for the County and will serve as the technical support document for the updated
calculated government buildings impact fee.
There are several major elements associated with the development of the government
buildings impact fee. These include:
• Facility Inventory
• Service Area and Population
• Level of Service
• Cost Component
• Credit Component
• Net Government Buildings Impact Cost
• Calculated Government Buildings Impact Fee Schedule
Facility 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.
Tindale- Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier County
September 2010 1 Government Building Impact Fee Study
DRAFT
According to information provided by the Collier County Facilities Department, Collier
County has 1.27 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. In addition, the County also leases approximately 27,000 square feet of space
for general government services. For the purposes of impact fee calculations, the leased
space is not included in the inventory and new development is not charged for it in the
impact fee.
Table I shows a summary of the government buildings inventory and the current value of
buildings and land. As presented, the inventory includes a total of 822,776 square feet of
primary building space and 443,152 square feet of support space. A detailed summary of
the County's entire general government building inventory can be found in Appendix A,
Table A -l.
Table 1
Summary of Building Inventory
Building Type
Land
Square Feet"'
Buildiag,T'siue
per S4Iuure
Foott �1
° ,
Total Building &
Land<valuet'I
Primary Buildings
822,776
$270
$222,149,520
Support Buildings
443,152
$73
$32,350096
Total
265,928
$254,499,616
Total Acreage (4)
93.08
Land Value per Acre (5)
$160,000
$14,892,800
Total Building and Land Value (6)
$269,392,416
(1) Source: Appendix A, Tables A -1
(2) Building values are determined primarily by insurance values, discussions with architects,
and other available information. Appendix B provides a detailed explanation of unit costs.
(3) Square feet and /or acreage multiplied by unit costs
(4) Source: Appendix A, Table A -2
(5) Land value per acre is determined through an evaluation of the land values where existing
facilities are located as well as future facility locations. Appendix B provides a more
detailed explanation of value per acre.
(6) Sum of building and land value
An important part of the impact fee calculates involves estimating the current value of the
capital assets. In terms of building value, due to the recent fluctuations in construction
costs, buildings constructed more than one year ago do not reflect the current cost of
building new buildings. The last three government buildings built by the County were
bid in 2006/2007 and completed in 2008/2009. Given the changes in cost since these
Tindale- Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier County
September 2010 2 Government Building Impact Fee Study
DRAFT
buildings were bid, the estimated value of existing general government buildings is based
on the current insurance values and discussions with architects. Based on this analysis,
an average unit value of $270 per square foot was used for primary buildings. Based on
the ratio of the primary to support facility values used in the previous studies, an average
unit value of $73 per square foot was calculated for support buildings. These figures
represent a decrease of approximately 25 percent from the current adopted building
values. Appendix B provides a more detailed explanation of the building costs.
In order to determine the value of land component of government buildings, land values
of the existing inventory and the land value in areas where future planned facilities are
likely to be located were reviewed. Both the recent sales and the value of vacant land as
reported by the Collier County Property Appraiser were evaluated to determine the
differentiation in land values in different parts of the county. This analysis resulted in
average land value of $160,000 per acre, and is explained further in Appendix B. This
figure represents approximately 60 percent reduction in land value from the current
adopted figure.
Service Area and Population
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 building impact fee program requires the use of population data in
calculating current levels of service and performance standards. To accurately determine
demand for general government buildings 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 will be used in all population estimates and projections unless otherwise
noted. Peak seasonal population projections used in the impact fee analysis reflect
figures provided by Collier County's Comprehensive Planning Department and are
calculated by increasing the County's annual permanent population by 20 percent.
Table 2 presents the population trends for Collier County. As presented, the population
of Collier County is projected to increase by more than 40 percent between 2010 and
2029.
Tindale- Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier County
September 2010 3 Government Building Impact Fee Study
DRAFT
Table 2
Countywide Peak Seasonal Population
Year
Peak Season..
Population Figure
Percent Change
2000
309,511
2001
325,159
5.06%
2002
341,954
5.17%
2003
359,191
5.04%
2004
374,384
4.23%
2005
386,668
3.28%
2006
396,310
2.49%
2007
400,027
0.94%
2008
399,532
-0.12%
2009
399,979
0.11%
2010
404,032
1.01%
2011
411,524
1.85%
2012
419,155
1.85%
2013
426,928
1.85%
2014
434,845
1.85%
2015
443,531
2.00%
2016
453,013
2.14%
2017
462,698
2.14%
2018
472,590
2.14%
2019
482,694
2.14%
2020
492,410
2.01%
2021
501,718
1.89%
2022
511,202
1.89%
2023
520,866
1.89%
2024
530,711
1.89%
2025
540,002
1.75%
2026
548,716
1.61%
2027
557,571
1.61%
2028
566,568
1.61%
2029
575,712
1.61%
Source: Collier County Comprehensive Planning Department
(June 11, 2009)
Tindale- Oliver & Associates, Inc. courser county
September 2010 4 Government Building 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)
Table 3 presents the number of residents per housing unit for the residential categories
identified above in Collier County. This analysis includes all housing units, both
occupied and vacant.
To address fairness and equity issues between land uses, as well as to address affordable
housing issues, the single family land use is tiered based on three categories of square
footage: less than 1,500 square feet, 1,500 to 2,499 square feet, and greater than 2,500
square feet. To accommodate the tiering of impact fee assessments for the single family
residential land use category, an analysis was completed based on housing unit size and
persons per housing unit, comparing nationwide averages to those of Collier County.
This analysis utilized national data from the 2007 American Housing Survey (AHS) and
data from the 2000 Census data for Collier County to examine this relationship.
To calculate the tiering for the three different categories, national residents per unit ratios
for each housing unit category were applied to the total residents per housing unit ratio
for single family detached land use.
Table 3
Residents per Housing Unit
Housing Type
Po ulationttl
Ho"14 Unttat'1
Ratiot')
Residents /
Housing Units
Single Family Detached
162,266
56,869
2.85
- Less than 1,500 sf
92%
2.62
- 1,500 to 2,499 sf
100%
2.85
- 2,500 sf or greater
111%
3.16
Multi Famil
1 10.142
75,775
1,45
Mobile Home /RV (Tied Down)
23,052
10,772
2.14
( I ) Source: 2000 Census, Table H -33, adjusted for peak seasonal population, based on the ratio
of permanent to peak seasonal population (20 %)
(2) Source: 2000 Census, Table H -30
(3) Ratios developed based on national persons per household data derived from the 2007
American Housing Survey
Tindale- Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier County
September 2010 5 Government Building Impact Fee Study
DRAFT
Functional Population
Because government buildings serve all residents, workers, and visitors, more than the
peak seasonal resident population needs to be considered. Traditionally, population was
used as the basis of current and future demand for certain facilities. In the case of
government buildings, the higher the nonresident daytime population is, the greater the
need for service relative to the resident population. Moreover, it is not enough to simply
add resident population to the number of employees, since the service - demand
characteristics of employees can vary considerably by type of industry. Using
unweighted population and employment data to estimate facility needs may result in
substantial error.
Functional population is the equivalent number of people occupying space within a
community on a 24- hours - per -day, 7- days - per -week basis (Nelson and Nicholas 1992).
A person living and working in the community will have a functional population
coefficient of 1.0. A person living in the community but working elsewhere may spend
only 16 hours per day in the community on weekdays and 24 hours per day on weekends
for a functional population coefficient of 0.76 (128 -hour presence divided by 168 hours
in one week). A person commuting into the community to work five days per week
would have a functional population coefficient of 0.30 (50 -hour presence divided by 168
hours in one week). Similarly, a person traveling into the community to shop at stores,
perhaps averaging 8 hours per week, would have a functional population coefficient of
0.05.
Functional population thus tries to capture the presence of all people within the
community, whether residents, workers, or visitors, to arrive at a total estimate of
effective population needing to be served. By estimating the functional and peak
seasonal 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 in a future
year can be calculated. The following paragraphs explain how functional population is
calculated for residential and nonresidential land uses.
Residential Functional Population
Developing the residential component of functional population is simpler than developing
the nonresidential component. It is generally estimated that people spend one -half to
three - fourths of their time at home and the rest of each 24 -hour day away from their place
of residence. In developing the residential component of Collier County functional
population, an analysis of the County's population and employment characteristics was
Tindale - Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier County
September 2010 6 Government Building Impact Fee Study
DRAFT
conducted. Based on this analysis, it was estimated that people, on average, spend 16.4
hours, or approximately 68 percent, of each 24 -hour day at their place of residence and
the other 32 percent away from home. This analysis is presented in Tables 4 and 5.
Table 4
Collier County
Population and Employment Characteristics
Item /Calculation 9tep
Figure
Workers who live and work in Collier County(l)
95,020
Workers who live in Collier County but work elsewhere (2)
8,048
Total workers living in Collier County (3)
103,068
Collier County Census 2000 Population (4)
251,377
Total workers as a percent of population (5)
41.0%
School age population (5 -17 years)ibt
36,507
School age population as a percent of population (7)
14.5%
Population net of workers and school age population(8)
1 1 1,802
Other population as a percent of total population(9)
44.5%
(1), (2) Source: Bureau of Transportation Statistics, Census Transportation Planning
Package (CTPP) 2000 Part 3 (figures for Year 2000)
(3) Sum of the workers who live and work in Collier County (Item 1) and workers who
live in Collier County but work elsewhere (Item 2)
(4),(6) Source: US Census Bureau, 2000 Census
(5) Total workers living in Collier County (Item 3) divided by total population (Item 4)
(7) School age population (hem 6) divided by total population (Item 4)
(8) Total population (Item 4) Tess total workers living in Collier County (Item 3) and
school age population (Item 6)
(9) Population net of workers and school age population (Item 8) divided by total
population (Item 4)
Tindale - Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier County
September 2010 7 Government Building Impact Fee Study
DRAFT
Table 5
Residential Coefficient for Functional Population
Population
.Group
Hours at
Residence("
Pereotit of, .
P `tit;)
Hours(3)
Workers
13
41.0%
5.3
Students
15
14.5%
2.2
Other
20
44.5%
8.9
Total Hours at Residence (4)
16.4
Residential Functional Population Coefficient(`)
68.3%
(1) Estimated
(2) Source: Table 4
(3) Hours at residence (Item 1) multiplied by percent of population (Item 2)
(4) Sum of the effective hours
(5) Sum of effective hours (Item 4) divided by 24
The resulting percentage from Table 5 is used in the calculation of residential coefficient
for the 24 -hour functional population. These calculations are presented in Table 6.
Nonresidential Functional Population
Given the varying characteristics of nonresidential land uses, developing estimates of
functional residents for nonresidential land uses is more complicated than developing
estimates of functional residents for residential land uses. Nelson and Nicholas originally
introduced a method for estimating functional resident population, now used
internationally.' This method uses trip generation data from the Institute of
Transportation Engineers' (ITE) Trip Generation Manual and TOA's Trip Characteristics
Database, information on passengers per vehicle, workers per vehicle, length of time
spent at the land use, and other variables. Specific calculations include:
• Total one -way trips per employee (ITE trips multiplied by 50 percent to avoid
double counting entering and exiting trips as two trips).
• Visitors per impact unit based on occupants per vehicle (trips multiplied by
occupants per vehicle less employees).
• Worker hours per week per impact unit (such as nine worker hours per day
multiplied by five days in a work week).
Arthur C. Nelson and James C. Nicholas, "Estimating Functional Population for Facility Planning,"
Journal of Urban Planning and Development 118(2): 45 -58 (1992).
Tindale- Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier County
September 2010 8 Government Building Impact Fee Study
DRAFT
• Visitor hours per week per impact unit (visitors multiplied by number of hours per
day times relevant days in week such as five for offices and seven for retail
shopping).
• Functional population coefficients per employee developed by estimating time
spent by employees and visitors at each land use.
Table 6 also shows the functional population coefficients for nonresidential
uses /categories in Collier County. The functional population coefficients in Table 6 were
used to estimate the County's functional population in Table 7.
Tindale- Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier County
September 2010 9 Government Building Impact Fee Study
Q
U
r_
O
W w A
=
d O
L a
r O
Q
C
3
U.
