DSAC Agenda 03/06/2011 R
DSAC
AGENDA
MARCH 6, 2011
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE
AGENDA
October 6, 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.
I. Call to Order - Chairman
II. Approval of Agenda
III. Approval of Minutes from September 1,2010 Meeting
IV. Public Speakers
V. Staff Announcements/Updates
A. Public Utilities Division Update - Nathan Beals
B. Fire Review Update - Ed Riley
C. Growth Management DivisionlTransportation Planning - Jay Ahmad
D. Growth Management Division/Planning & Regulation Update - Jamie French
VI. Old Business
A. A-128 Requirements for Spot Surveys & Affidavit's [Jamie French]
VII. New Business
A. EMS and Fire Impact Fee subcommittee update [Amy Patterson]
B. EAC Ordinance Amendment update [Stephen Lenberger]
VIII. Committee Member Comments
IX. Adjourn
Next MeetinQ Dates
November 3, 2010
December 1, 2010
January 5, 2011
February 2, 2011
March 2, 2011
GMD Conference Room 610 - 3:00 pm
GMD Conference Room 610 - 3:00 pm
GMD Conference Room 610 - 3:00 pm
GMD Conference Room 610 - 3:00 pm
GMD Conference Room 610 - 3:00 pm
September 1, 2010
MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Naples, Florida, September 1,2010
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 DivisionIPlanning & Regulation, 2800 N. Horseshoe Drive,
Naples, Florida, with the following Members present:
CHAIRMAN:
Vice Chair:
William Varian
David Dunnavant
Ray Allain
James Boughton
Clay Brooker
Laura Spurgeon DeJohn
Dalas Disney
Marco Espinar (Excused)
Blair Foley
Regan Henry
George Hermanson
David Hurst
Reed Jarvi
Robert Mulhere (Excused)
Mario Valle
ALSO PRESENT: Norman Feder, AICP, Administrator, Growth Management Division
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
Pam Libby, Manager - Water Operations
Robert Wiley, Principal Project Mgr., Watershed Study Project/FEMA
September I, 2010
I. Call to Order:
Chairman Varian called the meeting to order at 3:05 PM and read the procedures to be
followed during the meeting.
II. Approval of Aeenda:
Change:
· Chairman Varian added the topic, "Approval of the Subcommittee Minutes of
August 27,2010," under Item III.
George Hermanson moved to approve the Agenda as amended. Second by Reed Jarvi.
Carried unanimously, 11-0.
III. Approval of Minutes - August 4, 2010 Meeting:
Dalas Disney moved to approve the Minutes as presented. Second by Mario Valle.
Carried unanimously, 12-0.
Approval of Minutes - August 27,2010 Subcommittee Meeting:
Chairman Varian noted the Subcommittee Meeting Minutes vote would be held when a
quorum of members was achieved. Six Subcommittee members were required for a quorum.
IV. Public Speakers:
(None)
V. Growth Manaeement Division Staff AnnouncementslUpdates:
A. Public Utilities Division Update: Pam Libby, Manager - Water Operations, for
Nathan Beals, Project Manager (Excused)
· The RPZ Meter discussion previously scheduled to be heard at the Board of
County Commissioners September 14th meeting had been postponed to the last
meeting in October, 2010.
o He requested additional time for general discussion with the group
o Information was submitted to the Fire Code Office regarding pressures
A question was asked concerning the scheduling of another meeting.
Ms. Libby deferred the question to Nathan Beals, who will be available next week.
(David Dunnavant arrived at 3:07 PM)
B. Fire Review Update: Ed Riley, Fire Code Official- Fire Code Office
· The groundbreaking ceremony for the new Fire Code building has been
scheduled for September 22, 2010
2
September 1,2010
III. Approval of Minutes - August 27,2010 Subcommittee Meeting:
[Note: The following Subcommittee members were present and voted:
William Varian - Subcommittee Chairman, Melissa Ahem, David Dunnavant,
Blair Foley, Joey Hatfield, David Hurst, and Ed Riley.]
ChanJ!e:
· On Pages 3 and 4, the spelling of "PETO" was corrected to "pitot."
Ed Riley moved to approve the Minutes as amended. Second by David Hurst. Carried
unanimously, 7-0.
v. Growth Manaeement Division Staff AnnouncementslUpdates:
C. Transportation Planning Division Update: Jay Ahmad, P.E., Director-
Transportation Engineering
· Santa Barbara Boulevard Extension is open (six lanes) for public use
· Two segments of the Oilwell Road Project are under construction
o from Immokalee Road east to Everglades Boulevard
o from Oilwell (grade road) to the entrance of Ave Maria
· The Project is ahead of schedule and on budget - anticipated completion is
March, 2012
. Project Bids:
o Davis (from Radio Road to Collier)
o Collier Blvd. (from Davis to Golden Gate Canal)
o Permitting is on-going and anticipated by the end of20l0
o A right-of-way permit is required from the State of Florida
· A court hearing for Order of Taking is scheduled for October 27,2010
· Continuing to obtain property (ROWs) from willing sellers for various projects
Questions:
· Regarding the Santa Barbara extension, why are the retention ponds located so
far from the road?
There are two projects within the Santa Barbara Project and one is a
Stormwater project to build canals on the west side of the road. The retention
ponds are located on the east side of the road.
· Is there a landscaping project on Orange Blossom Road in North Naples,
between Airport-Pulling Road and Livingston Road?
All landscaping projects are "on hold" pending funding unless it is an MSTU
project.
D. Planning and Regulation Update: James French, Director - Operations &
Regulatory Management
. Met with representatives from Fifth/Third Bank regarding credit card option to
accept VISA cards
o Spoke with "Magic Writer"/"Pay Pal" - the user fee will be between the
bank and the customer
3
September 1, 2010
o There is Federal legislation concerning capping the fees
o More discussions are necessary regarding fees
· Met with Kim Grant from County Manager's office regarding digital
submissions - tests anticipated within the next two months
· Re: "CityView" - Phase III (Building Department) is being "ramped up" - the
anticipated "go live" date is February, 2011
VI. Old Business:
A. Update on Utilities/RPZ Subcommittee Meetings: Chairman Varian
(Copies of the Subcommittee Minutes were distributed to all members.)
. The Subcommittee met on August 13th, August 19th, and August 2th
· The Subcommittee and Utilities did not reach a conclusion
· Three recommendations (Motions) were agreed upon for DSAC's consideration
o The BCC directed DSAC to vet the RPZ (Health/SafetylWelfare) issue
and return a recommendation to the BCC by the September 14th meeting
· It was noted Utilities removed the Executive Summary from the Agenda for the
September 14th meeting on Wednesday
· DSAC's directive from the Board of County Commissioners was not changed
Ray Allain moved to recommend to the Board of County Commissioners to not
remove the Administrative Stay until evidentiary support is produced to document
Utilities position that there is a Health/SafetylWelfare issue.
(There was no Second in support of the Motion.)
Chairman Varian reviewed the three Motions from the Subcommittee:
Motion # 1 :
"In the course of these Subcommittee meetings, it has not been
demonstrated that the additional potential Health and Safety risk
is immediate, and it has not been demonstrated that installing an
RPZ in lieu of a DDC is warranted. "
Motion #2:
"This Subcommittee has not been able to determine - or there has
been no empirical data submitted to substantiate the requirement
of an RPZ over a Double Check Valve Assembly and, therefore, we
cannot support the requirement to install an RPZ in lieu of a Double
Check Valve Assembly. "
Motion #3:
"This Subcommittee is to be continuedfor the sole reason of two
issues. One is to address and vet out Utilities' request to have in-line
meters installed. The second is to discuss the appropriateness of the
charge for fire lines. "
4
September 1, 2010
George Hermanson noted he attended the August 19th meeting only, and the Motions
were made during the August 27th meeting.
Chairman Varian clarified the Subcommittee consisted ofDSAC members,
representatives from Industry, the East Naples Fire District, and the Fire Code Office.
James Boughton stated the Subcommittee's charge was to determine the issues
covered by the first two motions and Motion #3 appeared to be unnecessary since it
was not part of the issues.
Chairman Varian stated:
· The RPZ was the primary issue for the Subcommittee.
· At DSAC's March meeting, Utilities introduced a revenue issue was discussed
and included meters for fire lines.
David Dunnavant stated the RPZs were implemented in 2008 and the meters in 2009.
They were placed on a Consent Agenda by Utilities, and the Subcommittee addressed
both issues.
Blair Foley stated there was "good interaction" during last Subcommittee meeting but
Utilities did not provide much input - the question asked repeatedly was "Where is the
data?" - any supporting documentation. Utilities indicated it would meet with Fire
concerning existing pressures in the lines and calculations. It was important to the
Subcommittee to continue the discussions and have Industry represented, which was
the basis for Motion #3.
Ray Allain noted there were two issues for DSAC to discuss: (1) the meters, and (2)
the charges for the fire lines, but the issue concerning the RPZs should be discussed
first in order to send a recommendation to the BCC.
· "If there was such a compelling argument and compelling evidence for
the Utilities Department to pursue this avenue, then I don't understand
why it's so elusive and difficult to present to DSAC."
Points of information for presentation to the Board of County Commissioners:
· DSAC adhered to the directive by holding three Subcommittee meetings within
the allotted timeframe in between two regular DSAC meetings
· DSAC is an all-volunteer Committee consisting of 15 members
· Time was taken to ensure that DSAC's recommendations would assist the BCC
with its decision-making process
Blair Foley noted the Board was concerned about the issues and requested additional
information be presented at the September 14th meeting - because Utilities removed
the topic from the Agenda did not alleviate DSAC's responsibility to present its
findings as directed.
Chairman Varian stated, due to the removal of the item from the Agenda, DSAC
must make a public petition in order to present its recommendations.
. "DSAC did what it was asked to do in a timely manner."
5
September 1, 2010
Clay Brooker stated the Code does not allow the BCC to take a vote or any action but
can only listen to the information presented. He suggested sending a letter to the
Commissioners outlining exactly what DSAC did and when, as well as its conclusions,
and to make DSAC's request to be placed on the Agenda in the letter.
Dalas Disney asked ifthere were enough time for DSAC to make a request to the
County Manager to add a line item to the Agenda for a five-minute presentation.
Nick Casalanguida, Deputy Administrator, Growth Management Division, stated
it was too late to add an item to the Agenda. He suggested that Jamie French speak
with Chairman Varian concerning the public petition. He agreed while the BCC could
not vote on any information presented via a public petition, it could direct Staff to take
action.
He recommended a strong "read ahead" be prepared such as a letter to the
Commissioners and the County Manager concerning the information to be presented
and why.
Dalas Disney noted the issue of Health/Safety/Welfare had been a paramount concern
and was stated as such at the BCC's meeting. The Board insisted DSAC was not
allowed the 90 days it requested to vet the issue, but must return its recommendation
on September 14th. Since Utilities has pulled the item, DSAC will have no opportunity
to presents its findings.
David Dunnavant stated the BCC was prepared to hear from DSAC and there were
almost two weeks left before the meeting ...
. " . .. to request the item go back on [ the Agenda] does not seem
insurmountable. "
Nick Casalanguida stated the County Manager could be asked, but if the Utilities
Administrator said he was unable to present the item and needs more time -there is no
item to include on the Agenda.
Chairman Varian noted it was not "just" Utilities' item since DSAC was given a
directive by the BCC. He cited Page 230 of the BCC's Minutes as follows:
"Commissioner Henning: Motion to continue until we get DSAC's
recommendation.
Chairman Coyle: But we want it back here for a decision by the Board
no later than the first meeting in September."
David Dunnavant stated the record should reflect DSAC's presentation was available
and if Utilities pulled the item, they should explain to the Board why it was done.
Mr. Casalanguida stated he would make a phone call while the DSAC meeting
continued and would return before the meeting concluded.
Clay Brooker requested Mr. Casalanguida ascertain the deadline to submit the public
petition.
6
September 1, 2010
Chairman Varian stated the recommendations were kept as three separate Motions
for the following reasons:
· It was brought to the attention of the BCC that there was a Health, Safety and
Welfare issue. That was the first Motion.
· The Second Motion dealt with Utilities' request to install RPZs:
o Through discussion, it was determined the current system uses both
RPZs and Double Detector Check Assembly Valves (DDCAs) and both
accomplish the same thing - both are back flow preventers.
o Why is one superior to the other?
o The conclusion was there had not been enough data presented to justify
the request or the expense.
o Why does Collier County have to be above the standards of the
Industry and the remainder of the country?
o What is wrong with the Double Detector currently used in a number of
communities and buildings throughout the County?
Dalas Disney stated there were three separate issues to be accepted, or not, by DSAC
and moved forward as a recommendation to the BCC as determined by DSAC.
· "The third [Motion] is just the continuation of the Subcommittee to resolve
continuing and open issues."
He agreed the BCC should be made aware there are other issues to be discussed.
Dalas Disney moved to recommend accepting the S,!bcommittee'sfindings on
Motion #1 and Motion #2, and toforward the information to the Board of County
Commissioners. Second by Mario Valle.
As requested, Motion # 1 motion was reviewed:
"In the course of these Subcommittee meetings, it has not been
demonstrated that the additional potential Health and Safety risk
is immediate, and it has not been demonstrated that installing an
RPZ in lieu of a DDC is warranted. "
Chairman Varian noted the First Motion had been discussed and amended.
Dalas Disney referred the Committee to Pages 13 (Amended Motion), and 17 of the
August 2ih Subcommittee Meeting Minutes to review the first two Motions.
Blair Foley stated his notes reflected different language:
· "There was no significant data provided to show that it was an imminent
danger or a Health, Safety and Welfare issue."
In response to a question, Mr. Disney stated his Motion did not include the
Subcommittee's Third Motion in order to deal with the immediate issue of Health,
Safety and the RPZs, and the potential risk to the public. No risk was found, the
question was answered, and the Motion should be brought to the BCC.
His approach was to consider the items individually.
7
September 1, 2010
George Hermanson stated he will vote "No" on the Motion. He did not hear Public
Utilities' case since he attended only one meeting, but maintained there was a case [for
public safety] whether or not it had been substantiated.
Nick Casalanguida returned. He spoke with the County Manager who confirmed the
item will be returned to the Agenda for the September 14th BCC meeting.
Chairman Varian called for a vote.
Motion carried, 12 - "Yes"/ 1- "No." Mr. Hermanson was opposed.
In reference to the Motion to continue the Subcommittee, Chairman Varian asked the
Members to consider Staff time and how to pay for the meetings. He noted DSAC's
fees are allocated from the Building Fund (113). Since the Subcommittee, if _
continued, will be discussing Utility issues, he suggested recommending that Utilities
help fund the cost of the meetings.
Jamie French, Director of Operations & Regulatory Management, stated he might
be able to provide a Staff Liaison as long as the meetings were scheduled in advance.
The cost for minute-taking could be allocated from the General Fund but not from
Fund 113 or Fund 131.
Chairman Varian stated Utilities provided very little information although the
Subcommittee repeatedly requested data.
Blair Foley noted the Subcommittee often asked Utilities for their comments and
positions on the issues. He questioned why there was no feedback from Utilities.
David Hurst asked ifDSAC had the authority to continue the Subcommittee without
BCC approval and if DSAC could find a funding source.
Chairman Varian stated he was unsure. He referenced a specific billing (blatant
over-billing) issue brought to the Subcommittee's attention by David Dunnavant. He
continued if Utilities intended to pursue metering of the fire lines, the issue must be
discussed at DSAC's meetings or by a Subcommittee ofDSAC.
David Hurst referenced the Utilities "discussion group" and asked if it had voting
authority. He suggested attending the group meetings.
Dalas Disney stated in order for the Subcommittee to be effective, it must receive
information from Utilities. If Utilities continues to "stone-wall," he asked if a
Freedom oflnformation request could be filed? He noted the conversations that
happened were due to the BCC's directive. He further stated it was appropriate to
inform the BCC of the secondary issues that were discussed as a result of the
Subcommittee meetings and that DSAC and Industry were available to continue
discussion and vetting of the issues.
Clay Brooker stated DSAC would appear foolish if it did not continue to be involved
when, or if, the empirical evidence requested from Utilities was presented.
8
September 1, 2010
Dalas Disney moved to accept the Subcommittee's Third Motion that empirical data
be submitted to continue discussions with Utilities in order to come to a conclusion
concerning RPZs versus Double Detector Checks and meter requirements, and to
forward the recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners.
Second by David Hurst.
Nick Casalanguida stated the BCC wanted a recommendation from DSAC. If the
recommendation is to continue the Subcommittee, there should also be a
recommendation to continue the Stay as well, since the BCC was going to implement
its decision based on the information presented at the September 14th meeting.
He suggested amending the Motion to include the language concerning the Stay until
the documentation is presented.
Dalas Disney stated Utilities did not support its own claims.
Chairman Varian stated he thought the two Motions were very clear concerning the
RPZ issue, but clarification of continuing the Stay could be included. He reiterated
the Subcommittee found there was no immediate Health, Safety or Welfare issue, and
no information was presented stating RPZs were better than the Double Checks.
David Dunnavant stated it was acknowledged RPZs are better than Double Detector
Checks. The issue was the impact of installing the RPZ and the cost/benefit in
exchange. The Subcommittee clearly recommended there was no need to install
reduced pressure back flow devices in this County and Collier would be the first
County in the State to do so.
He further stated installing the RPZs would place Collier County well ahead of any
other County from a safety standpoint, but the impact and cost to Industry and the
citizens of Collier County did not make it viable - "it didn't add up to us."
No supporting documentation was presented. He agreed with Mr. Casalanguida that
the Motion should be clearly stated.
He continued the problem was that approval of the installation the RPZs was currently
in an Ordinance passed by the Board of County Commissioners on a Consent Agenda
presented by Utilities in 2008.
. "We would have to unwind that."
Mr. Disney noted the Subcommittee's first Motion answered the questions concerning
the Health, Safety issue and the necessity of installing RPZs.
Mr. Dunnavant stated the issue for the September 14th meeting is to be clear on a
recommendation to the Board concerning RPZs. The fire meterinm and revenue issue
is separate issue that did not need to be resolved by September l4t1.
David Hurst stated the question of how to quantify installation ofRPZs was not
answered by Utilities during the Subcommittee meetings.
9
September 1,2010
Reed Jarvi suggested adding a third point to the first two Motions stating the Stay
should be continued. He noted the Ordinance has not been addressed - to either
implement it or continue the stay until such time as supporting documentation for
Utilities' position is presented.
Public Speaker:
Melissa Ahern, CBIA, stated the Board initially issued two directives:
· the RPZs, contained in the Ordinance, was "stayed," and
· the water meters were on a subsequent Resolution, and was also "stayed."
· The last directive was to return on September 14th with DSAC's response
concerning RPZs and the Subcommittee made its response.
· The issue of continuing the Subcommittee to come to a resolution on the water
meters has not been decided.
She stated she thought the BCC would expect DSAC to complete vetting the water
meter issue because a recommendation was not being made at the September 14th
meeting.
Clay Brooker noted a Motion and Second had been made and was on the floor.
Chairman Varian confirmed the Motion to continue the Subcommittee was on the
floor.
Dalas Disney withdrew his Motion to simplify and re-state it. The Second was also
withdrawn by David Hurst.
Dalas Disney moved that DSACforward its recommendation to the Board of County
Commissioners that the Subcommittee is to be continuedfor the sole reason of two
issues: to address and vet Utilities' request to have in-line meters installed, and to
discuss the appropriateness of the charge for fire lines.
Second by David Hurst.
Norman Feder, Administrator, Growth Management Division, suggested changing
the language of the two approved Motions, i.e., "DSAC finds that. . . " (continue the
Motions as stated) ... "and, therefore, recommends a stay until such time as
documentation is provided."
For the Third Motion, he suggested adding, "to that end, that the Subcommittee
continue to work on that issue and the water meter and that funding be provided in a
nature to allow the Subcommittee to continue and allow the issues to be documented."
Consensus: Revise the motion to include the suggested language.
George Hermanson voiced his concern that the issues of in-line metering and the
RPZs remain as two separate Motions, no matter how they are worded.
Chairman Varian stated the Motions will be formatted to incorporate Mr. Feder's
suggested language. Dalas Disney and David Hurst agreed.
10
September 1, 2010
Clay Brooker asked for an explanation regarding the dif~erence between the RPZ
issue and the metering issue.
George Hermanson stated one is a safety issue and the other is an economic issue.
Chairman Varian summarized:
· The Subcommittee met and agreed upon three Motions.
. DSAC's first Motion was:
{fTo recommend accepting the Subcommittee'sfindings on
Motion #1 and Motion #2, and to forward the information
to the Board of County Commissioners. "
· George Hermanson is on record opposing the above-referenced Motion.
· DSAC's second Motion recommends consideration from the BCC to continue
the Subcommittee to discuss the metering issue and charges to the fire lines.
David Hurst noted Mr. Feder did include the RPZ issue, by reference, and to continue
that discussion and should be excluded from DSAC's second Motion.
Clay Brooker suggested formatting the Motion into two identical Motions - one for
the RPZ and the other for the water meters as stated.
He stated if the RPZ issue is to be re-addressed after the BCC's September 14th
meeting, Dalas' earlier motion was that DSAC wants to continue to be involved in
discussions - or else DSAC will look foolish.
Chairman Varian stated it was important to note there was no value for a property
owner to install an RPZ instead of a Double Check, and the Subcommittee found there
was no value to justify the increased costs associated with an RPZ.
Blair Foley stated the Subcommittee asked Utilities for data to support whether or not
there was an issue but it was not provided, and the Subcommittee made its conclusion
not to support installation ofRPZs.
· When did the Double Detector Checks fail versus the RPZs?
. What kind of information did Utilities have?
· Are we in a situation where it is problematic?
He continued, "We just don't know."
Clay Brooker restated: Regardless of what the value may be, the Subcommittee
conceded the RPZ is better.
He asked if DSAC was still going to vote "No" regardless of what data was presented
by Utilities?
Mario Valle noted the Executive Summary stated there was an imminent Health and
Safety Risk. The Subcommittee asked Utilities to provide the data to support its
statement that there was an "imminent" Health and Safety risk. Utilities could not
provide anything. The Subcommittee concluded that, based upon the fact that Utilities
could not provide any data, a recommendation was made to not spend more money to
install RPZs.
11
September 1,2010
David Dunnavant stated if there was a true Health and Safety issue, DSAC would not
ignore it, and would support installing RPZs.
· "In light of the fact that for the past 20 years, most every other community in
the U.S. have been sufficiently protected - unless there are contaminates in the
system such as antifreeze in northern climate fire sprinkler systems - then
Double Detector Checks are suitable."
· "There is additional protection provided by RPZs but it's typically - even by
the American Water Works Association standards that all Utilities use as a
guideline - it is indicated only when known contaminates are in the system.
· "We are taking an additional step without any known contaminates - there is
no evidence of problems or bad water created by the Double Detector Checks -
therefore, we don't understand the additional cost."
· "There is another factor and why Fire is interested - the impact of RPZ on the
flow - the friction loss in the fire suppression systems is significant. It will
mean modifying the design of buildings and how existing buildings would be
impacted if there were to be a 'look-back' feature."
· "The concern is that there will be a 'look-back' feature in the future if the
Ordinance proceeds forward."
· "It would not make sense to require RPZs from this point forward - the last 20
years of sprinkler systems were all designed using a Double Detector Check
based pn the friction loss of a DDC - there's an issue there."
George Hermanson suggested voting on the Motion including Mr. Feder's language.
He stated his vote on the other Motion was due to the way it was stated. If there's no
data, there is no reason for the RPZs. He stated he did not believe it was true and that
there was a case. He stated the 90 days requested from the BCC was not used up and if
the Committee wanted to combine the language and continue the stay against the RPZ
that he would vote for it.
Chairman Varian stated there was a Motion and a Second.
David Dunnavant stated from what was accomplished over the past four or five
months with Utilities on this issue, additional time is not going to make a difference
unless more data is presented. He recommended stating the Stay should be indefinite
unless Utilities could present sufficient data indicating it is necessary to implement the
RPZs.
He cautioned going to the BCC to say DSAC didn't have enough time, but would in 90
days.
· Nothing will change until such time as data is presented.
· DSAC was asked to look at what has been presented and DSAC determined
from what was presented, we do not understand the need for an RPZ.
· Utilities indicated it will work with Fire on other issues.
· DSAC's recommendation is it cannot support installing RPZs and also
recommend the Ordinance, as it is currently enacted, be stayed indefinitely or
until something changes.
12
September 1, 2010
Reed Jarvi suggested recommending revoking the Ordinance rather than the Stay until
such time as Utilities can prove its claims.
Chairman Varian stated the Stay would refer to one line item within the Ordinance.
Mr. Jarvi clarified he was referring to the specific section in the Ordinance.
Chairman Varian stated there was a Motion and a Second.
Clay Brooker stated the Motion was open-ended with no time line - from Mr. Feder's
language.
Dalas Disney stated he wanted to incorporate Norm Feder's language in his Motion.
David Dunnavant stated there was an issue that DSAC didn't stay involved in the
Utilities' Subcommittee because DSAC's members are volunteers. DSAC did not stay
involved because of the presentation of voluminous changes to a technical document
submitted to DSAC. He stated DSAC should continue to involve Industry as much as
possible. He noted there are three Civil Engineers on a IS-member Committee. Most
DSAC members do not deal with back flow preventers on a regular basis.
He continued a short statement should be made that DSAC has an interest in being
involved with the Industry. DSAC has no interest in being handed voluminous
changes to technical documents prior to its regular meetings and being used as an
endorsement of the validity of the changes. The facts are DSAC is interested in being
involved but the process was being abused. Because workshop/discussion group,
items were "slid in" on Consent Agendas and now DSAC is trying to catch up.
Chairman Varian again called for a vote on Mr. Disney's amended Motion.
The Motion carried unanimously, 13 - O.
Dalas Disney asked who would represent DSAC at the BCC's meeting.
Chairman Varian stated he would attend as well as David Hurst.
The final versions of the Motions are as follows:
Motion # 1 :
"DSA C finds that:
· it has not been demonstrated that a potential Health and Safety risk is
immediate; and
· it has not been demonstrated that installing an RPZ in lieu of a Double
Detector Check Assembly is warranted since no empirical data was
submitted to substantiate the requirement.
Therefore, DSAC recommends that the Board of County Commissioners
continue its Administrative Stay concerning the implementation of the
Ordinance until such time as supporting documentation is provided. "
13
September 1, 2010
Motion #2:
"DSAC recommends that the Board of County Commissioners continue the
Subcommitteefor tile sole reason of resolving two issues:
· to address and vet Utilities' request to install in-line meters, and
· to discuss the appropriateness of the chargefor fire lines.
To tllat end, DSAC requests thatfunding be provided to enable the Subcommittee
to continue in order to allow the issues to be documented. "
B. Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance: Robert Wiley, Principal Project
Manager, Watershed Study ProjectlFEMA
(Copies of the Approved Draft of the Flood Management Prevention Ordinance were
distributed to the Committee.)
· The Ordinance will be presented to the Planning Commission in September or
October and to the Board of County Commissioners in November/December
In response to Clay Brooker's question (on Page 30) concerning the type of Appeal,
Mr. Wiley consulted the County Attorney's office and was informed the decision to
choose either a Trial De Novo or Writ of Certiorari will be made by the Appellant.
In answer to Mr. Brooker's second question concerning when the 10 days to file an
Appeal would start, it was determined the period would begin "upon receipt of a
written decision."
Clay Brooker suggested including the language in the Ordinance.
· It was suggested to review the document on a page-by-page basis
· On Page 4, the reference to the CCCL (Comment #10) was removed, but the
removal weakened the Ordinance
· On Page 5, under "Existing Construction," a question was asked concerning the
significance of 1979
o The County entered into the Flood Insurance Program in 1979
· On Page 7, a question was asked concerning the "Floodway Fringe" - is it one
percent of the width?
o It referred to the one percent annual chance storm event
o Collier County does not have established Floodways but FEMA will not
allow the definition to be removed
· On Page 7, regarding Comment #21 - criteria was added by Staff to clarify the
maximum seepage rate over a 24-hour period for a non-residential structure
· On Page 11, regarding Comment #34 - the phrase "repetitive loss" structures was
removed from the Model Ordinance as too restrictive upon advice from the State
o FEMA revised the Model Ordinance for the State of Florida which the
State distributed without first reviewing
o The State does not agree with FEMA's statement
14
September 1, 2010
· On Page 14, a question was asked concerning a "Development Permit" - was it
a new or an existing Permit?
o It is an existing, standard Permit
· On Page 15, a question was asked concerning the meaning of the phrase
"liberally construe"
o The County Attorney's office directed inclusion of the language as a
standard statement
Dalas Disney earnestly objected to the inclusion of the language.
· On Page 15, a question was asked concerning "Permit Procedures" - is this
what is being done currently?
o Yes
A suggestion was made to capitalize the first letters of each defined term throughout
the Ordinance, i.e. Development Permit.