L
d
^C
,Wn
V
F
QW
A
=t
T�
a yy
E
u
n
o
3 m �
L
r
E EE
3 5
t J i n
4
-
_
t
_
-
e
m
�-
-�
T T
C �
O VJ
J y
O V
U a
E
C
'O
m
C
E
E
O
V
C
C
N
Q
�o
N
� v
V f"
c a
DRAFT
Table 7
Functional Population - Year 2010
Population Cataury
Collier County
Baseline Datau)
Functional Resident
Coeffcient(�1
Fouctiettal
P p{ o) '
2010 Peak Season Population
404,032
0.683
275,954
Non - Residential Population (Fun Io ces and Visitors)
Natural Resources
9,120
0.379
3,456
Construction
14,840
0.271
4,022
Manufacturing
3,810
0.270
1,029
Transportation, Warehousing, and Utilitie
3,350
0.271
908
Wholesale Trade
4.540
0.271
1,230
Retail Trade
19,520
1.374
26,820
Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate
30,550
0.292
8,921
Services
83,410
0.561
46,793
Government Services
15,190
0.497
7,549
Total Non - Residential Population by Category�41
100,728
2010 Total Functional Population(')
376,682
Ratio of Functional Population to Residential Population
93.2%
(1) Source: Table 2 for the 2010 population figure and Woods & Poole for 2010 employment
data
(2) Source: Table 6
(3) Functional population is calculated by multiplying Collier County 2010 baseline data (Item I)
by the functional resident coefficient (Item 2).
(4) The total non - residential population by category is the sum of the employment and visitor
figures from the nine categories (e.g., construction, manufacturing, etc.)
(5) The total functional population is the sum of the residential functional population (275,954)
and nonresidential functional population (100,728)
Table 8 presents the County's annual functional population figures from 2000 through
2029, based on the 2010 functional population figure from Table 7 and the annual
population growth rates from the population figures previously presented in Table 2.
Tindale- Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier County
September 2010 11 Government Building Impact Fee Study
DRAFT
Table 8
Collier County Functional Population
(2000 -2029)
Fear
Collier County Functional
Population Pro ctions ,
2000
288,578
2001
303,295
2002
319,066
2003
335,019
2004
349,090
2005
360,610
2006
369,625
2007
372,952
2008
372,579
2009
372,952
2010
376,682
2011
383,839
2012
391,132
2013
398,564
2014
406,137
2015
414,260
2016
422,959
2017
431,841
2018
440,910
2019
450,169
2020
459,172
2021
467,896
2022
476,786
2023
485,845
2024
495,076
2025
503,987
2026
512,051
2027
520,244
2028
528,568
2029
537,025
Source: 'Fable 7 for the 2010 population figure
Figures for other years are based on the
respective annual growth rates peak
population figures provided in Table 2.
Tindale- Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier County
September 2010 12 Government Building Impact Fee Study
DRAFT
Functional Residents by Speei is Land Use Catego
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 previously mentioned, the average number of persons per housing unit in Collier
County was calculated for the single family, multi family, and mobile home /RV (tied
down) land uses, based on information obtained from the 2000 Census. Besides the
residential land uses, the table also includes transient land uses such as hotels, motels,
nursing homes, and adult living facilities (ALF). Secondary sources, such as the local
Convention and Visitors Bureau (CVB) and the Florida Department of Elderly Affairs,
are used to determine the occupancy rate for hotels, motels, and nursing homes land uses.
As mentioned before, different functional population coefficients must be developed for
each of the impact fee areas to be analyzed. For residential and transient land uses, these
coefficients are displayed in Table 9.
Nonresidential Land Uses
A similar approach is used to estimate functional residents for nonresidential land uses.
Table 10 reports basic assumptions and calculations, such as trips per unit, trips per
employee, employees per impact unit, one -way trips per impact unit, worker hours,
occupants per vehicle trip, visitors (patrons, etc.) per impact unit, visitor hours per trip,
and days per week for nonresidential land uses. The final column in the tables shows the
estimated functional resident coefficients by land use. These coefficients by land use
create the demand component for the government buildings impact fee program and will
be used in the calculation of the cost per unit for each land use category in the impact fee
schedule.
Tindale- Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier County
September 2010 13 Government Building Impact Fee Study
N
d
SRN
V
C
J
d
•N
r
C
R
tiS
T 'a+
WT
y
NNW
1.1.E
L
w
Y
C
d
'O
N
d
C
w
V
LL
w
�i
Q
c �
O V]
•, N
O O
:J
c
v
C
N
O
Mp
C
N
ro
O
Q
vo
� N
� a
U
r,
a
D
P
Pa
b
V
nenao
P
N
N
o^
m..
-
-rvo—
o000
E o w°
y
0
y 4
V a O
i
O
C O
y i0 ti� u
•�
P
P
P
P
eT
M
M
1y�
y G W
Y
� ry 6 rn a v Y
A
O V N V W V
a
0. — O W ❑
za
v c o
t N G q aCi q
y
O
O
o0
C
n G O Q
c .A.
V T y A �" a Op `O•
N
VI
�O
Vl
ti
N
N
N
O
C
.r
—
—
—�
a 'O
Q N V
0
N
N
N
N�
M
M
•p
N
C fj p W V V O O V (y
jay 17
_ t �• _ W n
y1 � y .. G C ✓
W E] F W DCi a W ap ❑
O
O
r
O
3)
a c v y —�' ❑
�
p
-� 9 •7
F o O
�
w � c ° �
9
Wow
v
p v ac � n
N
a
V
❑�
P
4
��
ep
G .a0. y G G L Q p. '.. O G, C
c �
O V]
•, N
O O
:J
c
v
C
N
O
Mp
C
N
ro
O
Q
vo
� N
� a
U)
�
\
u
2
V
$�
22
$
¢
�
k
\
2
�
�
_
/\
\\
\ƒ
2
§
k
|
$
/)
\)
/}
z*
:m
»
„zaz
-
-
-
-
--
!
|�
-
-
-
]§
:
-
-
-
--
-
-
--
-
f\
=
�y
;!
�
%
/:
}
/
/\
\\
\ƒ
2
§
k
|
$
/)
\)
/}
k
�
-i
a
)
3¢
\ §
o\
/\
Ix
@
§
§
LL
§
\
\
)
iM
d_
\�
y
„
.
---------------------
\
})
--
!!
/!
--
:
�
/:
/!I
;
\
\
)
iM
d_
\�
k
G
\
�
:
_k
\�
3I
kZ
�
§
\
LL
}
c
\\
:{
\
)
/
■
$
fe
\�
/f
2\
.
!�
!!
}a
{
\\
-
\ \( \ \ --- \
- -- -
\\
:{
\
)
/
■
$
fe
\�
/f
DRAFT
Level of Service
Based on the information provided by the County, Collier County's 2010 level of service
(LOS) is 2.04 square feet of primary government buildings per peak resident. Table 11
presents the calculation of the existing LOS. It should be noted that the County is still
paying off debt service on several recently constructed buildings. The current dollar
value of outstanding principal on these buildings amounts to approximately 32 percent of
the total building value, and is subtracted from the total inventory value not to overcharge
new development, as shown in Table 12. With this adjustment, the existing LOS based
on buildings that are paid for is approximately 1.5 square feet per peak resident, which is
comparable to the LOS included in the previous study and slightly lower than the LOS
standard of 1.7 square feet shown in the County's 2009 Annual Update and Inventory
Report (AUIR). To provide a conservative estimate, the existing LOS is used in the
impact fee calculations.
While the 2010 LOS for all owned buildings is 2.04 square feet per resident, in order to
calculate the government buildings facilities impact fee, the LOS, or square feet per
functional resident must be calculated. "Table I I also illustrates the calculation of the
current LOS using the total functional residents within the county. The current LOS of
primary government building space is 2.18 square feet per functional resident.
Table 11
Current Level of Service
(Per Peak Seasonal and Functional Resident)
Component
2010
Total Square Feet of Primary Buildings(l)
822,776
Peak Seasonal Population (2)
404,032
LOS (Square Feet per Peak Resident)
2.04
Functional Population (3)
376,682
LOS (Square Feet per Functional Resident)
2.18
(1) Source: Table 1
(2) Source: Table 2
(3) Source: Table 7
Cost Component
The cost component of the study evaluates the cost of capital items, including buildings
and land. The equipment value is excluded to provide a more conservative approach.
Tindale- Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier County
September 2010 18 Government Building Impact Fee Study
DRAFT
Table 12 provides a summary of all capital costs, which amounts to $228 per square foot
of government buildings. This figure is approximately 25 percent lower than the
previous study.
Table 12
Total Capital Asset Value
Item
Figure
Pereetatut<
Total"'
Total Land Value (1)
$14,892,800
8%
Total Building Value (2)
$254,499,616
92%
Total Capital Asset Value (3)
$269,392,416
Less: Portion Not Paid fort4)
$82,060,052
Net Buildings and Land Value (5)
$187,332,364
Total Building Square Footage (Primary Buildings)I6l
822,776
Total Capital Value per Square Foot171
$227.68
(1) Source: Table 1
(2) Source: Table I
(3) Sum of land and building values
(4) Source: Office of Management and Budget
(5) Total capital asset value less portion not paid for.
(6) Source: Table 1
(7) Net capital value (Item 5) divided by square footage (Item 6)
(8) Percent of total capital costs to be used for future indexing calculations. Percentages are
based on net buildings and land value (e.g., land percentage is calculated as
($14,892,800 / $187,332,364 = 8 %), and building percentage is calculated as
( ($254,499,616 - $82,060,052) / $187332,364 = 92 %)).
Total Impact Cost per Functional Resident
'Fable 13 presents the unit cost for the impact fee analysis. This unit cost was calculated
as the total capital cost of $228 per square foot multiplied by the LOS of 2.18 square feet
per functional resident. As shown in the following table, the total impact cost per
resident is $496 for general government buildings. This figure is approximately the same
with the previous study due to new buildings added to the inventory.
Tindale- Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier County
September 2010 19 Government Building Impact Fee Study
DRAFT
Table 13
Total Impact Cost per Functional Resident
Component
- Fl ure
Total Capital Asset Value per Square Foot(l)
$227.68
LOS (Square Feet per Functional Resident)"'
2.18
Total Capital Asset Value per Functional Resident (3)
$496.34
(1) Source: Table 12
(2) Source: "Cable 11
(3) Total capital asset value per square foot (Item 1) multiplied by the LOS (Item 2)
Credit Component
To avoid overcharging development for the government buildings impact fee, a review of
the capital financing program for government buildings 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 could be used for capital facilities, land, and
equipment expansion for government buildings.
Credit for Capital Expansion Expenditures
A review of funding sources for capital projects over the past five years was conducted.
Based on this review, it appears that the primary funding sources for government
buildings, other than impact fees, included general fund. Table 14 presents total and
average capital improvement expenditures over the past five years as well as the
associated credit per functional resident.
As presented in Table 14, over the past five years, the County used an average of $2.3
million per year from the general fund for capital expansion expenditures. A review of
programmed government building projects in the 2009 AUIR suggests that this represents
a generous credit, and that the future non - impact fee funding for capacity expansion
projects is likely to be lower.
This annual expenditure level of $2.3 million is divided by the average annual functional
population over the same period, which results in average annual capital expansion
expenditures of $6 per functional resident. Present value of this amount over a 25 -year
period is a total credit of $85 per functional resident, which is approximately 130 percent
higher than the credit included in the previous study. This higher credit is also due to
higher levels of non - impact fee funding for the construction of new facilities.
Tindale- Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier County
September 2010 20 Government Building Impact Fee Study
DRAFT
Table 14
Capital Expansion Expenditures
FY 2005 - FY 200911
Buiidip /E ui' nent
FY 2005 -FY 2009
Fund 301
Courthouse Annex
$9,867,595
North Naples Government Center
$1,035,351
Annex Parking Garage
$607.771
Total
$ l 1,510,717
Annual Average
$2,302,143
Functional Population (2)
369,744
Annual Capital Expansion Expenditures per Functional Resident
$6
Capitalization Period (in years)t31
25
Capitalization Rate (4)
5%
Credit per Functional Resident (5) $84.56
(1) Source: Office of Management and Budget
(2) Source: Table 8 (average population for 2006 through 20 10)
(3) Capitalization period is assumed to be 25 years since this is the timeframe when buildings
tend to need major renovations /repairs.
(4) Assumed based on the interest rate the County is paying on bonds and /or commercial paper
(5) Present value of annual expenditures per functional resident over a 25- period (Item 3) with
a discount rate of 5 percent (Item 4).
Credit for Debt Service on Capital Expansion Expenditures
Any outstanding bond issues related to government buildings expansion will also result in
a credit to the impact fee. Collier County funded the Transportation Building and
Domestic Animal Control Building through debt service. The debt service is being paid
back with revenues from the general fund. Outstanding bond issues related to
government buildings expansion expenditures are presented in Table 15.
The impact fee credit is calculated by determining the present value of the total payments
related to the remaining portion of the bond issues and then dividing it by the average
annual functional population estimated over the remaining life of the bond issue. The
resulting credit for government buildings debt is $14 per functional resident, which is
approximately 40 percent lower than the previous study. This is because the debt service
credit in the previous study was based on the same bond issues and a portion of the debt
service has been paid since then.
Tindale- Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier County
September 2010 21 Government Building Impact Fee Study
DRAFT
Table 15
Bond Debt Credit Analysis
(1), (2), (3), & (4) Source: Office of Management and Budget, Collier County
(5) Source: Table 8. Population for 2030 through 2035 is calculated using the average annual
growth rate for 2025 through 2029.
(6) Present value of remaining payments divided by average functional population (Item 5)
Net Government Buildings Impact Cost
The net impact fee per functional resident is the difference between the Cost Component
and the Credit Component. Table 16 presents the calculation of the net government
buildings impact cost per functional resident.
The first section of Table 16 shows the total impact cost per functional resident as $496.
The second section shows a revenue credits for the government buildings impact fee of
$98 per functional resident.
The net impact cost per functional resident (third section of the table) is the difference
between the total impact cost per functional resident of $496 and the total revenue credit
of $98 per functional resident. The result is a net impact cost of $398 per functional
resident, which is approximately 8 percent lower than the previous study.
Tindale- Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier County
September 2010 22 Government Building Impact Fee Study
Average Annual
Functional
Remaining
.present
Population
Yeats.
Government
Value of
During
- Credit per
Number
Remaiaiag
interest
Buildings
Remaining,
Remsluiag Boa#
- Fuaetinanl
Bond Issue
of Years_m
a1
Ratetb
Funding (4)
Payments
base Pcriuda"
Resided')
'Trans ortation Building
30
25
Variable
$9,115,370
$5,324,027
485,358
$10.97
Domestic Animal
Control Bufldin
20
11
Variable
$1,417,582
$1,075,346
424,262
2.53
Total ebt D Service Crcdn
$1350
(1), (2), (3), & (4) Source: Office of Management and Budget, Collier County
(5) Source: Table 8. Population for 2030 through 2035 is calculated using the average annual
growth rate for 2025 through 2029.
(6) Present value of remaining payments divided by average functional population (Item 5)
Net Government Buildings Impact Cost
The net impact fee per functional resident is the difference between the Cost Component
and the Credit Component. Table 16 presents the calculation of the net government
buildings impact cost per functional resident.
The first section of Table 16 shows the total impact cost per functional resident as $496.
The second section shows a revenue credits for the government buildings impact fee of
$98 per functional resident.
The net impact cost per functional resident (third section of the table) is the difference
between the total impact cost per functional resident of $496 and the total revenue credit
of $98 per functional resident. The result is a net impact cost of $398 per functional
resident, which is approximately 8 percent lower than the previous study.
Tindale- Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier County
September 2010 22 Government Building Impact Fee Study
DRAFT
Table 16
Net Impact Cost
cost r Cr®clit �'
,$i�vei�He
�; °�Cre�tt
Impact Cost
Capital Cost per Functional Resident(l)
$496.34
Impact Credit
Capital Improvement Credit (2)
($84.56)
Debt Service Credit (3)
LJLL501
Total Revenue Credit (4)
($98.06)
Net Impact Cost
Net Impact Cost per Functional Resident(')
$398.28
(1) Source: Table 13
(2) Source: Table 14
(3) Source: Table 15
(4) Sum of capital improvement credit (Item 2) and debt service credit (Item 3)
(5) Capital cost per functional resident (Item I ) less total revenue credit (Item 4)
Calculated Government Buildings Impact Fee Schedule
An updated government buildings impact fee schedule was developed for residential and
nonresidential land uses and is illustrated in Table 17. Throughout the report a
comparison of updated figures to those included in the 2006 was provided. Although the
net cost per functional resident decreased by approximately 8 percent, due to interim
indexing, the total fee decreased by approximately 20 percent. The level of decrease
varies for some of the land uses because of the changes to the demand component. Table
17 also presents the difference between the current and calculated fees and an explanation
of the effect of changes to the demand component.
Tindale- Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier County
September 2010 23 Government Building Impact Fee Study
DRAFT
Table 17
Calculated Impact Fee Schedule
Land Use
Impact -Unit,
Functional
Population
Coefficientto
Net Impact Fee o
$398 per
Functional
Resident(2)
Current
Feer)
Percent
Change (4)
Reason for Change (st
Residential
Single Family
Less than 1.500 square feet
du
7.79
$713
$853
-16%
Updated data based on the use of peak population.
1,500 to 2499 square feet
du
L95
$777
$950
-18%
21500 square feet or more
du
2.16
$860
$1.037
-17%
Multi Family
du
0.99
$394
$483
-18%
Mobile Home/RV(tied down)
du
1.46
$581
$686
-150
Transient, Assisted, Group
Hotel
room
0.74
$295
$366
-19%
Updated occupancy rates from the Collier County
Motel
room
0.69
$275
$366
- 25 %CVB.
Nursing Home
bed
0.72
$287
$487
-41%
Updated occupancy levels based on data from the
FL Dept of Elderly Affairs, Collier County Profile
Assisted Living Facility (ALF)
du
0 -82
$327
N/A
N/A
N/A
Recreational
RV Park
site
0.54
$215
N/A
N/A
N/A
Marina
berth
0.19
$76
$101
-25 %
Rounding in the calculation of the demand factor.
Golf Course
18 holes
19.44
$7,743
$9,877
-22%
No change to demand.
Movie Theater with Matinee
screen
5.98
$2382
$4369
-45%
U dated trip generation rate.
Tindale- Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier County
September 2010 24 Government Building Impact Fee Study
DRAFT
Table 17 (continued)
Calculated Impact Fee Schedule
Land Use
Impact Unit
Functional
Population
Cuefficiento)
Net Impact Fee of
$398 per
Functional
Resideutiln
Current
Feern
Percent
Change(")
Reason for Change isl '
Institutions
Elementary School
student
OA6
$24
$31
-23%
No change to demand.
Middle School
student
0.07
$28
$35
-20%
No change to demand.
High School
student
0.08
$32
$41
-22%
No change to demand.
University /Junior College with 7.500
or fewer students
student
0.10
$40
N/A
N/A
N/A
University /Junior College with more
than 7.500 students
student
0,07
$28
N/A
N/A
N/A
Church
1,000 sf
0.57
$227
$290
-2201.
No change to demand.
Dav Care
student
0.05
$20
$31
-35%
Updated occupancy per trip and visitor length of
stay factors.
Hospital
1.000 sf
1.55
$617
$838
-26%
Updated trip generation rate.
Office and Financial
Office 50.000 SF or less
1,000 sf
142
$566
$849
-33%
Updated trip generation rate and use of end points.
Office 50.001 - 100.000 SF
1.000 sf
L21
$482
$656
-27%
Updated trip generation rate.
Office 100,001 - 200,000 SF
1.000 sf
1.03
$410
$559
-27%
Updated trip generation rate.
Office 200,001 - 400.000 SF
1 000 sf
0.88
$350
$478
-27%
Updated trip generation rate.
Office greater than 400,000 SF
1.000 sf
0.80
$319
$406
-21%
No change to demand.
Medical Office
1,000 sf
1.72
$685
$879
-22%
Updated trip generation rate.
Tindale- Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier County
September 2010 25 Government Building Impact Fee Study
DRAFT
Table 17 (continued)
Calculated Impact Fee Schedule
and Use
Impact, Unit
".
Functional
Population
Coeflieienttrl
Net Impact Fee of
$398 per
Functional.:.
Residentt21
Current
Feeu1
Percent
Change (4)
(s)
Reason for Change tst
Retail, Gross Square Feet
S cialt Retail
1.000 sf
1.69
$673
$762
-12%
Update trip generation rate.
Retail 50.000 SF or less
1.000 sfgla
2.45
$976
$1,458
-33%
Updated trip generation rate and use of end points.
Retail 50.001 - 100.000 SF
1,000 sfgla
2.46
$980
$1.336
-27%
U dated trip generation rate.
Retail 100.001 - 150.000 SF
1.000 sfgla
2.25
$896
$1,189
-25%
U dated trip generation rate.
Retail 150.001 - 200,000 SF
1,000 sf la
2.75
$1,095
$1.448
-24%
Updated trip generation rate.
Retail 200.001 - 400.000 SF
1.000 sfgla
234
$932
$1270
-27 %
Updated ni generation rate.
Retail 400.001 - 600.000 SF
1.000 sf la
2.44
$972
$1,296
-25%
Updated trip generation rate
Retail 600,001 - 1,000.000 SF
1.000 sfgla
2.42
$964
$1.296
-26%
Updated trip generation rate.
Retail over 1.000,000
1.000 sfgla
2.09
$832
$1,062
-22%
No chance to demand.
New and Used Auto Sales
1,000 Sf
1.71
$681
$879
-23%
Updated trip generation rate.
Tire Superstore
sery ice bay
7.34
$534
$792
-33%
Updated trip generation rate.
Supermarket
1.000 sf
2.05
$816
$1.031
-2 1 %1
Updated trip generation rate.
Convenience Store
1.000 sf
5.47
$2,179
$2,154
I %
Updated trip generation rate, employees per unit,
and visitor length of stay figures.
Convenience Store with Gas Pumps
fuel pos.
4.35
$1,733
$2211
-22%
No change to demand.
Home Improvement Superstore
IA00 sf
1.78
$709
$904
-22%
No change to demand.
Pharmacy/Drug Store
1.000 sf
1.93
$769
$956
-20%
Updated trip generation rate.
Furniture Store
1.000 sf
0.24
$96
N/A
N/A
N/A
Bank/Savings Walk -in
L sf
2.57
$1-0241
$1,305
-22%
No change to demand.
Bank/Savings Drive -in
1.000 sf
228
$908
$1052
-14 io
Lpdated trip generation rate and employees per
unit figure.
Tindale- Oliver & Associates, Inca Collier County
September 2010 26 Government Building Impact Fee Study
DRAFT
Table 17 (continued)
Calculated Impact Fee Schedule
Land Use
Impact Unit
Functional
•- Population
•Coefficiento'
Net Impact Fee of
$398 per
Functional
Resident[ ;l
Carron
Feen)
Percent
Chan e(4)
Reason for Changel5j
Retail, Gross Square Feet (Continued)
Quality Restaurant
seat
0.221
$88
N/A
N/A
N/A
High- Turnover Restaurant
seat
0.27
$108
N/A
N/A
N/A
Fast Food Rest w/ Drive -Thru
1,000 sf
9.01
$3.589
$4.446
-19%
Updated trip generation rate.
Quick Lube
service bay
1 -16
$462
$590
-22%
No thane to demand.
Gas/Service Station
fuel pos.
1.98
$789
$1,007
-22%
No change to demand.
Self Service Car Wash
service bay
0.61
$243
$960
-75%
Updated trip generation rate based on a local study.
Automated Car Wash
1.000 sf
1.61
$641
N/A
N/A
N/A
Luxury Auto Sales
1.000 sf
1.11
$442
N/A
N/A
N/A
Industrial
Light Industrial
1.000 sf
0.69
$275
$351
-22%
No change to demand.
Mini - Warehouse
1.000 sf
1 0 -07
$28
$35
-21 %
No change to demand.
Business Park (Flex Space)
1.000 sf
09
$$394
$508
-22%
No change to demand.
(1) Source: Table 9 for residential land uses and Table 10 for nonresidential land uses
(2) Functional population coefficient multiplied by net impact cost per functional resident from Table 16 based on residential or nonresidential
land use type.
(3) Collier County Impact Fee Schedule (effective February 14, 2010)
(4) Percent change between the current and calculated fees
(5) Provides an explanation of changes to the demand component that impact the final fee, and indicates the land uses where the demand was not
changed since the last study.
N/A — Indicates a new land use category or a different unit, which makes it difficult to compare to the existing fee.
Tindale- Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier County
September 2010 27 Government Building Impact Fee Study
APPENDIX A
Collier County
Government Buildings Inventory
DRAFT
Table A -1
Government Buildings Inventory
and Insurance Value
Name of Structure . Primary Buildings,
Square Fete')
2010 Insurance
Value per sf
(bldgs on (2)
2010 Building;
Insurance'
Value(�)
Golden Gate Government Services Center
6,090
$178.20
$1,085,215
Immokalee Government Center
10,495
$184.07
$1,931,823
Immokalee Health Department (CHSI )
14,778
$203.65
$3,009,581
Immokalee Barn (Floors 1 & 2)
14,530
$21.54
$312,979
Immokalee Transportation Building
3,358
$87.14
$292,616
Medical Examiners Office
13,238
$184.07
$2,436,729
Building "B" Human Resources
7,160
$180.15
$1,289,906
Building "D" PWED
8,388
$147.84
$1,240,116
Building "C -I " - "C -2" Tax Collector and Supervisor of Elections
30,753
$146.16
$4,494,949
Building "F" (Floors 1 -8 )
89,966
$184.07
$16,560,114
Building "G" Purchasing
5,569
$176.24
$981,469
Building "H" Health Floors 1 -3)
54,160
$179.18
$9,704,134
Building "L" Courthouse (Floors 1- 6,Mezz.)