· On Page 19, it was noted the language in (2) and (3) was similar.
o It was worded the same way in the Model Ordinance
. On Page 19, a question was asked concerning FEMA's "Technical Bulletins" -
which specific Bulletins are referenced?
o There is a series of approximately twenty Technical Bulletins published
by FEMA to regulate the National Flood Insurance Program. All are
available on FEMA's website.
. On Page 20, concerning Item 12 (c), a suggestion was made to either be more
definitive regarding "adequate drainage" or remove the statement. Since it is
covered elsewhere (in the Land Development Code, the South Florida Water
Management District), the statement should be removed.
o Add the phrase, "as provided by the agencies having appropriate
jurisdiction" to the end of the sentence.
. On Page 21, concerning 16 (b)(iv), a suggestion was made to clarify the intent
of the Mean Sea Level by removing the phrase "above Mean Sea Level
(MSL)." The definition will read:
o Mean Sea Level- eight and one-half (8.5) feet based on the North
American Vertical Datum (NA VD) of 1988
. On Page 22, a suggestion was made insert Comment #74 in B.(2).
. On Page 24, a suggestion was made to change (c)(iv) to (d) since the paragraph
references FEMA-supplied recreational vehicles and emergency housing.
. On Page 25, concerning (c), "de minimus impact," Mr. Wiley asked if a
maximum length for a single lane access driveway should be specified.
o It was decided a length would not be specified.
(David Hurst and James Boughton left at 5:00 PM)
. On Page 30, a question was asked concerning (b) and (c) - who determined the
figures for the maximum allowable size and maximum allowable value?
o The Building Department is currently using the referenced figures.
15
September 1, 2010
· On Page 30, a question was asked concerning (d) - what is to be done
regarding "effects of debris?"
o The design should .show the structure will fragment into 4- ft or smaller
sections.
· On Page 31, under (5), a suggestion was made to add the phrase, "after thirty
days advance notice from the Floodplain Administrator" to the end of the
sentence.
· On Page 28, under (6) "breakaway walls," it was noted there is an exception in
the Ordinance currently that allows obstructions up to 20% of the length
parallel to the shoreline to be used for sheer walls or elevator enclosures.
o The existing language will be emailed to Mr. Wiley.
Regan Henry moved to approve the draft of the Ordinance, amended as outlined
above, and to include the language for a 20% obstruction allowance for sheer
walls. Second by Reed Jarvi. Carried unanimously, 11-0.
VII. New Business:
A. A-128 Requirements for Spot Surveys and Affidavits - Jamie French and
Nick Casalanguida:
· The required boundary survey will be no more than one year old
· The "Building Block" will be revised
· No hand drawings will be accepted - a signed, sealed drawing will be required
· Does not apply to sheds or non-permanent structures
Regarding the Affidavit for permit and the language, "the building footprint that legally
existed prior to the issuance of this Permit:"
· Who will sign the Affidavit?
o The contractor
Concern was expressed for who was responsible to conduct the research in order to
verify set backs.
(William Varian left at 5:20 PM
The Meeting continued under the direction
of Vice Chairman David Dunnavant)
Discussion ensued. It was pointed out the last sentence of the Affidavit violated
insurance coverage and cannot be certified by Architects. Additional questions were
asked concerning the County's responsibility.
It was noted the Affidavit could be utilized in lieu of submitting a spot survey. Staff
will contact the County Attorney's office to review the document and will return with
proposed revisions at next month's DSAC meeting.
16
September 1, 2010
(Mario Valle left at 5:30 PM)
B. Update: IndexinglTransportation Costs and Credits - Nick Casalanguida and
Norm Feder
(Slides and graphics were presented.)
· It is an Indexing Year for Road Transportation Impact Fees
· Costs are coming down - Staff determined the proposed reduction could be
increased
· Various slides were presented
o trip lengths and capacity updates are necessary in order to determine
true costs
Norman Feder:
· Impact fee rates in Collier County were the highest in the state - 50% was
required up front
. Real capacity must be addressed
· 400 lane miles and additional signals have been added
o Gas tax supports maintenance
· There are only two major road constructions projects slated for the next five
years
· There is a concurrency issue with Golden Gate Boulevard
· Iflmpact Fees are reduced significantly, grant money from the State will be
lost
. Proposed reduction: 25 to 30%
· Recommending removal of Utilities costs from Transportation Impact Fees
[Note: Questions to Staff concerning various issues including credits should be
submitted to Judy Puig, Staff Liaison, who will forward to the appropriate party.]
· How will the Utilities portion of the costs be billed?
Utilities is an enterprise and will bill from the Impact Fees and user fees.
The Transportation Study and results will be presented to the Productivity Committee
on September 15th and to the Board of County Commissioners on September 28th.
· Has Collier County considered using a tiered Impact Fee system?
The Board of County Commissioners rejected implementation of a tiered
system.
Concern was expressed to avoid implementing an artificially low reduction that could
be increased next year.
Consensus: More time is needed to review the Study before a recommendation could
be made.
17
September 1, 2010
C. Subcommittee for EMS/Fire Impact Fee Study - Amy Patterson, Impact Fee
Manager and Economic Development Manager
· 11.9% reduction in Impact Fees for Regional Parks
o Intensively land based
· 4.7% reduction for Community Parks
o Smaller parcels - more buildings
· Correctional Facilities - the rate will remain constant
The Study will be presented to the Board on September 28th.
Reed Jarvi moved to revise the Study to tie straight land costs for Parks Indexing.
Second by Blair Foley. Carried unanimously, 9-0.
VIII. Committee Member Comments:
(None)
Next Meetine Dates:
October 6, 2010 - 3:00 PM
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 6:11 PM.
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
ADVISORY COMMITTEE
William Varian, Chairman
The Minutes were approved by the Board/Committee on
as presented , or as amended
18
September 1, 2010
19
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc.
Memo
To: Amy Patterson, Impact Fee Manager
From: Steve Tindale and NilgOn Kamp
Date: September 21,2010
Re: Collier County Transportation Impact Fee Cost and Credit Update Study
This memorandum includes our responses to the questions received from Reed Jarvi on the
Collier County Transportation Impact Fee Cost and Credit Update Study.
Questions and Responses
Question 1: Doesn't the State generally pay for state roads as part of the FOOT budget and
the 5-year state work program? If so, should state roads be included within the calculations
of the road costs at all? (pg. 6 of the report).
Response 1: We include state roads in the calculations because Collier County does spend
money on state roads, and the level-at-service. permitting, and concurrency related to state
roads are determined by the County governments. In addition, local elected officials and the
MPO determine future projects. As sllch. the state system is really an extension of the
county roadway system.
In terms of the figures, the county and state costs were weighted as 88% county, 12% state
(based on the lane mile distribution of projects included in the LRTP). As such, state costs
have a pretty limited impact on the overall cost. Further. because the state roads have a
greater capacity, cost per vehicle miles of capacity (which is the final figure used in the
impact fee calculation) is almost identical ($421 for county roads, and $432 for state roads).
Finally, because we are including the cost, we also gave credit tor spending on state roads
in Collier County. If we take out the cost, we need to decrease the credit as well. The
combined effect at these changes will result in a higher impact fee. However. because state
roads are part of the roadway network in the county. we believe it is more accurate to
include their impact.
Tindale-OIiver & Associates, Inc.
September 201 0
Collier County Transportation
TIF Cost and Credit Update Study
Question 2: Doesn't the County do some of the CEI? If not, maybe they should? (pg. 7).
Response 2: Not typically. The State tends to do its own CEI. However, regardless of who
does the CEI, it is a cost associated with building state roads.
Question 3: Table B-4 of the 2009 TIF Update Study has four (4) roadway projects, some of
which are the same projects as the 2010 Table B-7. All of the 2009 roads are east of Collier
Blvd and within the PCA, yet the mitigation cost average in the 2009 report was $99,375. I
don't understand or it is not sufficiently explained why the 2010 mitigation costs have risen
to $156,000. (pg. 7).
Response 3: For tile 2010 update study, the County provided updated and refined
mitigation data for the four projects from the previous study, as well as some new mitigation
cost data. While the previous data included only the wetland mitigation cost, the updated
data also included the panther mitigation cost. Given that the County is building more roads
in the eastern parts of the county, costs associated with panther mitigation are recurring
more regularly, which increase the overall mitigation cost.
Question 4: Isn't this (1-75, CR 951 and Davis Blvd interchange project) really an anomaly
since it is such a large complex interchange? Also, won't the state pay for most of this when
and if it is ever built? (pg. 11).
Response 4: Although there may be more interchange projects over the next 20 years, we
are including only the two that are already identified and divide this cost by the total
additional lane miles over the next 20 years. This approach gives us a conservative cost
figure. We also give credit for funding associated with these projects. Historically, Collier
County contributed funds towards interchanges. Regardless of who pays for them,
interchange costs are part of the capacity expansion costs.
Question 5: Most of the "future capacities" in Table B-12 don't match the volumes in the
FOOT QLOS tables for 2009 although the first paragraph of this section says that the
volumes are based on the 2009 FOOT Generalized Tables. It seems that most of the
capacities are 95% of the volumes if the road were a state road arterial. Need to validate
the 9,151 capacity figure. (pg. 22).
Response 5: The FOOT QLOS Generalized Tables provided roadway maximum service
volumes for state facilities. When we develop service volumes for county facilities, per
guidelines provided in the OLOS Tables, a 5percent reduction is made for county roads.
The FDOT OLOS Tables also suggest a 15 percent increase in service volumes for the
presence of right turn lanes; however, according to the information provided by the FOOT
Systems Planning Office, this figure is being debated as being too high, and the LOS Task
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc.
September 201 0
2
Collier County Transportation
TIF Cost and Credit Update Study
Team will be studying this figure further.
The updated service capacity figure of 9,151 is not used in this update study and will be
studied further before being incorporated into the future updates.
Question 6: The 2009 TIF Update Study used a 4.5% interest rate. Why the change? It
would seem that if anything, the cost of money is less this year than it was last year.
Response 6: Most recent commercial paper or bonds issued by the County appeared to
have an average interest rate of 5 percent. Either way, the difference in the fee is
approximately 1 percent.
Question 7: Please review the methodology for calculating the carrying cost. If'Yz of the TIF
is paid up front, there should be an up-front credit that would be calculated differently. I
believe that 'Yz paid in advance should be credited in the first few years, not applied after the
total interest as a deduct. Plus, there should be positive interest at the interest rate in the
early years since there is a positive balance from the 'Yz paid in advance prior to Year 3. (pg.
8-30).
Carrying Cost Calculations: County Roads
- ,
, (1) Amount : Total Amount ' (4)
Phase 'Timing '; (2) . d(3) Interest Paid
, "Borrowed ' Carne
- -- --
Design Year 1
Design Year 2
ROW Year 3
ROW Year 4
Constr./CEI/Util./Mit. Year 5
Constr./CEI/Util./Mit. Year 6
Total Carrying Cost Per Lane Mile(5)
Percent of Impact Fees Paid in Advance(6)
Net Carrying Cost per Lane Mile(7)
$59,780
$59,780
$450,500
$450,500
$1,219,280
$1,219,280
$59,780
$119,560
$570,060
$1,020,560
$2,239,840
$3,459,120
$2,989
$5,978
$28,503
$51,028
$111,992
$172.956
$373,446
50%
$186,723
Response 7: The goal in calculating the carrying cost is to recognize that it takes
approximately 7 years to build a road and that during that period, the County has to borrow
and pay interest. The interest income received from impact fees that are paid upfront is
Llsed toward new roadway projects.
Question 8: Doesn't the state pay carrying cost as part of their program? Since state funds
typically pay for state roads, should this really be included? (pg. 8-31).
Response 8: Yes, but regardless of who pays for it, the carrying cost is one of the cost
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc.
September 2010
3
Collier County Transportation
TIF Cost and Credit Update Study
items associated with building roadways.
*****
We hope these responses are helpful. Please let us know if you have any other questions
or need further information.
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc.
September 201 0
4
Collier County Transportation
TIF Cost and Credit Update Study
BUILDING BLOCKS
REQUIREMENTS FOR SPOT SURVEYS AND/OR AFFIDAVIT
Effective November 1,2010
BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATIONS:
When the permit applicationin~I~ates the scope of work is to rebuild, repair, or
repla~ea;structure,- -:tor portionofa structure~* on the same footprint, ~Re
certified plan or survey is not is-required for the building permit application. In lieu
ofa certified plan, .~ signed. affidavit shall be submitted with the permit application
by the' property own~r,or licensed contractor. A spot survey from a licensed
Florida professional surVeyor rrll3Y be required for a permit to be issued or in
order to btitC\in a certificate of completion. if in the opinion of the County Buildino
Official or his/her desionee~ it is deemed necessary. No certified plan is required
for sheds thafd9~ot sitqrra permanent foundation and can be moved; however,
sheds shall meet applicable setback requirements~.
. . ~ - ,'~ 'i }
SPOT SURVEY REQUIREMENTS:
8...Spet--survey(s) or aR-elevation certificate..... -{if applicable~* shall be submitted to
the County for any changes to the building footprint of permanent structures. The
spGt-survey shall be prepared by or under the direct supervision of a Florida
reqistered land survevor and certified by the same with an orioinal signature and __------{ Formatted: Font color: Auto
fafseG-seal. The ~survey shall be shall be signed and sealed by ::I Florida
Surveyor and Mapper and submitted to the County no later than 10 calendar
days following (check languages with) the establishment of the lowest floor.
8+}69/17/2010 A-128
fwhich may be a slab. --ef-a-frame assembly, pylon(s), or any construction that is
thirty inches above soil qrade. }aRa..&a final speft-survey is required prior to the a
issuance of a certificate of occupancy or completion.
Deficiencies or encroachments detected by the buildinq department at the time of
the submittal of the 10 day spot survey shall be corrected by the permit holder
forthwith. and a stop work order will be placed on construction, until the
necessarv corrections are made. At the time the stop work order is placed, the
extent of the construction shall be noted, and any construction completed after
that time is subiect to removal. if the deficiencies/encroachments revealed by the
spot survey are not corrected. If a variance is necessary to correct the
deficiencv/encroachment. the stop work order. will remain in place until the
variance is approved.