148,533
$234.98
$34,902,284
Building "L -1" Courthouse Annex
137,984
$335.33
$46,269,494
Building "W" General Services (Floors 1 -2)
31,054
$234.98
$7,297,193
Animal Control Administration
8,933
$180.15
$1,609,319
Animal Control Sally Port
6,727
$180.15
$1,211,899
Immokalee Animal Control Office
164
$91.06
$14,933
Marco Tax Collector
2,699
$137.07
$369,963
Transportation Headquarters
33,542
$171.34
$5,747,170
CAT Operations
32,144
$50.34
$1,618,130
Immokalee Code Enforcement Building
1,994
$180.15
$359,228
BCC Fleet Management
41,316
$285.90
$11,812,129
North Collier County Government Services Center
14,000
$183.09
$2,563,284
Emergency Services Center
57,274
$337.37
$19,322,508
Agriculture Building
13,361
$184.07
$2,459,359
Supervisor of Elections
7,000
$115.53
$808,710
Property Appraiser/Elks Lode
27,566
$171.34
$4,723,227
TOTAL (Primary Buildings)
822,776
184,428,461
Wei hted Average Cost per Square Feet of Building
$224.15
Tindale- Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier County
September 2010 A -1 Government Building Impact Fee Study
DRAFT
Table A -1 (continued)
Government Buildings Inventory
and Insurance Value
Suppgrt $u ldiu s - Name of Structure
uare Feet" l
2010 Insurance
Value per sf
(bl l s ouly)(11
2010 Building'
Insurance
Value(')
800 MHz Generator Building
238
N/A
N/A
Animal Control Kennel 1 -3
11,847
$120.43
$1,426,726
Animal Control Stable
3,159
$22.52
$71,138
Immokalee Animal Control Kennel
1,572
$97.91
$153,915
Immokalee Radio Tower Shed
16
$91.06
$1,457
Road & Bridge Shed
102
$27.41
$2,796
Road & Bridge Fuel Island
818
$68.54
$56,063
Building "K" Chiller Building
5,520
$291.77
$1,610,580
800 MGHZ Generator
368
N/A
N/A
Electric Substation "A"
824
$139.03
$114,563
Electric Substation "B"
1,088
$139.03
$151,267
Parking Garage #2 (Courthouse Annex)
410,302
$8128
$34,170,758
Fuel Island/Canopy
3,600
$66.58
$239,688
Generator/Fuel Tank
127
$76.37
$9,699
Fuel Tanks and Slab
1,557
N/A
N/A
County Barn 800 MGHZ Repeater Building
64
N/A
N/A
BCC Fleet Wash Rack
1,950
N/A
N/A
TOTAL (Support Buildings)
443,152
38,008,650
Weighted Average Cost per Square Feet of Building
$86.58
(1) Source: Growth Management Division and Facilities Management Dept., Collier County
(2) Source: Facilities Management Department, Collier County
(3) Square feet (Item 1) multiplied by insurance value per square foot (Item 2)
N/A — Not available
Tindale- Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier County
May 2010 A -2 Government Building Impact Fee Study
DRAFT
Table A -2
Collier County Government Buildings Inventory
Acreage and Land Values
Name of Structure
Address
Square
Feettt)
Total Square
Footage on Site
Total
Acres"'
Acres per '1,00 sf of
Bldg Spacet4t
Land
{AcriInP
Cost per,
Acre( #1 '
Adjusted
Land Value' `
Golden Gate Government Services Center
4715 Golden Gate Parkway
6,090
76,498
1191
0.169
1 029
$435,664
$448,298
Immokalee Government Center
106 S 1st Street
10,495
23,042
7.42
0.322
3.379
$87,140
$294,446
Immokalee Health Department (CHSI)
419 N. 1 st Street
14,778
29,513
10.00
0339
50101
$7,500
$37,575
Immokalee Bam (Floors I & 2)
425 Sgt. Joe Jones Road
14,530
69,135
41.81
0.605
8.791
$7,500
$94,380
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 & Bride 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
$283,000
$566,000
Building "B" Human Resources
3301 E. Tamiami Trail
7,160
1
1,491,521
45.28
0.030
0.215
$435,639
$6,810,344
Building "C -I," "C -1 Addition ", "C -2," "C -2
Addition' Tax 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
1 0.033
Building "L -1" Courthouse Annex
3301 E Tamiami Trait
137,984
1 4 140
Tindale- Oliver & Associates, Inc- Collier County
September 2010 A -3 Government Building Impact Fee Study
DRAFT
Table A -2 (continued)
Collier County Government Buildings Inventory
Acreage and Land Values
Name of Structure
Address
Square
'Fed(l)
Total Square
Footage on Sited
Total
Aeres I
Aeres per ''J OW sf of
Bldg Space(4)
Land
(Aeres)tsi
Cost per
Acre"' ,
Adjusted
Land Valuet7
Parkin Garage #2 (Courthouse Annex)
3301 E. Tamiami Trail
410,302
410,302
951
0.023
9.510
$435,509
$4,141,691
Fuel Island /Canny
2897 County Barn Road
3,600
82,847
9.63
0116
1
0.418
$50,000
$284,150
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
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
0293
2.617
$29,417
$264,312
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
$963,265
$472,000
Transportation Headquarters
2885 Horseshoe Dr S
33,542
33,542
2.46
0.073
2.460
$385,000
$947,100
CAT Operations (ex- Monrande Dealership)
8300 Radio Road
32,144
32,144
10.04
0312
10.040
$283,083
$2,842,153
Immokalee Code Enforcement Building
310 Alachua Street
1,994
1,994
0.20
0.100
0.2001
$54,450
$10,890
North Collier County Government Services Center
2335 Orange Blossom Drive
14,000
56,401
7.63
0.135
1.890
$175,000
$330,750
Tindale- Oliver & Associates, Inc- Collier County
September 2010 A -4 Government Building Impact Fee Study
DRAFT
Table A -2 (continued)
Collier County Government Buildings Inventory
Acreage and Land Values
Name of Structure
Address
Square-,
Fee& '
Total Square
Footage on Sited
Total
Acres(3)
Aerei per,1,000 sf o
Bldg Spacef0
Laud
(Aeres)ti)
Cost per
Acret'
Adjusted ,''
band Value
Emergency Services Center
8075 Lely Cultural Pkwy
57,274
154,388
20.001
0.130
74461
$47,602
$354,444
Agriculture Building
14700 Immokalee Road
13,361
N/A
N/A
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
NIA
N/A
Property Appraiser/Elks Lode
3950 Radio Road
27,566
27,566
6.74
0.245
6 740
$435,600
$2,935,944
TOTAL
1
1,265,928
93.079
i $20,834,477
Wei hted Average Acreage per 1,000 Square Feet of Building
0.0741
1 $223,836
(1) Square tootage of the indicated tacdity. Source: Growth Management Division and Facilities Management Department, Collier County
(2) Square footage of all buildings on the parcel. Source: Growth Management Division and Property Appraiser, Collier County
(3) Source: Property Appraiser, Collier County
(4) Acres (Item 3) divided by total square footage on site (Item 2) multiplied by 1,000.
(5) Acres per 1,000 sf of building space (Item 4) multiplied by square footage of the building (Item 1) divided by 1,000.
(6) Source Property Appraiser, Collier County (2010 database)
(7) Cost per acre (Item 6) multiplied by land (Item 5)
Tindale- Oliver & Associates, Inc- Collier County
September 2010 A -5 Government Building Impact Fee Study
APPENDIX B
Building and Land Values
Supplemental Information
DRAFT
Building Value Estimates
In determining the appropriate unit value for buildings, the following analysis was
conducted:
• A review of recently built government buildings in Collier County;
• Insurance value of the existing inventory; and
• Discussions with architects.
The most recent construction of government buildings involved two buildings:
• Courthouse Annex, which was bid in 2006, and completed in 2009 for a
construction cost of approximately $315 per square foot and a total cost of $390
per square foot; and
BCC Fleet Maintenance Facility, which was bid in 2006, and completed in 2008
for a construction cost of approximately $170 per square foot, and a total cost of
$299 per square foot.
Given that these buildings were bid approximately four years ago, they do not reflect the
cost decreases experienced over the past year or two. In addition, the BCC Fleet
Management Facility may not be representative of future primary buildings since it is
more of a maintenance facility.
Discussions with architects suggested a 10 to 20 percent decrease from 2006 bids for
Courthouse Annex -type buildings, which provided a range of $250 to $285 per square
foot.
As presented in Appendix A, Table A -1, TOA evaluated the 2010 insurance values of
government buildings, which provided an average weighted construction cost of $224 per
square foot for primary buildings and $84 per square foot for support buildings. When a
straight (unweighted) average was calculated, the unit cost became $175 per square foot
for primary buildings and $100 per square foot for support buildings. It should be noted
that insurance values are considered to be a conservative estimate because insurance
companies exclude the value of the foundation and other more permanent parts of the
structure since they would not have to be rebuilt if the structure is damaged or lost.
Using the unit figures for primary buildings, the total building value was calculated and
presented in Table B - l.
Tindale- Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier County
September 2010 B -I Government Building Impact Fee Study
DRAFT
As shown in Table B -1, additional costs such as the site preparation, permitting,
professional services, etc, were added based on the ratio of these costs to construction
costs in the case of recently built facilities. This analysis provided a total building value
range of $235 to $305 per square foot. For the impact fee calculations, the mid -point of
this range, or $270 per square foot, is used for primary buildings. For support facilities,
the ratio of primary to support facility values used in the previous studies is applied,
which resulted in a value of $73 per square foot. "this figure is found to be conservative
given that the insurance values of support facilities averaged a range of $84 (weighted
average) to $100 (straight average) per square foot.
Table B -1
Government Buildings
Total Building Value per Square Foot
(1) Source: Insurance values of existing buildings
(2) The ratio of site preparation cost to the construction cost is determined based on recently
built government buildings. Cost per square foot is calculated by applying the ratio to
the construction (e.g., $225 .x .15 = $34 for primary buildings).
(3) The ratio other costs to the construction cost is determined based on recently built
government buildings. Cost per square foot is calculated by applying the ratio to the
construction (e.g., $225 x .20 = $45 for primary buildings).
(4) Additional percentage for indicated costs based on recently built buildings
Land Value Estimates
In order to determine land value associated with government buildings, the following
information was evaluated:
• Current value of land where government buildings are located; and
• Land value in areas where future government buildings are planned to be located.
Tindale- Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier County
September 2010 B -2 Government Building Impact Fee Study
Cost per Square
Cost per Square
Building Cyst
Peet *Jtted
Foot (Straigth ;
Parceift Added
Co nt
Ins Vatge)
.A*k'Us Vibie)
(4)
Construction Cost(l)
$225
$175
Site preparation (2)
$34
$26
15%
Other (3)
$451
IL51
20%
Total
$304
$236
(1) Source: Insurance values of existing buildings
(2) The ratio of site preparation cost to the construction cost is determined based on recently
built government buildings. Cost per square foot is calculated by applying the ratio to
the construction (e.g., $225 .x .15 = $34 for primary buildings).
(3) The ratio other costs to the construction cost is determined based on recently built
government buildings. Cost per square foot is calculated by applying the ratio to the
construction (e.g., $225 x .20 = $45 for primary buildings).
(4) Additional percentage for indicated costs based on recently built buildings
Land Value Estimates
In order to determine land value associated with government buildings, the following
information was evaluated:
• Current value of land where government buildings are located; and
• Land value in areas where future government buildings are planned to be located.
Tindale- Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier County
September 2010 B -2 Government Building Impact Fee Study
DRAFT
Based on the Collier County Property Appraiser database, the current average value of
land where existing government buildings are located is approximately $224,000, which
is shown in Appendix A, Table A -2.
There are two government buildings that are planned for the future. One is these will be
located in the North Naples Fire District and the other in East Naples Fire District. An
evaluation of the vacant land values for I to 10 -acre parcels in these two districts resulted
in an average land value of $158,000 per acre. Given that this Figure is more
conservative than the value of existing land, $160,000 per acre is used in the impact fee
calculations.
Tindale- Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier County
September 2010 B -3 Government Building Impact Fee Study
Collier Count
awwMAS& y
Fiscal Year 2011
WATER AND WASTEWATER
IMPACT FEE STUDY
For
COLLIER COUNTY
WATER -SEWER DISTRICT
SUMMARY OF RESULTS
and
SUPPORTING TABLES
October 27, 2010
Public Resources Management Group, Inc.