,. :", .,'
; : ,:' :' ,~
Inspections shall will-be halted and all cOTlstruction M.lJs+must discontinue-stGp
on any proiect for which a 10-day spot s'Luvev wasfs due and was not submittedal
to the County. . .;,
&lM9117/20 10
A-128
Spot Survey Affidavit to be filed with the Permit
I (print name legibly) do hereby affirm
that the work performed under permit number
does not constitute any modification in any way to the building footprint that
legally existed prior to issuance of this permit. Further, I affirm the work shall
conform to all applicable setback and easement requirements established by
Collier County and any other applicable agency. I hereby agree that should any
work performed under this permit result in a nonconformity in any way with any
setback or easement requirement established by,qqllier County or any other
applicable agency, I shall have no sustainable r~l:>@aragainst Collier County and
I shall immediately remediate that nonconforr1'lHYfatnq ,expense to Collier County.
i~:;Jii:': .'i' :>
Signed
Date:
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged
(date) by
acknowledging)
Who is personally
before me this
(name of person
did/did not takean,oath
known to me or has produced
(Type of Identi~cation) as identification and who
N6tarypublic '
::!
Gnry L. Hnrri.son
Building Officinl,
Chief Building Ih~pector
Ul-69117/20 1 0
A-128
Swimming Pool Spot Survey
It shall be the duty of the permit holder to submit to the Building Official, within 10
days of the completion of the pool shell (704 inspection), a location survey
depicting precise dimensions in relation to Qh~U~!~l?~~tp'~i.nt..~!'!Jh~__s~~.~~~l:l.~~. ........{ Formatted: Font color: Auto
measured radial or perpendicular to the closest lot Iinet....!Q each and every lot or
setback line as established by conditions attached to the development permit,
applicable to the permitted pool, and the property upon which said pool is being
constructed. Said location survey shall be prepared by or under the direct
supervision of a Florida registered land surveyor and certified by same l'I.i~~..~_D_." .'_ -..{ Formatted: Font color: Auto
original signature and FaiseG-seal.
Deficiencies or encroachments detected by the building department at the time of
the submittal of the 10 day spot survey bv the Buildinq Official,Countv Enqineer,
Zoninq Official. or their respective desiQnees shall be correct~d, by the permit
holder forthwith, and a stop work order shall~be placed on con~truction, until
the necessary corrections have. been completedtlre made. Once a At the time the
stop work order has been is-placed'ime extent Of the construction shall be noted,
and any construction completed' aft~r,that time,i~,subject to removal, if the
deficiencies/encroachments reve~l.edbYJl)e.spot surv~y are not corrected. If a
variance is requi~~d'negess3ry t6!"sprrect "t~eq7~ciericY~~.ncroachment, the stop
work order wiUremain in place untila~"",rlanc~is'approved.
,',':;i: ,:",:';"': .'.::i:.:,;:: ":"
Inspections will b'eihalted and, all constf~~tion shall MYS+-stop on any project for
which a1 O-day spotsurveY,is due and not'submitted to the ahCountv.
. ,.,' ." .
Gary L. H::u'rison
Building Official
Chief Building Inspector
SA-69/17/20 1 0
A-128
Office of the Fire Code Official
Summary of Plan Review Activity
August-10
Architectural Reviews
Sprinkler Reviews
Underground Reviews
Fuel & LP Gas Reviews
Hoods & FSUP Reviews
Alarm Reviews
SDP Reviews
Total # of Plans Reviewed
473
50
9
4
7
101
53
697
Number of Work Days
Average # of Plans Reviewed per Day
22
32
ASAP Reviews per Building Department:
4 Architectural
22 Low Voltage
22 AC Change outs
2 Tents
Total # of ASAP Reviews*:
Total ASAP Reviews per Day
50
2
*Overtime Reviews are not included in this figure
Scheduled Meetings/Hours:
Ed:
Bob:
Jackie:
Ricco:
Maggie:
30.50 Hrs.
25.33 Hrs.
7.33 Hrs.
68.16 Hrs.
11.59 Hrs.
Classes and Seminars attended by FCO:
8/9-8/11 Fire TAC Meeting, Melbourne
Participant
Ed Riley
Total Overtime Hours for the Fire Code Office 0
*Overtime Hours Reimbursed by Contractors 0
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 Code Official
2600 N. Horseshoe Dr.
Naples, FL 34104
Fire Plan Review - Time Frame Summary
August-10
Number Number Average # of 1st % of 1st Percentages
of of Time In Reviews Reviews Within Time
Reviews Days Days Approved Approved Frames
Architectural Reviews
Total 473 931 1.97
1st Review 346 781 2.26 239 69% 100/10 Days 9 Day Max
2nd Review 103 119 1.16 1 00/3 Days
3rd Review 21 29 1.38 100/3 Days
4th Review 2 1 0.50 100/3 Days
6th Review 1 1 1.00 100/3 Days
Total 2-6 Reviews 127 150 1.18 100/3 Days 3 Day Max
Fire Sprinkler Reviews
Total 60 38 0.76
1st Review 38 33 0.87 27 71% 100/10 Days 4 Day Max
2nd Review 8 4 0.50 1 00/3 Days
3rd Review 3 1 0.33 100/3 Days
4th Review 1 0 0.00 1 00/3 Days
Total 2-4 Reviews 12 5 0.42 100/3 Days 1 Day Max
Under9round Reviews
Total 9 12 1.33
1st Review 5 5 1.00 2 40% 100/10 Days 2 Day Max
2nd Review 4 7 1.75 75/3 Days
Total 2nd Review 4 7 1.75 76/3 Days . 7 Day Max
Fuel & LP Gas Reviews
Total 4 2 0.50
1st Review 4 2 0.50 4 100% 100/10 Days 1 Day Max
2nd Review 0 0 0.00
Total 2nd Review 0 0 0.00
Hood & FSUP Reviews
Total 7 8 1.14
1st Review 6 8 1.33 4 67% 100/10 Days 2 Day Max
2nd Review 1 0 0.00 100/3 Days
Total 2nd Review 1 0 0.00 100/3 Days o Day Max
Fire Alann Reviews
Total 101 116 1.16
1st Review 59 91 1.54 33 56% 100/10 Days 3 Day Max
2nd Review 27 15 0.56 100/3 Days
3rd Review 14 10 0.71 100/3 Days
4th Review 1 0 0.00 100/3 Days
Total 2-4 Reviews 42 25 0.60 100/3 Days 2 Day Max
~
1st Review 458 920 2.01 309 67% 100/10 Days
Corrections 186 187 1.01 99/3 Days
Overall Totals 644 1107 1.72
.Time Frame exceeded - Held for assistance on checking the calcs due to irregularities
Office of the FIre Code Official
2800 N. Horseshoe Dr.
Naples, Fl 34104
COLLIER COUNTY
EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES
IMPACT FEE STUDY UPDATE
DRAFT REPORT
Prepared By:
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc.
Tam pa, Florida
August 30,2010
073066-02.1 0
~ Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc.
~ Planning and Engineering
August 30, 2010
Ms. Amy Patterson
Impact Fee Manager
Collier County Growth Management Division
2800 North Horseshoe Drive
Naples, Florida 34104
RE: EMS Facilities Impact Fee Update Study
Dear Ms. Patterson:
Enclosed is the Draft Technical Report for the Collier County Emergency Medical Services 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 Nilglin
Kamp.
Sincerely,
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc.
~n~~
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 ............................................................................................................ 1
Faci lity Inventory................................................................................................. ...... 1
Service Area and Population.................................................................... .................. 7
Level of Service......................................................................................................... 23
Cost Component......................................................................................................... 24
Credit Component...................................................................................................... 25
Net Impact Cost......................................................................................................... 26
Proposed Emergency Medical Services Impact Fee Schedule .................................. 27
Appendix A - Supplemental Cost Data
DRAFT
Introduction
Emergency Medical Services (EMS) impact fees are used to fund the capital expansion
projects for emergency medical service related facilities, land, vehicles and capital
equipment required to support the additional emergency response demand created by new
growth. Collier County's EMS Impact Fee was last updated in 2006. To comply with
the technical study update requirements of the impact fee ordinance and to ensure that the
EMS impact fee is calculated based on the most recent and local data, the County
retained Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. (TOA) to conduct an update study. This
report presents results of the Collier County EMS Impact Fee Update Study and will
serve as the technical support document in updating the EMS impact fee ordinance.
There are several major elements associated with the development of the EMS impact
fee. These include:
· Inventory of Facilities, Vehicles, and Other Capital Assets
. Service Area
· Population
. Level of Service
· Cost Component
· Credit Component
· Calculated EMS Impact Fee Schedule
These elements and other related analyses are provided in the following paragraphs.
Facility Inventory
According to information provided by the Collier County Emergency Medical Services
(CCEMS) Department, Collier County owns 11 stations used to provide emergency
medical services. In addition, the County operates ten additional stations out of leased
buildings. For impact fee calculation purposes, only the owned facilities are included in
this study.
Table 1 shows a summary of the CCEMS building inventory included in the impact fee
calculations. As presented, the inventory includes a total of 72,000 square feet of
building space and 20 acres ofIand. Some of the buildings are located with other non-
EMS structures on a given parcel. To account for that, the total building square footage
on each parcel is reviewed to determine a ratio of acres per square foot of building for
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc.
August 20 I 0
Collier County
EMS Impact Fee Update Study
DRAFT
each parcel. Then, the portion of the acreage associated with the EMS buildings included
in the inventory is calculated. This adjusted acreage figure results in a total of20 acres
owned by the County that is being used for emergency medical service facilities.
An important part of the impact fee calculations involves determining the current value of
the capital assets. The last EMS station was built in 2006 for $338 per square foot. This
figure does not reflect recent decreases in construction costs. As such, the building value
was based on the recent construction cost estimates and bids obtained from other
jurisdictions for fire and EMS stations, insurance values ofthe existing stations, and
discussions with architects. This analysis resulted in a cost estimate of $220 per square
foot for EMS stations. Further detail on this estimate is provided in Appendix A.
In addition to stations, the EMS building inventory includes a portion of the recently built
Emergency Services Center (ESq. The total construction cost of this highly specialized
building with high security features was approximately $412 per square foot. However,
because the County is unlikely to build another facility with similar features, the value of
this building was also estimated at $220 per square foot, which represents the cost of
future construction for EMS facilities.
Land value was determined based on:
. The market value of parcels where the current EMS stations are located, obtained
from the Collier County Property Appraiser database;
. Most recent land purchases for future EMS stations;
. Vacant land sales and market values of all vacant land in areas where future EMS
stations are planned to be built; and
. Land use characteristics of the areas where current EMS stations are located.
It is important to note that in general, EMS facilities need to be located at or close to
major intersections and primarily in commercial areas. The land value analysis
considered land use characteristics as weB as other information and resulted in an average
land value of $250,000 per acre. Appendix A provides more detailed information on the
land value analysis conducted.
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc.
August 2010
2
Collier County
EMS Impact Fee Update Study
-
~~
o
-
c:
(1)
>
c:
"r""C')
~.=
.c"C
ns=
J-::S
m
"C
c:
C'G
"C
c:
C'G
...J
E-c
r.c
~
~
IS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ ~ ~ 0 0 0 oo N ... ... 0 ... 0 0
... .... 0 N 0 0 0 N .... .... 00 0 00 N 0 N III 'D ... III 0 ~ 0 0
'" 'O. N .... 0 0- 0 \0 .... 0- .... r- V> Z Z Z r- 0 r- 0 'D ... 0 .,; 0
.. .-.: a; 0 r-i 0 on 00 00 .-.: ~ r-i = = = 00 N ,.: ..; N =
U 0- r- r- \0 V> 00 r- 0- 00 0- r- '" III .... 'D .... 'D "" '" N III
~ O. r- r- N V> r- 0- \D r- O. 00 .... '" .... oo oo oo l;l :l- '" N
.. "" - "" "" "" "" "" "" "" ~ :!f ..; = ~ ... '" '"
:g "" "" "" "" '" N '" ... '"
'" '" '"
'S
r:Q
0 N - .... 0- ~ 0 0 0 ~ 0- \D - 0 0- 0
1€ 0 r- 0- <'1 0 Z "'1 0 V> ~ 0 .... "'1 0- oo
M ci ci - ci - M ci - '<i M - ci 0\
't;; ~ ...
.. '"
...., '"
~-<
"'... ~ 0 0- - .... ~ r- 0 r- V> 0- 0 ~ ~ ~
.. .. ~in' N \D V> 0- 0- In ~ \0 r- ....
Z N - '" 0 Z .... .... 0 .... - Z Z
...... lO- ci ci ci ci '<i ci ci ci ci ci
.. .- ~
'" .., ...
.. 0:= ..
'" o :0 ...
... ~r:Q fI.l
-< ...
.... .... - N .... ~ \0 0 0 .... 0- 0 - .... 0-
.... 'O 0- .... 0 0- 0 "'1 \0 ~ 0 .... .... 0-
-::!. ,...: ...; M ,...: - Z vi M - ci - ci M ,...: ci
.5 :l 00 N
.. '" \D
!-< ...
-<
~ ~g ~ r- oo \0 0 ~ .... r- - N V> 00 ~ ~ ~
.. r- 0- In 0- Z .... .... r- oo 00 Z z
:: ~ .~ .... .... -. ..... .... In \0 0- ....
C ~ .. fI.l ~ \0' M ::: a; '<i a; a; '<i .....
I-< ~~ g r- ~
;:;- N 0 - 0 In 0 - r- r- 0- In 0- ~ ~ ~ 'D
..- \D \0 'O 0 0- 0 r- .... r- r- oo .... ....
'" .. Z Z
.. ~ 0- N .... In In V> .... In 0- N. ::;
:0 .:s '<i ..... on "" - r-i "" '<i "" "" '<i
... .. .... ....
fI.l ..
~
......
..,
'" t:.= .... .... .... .... - 0- \0 - .... V> \D 0- \0 .... r-
.. 'S'S '" a- 0- a- a- 00 a- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
.. '" 0- ~ a- a- 0- a- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
;.. 3'r:Q - - - - - - N N N N N N N N
-<
0
:::
....
....
.;
00 .... <>
0 \D N - ~ ~ e
::: .... - 0- 0 In - '"
.... .... - 0 :; Z
.... .... .... .... - ~ ....
on .... .... on .... .... .... .... .... ~
<> <> .... .... .... '" on
= e on <> e .... on <> <> :::
.... <> <> .; on <> e e ~
~ 0 '" B .. '" <> <> !:: B .... t!.
Z '" -'" z e ] .... .. .. :; <> =
.. .... Z 0 - '" on Z Z .. ~
... .. .... Z c
.. '" -d ~ S 'e z z .... <> -d i .... ..
...:l '" ~ oS '" .s:: ] > on E co
<> I-< -d -d <> 1:: i'1i ~ ~ iii
e. ..c:: -'" .. ~ ]- 0 Z I'l. ~
'" .. I'l. OJ 's 0 ~ .. ~ ..
Z .. ~ <> Z ~ Z g <> <>
<> B ~ .. <> Z 0 .. I'l. -= g,
o:l oJ ~ 'S <> .. :i -d of 3 -d P:: '" -
Ci - () <> ~ <> > .... ,2 t!. '"
.. .. -'" .. :; .... ..
:e - I-< 0 ::; r:Q i'1i ~ ... ..
... c '" -'" S <I.l 1:: U .~ U
<> <> - 0 ~ ..c:: :l \0 ... iii
~ <> "0 ..c:: '" S oS ~ ~ ~ c o:l - :0 -
"0 '0 ::; oJ ... C ~ ~ .. OJ '" co ..
~ c tIl ..s :( .. <> ~ :0 ... Vi ..
.. () 0 ..c:: r:Q <I.l ...:l 0 OJ > ... e
> <I.l - \0 ;;; ...J .~ 0 '" ..
In - ~ 0 In In In 0 V> :! > - -
r- \D .... ~ r- 0- r- 0- r- 0 '" ... ...
<> = 0 ... ..
.... 'O r- - 0 :! In r- .... In 0 0- ~ - ..
N .... "<t - - .... 0- N .... .... 00 r- :r: = E- U - C.
...- '" ...
E .. -= .. a:
... u
... .. ... "0 N
... E -=
~ .. .. ~ ... .. c_
on ] .. .. .. .. 0
C ~>< ~ '" ~ .. E ...:l r:
.. .2 <> - a: -:;, ." C. ... ..,
.2 e '9 ...
.... 0- :; .., .. .. .. = ..
a s .... .... .. .. a: C. co '"
<> .. .. ...:l ..
'C c. 0 C C C .. ~ '" ~ ... ~ .~ ...
.. 0 U ,2 0 .2 ~ ...:l 0 .., .. a: .. 0.
'" ... '" 0; .~ 0; ~ .. '" :g :g fI.l ..
.. .., .. .., ..
<> <> ~ ~ ~ - .. .. ...
~ 0. .. .. .. .. ~ ~ 'S .. ';;
:E - .. z .. ~ <:
.~ '"
~ 0 ... ... ... .. :I .. r:Q ...:l r:Q ..
.!'! <> Jl Jl Jl 'S U .. :E ~ :;;- :;;- "" ~
'u u c 5 ... <I.l "0 "0 "0 r:Q :g ~ ~ ..
e: >- c c c .., ';; ... ... .. u
.. t!: '" '0 -;:,. '" .. .. .. i
~ .... 0 0 r:: V> .. oJ .. oJ S .. 'S .. r:Q .. = ~ 0
.... .... r- .... N .... N N r- c ...J ...J ...J ...:l r:Q I'l. '" ~ ~ 0 u
c c c c c c c c c c c <> C ]j C ." .. S2. S2.
e!l ... ,Q :g
0 .~ .g ,2 .g .g .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .. .. 'B 'B 'B ~ = E co ""
.~ 0; 0; 0; 0; 0; 0; ... al .. .. ~ - - c; 'S ..
oJ '" oJ oJ S oJ .. .. .. .. .. :0 ... .. ..
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ tIl > > > ... ... ... ...:l 0 Z Z Z I-< r:Q ...:l
.. .....
€-?i'
;:j .E
000
u Cl)
ti 1;;
._ "0
::::0.
0::J
U Cl)
Cl)
~
+-'
o
<<l
0.
8
......
00
~
UJ
r"l
u
.s
"'~
Cl)
1;;
'0
o
'"
'"
<:
c(l
....
Cl)
.~ ~
00
IN
Cl) +-'
t\1 ~
"Obi)
.S ;:j
E-<:
E-c
~
~
I
.J::O .J::
"Cl t::..... t::
= 0 "@ .~
ro Z = "Cl
00 Q) ,9 oJ Q)
~ -B+-' ~ ~
UJ S :a "0 'u
.... 0] <8 ~
<8 <t::.... ~
OI)::S ~
"3 =<8 ro gp
~ ~.8 ~ ~
::.. .E ~ ~ '5
~ Q) Q) E-< .D
C E <n oS ~ en ob~
o "Cl G 01) ~ "<:' ,S 4:: tIl
~ Q) .0 =+-' ~ "Cl0 = tIl
Q) ~ ='~ = UJ :;:: = 0 5
> > ::s Q) .9 :>.. .E.9 '€ 'C;;
.S :a 0...... +-' ~' Q) t:: ~ tIl
.s tIl N ~ .~~ 5 ~ ~ j:j ~~~
.5 gp S -B = -B u 0 .J:: Q) ~ S "Cl~
"Cl ~ ~ob E 5-B .......~ ~~ ~ .DQ)tIl
Q) '5 ....... = u .- r-- ...... ro S ;::: .~
"Cl.D .o:.a"3 Q)~ '0 f"'l5 fr g~~
-5 ~ := :s ~ t: ~ u ~ "Cl Q >. ,9 5
.5 .J:: ~ .D 0 0] ~ Q) 00 .D ~ U
+-'.....u .N td 0] ~ "Cl+-'....
,~ ~ .s fg .~ ~~ ~ €] UJ ~ i ~
+-' "'2 ..... Q) 0 =::s .;:: ::s """.0 _ =
tIl ...... 0 .J:: 0.. Q) Q) "t; 0 \+-0 = :0 Q)._ ....;
.J:: u +-' ~::S'- ^ U .....::s ~ ::s = ......
~ ,5 ~ :;; ~ .- = Q Q) Q) .;:: 0 "Cl "@ 0 ><
Q) Q)O'<=< = E-< Q)'.g ~.gc~ u ~'::'€:a
.... 01) 0 Q) ro .,s 0 .- ,..... rI,.... .. v "" .....
o ro 0 ~ tIl ....: ~ u t:r.. > '" .~ ---. 0 = ti ~
~ ~ .-:' ::s g .~ .S _ tI1 Q.) cD] =a ~ = ~...... 0..
g ~Eg"~ ~"3~ -a~rfro uS 'tl:g:s <'
.... .- "Cl E tIl i- Ci ] = Z 0 b ~~ ~ ~ g ~ ~ .5
~ -B .~ "Cl 00 = Q) '0 t:: +-,"E ro Q) +-' ....... 0 0 ~ ......
€ -;:: ~ p.,~ ~ 5 J: .5 2 ~ ~.~ 5 E ~ ~ 3 8 'B
::s~ ~~P.~Utll "O~ u:l:::-~~"Cl~ ~"q~ ~
0= U '.p0Q)Q) =ro "ClQ)Q)= Q).... ~~
U::s Q) S"3 '<=< -B P. .~ ~ .; ~ Q) ro "Cl g, "Cl "Cl = .5
'......~ro S~S"O>.ro "ClQ)CtIl.J::-BS ~+-' ~~~"3
~ ~ S .~ <8 :: ~ S ~ g ~o.. ~] ~ a ~ "3 >< ---. Q) =
'0 ..... ..... Q) ---. Q) ij) tIl ,... ~ ~ ro "<:' ro .::: U +-' Q) 0\ ~ '@
u.fl ..::: ;::: <n ~ "Cl U3 .~ > > Z ~ 01) t: ,~ "Cl ~...:-..... .D P.
~ 0 . ....... S ::s ';;: .l:: C3 ,5 UJ = Q) = ~ g, <8 S"Cl ><
1:: :; Q) "3 ~ 2 g' e E tIl Q) '€ .o:a tIl '~ ~ 0 "Cl ~ ~ ~ Q)
~ ~ U ~ .fl c .... 0.."Cl Ci I!.i 13 0 =:;:: S +-' .J:: "Cl '@ ....... co >< a'3~
$:; ::; .... U 0 Q) Q) tIl Q) Q) 3 = z 5.E = tIl..... +-' = 0.. = $:;.- tIl
t::...... ~ 0 0 U 0.. ,- = ......... .- Q) U Q) 00 >. ~ ro +-' .9 'tl ] .?;>
~ U ...... '<=< ro +-' = ~ .- U"Cl.J:: Q) e.o ,,<:,.D"Cl"Cl ~ ~ Q) Q) ro
Q) ,5 5.~ ~ ~ ~.9 0 t:r.. 2 Q) +-' ~ oS Q) ~"Cl::S Q) tIl ..... tIl 0.. =
Q ~ > :>.. ro U ~ ,~ a'3..... "Cl >. ,-..... S W Q) ~ 52 ro tIl._ 0.. ro
.0'- ....' ::s 01) 0 +-' ..... tIl..=.D::::: 0 Q) Q) ::::0.."Cl 0" ~ ~ "0 < ~
a'3:::: 01):= 0" ,5 N tIl?:\ g.. ~ U "Cl UO ...... .J:: ..... 0.. 0 ~
U ,- ro U tIl"Cl N 00 t:: ,........ = Q) ...... oo~ +-".p = >. +-' '<=< =.J::
.;;: ~ = ~ "@ :;:: (17 ~ Q) Z -;:: .;;; a u ~ ~ .... "3 ~ +:: '0 ~ Q):: "0
... ..... 0 Q) "O.E = UJ go .J:: <8 '-.J:: Q) tIl W <8 S ~ ~ = "@ ~'B "Cl
Q)"Cltll.J::+-' 0 .... t:: Q)tIl~= "Cl---'dtO>::SQ)~
~ ~ ,~ ~ .s ~ ] .s.~ en Z ~ ~ g ~ ~ ] ~ \0 ~ S .~ gp g' ~ a'3
U V"Cl Q) Q) ro .....J:: Q) Q) 0.. >.-... ......0 ... ~ ro tIl 0..:'::: ~.- -=
.- :a ...... >. Q) .D 0 +-' 'l"'l .J::"Cl ~n u ~ +-' ~ ~ = v ~ ""
"Cl ='5.J::.D '<=< '<=< ..... :3 +-' = i: ~ o'~ U .D;::: ~ 0 Q) :;:: 0.."3 tIl
~ '-.D ~"Cl ~ ~ Q) 0._ >. ro :.::: +-' .J:: ..... >. 0 ....... "<:' .- -B ::s 0 = "Cl
~ ~............ ., ~ ro F! !:p);;" U.D +-' ~ = tIl tIl.D +-' tIl ~ ~ .D N ,- =
..... ~ v ..... ~ ,... ...... ,~ u .-.... ., '"' ..... "Cl ~ ..... ~ ......>...... N ......ro ......ro
>. +-' ro $J.- ~ u Q) .~ ~ "Cl'- ..... 0 ~;: v-v, V ~
u ->v::s....~. ......::s =uO =Q)'770..+-,
= '0 '0 ro._ tIl .... u \0 ~ ~ ti .D ......, "@ Q) ~ .:g ro Q) '0 0 =..... >< =
Q) 0.."Cl 0 ti ro >. Q) ~.- Q) ro >.::: ::s en Q)"Cl ~ .... tIl ~ 0 Q) ro
01) ~ ~ Q) ---. 0..... Q) Q) S 0 Q -B ,~ "Cl t:r.. .0 Q) .J:: 2 !E Q) ~ 0 ti d' ~
~ ro ro 13 "<t o~ 0 t: ~ 8 tIl ~ tIl~ = = a'3'- ,~ 4:: ~ o..g ::s d) 8 0 >
S "0 "0 ..... S ...... Q) S.... .- .- s:: 0 td......:;:: > 0.= $:; '0 = '.g =
UJ <8 <8 ~ ..g ~.g tn ,- <8 "Cl t:r.. t::'.g Q)~ g. ~ ~ ="'9 Q; ;:! =......1:: = 0
Q;Q)Q)~vo..>"""~=~a'32"t;OI)Z""'tIlo''''u'''''''''ost::"Cl
o~~rotl1t11 ~~Q.)--~ ro ~oo~~~]~sQ.)~~
.... ro ro Q) Q) Q) "@^ 0..0.. ~ Q) g. ro,~ ~ ti .- "<:' 0 0 0 0 0 .....J:: ..... ro
::s::s::s............+-'..... td.J:: Q).J::uroO~ ~N"''''
o g g ~ ~ ~ ~ :::- <: ...... E-< Z >. E-< ro W ....., W ~ E-< 00 .. ....... 00 E-< .- ~
~~~~~~~^~ S N ~~ ~~~~~~N M
~NM~~~~~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~~~~NN N
'--''-'''-'''--''--'''-''''-'''-'''-'' '--' '--' '--''-'' ,-",-",'-",-",-",-",-" '-"
....
Q)
.J::
+-'
o
"Cl
=
ro
€~
::Ii!
000
U Q)
... ~
~"O
.....0..
0:;>
U Q)
Q)
t:r..
+-'
U
ro
0..
S
......
o
o
o~
.0'
u
Q)
.....
:.a
U
~
.J::
+-'
'~
00
~
UJ
"<t
o
=
......
rn"
Q)
~
'u'
o
tIl
tIl
<
cII.l
....
Q)
.~ ~
00
IN
Q) +-'
ea :g
"Cl0l)
.S ::s
E-<<:
DRAFT
It should be noted that because a portion of the buildings and land inventory is still being
paid through bond and commercial paper issues that are being paid back with impact fee
revenues, only the portion of the facility value that is already paid for is included in the
inventory. The remaining principal associated with EMS facilities is not included in the
total inventory value to ensure the new development will not be charged twice for the
same facility.
In addition to the facilities included in Table 1, the County also leases 23,000 square feet
of building space for ten additional stations. These leased facilities, which are not
included in the impact fee calculations but provide services to County residents, are
presented in Table 2.
Facility
Table 2
Leased EMS Stations(1)
Address
Total Square
Feet
2,580
2,500
2,500
2,700
2,500
1,500
2,500
2,500
2,500
1,380
23,160
Station 1
Station 50
Station 40
Station 60
Station 23
Station 2
Station 43
Station 90
Station 46
Station 32
I Total
(1) Source: EMS Department, Collier County
835 8th Ave. South, Naples 34102
1280 San Marco Rd., Marco Island 34145
1441 Pine Ridge Rd., Naples 34109
201 Buckner Ave., Everglades City 34139
6055 Collier Blvd., Naples, 34114
977 26th Ave. North, 34103
16325 Vanderbilt Dr., 34110
175 Capri Blvd., Naples 34113
3410 Pine Ridge Rd., 34109
4819 Ave Maria Blvd., Ave Maria, 34142
The County is planning to build four additional stations over the next eight years. Table
3 provides a listing of these planned facilities based on the information provided in the
2009 Annual Update and Inventory Report (AUIR).
Tindale-OIiver & Associates, Inc,
August 2010
5
Collier County
EMS Impact Fee Update Study
DRAFT
Table 3
Future Planned EMS Stations(1)
Fiscal Year Status Facility Location
Description
2013-2014 Proposed Station 73 790 Logan Blvd, Naples 34119
Proposed Station 41 I 16140 & 16144 Performance Way, Naples, 34110
Planned Station 45 Goodlette/Immokalee Road
2013-2018
Planned Station 49 Heritage Bay Property
(I) Source: 2009 Annual Update and Inventory Report
In addition to the land and buildings inventory and the leased stations, the CCEMS also
has the necessary equipment and vehicles to perform its emergency medical services
duties. Table 4 summarizes the equipment and vehicle inventory. The CCEMS has a
total of $13.3 million worth of equipment and response vehicles, which excludes the
remaining principal of the commercial paper issued to fund four ambulances. Similar to
the building and land inventory, in the case of vehicles and equipment that was funded
through a commercial paper that is being paid back with impact fee revenues, the
remaining principal is subtracted from the total value of the vehicles and equipment not
to overcharge the new development.