Utility, Rate, Financial and Management Consultants
Cot[ier County
Public Utilities Division
Collier County Water -Sewer District
Water and Wastewater Impact Fee Study
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Table
Number Table Title
Summary of Results
'Fable 4
Current Results
Key Drivers and Considerations
'Fable 5
Additional Supporting Information
Supportine Tables and Figures
Table ES -1
Existing and Proposed Water and Wastewater System Impact Fee Schedule
Table ES -2
Proposed Allowance for Funds Prudently Invested (AFPI) Fee Schedule
Table I
Development of Existing Water Production / Treatment Facility Capacity
Development of Water System Impact Fee
Available to Serve System Growth
Table 2
Development of Existing Wastewater Treatment Facility Capacity Available to
Comparison of Water and Wastewater System Impact Fees Per ERC
Serve System Growth
Table 3
Summary of Water Capital Improvement Program By Plant Function Through
Summary of Existing Utility System Fixed Assets
FY 2020
'Fable 4
Summary of Water Capital Improvement Program Recognized in System Impact
Fee - Fiscal Years 2010 Through 2020
'Fable 5
Summary of Wastewater Capital Improvement Program By Plant Function
Through Fiscal Year 2020
Table 6
Summary of Wastewater Capital Improvement Program Recognized in System
Impact Fee - Fiscal Years 2010 Through 2020
Table 7
Development of Water System Impact Fee
Table 8
Development of Wastewater System Impact Fee
Table 9
Comparison of Water and Wastewater System Impact Fees Per ERC
Figure 1
Comparison of Water and Wastewater System Impact Fees Per ERC
Appendix A
Summary of Existing Utility System Fixed Assets
10272010, 158 PM
Page
Number
1
2
7
8
9
ITC
12
14
lil
21
24
27
30
33
34
35
CO 1 C< ty Water and Wastewater Impact Fee Study In
Public Utilities Division Analysis as of October 27, 2010 EB
SUMMARY OF RESULTS
Water and Wastewater Impact Fee Study — Collier County Water -Sewer District
A. Current Results
Impact Fees
In 2008, the combined water and wastewater impactfees were lowered by $268.88 or
3.7% (Total reduction since 2008 — $803.88)
AFPI Fees
Existing and Calculated Water and Wastewater Impact Fees
Existing
LOS
Difference
System
(gpd)
Existing
Calculated
Amount Percent
Water
350
$3,575.00
$3,290.00
($285.00) (8.0 %)
Amotmt
$10.214 /gal
$9.400 /gal
Wastewater
250
$3,495.00
$3,245.00
($250.00) (7.2 %)
$13.980/gal
$12.980/gal
Carrying Maxvnun
Total
Maximum
$7,070.00
$6,535.00
($535.00)
In 2008, the combined water and wastewater impactfees were lowered by $268.88 or
3.7% (Total reduction since 2008 — $803.88)
AFPI Fees
10/27/2010; 5:00 PM 1
Existing
and Calculated AFPI Fees
Existing
Calculated
Difference
Amotmt
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Carryutg
Maximum
Carrying Maxvnun
Carrying
Maximum
Cost
Accrual
Cost Accrual
Cost
Accrual
Per ERC
Per ERC
Pc, ERC Per ERC
Per ERC
Per P_RC
Percent
Water System
$12.97
$933.84
$1189 $856.08
($1.08)
($77.76)
(83%)
Wastewater System
1054
758.88
9.09 654.48
(1.45)
(104.40)
(138%)
Combined System
$23.51
$1692.72
$20.98 $1,51056
($253)
($182.16)
10/27/2010; 5:00 PM 1
Collier County Public Utilities Division
Water and Wastewater Impact Fee Study
Analysis as of October 27, 2010
In 2008, the combined maximum accrual of the water and wastewater AFPI fees was
lowered by $51.95 or 3.0% (Total reduction since 2008 = $234.11)
Total reduction since 2008 of combined water and wastewater impact fees and
maximum accrual ofAFPI fees = $1,037.99
B. Key Drivers and Considerations
Two Uses of Impact Fee Collections
• Pay growth- related capital projects
• Pay growth - related debt service
Level of Service Considerations:
(Remainder of page intentionally left blank)
10/27/2010; 5:00 PM 2
Collier County Public Utilities Division
Water and Wastewater Impact Fee Study
Analysis as of October 27, 2010
Comparison of Water and Wastewater Level of
Water ERC Wastewater ERC
(gpd) (gpd)
Collier County Water -Sewer District (CCWSD)
Water and Wastewater Rate Ordinance 350 250
2.4 persons per household
362
240
2.5 persons- per household
378
250
2.6 persons per household
393
260
)8 Master Plan Updates 121
2.4 persons per household
333
240
2.5 persons per household
347
250
2.6 persons per household
361
260
Florida Public Sery ice Service Commission (FPSC) Capacity
Relationships for Private Utilities [31 350 280
Florida Department of Health Design
Standards for Sewer Systems 141 N/A 300
I ] LOS standards reflect gallons per capita per day (gpcd) in Collier County Growth Management
Plan multiplied by number of persons per household. Gallons per capita per day derived
as follows:
Water Wastewater
Total gpcd 185 120
Adjustment for commercial component per County billing records (34) (20)
Residential gpcd 151 100
Per the 2000 US Census, the persons per household in Collier County was 2.39. Changing customer
dynamics may adjust this number over time.
LOS standards reflect gallons per capita per day (gpcd) in 2008 Master Plan Updates multiplied
by number of persons per household. Gallons per capita per day derived as follows:
Water Wastewater
"Iota] gped 170 120
Adjustment for commercial component per County billing records (31) (20)
Residential gpcd 139 loo
Per the 2000 US Census, the persons per household in Collier County was 2.39. Changing customer
dynamics may adjust this number over time
Rule 25- 30.515(8), Florida Administrative Code, A wastewater ERC level of service is 80% of the
water FRC level of service (350 gpd x 80 %= 280 gpd),
Rule 648 - 6.008, Florida Administrative Code. Design standard for 3- bedroom house with
1,201 - 2,250 square feel of building area.
10/27/2010: 5:00 PM 3
Collier County Public Utilities Division
Water and Wastewater Impact Fee Study
Analysis as of October 27, 2010
Impact Fee Calculations
• Primarily driven by cost of existing facilities in service
• Calculations:
No
TREATMENT AND TRANSMISSION COMPONENTS
Starting Cost Per ERC of- Treatment and Transmission Facilities
Cost of Existing Facilities With Available
I Capacity to Serve New Growth [ 1]
2 Number of I'RCs'Fhat Could Be Served By Facilities [2]
3 Cost Per ERC
Water
$398,186,292 $375,048,503
128,571 123,385
$3,097.00 $3,039.67
I I Calculated Impact Fee (Rounded) $3,29000
1]
Capital Improvement Program
assets) as of September 30, 2009 that was provided by the Counry.
Capital Projects Representing New Facilities and Upgrades to
[2]
Given current capacity and level of service standard. Derived as follows'.
4
Existing System [3]
$7,416,888
$5,124,068
5
Replacement Capital Projects [3]
37,612,354
42,163,830
6
Less Estimated Cost of Original Fixed Assets Being Replaced [4]
(19,973,547)
21,754,301
7
Cost Difference
$25,055,694
$25,533,597
Adjusted Cost Per ERC of'I'reatment and Transmission Facilities
123,385
[ *] Peaking factors utilized in 2008 Master Plan I plates
Adjusted Cost of Existing Facilities With Available
[31
Based on identification of and nature of treatment and transmission capital projects represented in
8
Capacity to Serve New Growth [Line I + Line 71
$423,241,986
$400,582,100
9
Number of GRCs -that Could Be Served By Facilities X21
128,571
123,385
10
Adjusted Cost Per FKC
$3,291 98
$3,24661
I I Calculated Impact Fee (Rounded) $3,29000
1]
Based on funetionalizslion of fixed asset list r e., identification oftreatmenl and transmission fixed
assets) as of September 30, 2009 that was provided by the Counry.
[2]
Given current capacity and level of service standard. Derived as follows'.
Treatment Capacity (Maximum Month - MGD) 54.00
40.10
Peaking Factor [ *1 1 20
1.30
'treatment Capacity (Average Daily Plow - MGD) 45.00
30 85
Treatment Capacity (Average Daily Flow - gallons per day) 45,000,000
30,846,154
Level of Service Standard Per ERC (gallons per day) [5] 350
250
Number of ERC S That Could Be Serwce By Capacity 128,571
123,385
[ *] Peaking factors utilized in 2008 Master Plan I plates
[31
Based on identification of and nature of treatment and transmission capital projects represented in
Fiscal Year 2010 to 2020 capital program provided by the Counry.
[4]
Based ran weighted- average in- service dale of Treatment and transmission assets represented in fixed
asset list that was provided by the County
10/27/2010; 5:00 PM 4
Collier County Public Utilities Division
Water and Wastewater Impact Fee Study
Analysis as of October 27, 2010
Effect of Relocation Projects on Impact Fee Calculations
Water Wastewater
tarting Transmission Component of Impact Fees
Cost ofEbsting'I'ransmission Facilities $106,999,568 $73,265,456
Number of ERCs That Could Be Served By Facilities 111 128,571 123,385
Cost Per ERC $832.22 $593.80 $1
Relocation Projects
Cost of Relocation Projects (FDOI and CCDO "f) $14,136,594 $3,187,828 $17,324,423
Less Estimated Cost ofOriginal Fixed Assets Being Replaced (7,416,315) (1,673,927) (9,090,242)
Cost Difference $6,720,279 $1,513,902 $8,234,180
Transmission Component of Impact Fees If Relocation Projects
Were Removed
Adjusted Cost $100,279,289 $71,751,555
Number of ERCs That Could Be Served By Facilities 11] 128,571 123,385
Adjusted Cost Per ERC $779.95 $581.53 $1,361.48
Fee Difference
$52.27 $1227
Reasonableness of Impact Fee Calculations
• Highest County combined water and wastewater impact fees (in 2008):
$3,616.49 water and $3,722.39 wastewater (combined = $7,338.88)
— Calculated combined fees are $803.88 lower than highest historical level
• Comparison of recent constructed expansions to calculated fees
— Water System
➢ Recognized treatment cost per ERC in impact fee calculation =
$2,459.66
➢ Constructed cost per ERC of 8.0 MGD SCRWTP expansion =
$2,881.67
— Wastewater System
➢ Recognized treatment cost per ERC in impact fee calculation =
$2,652.82
➢ Constructed cost per ERC of 6.5 MGD NCWRF expansion =
$3,343.05
(Remainder of page intentionally left blank)
10/27/2010; 5:00 PM 5
Collier County Public Utilities Division
Water and Wastewater Impact Fee Study
Analysis as of October 27, 2010
AFPI Calculations
• Based on calculated impact fees and weighted average interest rate on District's
existing debt
Projected Impact Fee and AFPI Fee Collections
• Annual collections not anticipated to be sufficient to pay for all growth - related
projects and debt service during FY 2011 to FY 2016 timeframe
• Any growth - related expenditures not recovered (funded) through impact fee and
AFPI fee collections must be recovered through user rates
Projected Impact Fee Collections
Projected AFPI Fee Collections
Total Collections
Growth - Related Projects in CIP (Funds 411 and 413)
Growth- Related Debt Service [21
Total Growth- Related Projects and Debt Service
Difference
Total Difference
Impact Fee Starting Fund Balances
Total Amount to He Recovered From Existing
Customers During Forecast Period
[ I j Numbers shown are in millions of dollars.
[2] Based on County FY 2011 Budget.
($26.49)
(Remainder of page intentionally left blank)
10/27/2010; 5:00 PM 6
Fiscal Year Ending September 30
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
'101At,
$6.54
$6.54
$6.54
$6.54
$6.54
$6.54
$3921
1.15
1.28
1.51
1.51
1.51
151
8.47
$7.69
$7.81
$8 -05
$8.05
$8.05
$8.05
$47.68
$10.36
$033
$2 -03
$6.33
$0.33
$3.83
$23.22
11.14
11.14
11.14
11.14
11.14
11.61
67.29
$21.49
$11.47
$13.17
$17,47
$11.47
$15.45
$90.51
_JIL3,811
($3.65)
($5.12)
,
($3.42)
7401
283
($42.83)
$16.34
($26.49)
(Remainder of page intentionally left blank)
10/27/2010; 5:00 PM 6
Collier County Public Utilities Division
Water and Wastewater Impact Fee Study
Analysis as of October 27, 2010
Recovery of Capacity Capital Costs Through FY 2020
Wastewater /
Water System IQ Water System Total
Estvmted Cost of Existing Treannent Capacity
Allocable to Serve New Growth I1 ] $128.1 $143.0 $271.1
Csstirnated Cost of Existing Transmission Capacity
Allocable to Serve New Growth II ]
$43.3
$32.0
$75.3
Total Cost
$171.41
$174.97
$346.39
Estimated Arnount of Impact Fees Collected
During Projection Period t2]
$36.2
$35.7
$71.9
Percent Recovery of Costs
21.1%
20.4%
20.8%
I i Based on current capacity utilization of water and wastewater treatment facilities.