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc.
August 2010
6
Collier County
EMS Impact Fee Update Study
DRAFT
Table 4
Equipment Inventory
Total
Description Units (1) Unit Cost (2) Replacement Cost
. (3)
EMS Equipment
Portable Radios 69 $3,600 $248,400
Laptops 24 $5,000 $120,000
Mobile Radios 98 $4,500 $441,000
UHF Ambulance Radio 40 $2,800 $112,000
ZolI Monitors for ALS Engine Program 19 $15,000 $285,000
Zimek Decontamination Machine 1 $42, 184 $42,184
EMS Share ofBES Mobile Command Vehicle I $40,000 $40,000
Air Compressor I $5,886 $5,886
Sim Baby Training Mannequin 1 $40,403 $40,403
Opticom Emitters 49 $1,639 $80,315
Mini Lite Rescue System 4 $5,916 $23,663
Total Equipment Cost $1,438,851
Vehicles
ALS Ambulance 35 $251,800 $8,813,000
Supervisory First Response Vehicle (Expedition) 3 $31,200 $93,600
Supervisory First Response Vehicle (Explorer) 4 $31,200 $124,800
Supervisory First Response Vehicle (Crown Victoria) 3 $24,000 $72,000
Econo Van 1 $23,000 $23,000
Hazmat Trailer 1 $29,534 $29,534
Boat and Boat Trailer 1 $84,000 $84,000
Supervisory First Response Vehicle (Chevrolet C4500) 1 $63,500 $63,500
Haulmark 1 $5,500 $5,500
Helicopter I $3,000,000 $3,000,000
Total Vehicle Cost $12,308,934
Total Vehicle and Equipment Value $13,747,785
Less: Portion Not Owned (4) $481,005
Owned Vehicle and Equipment Value $13,266,780
Number of Owned Stations (5) 11
Total Vehicle and Equipment Value per Station $1,206,071
(I), (2) Source: EMS Department, Collier County
(3) Number of units (Item I) multiplied by unit cost (Item 2)
(4) Source: Office of Management and Budget, Collier County
(5) Source: Table I. For impact fee calculation purposes, the value of vehicles and equipment
is distributed over the owned stations only, and not all stations (a total of2 I),
Service Area and Population
Emergency medical services are provided by the CCEMS countywide. As such, the
service area for provision of emergency response services is the entire Collier County.
Tindale-OIiver & Associates, Inc,
August 2010
7
Collier County
EMS Impact Fee Update Study
DRAFT
The EMS impact fee program requires the use of population data in calculating current
levels of service and performance standards. To accurately determine demand for EMS
and to be consistent with the population utilized in the County's comprehensive planning
and AUIR process, this impact fee study considers not only the resident or permanent
population ofthe 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 5 presents the population trends for Collier County. The projections indicate that
the population of Collier County is projected to increase by more than 40 percent
between 2010 and 2029.
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc.
August 20 I 0
8
Collier County
EMS Impact Fee Update Study
DRAFT
Table 5
Countywide Peak Seasonal Population
Peak Season
Year 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: Comprehensive Planning Department, Collier County
(June I I, 2010)
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc.
August 20 I 0
9
Collier County
EMS Impact Fee Update Study
DRAFT
Apportionment of Demand by Residential Unit Type and Size
The residential land uses to be used for the EMS impact fee calculations include the
following:
· Single Family Detached
. Multi-Family
· Mobile HomelRV (Tied Down)
Table 6 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 residential 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 residential
land use category, an analysis was completed based on housing unit size and persons per
housing unit, comparing nationwide averages to those ofCoIIier 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 residential land use.
Table 6
Residents per Housing Unit
Residents!
Housing Type Population(l) Housing Units(2) Ratio(3) Housing Units
All Residential 295,460 143,416 2,06
- Less than 1,500 sf 92% 1.90
- 1,500 to 2,499 sf 100% 2.06
- 2,500 sf or greater 1 II % 2,29
(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,
August 20 10
10
Collier County
EMS Impact Fee Update Study
DRAFT
Functional Population
Because the County's EMS Department serves all residents, workers, and visitors,
population figures need to consider the portion of the time residents, visitors, and
employees spend in Collier County. Population is used as the basis of current and future
demand for certain facilities. In the case of EMS, 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 (l28-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 can be calculated. The
following paragraphs explain how functional population is calculated for residential and
nonresidential land uses.
Residential Functional POTJulation
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 oftheir 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 ofthe County's population and employment characteristics was
Tindale-OIiver & Associates, Inc.
August 2010
II
Collier County
EMS Impact Fee Update 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 7 and 8.
Table 7
Collier County
Population and Employment Characteristics
Item/Calculation Step Figure
Workers who live and work in Collier County(J) 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 yearsi6) 36,507
School age population as a percent ofpopulation(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%
(I), (2) Source: Bureau of Transportation Statistics, Census Transportation Planning
Package (CTPP) 2000 Part 3 (figures for Year 2000)
(3) Sum of the workers who live and work in Collier County (Item I) and workers who
live in Collier County 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)
TindaIe-OIiver & Associates, Inc.
August 2010
12
Collier County
EMS Impact Fee Update Study
DRAFT
Table 8
Residential Coefficient for Functional Population
Population Hours at
Group Residence(l)
Workers 13
Students 15
Other 20
Total Hours at Residence(4)
Residential Functional Population Coefficient(S)
(I) Estimated
(2) Source: Table 7
(3) Hours at residence (Item I) multiplied by percent of population (Item 2)
(4) Sum of the effective hours
(5) Sum of effective hours (Item 4) divided by 24
Percent of
Population (2)
41.0%
14.5%
44.5%
Effective
Hours(3)
5.3
2.2
8.9
16.4
68.3%
The resulting percentage from Table 8 is used in the calculation of residential coefficient
for the 24-hour functional population. These calculations are presented in Table 9.
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 widely.!
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).
1 Arthur C, Nelson and James C. Nicholas, "Estimating Functional Population for Facility Planning,"
Journal of Urban Planning and Development 118(2): 45-58 (1992).
Tindale-OIiver & Associates, Inc.
August 2010
I3
Collier County
EMS Impact Fee Update 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 9 also shows the functional population coefficients for nonresidential
uses/categories in Collier County. The functional population coefficients in Table 9 were
used to estimate the County's functional population in Table 10.
TindaIe-OIiver & Associates, Inc.
August 2010
14
Collier County
EMS Impact Fee Update Study
o
-
c:
(1)
.-
u
it:
(1)
o
o
c:
o
;;
.!
O')::::J
(1)Q.
-0
.gc..
J--
C'G
c:
o
;;
u
c:
::::J
LL.
-
f!
(1)
c:
(1)
C)
E-c
r.c
~
~
;; "lit
g.~ .~
'tj'il IS
; go 8
~ll. l;J
~~
.. ..
... ..
~ ~
.. t
.~ ;€...
~ g ;!:
:I:
~ €8
i~
:5 S'
:> c.l
{l €...
~g,;S
cS t t
o ...
S
t-of
~~
o
...
=- t €:::
:> ... ...
... .. 0
l. ,:- ...
" .. B
0... rzl
..8:
" ..
... ..
...
.. 0
...-
'C ...
... B
rzl
II c_
;.,....e
,g ~ ~
::'::1 <<
li:llQ:
~
o
..
_ll
" "
~~
- "
as
t. ~
;;.
E
c.l
~O"-O--vN_r--
oor--r--r--t'--l't"'-C\ \0 C\
\Orr)MNNNt""lNI.n...t"
cooace "00 d
~
gggggggggg ..E
r--:r-=vi..nvivir-=vi~r...: ~
..
..
l;J
~
..:l
I"l
t:
000000000
q:;q~q~q ~ q
O'\C\\,OO'<MOO 0 M
ooooO\cct'--Q\
dcidcid~ci \Q r-i
OOOOOOOOOOrr'lC""l M M
~ r<1 r'1 f"1:J ~ r-: "'": r-:
..
..
...
::~
" ...
a.;::
" ...
..
...
o
NNNNNvv
~r'1l'f'!"1:}~~ __
r-- '" \00000
"''''0'''0\\0\0 \0 0\
.........:~.:jvi
NMrrlNO\MN"''''
::i~N~~~::i ~ ~
'" N
00000000<:)
000000000
c\ a\ 0\ 0\ 0\ a\ a\ 0\ a\
~2~2~~2~ ~
z----oor--z r--
..
~
:5
" "
.~ Ii
u t:3
.~ r;
8 ~
rn ~ u.
~ () () g
=' I ~ g] ~
o = 't: .- f-o U fII
=:l.g.ar;;..!!~.Ec:t
.g cr:: 0 u 1:: ~... . fII
~C;E~'~~~8 8
]. 2 :g ~ g] ',3 ; 'E
tfz8~~:::~ti:~
0;;
o
o
N
t
"
"
.co
"
Ul
"
.2
::;
t:
o
...
j
...
o
"
.~
g
"
.g
'6
Ul
oS
co
"
.~
e
"
"
"
o
...
.C
...
"
o
'"
1;l
.. ;;
.0 0
.. 'il
'" .0
" '"
.. "
.. ::;
" :;
!>!. u
o 'il
Q. u
5 .~
...
o . ..
a .. ~ ~ ~
eg~~:::8
g ~ ~ ~ ~ ~]
-5~~~~~~..
E~~~~~~~
~ -a -a -a ~ -a 's ~
.;: 8 8 8 8 ~ '(; .5
~th~~8.~~
.~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ G ~
~ 'B'E'E'E'~~ ~
E~.a~~].g~
~gg33~~~
e-~~~~~ s ~
~~;::i~:::i:::]}
..9~~~~~]~
1l "'8 0 0 0 0 0 0 .;
su:::!~r:=~~e
....c ~ b~~~-8-3-3 ~
U~o.OOOOOOo.
8 -<( .. U U U U U U ..
e r:-'~ W UJ W Ul UJ UJ .go
~:::;!:.t:t:t:t:t:t:E--
o :::::.~
.... ....
~ ~
d
o
~
"
..
..
...
8
.g
'"
"
a
..
'"
..
'" '-\ - ro"l co 0 N
~ .5:-f'1 ""= -: r-: ~
~~~~O'\N::d
~
~~~~~
~~g~2
ti ~~~~~
r::.. ~cO-=..nN
'-\-S:OO\oO"'d"M
'!:O !:o
~ ~
~~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~~~~~
!:to.:! -:
'" So
~
~ ~2 ~ ~ ~
t: ... - 0 0 0
~ ~o 000
~
~ ~~ ~ ~ ~
~ ti2~~~
'!:O ...-
~
l ~~~~~
e:-;: -Mt'-o
:: ..
~ ~
-.: "
:.:l
Ii:
cci .<tj~
~ g-~ frl
C"~ U)~ot:
~gt5g""
~~~~-;"]
aV~It5~
~ g ~ g ~ 'u
.s .<: .~ N to:;:
\.l :s = - u ~
t&;~~g~~
to e'- u ='
'u 0 if go tI)
;2;UO::",
~ ~
cj t:
:ga
:: tQ
.. "
-. >.-
" .. '"
~ g =s
s.<:a:l
i! ~: ~
.. '" "
" " "
~~~
g ui'~
.... E-- u
]>id
~~8
~ 2 ~ ~
'i ~ ~ ~ ~
..9 e u - g
~ ~m N
;g ~.a.!! ~
Jl :;c " .0 C:
;H 6-;:;~ ='
~;: :its ~
~,,~ Os ~ ~ c
.. to.~ c :g
.~ ,,' :; ~ ~ - 0 .3
D 'DO u!!'~~..
b:Dgx u-;::lb ~
;-~ ~ _~ ~ ~ '2 u
l; ~ .~ ~ l; 8 'e ~ ~
; g ~ g. ~ :; g ~ 's ~
..9 g~ ~~ ~tI)sFt
~ i:02~g e.go~B~
= c,j ~ ~ o~ =: .2 ~ g H 8
o ?; gc"e.~_~~:EEe"
o .9 I ~ ,- ~ IlI1 a ~ oS
N ;s ??su>g~.e'~<O
~ ~ j~1~~]~~~d;
e:. -t:Ocoo."'Oouuu
~ g '7'c =~ ~~]-=j:g
" .... ~ ~ - e "oS.- 8 '" ...
~ < ;;;'.!! ~~o~"'S~;e
rn ~ 5e~~~~e..~.g~
~ ; S 1 ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ s
e 0. ~ .go g ~ -a'~ ': .a e- c; ac .;:
~ 'S t: D ~.2 e;> 8. a ~ ~ 5. ~
0: .!! ::J u c.. ~ W ~ u -: U) _ ._
..c ~ ~ ~ E" ~ t + ,,~ t 00'; 5.5
~ ~ u U ~ u o.~ 0 0.-= C e e
g 0: ~ "0 8.~ Ii];: o~ ~ ~ 5 ~
:; ~ ~ ~ a e 'u ~ t!. Ii ~ ca ~ g
~ ] "'0] '.5 ~ H3 .5 ~ -=. '[ 0 o~
:t EO 0. -5 ~ 0. >'.!! g ~ ~ "'0 e j>\ r::
= ...sU) .'E~=Uo >oc..jgC
.~ B U) g B ~ ~ ~ g:I: : -5 g.~ ~
z r-: .2 :; re..2 a:5 .~ ~ oS ~ ~ ~ i
c; ~ [: ~ ~ t: ~"'O "'3 0 .~ :g ~ ~ ~
"1 ~ .~ ~ ~ 'C ~ ~ ~ go ~ ~'s ~ -3 tfi
o E fi "0 0 fl "'0 .- 0- Q., UJ Cll). u u..