[2] Assumes annual average growth of 1,000 water ERCs and 1,000 wastewater FRCS during the Fiscal
Year 2010 to Fiscal Year 2020 timefirame.
C. Additional Supporting Information
Calculation Period
• FY 2010 through 2020
Capital Improvement Program (FY 2010 through 2020)
• $128.7 million in water projects
• $206.9 million in wastewater and IQ water projects
• $335.6 million in total projects
(Remainder of page intentionally left blank)
10/27/2010; 5:00 PM 7
}}
}§
|
§
\
\
\
E
a
!
]
i
\
\
\
}
)
,!
;!
Table ES-2
Collier County Water -Sewer District
Water and Wastewater Impact Fee Study
Proposed Allowance for Funds Prudently Invested (AFPI) Fee Schedule
2010 [1]
2011 fl]
2012
2013
856,08
856.08
$518.80
$67444
$760.96
$856.08
53177
68741
77285
856.08
544 74
700 38
784 74
856.08
557 71
713 35
796.63
85608
57068
12632
808.52
856.08
58365
73929
82041
85608
596.62
75226
83230
856.08
609,59
76523
844.19
85608
62256
77820
856.08
856.08
635 53
72529
856.08
856.08
64850
737.18
856.08
85608
66147
749.07
85608
856.08
2014
$856.08
$856.08
$856.08
856.08
856,08
856.08
856.08
856.08
856.08
856.08
856.08
856.08
85608
85608
856.08
856.08
856.08
856.08
856.08
856.08
856.08
856.08
856.08
856.08
856.08
856.08
856.08
856.08
85608
856.08
856.08
856.08
856.08
85608
856.08
856.08
I] AFPI fees tot January 2010 through September 2011 were established during the previous rate study performed by PRMG in 2008. "1 'he
revised AFPI fee schedule is proposed to become eticetivc on October I, 2011_
1027/2010; 2 '01 I'M 9
AFPI
Fee Schedule Per
ERC - Wastewater System
Payment
Calendar Year
Month
2010 111
2011[1
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
January
$421.60
$548.08
$58196
$654,48
$654 48
$65448
$65448
February
432 14
558.6'_
59085
65448
65448
65448
654.48
March
44268
56916
599.94
65448
65448
65448
654.48
Aprl
45322
579 70
609.03
65448
65448
65448
65448
May
463 76
59024
618.12
65448
65448
654.48
65448
June
47430
600.78
62721
65448
65448
654.48
65448
July
48484
61132
63630
65448
65448
65448
65448
August
49538
62186
64539
65448
65448
654,48
654.48
September
505 92
63240
654 48
654 48
65448
65448
65448
October
51646
55449
654.48
65448
65448
654.48
65448
November
527 00
56358
654.48
65448
65448
65448
65448
December
537 54
5112 t?
65448
654.48
65448
654.48
65448
I] AFPI fees tot January 2010 through September 2011 were established during the previous rate study performed by PRMG in 2008. "1 'he
revised AFPI fee schedule is proposed to become eticetivc on October I, 2011_
1027/2010; 2 '01 I'M 9
Table I
Collier County Water -Sewer District
Water and Wastewater Impact Fee Study
Development of Existing Water Production / Treatment Facility
Capacity Available to Serve System Growth
Line
No.
I Existing Permitted Plant Capacity of System (MMDD -MGD) (1)
Adjustment to Reflect Average Daily Demand
2 of Water Treatment System (MGD) (2)
3 Dependable'[ reatment Plant Capacity (ADD)
4 Average Daily Demand - Existing System (3)
5 Remaining Capacity (ADD) at Existing Plant
6 Percent of Total Capacity Remaining
7 Percent of Total Capacity Recognized
Capital Costs of Existing Facilities
8 Existing Facility Costs (4)
9 Additional Costs (5)
10 Less Assumed Retirements (6)
11 Less Grant Funds and Other Contributions (7)
12 Total Applicable Capital Costs of Existing Facilities
13 Estimated Amount Allocable to Future Growth
MGD= Million Gallons Per Da}
MMDD = Maximum Month Daily Demand
ADD -Average Daily Demand
Footnotes on page 11.
10/27/2010; 2:02 PM 10
Water
System
54.000
(9.000)
45.000
26.776
18.224
40.50%
40.50%
$ 300,105,838
29,116,915
(12,011,279)
(969,055)
$ 316,242,418
$ 128,078,179
I able I
Collier County Water -Sewer District
Water and Wastewater Impact Fee. Study
Development of Existing Water Production /'treatment Facility
Capacity Available to Serve System Growth
Fo_mi
(I) Amounts reflect MMDD treatment capacity of facilities as provided by the District 'the perwotled capacrtes of the two individual
regional facilities are 22 0 MMDD -MGD (North Count, Regional Water' I'reatrowl Plant) and 32.0 MMDD -MGD (South County
Regional Water Ireatmenl P anq
(2) With respect tothe water facilities, the plant capacity is expressed on a maximum month daily demand basis. 'I 'a be consistent with
the level of service requirements for the water system, the plant capacity was adjusted to reflect an annual average daily demand
basis A maximum commonly demand territorial average daily demand peaking 1'actorof 120 was utilized as supported by finished
water dew data contained in rise Monthly Oper.tng Reports f fled wnh the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP)
.s shown below
Fiscal Year 1996
Fiscal Year 1999
Fiscal year 1998
Fiscal Year 1999
Fiscal Year 20t10
Fiscal VWr2W1
1 ,al Yen 2(H'2
I'¢cal Year 2003
Fiscal Year 2004
Flseal Year'_IXi5
1 =i4cal Ycar 1W6
Fowsl Year 2007
Fiscal Year 2W8
Fracal Year 2009
Fourteen -Year Mastication
Founcert Year Average
Tractor Utilized an 2008 We(,, Metric, Plan Update
Annual
Average Daily
Demand (MGD)
Max 1111
Month Daily
Demand
(M(iD)
Peaking Father
1480
1816
125
1665
1954
L❑
1999
2106
1
1977
" 17
1.16
2225
2039
119
21 68
24.8?
1 14
2290
26.45
115
22x9
2674
18
2440
2635
08
25.83
28.9
11
26.00
3171
1 2
26.78
3234
121
J 11
26.04
1 13
2272
28.17
124
Factor Unfired By PRMG For Impact Fee Determination Purposes
1 25
1 17
1 20
120
54000MMDD- MGD Capacity /120 Peaking Factor —450WADD-MGD Capacity 54000 Inca 45 WO. 9400.
(3) Reflects the highcm reported average daily demand experienced by the District s water treatment facilities for the fourteen Fiscal
Year period ended 2009 as shown below
Water
Maximum Period Reported ADD (') 2678
PI Rctemrcc rs matic ro Poomme 3 ferapplimblc mxngc tlialy ticrnaM 4ara
(4) Amounts derived from Appendix A (available upon request). re elect mil, ware, supply or production and treatment
facility, costs.ec.unted for wahm the water sy tent .11111 o 1, shown w, follmu7
Amount ( )
Water Supply Costs $73,916,705
Water T emincent Costs 226.189,133
Total $3W- 105,838
(') Derived from Appendix A, One 5830
(5) Amounts shown derived (Tim 116114, reflect i) upgrades and add,(,., to existing plant which would be.11 ... 61,
m an on Sysrern growth (unused capaaty), and r) facility additions which are all.e.ble to both existing and new
usms of the water sysem Derived from Exmmg colunm in'rable 4- Sec l- ire36of "I'able4
(6) Derived Fom Estimated Original Cust column or Iable 4- See Line 36 of Table 4
(7) Amounts shown derived from Line 5831 of Appendix A (ovoilable upon regnesp
10/2712010; 3 .40 PM
Line
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
12
13
Table 2
Collier County Water -Sewer District
Water and Wastewater Impact Fee Study
Development of Existing Wastewater Treatment Facility
Capacity Available to Serve System Growth
Existing Plant Capacity of System (MMADF -MGD) (1)
Adjustment to Reflect Capacity on Average Daily Flow Basis (2)
Dependable Treatment Plant Capacity (ADF)
Average Daily Flow - Existing System (3)
Remaining Capacity (ADF) at Existing Plant
Percent of Total Capacity Remaining
Percent of Total Capacity Recognized
Capital Costs of Existing Fucilities
Existing Facility Costs (4)
Additional Costs (5)
Less Assumed Retirements (6)
Less Grant Funds and Other Contributions (7)
Total Applicable Capital Costs o f f xisting Facilities
Estimated Amount Allocable to Future Growth
MGD = Million Gallons Per Day
MMADF = Maximum Month Average Daily Plow
ADF = Annual Average Daily Flow
Footnotes on page 13.
10/27/2010; 2:04 PM 12
Wastewater
System
40.100
(9.254)
30.846
17.372
13.475
43.68%
43.68%
$ 308.856,061
40,223,404
(19,831,106)
(1,931,715)
$ 327316,644
$ 142,971,910
I'
Table 2
Collier County Water -Sewer District
Water and Wastewater Impact Fee Study
Development of Existing Wastewater Treatment Facility
Capacity Available to Serve System Growth
(D Amounts reflect pemmed MMADF wastewater treatment plant capacity of facilities. The permitted capacities of the individual regional facilities are
24.1 MMADF -MGD (North County Water Reclamation Facility) and 16.0 MMADF -MGD (South Count• Water Reclamation Facility).
(2) With respect to the existing wastewater facilities, the plant capacity is expressed on a maximum month average daily Dow basis. To be consistent
with the level of service mgWrements for the wastewater system, the plant capacity was adjusted to reflect an annual average daily flow basis using a
peaking factor of 1.30.
A summary of the foureen fiscal year actual wastewater flows is smmmarired below. As can be seen based on the actual
,opened now data the capacity adjusun oo fact averaged 1 24.
Favor IRilized By PRMG For Impact Fee Detemination F'nryoses 1.30
•40.100 MMDD -MGD Capacity / 1.30 Peaking Factor 30.846 AADD -MGD Capacity . 40.100 Loss 30.846= 9.254.
(3) Reflects the hlghesl reported average daily flow expeneneed by the District's wastewater, treatment facilities for the fourteen
Fiscal Year period ended 2009 as shown hot.,'.
Wastewater
Maximum Period Reponed AADF (•) 17372
1'I Rllena s 111u0c to J 1111101 2 cram,, uc wamye ash Ilex ds,i
(4) Amounts derived from Appendix A (available upon request), reflect only wastewater treatment and effluent disposal and
associated reclaimed facility costs a.couled for wnhin the wastewater system operations, shown as follows.
Amount ( ")
Wave ster'I'reahour( Costs 5267,567,177
Reclaimed Facility Costs 41,288,884
Total $308.856,061
is) Derived from Appendix A, Line 5836.
(5) Amounts shown derived from I able 6, reflect if upgrades and additions to existing plant which would be allocable in pall to
,stem growth, and it) facility additions which are allocable to built existing and new users of the wastewater system.
Derived Gem Lsisting column in "fable 6 - See Lines 24 and 52 of Table 6.
(6) Derived from Fstfamted On aril Cost colwmn in'1 -able 6 - See Lines 24 and 52 of Table 6.
p7 Amounts shown dedved from Line 5837 of Appendix A(available upon request) (S26- 305 +$1,434,207 — $2,460,512).
10/27/2010, 342 PM 13
Annual
Masimmm Month
Average Daily
Average Daily
Flow (MGD)
Flow (MGD)
peaking Factor
Fiscal Year 1996
8 744
11450
131
Fiscal Year 1997
If) 065
12.494
1.24
Fiscal Year 1998
9.962
14.180
1.42
Fiscal Year 1999
10.499
15 944
152
Fiscal Year 2000
12362
15.800
138
Fiscal Year 2001
15.100
16600
1.10
Fiscal Year 2002
15.528
20.160
130
Fiscal You, 2(,03
15.600
17 279
1.11
Fiscal You, 2004
15921
18 899
1.19
Fiscal Year 2005
16323
19306
1.18
Fiscal Y car 2006
17372
19.890
1.14
Fiscal Year 2007
15.633
IN 391
1.18
Ftwel Year 2008
15601
18290
1.17
Fiscal Year 2009
13.837
15.920
1.15
1 morn -Yen, Maximum
1.52
I'oureco -Yes, Avcfagc
1 24
Facer ll tilieed in 2008 Wastewater Master plan Update
130
Favor IRilized By PRMG For Impact Fee Detemination F'nryoses 1.30
•40.100 MMDD -MGD Capacity / 1.30 Peaking Factor 30.846 AADD -MGD Capacity . 40.100 Loss 30.846= 9.254.