~ot5 ~'~ct! ~]-]])( ~g~.:.s
~~~oo~~UJ~~~~ :-5o.He
::: .C ::E ~ 0 ::E ~ 8 oS g" 8"!j ~.g
.go ~ C t:.... ~ C ~ v;- ~ tf ~ .~ ~ t u u
~uouEouEu u ucc..>!>
E3 0.,::; -g '.;:1] u ~ u C U) U .... 0 0'
~l!lU~.gu....:::..oS!(' "81l0~
NllE_...g_~g,"" oS.!!""ae
E3 0. U) .- ot: U) Oco .0. In .E c ~ u e ~ u
~ B a ~ E-- a u .E >. g S cS ....: ~ .;; :::
t::.. u U et: t u 0:: t.{!J.g g ~ ~u g
g 0 ~ t Co t t 0.'0 ~ ~ e u _ e
>.~ DoDo:! DoDo:! ~ 0 -..-S f ~
.,g 0 :! :3 a :! :! ;"g - e-1! e ~ (.0
~~llllg.l;1lg.8.~ ",go~u
u~g.g.8g.g.8g... t...._cJ:;~~
g,~88088~:a 50 ~JJ]-g~
e 0 0 ~ 0 0 _ u u Do a 'r:: _ ~
.... " N .... ::: co .., .;.~ " 'C E " .s ,~
~~J~o:~BE--~ ~u~_~
6:~ ~ :eee =-~~=-~
;;;-
8
5
"
"
~
Q.
8
"
..
"
...
..
...
.5
~
~
"
"
o
>.
.0
'"
.!!
]-
:;
8
....
g
€-S
;:1.8
o ell
U Q)
... Q)
~::
"0 <.l
U~
e
--
ell
~
eLl
V)
-
U
d
--
<Ii
Q)
~
'5
o
'"
'"
<
o:;j
...
Q)
,~ ~
00
,N
Q)....
'<'i ~
"ObJ)
,5 ;:I
E-<
DRAFT
Table 10
Functional Population - Year 2010
Functional
Collier County Resident FUnctional
Population Category Baseline Datal!) Coefficient(l) Population(3)
2010 Peak Season Population 404,032 0,683 275,954
Non-Residential Population (Employees 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 Utilities 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(4) 100,728
2010 Total Functional Population(S) 376,682
Ratio of Functional Population to Residential Population 93.2%
(I) Source: Table 5 for the 20 I 0 population figure and Woods & Poole for 20 I 0 employment
data
(2) Source: Table 9
(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 ofthe residential functional population (275,954)
and nonresidential functional population (100,728).
Table 11 presents the County's annual functional population figures from 2000 through
2029, based on the 2010 functional population figure from Table 10 and the annual
population growth rates from the population figures previously presented in Table 5.
Tindale-OIiver & Associates, Inc.
August 2010
16
Collier County
EMS Impact Fee Update Study
DRAFT
Table 11
Collier County Functional Population
(2000-2029)
Collier County Functional
Year Population Projections
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: Table 10 for the 20 IO population figure. Figures
for other years are based on the respective annual
growth rates peak population figures provided in
Table 5,
TindaIe-OIiver & Associates, Inc.
August 2010
17
Collier County
EMS Impact Fee Update Study
DRAFT
Functional Residents hv Specific Land Use CateJlorv
When a wide range ofland uses impact services, an estimate ofthat 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 homelRV (tied
down) land uses, based on information obtained from the 2000 Census. Besides the
residential land uses, Table 12 also includes transient land uses such as hotels, motels,
nursing homes, and adult living facilities CALF), 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 ofthe impact fee areas to be analyzed. For residential and transient land uses, these
coefficients are displayed in Table 12.
Nonresidential Land Uses
A similar approach is used to estimate functional residents for nonresidential land uses.
Table 13 presents 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 EMS impact fee program and will be used in the
calculation of the fee per unit for each land use category in the impact fee schedule.
TindaIe-Oliver & Associates, Inc.
August 2010
18
Collier County
EMS Impact Fee Update Study
en
(I)
en
::)
"C
c:
C'G
...J
-
c:
(1)
.-
en
c:
I!
I-
"C
c:
C'G
-
C'G
N..
"r""c:
(I) (1)
-"C
.c ._
C'G en
1-(1)
0:::
E-c
r.c
~
~
.:ll
c. II g...
~ = .-
~ c. =
.:ll :5! ~
S :l t
~~g"
...
.:ll '" os
~ 9~ ~
g,,;; ;;
==
'"
c.
'l;lg"
-= ~~....
.e, 5 'i:
~ ~ ~
~
~
~
en
-
c:
(1)
~
en
(1)
0:::
C'G
c:
o
..
o
c:
::s
LL
li",E.,.
c .. .-
.. 0 ..
:= ~ ;::J
(/).- ...
~;> ~
t~
g,,-::.:
'" C>
;... C>
~~
;...
OS~
t:l -..
~ :;
o 0
~==
~ ~.....
C> ,-
.:ll =
'" ~
o ..
~ ..
g"
;...
...
=..
os-
c..B
:0 os
~ ~
o
~
~u
....:3
...
~;::
c.=
e~
....
!(l.
C>
...
os
il:
C>
'"
~
'l;l
..
os
...:l
:3
...
=
C>
:5!
..
~~
1:
C>
'l;l
'r;;
C>
Cl::
0-\0
"1'<l;"'!
- --
0\00-
~ON
-MM
~ <<S ~
13<=:::
::I ::I ::I
"0 "0 "0
;
Q
'"
C
~~~~
o v.l c;;s ~
o 0\ 0 r'-I
l() 0\ .... ...
... v c.o rn
-r-r....<
a 0 :;::
.<::B'tl=
....oo~
Vol 0 0 or;;
r.n V) \I"'l C
~-"r--ff
I I I f-l
'<t<l'NN
r-- \0 r- co
cicicici
€~
;:j.8
01;/)
U Q.)
~1d
..... '0
::::p.,
0::>
U Q)
Q.)
t:t..
......
(,)
..s
p.,
S
.....
]", ~ .s
.s~c::~ 0
~ .~ ~ ~ ~
~.E~S S
co""'ll::r: en
~Or.nca 0\
rn c:: c 0
.e..9 ~.g 9
l:l;;<os :.:;
]1J....Z bOO;
~r.n~o sra
v:.a~o J38
'i~~N ....0....
~tS.~.s be
.~ ~ Ul e ~ g
:;jgoo~ ~8
~ IZ) 4) "0 ~ .~
....?:>g~ g=o
<2 - .<:: 'Cd oS
e g gjl15 g.~ ~
0._ 0 u.... ~
e ~ ~ .~ g ~ ~
~~:ea 0<( :::
o..otS e o€ ~
~u.."O<2 -E~ ~
~,~ e.5 ] @ ~
8.~:o,::]..... 0
~'~ ~ ~ ~ ;: x
~ ~ ~ ~ .~ ~:: ~ ~ ~ ?d
--o-_euo..c...-t Q
"Q)g.c~ <(.. II
.g-sv~~ t::fr ~
;t;1UoPo.o 00 ~
.<::oo~;~~~ fr~ S
_ Q) .... Q) ~ ';:: ::r:
~~~~~8]~~]~ ,~~
--oooooo~ ~V) c:: ~~
\0\00000 "4"";O~ c.,S ....;;>
:g:'O ;> <( s:>.X
a"''::: t 0 <l'.5 ::10 ,t::
::r:~oo'" 8"0 ....,::
,:: c~fr'a Ng O::J
Cd N ..J "'tj.~ ::s 0 "'0 ...
'~1it:,~Ui e: a~
~~~~~].~~~ ~8 1&
____--....<~ ~N ~~
~ ~ ~ 0\ cS B ] .~ g
.;:: .<:: '" 8 "0 .;';;;:' <( ::::
~ o]NB >8 i+
~ ~ .s ~ ~ ] ~ ;) .~ ~ ~
oooM~I~~~.Sj~J !~~
~ ~ ~ ~ .cbO~ ."~_<<J .... .9 e ~ 5 .... '-" .g 5 ~ 8-
~__o-ot:;>~B --t.L.U)U)
,:: ",s:>.5-;,8..gaE :a .~~
Ul~.-a~::::~ugo~ Ul:;)OO
,::1,O00~"~ ,:: .g\D
.~ ~ .., U J! ~ ,:: 8.. co ci X r-
1;; {l ~;! .,!, ""'0 ::10 ~ go ~ ~ 8 ~
15E-<"otiJ"3....u~8 ge~~
~ea~e5llllo .c'+::~O
~ o_.8"d 8:.:::;> >. ].-::: ('>J U
E <l:; ~ ';';; ,:: i: - .. .c ..,:: ~ a
!-< ~ g:> : il8 ]] ::r:::J::l '"
CC; ::So>.bho>.~p" 8~:!Eg
Q) "0 U 'or c 0 U .- '+:: .- p... .,..
- ~ .... ::s 'r;; C"I'J ~ B "'3 ~ n >< ~
.g-~o....;:Jg.ee ~5'~~
G1.s'" 3o~~~ Uu ;>'uN :3:::!:5.......
10-1 =CJ]'n__ o~....
:<( ~ .., .,::_ _ e ;... 0 a e s:>. ~ ~
- - ~ 0 &b..c] Co ~ '': v.l -
C ~ ~.2 ~ ~ ] 0 B e. ~.;;; ~
~~ ~ g-s:9;~ g.~]UJ:s 0
tU -:S tu 9 ~o t.L. 9 ~ t: ~
t>.. Q) .... s:>..~"O .... '0 ....:l .... e e 3 Q)
.., bO -g <2 i3 ",,,,s:>..<:: <( Q) ,- 0 t:: ~
~ C.) C.) .9- S ~.... d) Co ~ tt::1 Qj "d
g.;; Q) ~ ~ J;:: .<:: !> <2 e ~ Ul "0 :::! B
::r:::3 ~~.B ~.... '0 0 000'0 v.l v.l
~]] 8o~&~~~:E~g.e~
_ .... - <<J .~ ~ .- 0 - g ~ ~ r:: "tj a <(
0:; B .;;; .~ ....:l Ul 0:; ~ -a. ~ en .- ~ ...... <( t>.. ::::
o05~__-""Co('>J_~_"""':'__
::r:~z<(:::::.-~];8.~~a~~~~
l' l' r--- r---
0- <l' <l' <l'
r-.... \0 0
V"lVMM
cicicio
I;/)
~
u:l
~~~~
Q\
-
~ g] :0
88..0'"0
c.;i
s::
.....
fir
Q.)
......
..s
'0
o
<Il
<Il
<
d?j
....
Q.)
.~ ~
00
IN
Q) ......
Cd gj
'Obi)
.S ;:j
E-<<
E-c
r.c
;a
~
M
"r""
(1)
-
.c
C'G
t-
~ i-i
l]~
~ ~ 5
-
~~
!~
f---
U)
CD
U)
:)
"C
c:
C'G
...J
-
C'G
..
c:
(1)
"C
'Ci)
~
c:
o
z
~
.e
U)
-
c:
(1)
"C
.-
U)
(1)
~
..
;;sf:e:
'" e Co
;; g !5
=:
f--
€:
~
;;;
-
:It:
:; ':'~
g.(-o
II Is
0,,"
'----
~ €e
.. "
~=
f--
~@-
~ ..~
~ .2 'f.
o~ ~
f--
i~i1
'C.o:
~ ll:
-
..g
.. ..
~ ~
. 0
'E' ]
(-01.:1
-
..
~ ~~
Co s:
'C OJ
(-0
-
-
C'G
c:
o
..
(,,)
c:
::3
LL.
---::-
'c
OJ
u
"
Co
E
~
F1't
t:~
..,. a. v 00
"" v 0'\:
o d a.: ""
r-- r-- l' r--
~ ~ ~ ~
- - ci _
'" 0 N t'I
~ ...,. v v
- rrl r-: vi
.., M
...
0\ 0\ 0\ 0\
M M M M
C"i N N N
a- 0- 0\ C1'
- co 1.0 N
- ~ ~ r"l
- - ~ c::
~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~
Z 0 ci M
M M on
~ ~ ~ G
C"i ri g ~
~ ~ ~ ~
,~ E ]
.c '"
..
~
."
"
..
...l
OJ
.~ ~
~ cf .~
5 > ~
.. ..: ::E
ll'i
c
o
.. -"
.. "
u i ~
g ~ .~ E
~ .~ = E
;g .g ~ ~
OJ ~ ~ tu
~~~~~~~~
'" VI V"l Vl '" r-- V'l r--
g g g g g ~
NNNNM_
~ 00 ~ ~ r: 8 ~ ~
o ci d ci d 00 N 00
:: :: :: :3 :: ~ :: ~
0\ 0\ 0\ a. 0\ 0\ 0\ 0\
~ 00 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
o'cio-ciq.:NoO
~ ~ g; \D ~ fB ~ ~
d 0 d d c;j 0 c:i rri
r:~~NM:;~~
vi r-: 0\ M ~ ~ ~ vi
~ ~ 5 ~ ~ ; : ~
o N 0 0 0 0 '" 0
~ ~ c:: ~ :g ~ ~ \Ii
55555:;5~
]]]]]0]8.
~ en 00 en Ui ~ iii _
:J
~ "
'5 ~
"'0 ~
~ 0
o
~ ~
~ li
o oS
~ ~
r-: e
.;; .;;
i .~
] ~
"0 =a
u u
.. ..
o 0
g - .~ .~
~ ] ~ ~ ~
:a~~~..ca'3
'" :B .~ .~ 1 ~ .~
~ :;: :5 :5 U 0 :c
~ 0
d :;
~ N ~
'" 0 M
00 00 I"":
---00-
€~
::sE
oen
U Q)
.... 't;j
~"'O
_Co
O::J
U Q)
~
'0
t':l
Co
El
---
"" Vl Vl "" '" Vl
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
- N \0 C\ 0 0
C""I '" GO NO""!.
vi ~ ri rri M N
en
~
W
00 00 00 00 00 N
~ ~ ~ ~ "'! ~
C\ C\ 0\ a. 0\ 0\
M r-- C\ III N 00
00 \0 \0 00 V 0\
r-- ~ vi .q: -.i r-:
r: ~ ~ ~ :g a
..;j ..;j rri N M ..f
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0:
M "" M M M oC
o
N
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
vi M :: a\ oC ~
o 0 ~ 0 0 0
r:: f"oo f"oo r:: r:: ~
't; 't; 't; 't; 't; 't;
o 0 000 0
8.8.38.53
" '" 'I..
~~~],~
U\ ~ g g 8.
uOOOOu
5 ~. 8 g ~ :5
e; 2 ~ ~ ~ ~
g egg t IE
o 0 ci ci ii 0
~~o~Sb]
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ;a
000 000 ~
u
s::
---
vi'
Q)
't;j
'(j
o
'"
'"
<:
c(l
....