(3) Reflects the hlghesl reported average daily flow expeneneed by the District's wastewater, treatment facilities for the fourteen
Fiscal Year period ended 2009 as shown hot.,'.
Wastewater
Maximum Period Reponed AADF (•) 17372
1'I Rllena s 111u0c to J 1111101 2 cram,, uc wamye ash Ilex ds,i
(4) Amounts derived from Appendix A (available upon request), reflect only wastewater treatment and effluent disposal and
associated reclaimed facility costs a.couled for wnhin the wastewater system operations, shown as follows.
Amount ( ")
Wave ster'I'reahour( Costs 5267,567,177
Reclaimed Facility Costs 41,288,884
Total $308.856,061
is) Derived from Appendix A, Line 5836.
(5) Amounts shown derived from I able 6, reflect if upgrades and additions to existing plant which would be allocable in pall to
,stem growth, and it) facility additions which are allocable to built existing and new users of the wastewater system.
Derived Gem Lsisting column in "fable 6 - See Lines 24 and 52 of Table 6.
(6) Derived from Fstfamted On aril Cost colwmn in'1 -able 6 - See Lines 24 and 52 of Table 6.
p7 Amounts shown dedved from Line 5837 of Appendix A(available upon request) (S26- 305 +$1,434,207 — $2,460,512).
10/27/2010, 342 PM 13
.... .. . .... y;. > ..........
\±•� :_ , ._ ..................
.... ,. . ..zw .. \\...........
\EKZ 44 ! lf: 1-8 9 a
-
_
1 ;7Z:
\§ ;
... ... . .......... yzl ® ::! ........[[.
... ... . .. _ ... .............
.. ..
... ... & . }....f ................ z� %K«. ;z..y.
«&f : « K f!f!!f4!<fff!>f > f5tfrl ;! fi;;flfa<Kff;
{! )
E E >
rl
z
}\
� {}
2 \� \\
f«+'if\t!f[/
> :!f>i - -- --
(d
I<
)\
)
)\
I
-
`
\-
/}
--
)(\)
-
) §>:i,:z=
I<
)\
T
9
� H
W
1 `V�
s a
v
Fn. 5 3
L•
0
O
v q
w
0
V `
3
o
c �
� o �
a
c
0
E
Q
E w t
� p �
E � Z
1 �
D o c o 0 0 0 0 0
R o` —
« P o m o P
ry �i
w
O
v `
io
w
w
0 0 0. .
0 0 0. 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0
w
w
n O
P P P P P
P O O
ll N
°o r °o n o� ° oD o o �o a ago i=o Ne �000
Q
W W Vi
y
F
W
o z
`o w
n C O °' = '= u � �' � ° v •r i v ° n. Z µzj _ a o —= 3 'v' K L � c.
F J W 3 3 c S � `-• z o? H LL• p4' T a vii
3�
o o e 3 3 3
a o a� o. �=
lz o W W T, tC n A V U U U V V U
z ZZ o. I^!^ v. W S v�u r"a u.zzzzzv zZ CA
LL 4 F CA
O
a -- W P O N N ^
`z
v w`
D 4
d 6 �
�e
s n .
U y
V - a
3
O
O LL
C N
0.
a
v
E 'm
w O
E � G
Q -
5
I
...........
O O O G O O O O N p O
O Pp.0 0 0 0 O b O O-
°o
vi O, V
v r m w
C G
A N N 0 v h N V m w 9 N
O
O
C
P,
a
P
O
C
O
a
N
P
N
O
C O P
h m
T.
Q a
N N 9
a
aa�
K x
O O O O O O O O O O O O
c
i
P
P
w I M w I ,A
J
z
9
v
c
N
ry
3
H
z
e
i
'-
c
W
z
a te° G C o
K 3
C
r i
¢� '•��
V a
o
a` E
F'
c
z<
¢
Ezmzzzhmvwm33w
a
F-
14 °.m
J
z
9
v
c
N
ry
3
\\ )
!\
]}}
§ )®
§\ z )/
-
/� \ {A } -
§\
\ \ \\ \ \ \ \\ \\& ) \
\\
j } )
m
\}
/)
)�
:!
} }
! ( {
\ \ \
\ } \
} {
) )
� \
\ \ \ \\ \ \
\E
{\
}!±!])!{! }If
,
5
YQ
3
ES
Al
E
— '
� iLL
_
g
`5
C
E
�
_
�
3
F
Ec6�EoS�
V
F a.]LY�dai� £ iE
Z
CF
��5GE.2� �o
_
5
s
c {F
hE
3 E
33
Uc
4�
s
e 3
.........�
4 _
.I: 1 3 a 1 'n 1° ca a
WVr
'$ c
e a y o � m Exz nn�,.sm
}/.
)))
-
\
9
«
)
/
! � ,
) }(((\
1Q§Q
} )
!/
)) }))\.III...I
f S> 8 8 r
( �i 44444 ;44
<! �
� E
\}( \ \ \ \ \ } }\
�-
/) {,(�[} --
° / -�-
:
\
! � ;
([
\\
\ /\
:
§
\
)
�F��� (
\
\
)
\�
(!
i
..
...
,,,§
\\
\ /\
\
:
§
\
)
\
}\
\
\\
\\
\4
Table 7
Collier County Water -Sewer District
Water and Wastewater Impact Fee Study
Development of W ater System Impact Fee
Line
No,
Description
Amount
Total Estimated Cost of Existing Water Production
and Treatment Facilities:
1
Cost of Existing Facilities (1)
$
300,105,838
2
Additional Costs Capitalized to Plant in Service (2)
29,116,915
3
Less Anticipated Retirements (3)
(12,011,279)
4
Less Grant Funds and Other Contributions (4)
(969,055)
5
Subtotal Water Production and Treatment Facilities
$
3 16,242 418
6
Existing Nominal Plant Capacity (MGD) (MMDD) (5)
54.000
7
Existing Nominal Plant Capacity (MGD) (ADD) (5) (6)
45.000
8
ERC Factor - GPD(7)
350
9
Estimated ERCs to be Served by Existing Facilities
128,571
10
Percent Remaining Capacity of Existing Facilities
40.50%
11
Allocation of Existing Facilities to Incremental Growth
$
128,078,179
12
Rate per F;RC Associated with Existing Facilities
$
2,459.66
Total Estimated Cost of Additional Water Production
and Treatment Facilities'.
13
Cost of Additional Water Production/1 reatmcm Facilities (8)
$
-
14
Ncw Plant Capacity (MGD) (MMDD) (9)
-
15
New Plant Capacity (MGD) (ADD) (6)
-
16
Estimated FRC's to be Served by Additional Facilities
-
17
Rate per LRC Associated with Additional Facilities
$
-
18
Rate per ERC Allocable to Water Production/Treatment Facilities (10)
$
2,459.66
Primary Transmission System.
19
Existing Facilities (11) (12)
$
99,049,509
20
Additional Costs Capitalized to Plant in Service (13)
15,912,327
21
New Facility Costs (14)
-
22
Less Anticipated Retirements (15)
(7,962,269)
23
Less Grant Funds mid Other Contributions (4)
-
24
Total Primary Transmission Facility Costs
$
106,999,568
25
Estimated Plant Capacity -Total Service Area (MGD) (ADD) (16)
45.000
26
F.RC Factor - GPD(7)
350
27
Estimated ERCs served by Transmission Facilities
128,571
28
Net Rate per ERC of Primary Transmission Facilities
$
83222
29
Total Combined Rate per ERC
$
3,291 88
30
Rounded Rate per FRC
S
3,290,00
31
Cost Per Gallon
$
9-400
MGD - Mi1hun Galloiu Per D,,
MMDD= Msximuni Momh Daily Demand
ADD - Averege Daily Dunand
HRC = Equivalem RerWential Connueiion
GPI) = Gxllov Per Day
Footnotes start on page 28.
10/27/2010; 2:09 PM 27
Table 7
Collier County Water -Sewer District
Water and Wastewater Impact Fee Study
Development of Water System Impact Fee
Footnotes .
(1) Amount derived from Appendix A (available upon request), reflects estimated water production and treatment assets
currently in service, shown as follows:
Amount ( ")
Water Supply Costs $73,916,705
Water Treatment Costs 226,189,133
Total $300,105,838
(') Derived from Appendix A. I -me 5836.
(2) Amounts shown derived from Table 4, reflect . i) upgrades and additions to existing plant which would be allocable
in part to System growth, and ii) facility additions which are allocable to both existing and new users of the water
system. Derived from Existing column is [ able 4 - See Line 36 of "fable 4.
(3) Amount derived from Table 4 and reflects estimated treatment and transmission fixed asset retirements due to imposition
at the capital improvement plan of the District Derived from Estimated Original Cost column in -fable 4 -
Line 36 of Table 4.
(4) Amounts shown derived from Line 5837 of Appendix A (available upon request).
(5) Amount shown derived from Table I and includes the following facilities.
(6) The annual average daily flow was calculated assuming a maximum monthly daily demand to average daily flow
factor of 1.20 based on the capacity planning assumptions recognized in the District's 2008 Water Master Plan Update
which is generally consistent with actual flow relationships occurring during a recently completed fourteen (14) fiscal
year period- See'I-able I and corresponding footnotes.
(7) 1 he level of service factor for an ERC rellccts capacity requirements expressed on an average daily water
demand basis, the factor was based on the capacity planning assumptions contained in the District's
Comprehensive Plan and other sources available to PRMG.
(8) Derived from Expansion column in Table 4 - See Line 36 ofTable 4.
(9) 'The County does not anticipate adding treatment capacity during the forecast period.
10/27/2010; 2:10 PM 28
MMDD -MOD
ADD -MGD
Capacity
Capacity
North County Regional Water Treatment Plant
22.000
18.333
South County Regional Water'freatment Plant
32.000
26.667
Total Plant Capacity
54.000
45000
(6) The annual average daily flow was calculated assuming a maximum monthly daily demand to average daily flow
factor of 1.20 based on the capacity planning assumptions recognized in the District's 2008 Water Master Plan Update
which is generally consistent with actual flow relationships occurring during a recently completed fourteen (14) fiscal
year period- See'I-able I and corresponding footnotes.
(7) 1 he level of service factor for an ERC rellccts capacity requirements expressed on an average daily water
demand basis, the factor was based on the capacity planning assumptions contained in the District's
Comprehensive Plan and other sources available to PRMG.
(8) Derived from Expansion column in Table 4 - See Line 36 ofTable 4.
(9) 'The County does not anticipate adding treatment capacity during the forecast period.
10/27/2010; 2:10 PM 28
Table 7
Collier County Water -Sewer District
Water and W astewater Impact Fee Study
Development or W ater System Impact Fee
Footnotes.
(10) Derived as follows:
Cost of Existing Water Treatment Facilities
$316,242,418
Percent ol'Pxisting Water Treatment Facilities Available to Serve New Growth
4050%
Adjusted Cost of Existing Watcr Treatment Facilities
$128,078,179
Cost of Additional Water Treatment Lac i l it iv
0
Total Costs
$128,078 -179
Estimated L'RCs to Be Served By Existing Water Treatment Facilities
128.571
Percent of Existing Water Treatment Facilities Available to Serve New Growth
40,50%
Adjusted ERCs to Be Served By Existing Water 'Treatment Facilities
52,071
Estimated ERCs to Be Served By Additional Water Treatment Facilities
0
'total ERCs
52.071
Rate per ERC Associated With Water I realment Facilities $2,459.66
(I I) Amounts do not include the estimated cost of retail on -site capital expenditures such as meters, hydrants, services, and
on -site (local) distribution utility plant facilities or general plant assets (vehicles, equipment, etc.); such costs arc.
if generally provided by the developer or owners of property which specifically benefit from such facilities; or
ii) funded by a separate and distinct fee (eg., meter installation charge).
(12) Amounts derived from Line 5836 of Appendix A (available upon request), reflects cost of water transmission and
storage utility plant in service.
(13) Derived from Existing column in Table 4 - Sec Line 48 of fable 4.
(14) Derived from Expansion column in Table 4 - See Line 48 of Table 4
(15) Derived from Estimated Original Cost column in Table 4 - See Line 48 of Table 4.
(16) Reflects total estimated plant capacity for the forecast period for the water service area based on the County's current
capacity planning estimates. Amount calculated as follows.
Estimated Service Area Capacity (MMDD- MGD)
Assumed MMDD to AADD Peaking Factor
Estimated AADD Capacity for Analysis Period (MGD)
Assumed ERC Factor (Gallons Per Day Per ERC)
Total Estimated FRCS Available to be Served
10/27/2010; 2:10 PM 29
Amount
54.000
1.20
45.000
350
128,571
Table 8
Collier County Water -Sewer District
Water and Wastewater Impact Fee Study
Development of Wastewater System Impact Fee
Line
No Description Amount
Total Estimated Cost of Existing Wastewater
$
2,652.82
Treatment/Disposil Facilities'.
I Cost of Existing Facilities (1)
$
308,856,061
2 Additional Costs Capitalited to Plant in Service (2)
40,223,404
3 Less Anticipated Retirements (3)
C 19,83 1,106)
4 Less Grant Funds and Other Contributions (4)
(1,931,715)
5 Subtotal Wastewater Ireatmcnt /Disposal Facilities
$
327,316,644
6 Existing Nominal Plant Capacity (MGD) (MMADF) (5)
24 Total Primary Transmission Facility Costs
40.100
7 Existing Nominal Plant Capacity (MGD) (AIDE) (5) (6)
25 Estimated Plant Capacity (MGD) (ADF) (17)
30846
8 ERC Factor - GPID(7)
26 ERC Factor - GPD(7)
250
9 Estimated ERCs to be Served by Existing Facilities
27 Estimated ERCs served by Transmission Facilities
123,385
10 Percent Remaining Capacity of Existing Facilities
28 Rate per ERC of Primary Transmission Facilities
43.68%
11 Allocation of Existing Facilities to Incremental Growth
$
142,971,910
12 Rate per ERC Associated with Existing Facilities
$
2,652.82
'Pohl Estimated Cost of Additional Wastewater
Treatmenu Disposal Facilities'
13 Cost of Additional Wastewater Treatment /Disposal Facilities (8) $
14 New Plant Capacity (MGD) (MMADF) (9)
15 New Plant Capacity (MGD) (ADF) (6)
16 Estimated E:KCs to be Served by Additional Facilities
17 Rate per ERC Associated with Additional Facilities $
18 Rate per ERC Allocable to Wastewater Treatment/Disposal Facilities (10)
$
2,652.82
Primary Transmission System_
19 Existing Facilities (11) ( 12)
$
73,982,820
20 Additional Costs Capitalized to Plant in Service (13)
4,802,323
21 New Facility Costs (14)
2,262,171
22 Less Anticipated Retirements (15)
(1,923,195)
23 Less Receipt of Grant Funds and Other Contributions (16)
(5,858,663)
24 Total Primary Transmission Facility Costs
$
73,265,456
25 Estimated Plant Capacity (MGD) (ADF) (17)
30 -846
26 ERC Factor - GPD(7)
250
27 Estimated ERCs served by Transmission Facilities
123,385
28 Rate per ERC of Primary Transmission Facilities
$
593 80
29 Total Combined Rate per F,RC
$
3,246.61
30 Rounded Rate per ERC
$
3,245.00
31 Cost Per Gallon
$
12.980
MOD= Millinn Gallons Po Day
MMADF = Maximum Month Average Daily Flaw
ADY = Average Daily Plow
ERC - Lquivalent Resiaenlol Connection
GPD = Gnllmis Per Day
Footnotes start on page 31.
10/27/2010; 2:11 PM 30
Table 8
Collier County Water -Sewer District
Water and Wastewater hnpact Fee Study
Development of Wastewater System Impact Fee
Footnotes.
(1) Amount derived from Appendix A (available upon request); reflects estimated wastewater treatment and effluent disposal
assets currently in service, shown as follows'.
Amount ( ")
Wastewater Treatment Costs $267,567,177
Reclaimed Facility Costs 41,288,884
'Total $308,856,061
( -) Derived from Appendix A, Line 5836_
(2) Amounts shown derived from Table 6, reflect i) upgrades and additions to existing plant which would be allocable in part to
system growth, and ip facility additions which are allocable to both existing and new users of the wastewater system_
Derived from Existing column in Table 6 - See Lines 24 and 52 of Fable 6.
(3) Amount derived from Table 6 and reflects estimated treatment and transmission fixed asset retirements due to imposition
of the capital improvement plan oft he District Derived from Estimated Original Cost column in Table 6- See lines
24 and 52 of ]'able 6.
(4) Amounts shown derived from I_are 5837 of Appendix A (available upon request) ($26,305 + $2434,207= $2,460,512).
(5) Amount shown derived from Table 2 and includes the following facilities.
North County Water Reclamation Facility
South County Water Reclamation Facility
Total Plant Capacity
Capacity - MGD
MMADF ADF
24.100 18.538
16.000 12308
40.100 30.846
(6) The verage daily Flow for existing capacity was calculated assuming a maximum monthly average daily flow to
average daily Flow factor (peaking factor) of 1.30 MGD in accordance with the County's capacity planning
assumptions See Table 2 and corresponding bounces
(7) The level of service factor for an ERC reflects capacity requirements expressed on an average daily wastewater Flow
basis; the factor was based on the County's capacity planning assumplons and other sources available to PRMG.
(8) Derived from Expansion column in'Iable 6 - Sec Line 24 and 52 of Table 6.
(9) The County does not anticipate adding treatment capacity during the forecast period.
10/27/2010; 2:12 PM 31
Table S
Collier County Water -Sewer District
Water and Wastewater Impact Fee Study
Development of Wastewater System Impact Fee
Footnotes.
(10) Derived as follows.
Cost of Existing Wastewater Treatment Facilities
$ 327,316,644
Percent of Existing Wastewater Treatment Facilities Available to Serve New Growth
43.68%
Adjusted Cost of Existing Wastewater 'I eatment Facilities
$142,971 910
Cost of Additional Wastewater I reatmenl Facilities
0
'Total Costs
$142,971,910
Estimated ERCs to Be Served By Existing Wastewater 'I reannenl Facilities
123,385
Percent of Existing Wastewater''catment Facilities Available to Serve New Growth
43.68%
Adjusted ERCs to Be Served By Existing Wastewater 'I eatinenl Facilities
53,894
Estimated ERCs to Be Served By Additional Wastewater Treatment Facilities
0
Total ERCs
53,894
Rate Per ERC Associated With Wastewater Treatment Facilities $2,652 82
(11) Amount does not include the estimated cost of retail on -site capital expenditures such as manholes, local lift stations,
service laterals, and on -site (local) collection utility plant facilities or general plant assets (vehicles, equipment, etc),
such costs are i) generally provided by the developer or owners of property which specifically benefit from such
facilities, or a) funded by a separate and distinct fee (e g., w'as'tewater tap charge).
(12) Amount derived Gore Line 5836 of Appendix A (available upon request); reflects cost of wastewater transmission and
master pumping station utility plant in service.
(13) Derived from Existing column in Table 6 - See Line 42 of Table 6.
(14) Derived from Expansion column in Table 6 - See Line 42 of 'I able 6.
(15) Derived from Estimated Original Cost column in "fable 6- Sec Line 42 ol`fable 6.
(16) Amounts shown derived from line 5836 of Appendix A (available upon request).
(17) Reflects total estimated plant capacity for the forecast period for the water service area based on the County's capacity
planning estimates Amount calculated as follows
10/27/2010; 2:12 PM 32
Amount
Estimated sery ice Area Capacity(MMADF - MGD)
40100
Assumed MMADF to ADF Factor
1300
Estimated ADF Capacity for Analysis Period (MGD)
30.846
Assumed ERC Factor (gallons per day per ERC)
250
Total Estimated ERCs Available to be Served
123,385
10/27/2010; 2:12 PM 32
Table 9
Collier County Water -Sewer District
Water and Wastewater System
Comparison of Water and Wastewater System Impact Fees Per ERC II I
Line
No. Description
Collier County Water -Sewer District
I Existing Impact Fees
2 Proposed Impact Fees
Surveyed Florida Utilities:
3 Bonita Springs Utilities, Inc.
4 City of Bradenton
5 Charlotte County
6 Desoto County
7 Englewood Water District
8 FGUA - Golden Gate (Collier County)
9 FGUA - Lehigh Acres System (Lee County)
10 City of Fort Myers
I I Hillsborough County
12 Lee County
13 Manatee County
14 City of Marco Island
15 City of Naples
16 City at North Port 121
17 Okeechobee Utility Authority
18 City of Punta Gorda
19 City of Sarasota
20 Sarasota County
21 Other Florida Utilities' Average
Footnotes
Residential 5/8" x 3/4" Meter
Water Wastewater Combined
$3,575
$3,495
$7,070
3,290
3,245
6,535
$2,600
$3,925
$6,525
1,183
1,545
2,728
1020
3.770
5,790
1,910
4,140
6,050
2,032
2,838
4,869
1,950
1,565
3,515
2,700
2,840
5,540
2,023
1,966
3,989
1,750
1,800
3,550
2,440
2,660
5,100
1,970
2,315
4,285
3,740
4,610
8,350
2,549
2,779
5,328
1,735
2,388
4,123
1,510
2,935
4,445
1824
2,463
5.287
900
2.577
3,477
2720
2,031
4,751
$2,142
$2,730
$4.872
111 Unless otherwise noted, amounts shown reflect fees charged to a standard residential connection (one ERC) in effect
October 2010 and are exclusive of taxes or franchise fees, if any, and reflect rates charged for inside the city service.
All rates are as reported by the respective utility. 'This comparison is intended to show comparable charges for
similar service for comparison purposes only and is not intended to be a complete listing of all rates and charges
offered by each listed utility.
121 Utility is currently involved in an impact fee study, is planning to conduct an impact fee study, or plans to implement
an impact fee revision within the next twelve months following the comparison preparation date.
10/27/2010; 4:04 PM 33
U
Q
L
~ L
3
w �
O
3
O
U
L
V
O
U
0
0
N
L
U
O
v
O
Ld
W
C�
L
V
a�
a�
rM
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
V) 6n � � � � V) � us
0
44
�o
saa ••�e`L
y "J 'IO
O� s, pas
T4, 00
O� y
o O
V,% ;p 4
/o Jai °0
J oi.,
a �
4"q ai/ yJ
sa
lob�'6
bV
7' OJ °�4'
d�
0 Jaa o�'J
a
T4� 0 0 °
O
,i A�°S,P �a,�
o ''`°s► 4�
b
7
4 1 OJaa aa9
0 VP as
�'�rO �0
?� I%
410
�4 y °
' °J ��J
�o yso
o,
J'.9' /oJ °4s�i�
0.1
4
o
4a
O ' j
00, b
It
M
M
0
O
N
N
O
mom
a'
C �
d \n
mom
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
V) 6n � � � � V) � us
0
44
�o
saa ••�e`L
y "J 'IO
O� s, pas
T4, 00
O� y
o O
V,% ;p 4
/o Jai °0
J oi.,
a �
4"q ai/ yJ
sa
lob�'6
bV
7' OJ °�4'
d�
0 Jaa o�'J
a
T4� 0 0 °
O
,i A�°S,P �a,�
o ''`°s► 4�
b
7
4 1 OJaa aa9
0 VP as
�'�rO �0
?� I%
410
�4 y °
' °J ��J
�o yso
o,
J'.9' /oJ °4s�i�
0.1
4
o
4a
O ' j
00, b
It
M
M
0
O
N
N
O
Appendix A (Summary)
Collier County Water -Sewer District
Water and Wastewater Impact Fee Study
Summary of Existing Utility System Fixed Assets III
9 Total Combined Utility System $1.098.808.620
Footnotes:
[1 ] Amounts shown derived from Appendix A, which is available upon request. Appendix A contains the
functional ization of over 5,800 utility assets.
[2] General Plant represents equipment, vehicles and assets with short service lives, and was allocated to
the water and wastewater system in proportion to all other functionalized utility plant.
10/27/2010; 2:17 PM 35
Reported Gross Plant -In- Service as of September 30, 2009
Line
Water System
Wastewater System
No.
Description
Amount
Percent
Amount Percent
1
Water Supply
$73,916,705
73.93 ° /a
- -- - --
2
Treatment
226,189,133
42.63%
$267,567377 47.08%
3
Transmission
99,049,509
18.67%
73.982,820 13.02%
4
Distribution /Collection
109,730,840
20.68%
171,688,370 30.21%
5
Effluent/Reclaimed
- --
- --
41,288,884 7.27%
6
Meters /Services /Hydrants
8,799.723
1.66%
- -- - --
7
General Plant [2]
12,840,818
2.42%
13.754,641 2.42%
8
Totals
$ 0 b 7 8
100.00%
1i6&z&LM1
9 Total Combined Utility System $1.098.808.620
Footnotes:
[1 ] Amounts shown derived from Appendix A, which is available upon request. Appendix A contains the
functional ization of over 5,800 utility assets.
[2] General Plant represents equipment, vehicles and assets with short service lives, and was allocated to
the water and wastewater system in proportion to all other functionalized utility plant.
10/27/2010; 2:17 PM 35