Q)
.~ ;::
00
,N
Q) +-'
ta ~
"'001)
.S ::s
E-<<
en
CI)
en
::l
"C
c:
C'G
...J
-
C'G
~
c:
_ (1)
"C "C
(1)'-
::s en
c: (1)
;;or
c: c:
o 0
~z
(II) ....
"r"".E
(1) en
--
.c c:
C'G (1)
I-"C
.-
en
(1)
0::
C'G
c:
o
~
(.)
c:
::::J
u..
E-c
r.c
~
~
] 5 vi
~ 1 ;g
~ ~ ~
U
I---
..-
,,0
~;:.
~'i!
l!~
I---
..
:;lg
:5;:~
> 0 ...
=
-
g
::
~
:>
-
.l!€
; .5-
;-~
u ..
o~
-
.= €:
.. "
~~
-
~@€
~~~
0':6:
-
i ~_
!~
~ t
I>l~
-
..0:
" co
~ ~
].~
~~
I---
..
~~~
'" "
OJ: ;J
...
f---
r.l't,
!::~
---;:
C
:0
~
e
~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ : ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
00 N ....
N N N
MOO
o :2
a;
~.s
::lB
om
U II.)
..~
,~ "0
-0.
'0::>
u II.)
Q,l
~
.....
u
~
0.
S
......
~ \0 ~
- 0
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~
o 0
o on
o "!
~ ~ ~ _ _ ~ 5 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ g
o 0 0 d - ci 0 ci 0 ci d _
q :::;
;;;: ~
on 00 '"
N v VI:
-DoOM
'" ..,. ..,.
; : ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
p, N N N N M r--
00 ClO Irl a-
o co 0
~ ~ ~ ~
M M M M
l"'<: too: r-: r-:
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~
"" on '"
~ ~
N '"
~ ~
~ ~ ~ g
M ...j N 00
.... N
..,.
rn
~
U.l
\D ~ ~ ~
~ ~ 0: ~
~ ~ &1 ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a- a- a- a- ~ a- a- a- a- ~ ~ a- a- a- a- a- a-
co
::3
."
"
..
...:l g
'"
"
..
,~
~ .~
:; ..:
~~
~ rg
c>! '"
o QO \0 r-- v 0'1
o N 0\ V \0 d
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ M ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N
v r-- M N
:}~~~
.... ....
v 0 0 0
N In VI VI
M N N M
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
N N N N M
~~~~~~~~~
...ZZZZZZZZ
N
~ ~
'" '"
..,. 00
;: ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ;; ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ !: ~
~ ~ ~ ~ a ~ ~
; ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~
o III en en
o 0 0 0
q 8.. 8.. ~
~;;:a~~
~~<ti~~
00000
00000
o~ o. 0.. 0.. 0..
..
-<
<<<<o-l
:s o-l o-l o-l o-l ~_
-~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ "'0 <
<Ill L1. (IJ 00 fIJ rn ..J
~ ~ g g g g & ~ ~
00000 0 0 00 ~
:Sd-~"gg2fg.g~
o 0 - N v ~ - 0 s
~ Egg g g ~ g <
o 000 0 0 q ~
~~g.ggg.g~~
... Vl N v \0 0 C
'j; 'a 'a III '~ ',f! ~ -a ;
~~~~~~~~~
~ r:: ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
- d - N ~ N N
..,. N N
o 00
M ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~
z z z z
'" 0
..,. '"
00 00
@~~~2:
N
~~~~~~~~~~~
O\~~~~~~:!::!::!:~
... ~ ~ z z z z z z z z
~ :
'" N
N '"
"" 00
N ..,.
vi ~
;;\ ~ ~
~ N -.i
P"l N 0 - N
~ ~ ~ :; ~ ;: ;:
~ ~
o "
o u
o --
. ~
~ c... vi
o :; g
o g U
o. "oil
~
" I:!
c: g
13 ~
oS ~
'j ~ u
u u c g
~ B E ~
u ~ ~ 2
u~5g~~
:a -_ ,~ E G
oe5c-1lI
~ei;~E~
.: ~ 8 8 ~ if
-
N
~ g ~
N d 00
N ..,. '"
'"
~ ~ ~
N ~ ~
;:; ~ ~
CZ'. Q'\o C\
~~~~~
~ ~ ~ ~
o 0 C C
C C C 0
c. c. c. o.
~ ~ ~ vi i;'
g~~g8&~
~ o. '~ ~ '~
~ ~
~ t;;;
o 0
o 0
~ o.
2
..c
C ~
~ >
~.~ ~ d
&; ~ ~ ~ "3
I:! ~ ;; ~ "
~ .~ ,~ u g
!! ~ ~ ~ :;
~ ~ ~ .~ to;"
~ a l.i g ~
... lZl lZl 0 :c
"
o
'ia
~ 00
~ .8 8
-g j '~
tf ~ u
ij- oS ~
... ~
~ ~
~ ~ :J
l;! l;! ~
~ U g
.~ i .<
~ g ~
~ ~ .3
o
s::
......
en"
II.)
~
'0
o
'"
'"
<:
c(l
..
II.)
.~ 3
00
b~
td gj
"001)
.S ::l
E-<<:
U)
(1)
U)
::l
"C
c:
C'G
...J
-
C'G
;;
c:
_ (I)
"C"C
(1)'-
:::s U)
c:~
;;.
c: c:
o 0
~z
('I') a..
"r""~
(1) U)
.e-
C'G c:
J-~
.-
U)
CI)
~
E-c
r.c
~
~
c _tt
" " "
" .. ..
:::l '" 'Il
~ 'jj E
&: = :!:
u
-
'";;-
d:~
~ t:
i:l~
-
'"
~d:€
;\:J:':'s
~ g ~
=
-
e:
J:
~
:;
>
-
~ ~E
g.~
... '"
... ..
o l'o
-
hi
.:< J:
; g
~=
-
:'@€
~.!U
o~ ~
-
!~
..2;5
~ ~
r.lo..
-
t €Col
~ ~
.. "
,~ ~
f-ol"l
-
'"
~(t
,~ ~
f-o
-
Iol't
t:: :l
ns
c:
o
;;
CJ
c:
::s
u.
'" ... '"
'" 0 '"
ccio
0 '" '"
o. ... ...
- ci ci
- '" on
on ~ ...
N - vi
~ ~ ~
- - -
'" '" '"
'" on '"
"': "! ...
~ - .,;
- ... N
~ 0
N ci ..;
N 00 ...
0 N 0
..; ;g -i
... ~ 00
'" '"
.,; N ~
.1::
"
;;.
~ - 0
on ...
- - ...
~ ';; ~
.. ..
0 0 0
0 0 0
0, o. 5-
';;
~
.s
..
::s
'"
"
..
..:l
;;;
.~
"
] ~
~ ~
.5 ....l
€-6'
::3 .a
000
u v
... ~
~~
_0..
0;:J
U v
v
r.t.
....
Q
tI:S
0..
S
......
00
~
W
]
.1
..
.~
..
""
..
..
'"
"
~
,s
C'l
C'l
"
-~
en
"
u
~ !5
g ~
.<: ..
u 0-
Il ..
~ II
. "
"c 'C;;
.- "
::0 l!l
i
Vi
u
" ;;
O"'C ri
;g~ .0
tJJu ~ 'iil
;;~ ~ ~
.:.i~ 0 0
o 0. c r--
~.5 u x
"5 c ~ S
:I: -~ ~""" :l!
"t: ...
" " N
'~~u8. ;::
5'=~a.
~g~~ t
....MC..c ~
;;r,s-P ~
a~ ~i
~ ~ :E ]' ~
~~~e :;
l'~ ~ ~ . ~
CO~IO 'if><
.g~~~ u~
"'--- .2'.g
1i 'i] g -" ,,""
~C:C~U E>
~.~-g~~ f~;;
Co-. c ::! c. 0 ::J .- u
; ~ 5 .~ i g ~ ~
.~ ~ ~ i] '2 2. ~
~.~~!~ ~~~ ~~~~~~~~
~ ~ ~ :~ E e ~ :; ~ ~ g g g g g g g g.
~5E~M ~~~gg~qqqqqqg
~.i~'~~]~~~~~~~~E~~~~
~~~l~.~!.~:~!~!~!!!ii
8~~.~g~~t~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~
~~iii~'~~i~~~~ft~~~~~
in "5 ~ a B. a::;.~ ~ ?; -g-.go.go.go.go.g-.g-.g-.go.~
~~~~~~ezg~~~~~~~~~~~
~SEg~~gEg~~cc~~;~;~M
u
s:::
......
enft
V
t;j
'(:)
o
en
en
<
c'i&
...
v
.=: 8
00
1C'l
v....
<<l ~
"t:lbO
.5 ::3
E-<<
DRAFT
Level of Service
For impact fee calculation purposes, the current level of service (LOS) for impact fee
calculation purposes is calculated based on stations per weighted and functional resident,
as presented in Table 14.
It should be noted that two different calculations of the current LOS were provided in the
table. One ofthese calculations includes only the stations owned by the County and is
used in the calculation ofthe impact fee. The other includes stations that are both owned
and leased, which better reflects the service County residents are receiving. However,
because impact fees need to be based on what the existing population already paid for,
the LOS based on stations owned by the County is used in the calculation ofthe impact
fee.
Table 14
Existing Level of Service
(per Weighted and Functional Resident)
Year 2010
Peak Functional
Calculation Step Population Population
Population(1) 404,032 376,682
Number of Stations(2) 11 11
Number of Stations incl. Leased FaciIities(3) 21 21
Population per Station(4) 19,240 17,937
Current LOS (All Stations per Resident)C5) 0.000052 0.000056
Current LOS (Owned Stations per Resident)C6) 0.000027 0.000029
(1) Source: Comprehensive Planning Division, Collier County for peak population and Table 10
for functional population
(2) Source: Table I, Includes only the stations owned by the County
(3) Source: Tables I and 2, Includes owned and leased stations
(4) Calculated based on all stations (Item 3)
(5) Item (3) divided by Item (I)
(6) Item (2) divided by Item (I)
Tindale-OIiver & Associates, Inc.
August 2010
23
Collier County
EMS Impact Fee Update Study
DRAFT
Cost Component
The cost component ofthe study evaluates the cost of all capital items, including
buildings, land and equipment/vehicles. Table 15 provides a summary of all capitaI
costs, which amounts to approximately $2.5 million per station. The table also provides
the distribution of assets, which would be used for future indexing calculations, according
to the methodology described in the indexing reports adopted by the County.
Table 15
Total Capital Cost
Description
Building Replacement Cost per Station(1)
Land Replacement Cost per Station(2)
Equipment & Vehicle Replacement Cost per Station(3)
Total Cost per Station(4)
(1) Source: Table 1
(2) Source: Table I
(3) Source: Table 4
(4) Sum of building, land, equipment and vehicle value (Items 1,2, and 3)
(5) Percent of each item in relation to the total cost per station (Item 4)
Cost
$867,151
$394,000
$1.206.071
$2,467,222
Percent of
Total(5)
35%
16%
49%
100%
Total Impact Cost per Functional Resident
Table 16 presents the unit cost for the impact fee analysis. This unit cost was calculated
as the total capital cost of $2.5 million per station multiplied by the LOS standard of
0.000029 stations per functional resident, which results in a cost per functional resident
of $72.
Table 16
Total Impact Cost per Functional Resident
Description
Total Cost per Station(l)
LOS (StationslFunctional Resident)(2)
Total Impact Cost per Functional Resident(3)
(I) Source: Table 15
(2) Source: Table 14
(3) Total cost per station (Item I) multiplied by LOS (Item 2)
Cost
$2,467,222
0.000029
$71.55
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc.
August 2010
24
Collier County
EMS Impact Fee Update Study
DRAFT
Credit Component
To avoid overcharging new development for the EMS impact fee, a review of the capital
financing program for emergency medical services was completed. The purpose of this
review was to determine any non-impact fee revenue sources generated by new
development that is being used for capital facility (buildings, land, and equipment)
expansion of the emergency medical services program. Revenue credits would then
apply against the cost per resident so that new development is not charged twice for
capital revenue contributions.
Capital Expenditures Credit
An analysis of the historical and future EMS expenditures for the five year period from
2006 through 2010 was completed. Based on the information provided by the CCEMS,
main funding sources, other than impact fees, included general fund and grants.
Table 17 summarizes capital expenditures for the last five fiscal years, The capital
improvement credit per person was calculated using the average capital expansion
expenditures during the last five years, As presented in Table 17, the result is an annual
average expansion cost of$0.26 per person.
A review of the 2009 AUIR information on EMS facilities indicated that over the next
five years the County will fund all additional EMS facilities with impact fees, through
loans from the General Fund that would be paid back from future impact fee revenues, or
other unidentified funding sources. However, to provide a conservative approach, a
credit is provided based on historical funding sources of capacity expansion projects.
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc,
August 2010
25
Collier County
EMS Impact Fee Update Study
DRAFT
Table 17
Historical Capital Expenditures (1)
(2006 - 2010)
Capital Investment Source Total ('06-'10)
County Grants/General Fund
Zimek Decontamination Machine County Grant $42,184
Mobile Command Vehicle County Grant $40,000
Air Compressors County Grant $5,886
Sim Baby Training Mannequin County Grant $40,403
Opticom Emitters County & FDOT Grants $80,3 I 5
Mini Lite Rescue System County Grant $23,663
Rhino 520 GPS 2- Way Radio County Grant $9,920
Assistance to Fire Fighters
Powered Docking Stations Grant & County Grant $48,732
Ambulance General Fund $185,012
Total Capital Expansion Expenditures $476, II 5
Annual Capital Expansion Expenditures $95,223
Average Functional Population (2006-2010) (2) 372,958
Annual Capital Expansion Expenditures per Person $0,26
(I) Source: Emergency Medical Services Department, Collier County
(2) Source: Table I I, average population from 2006-2010.
Net Impact Cost
Table 18 summarizes the calculation of the net EMS impact cost per functional resident
which is the difference between the total impact cost and the total revenue credit. The
resulting net impact cost is $68 per functional resident.
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc,
August 2010
26
Collier County
EMS Impact Fee Update Study
DRAFT
Table 18
EMS Net Impact Cost
Calculation Step
Impact
Cost
Revenue
Credits
Impact Cost
Total Impact Cost per Resident (I)
Impact Credit
Average Annual Capital Improvement Credit (2)
Ca italization Rate
Capitalization Period (in years)
Capital Improvement Credit per Resident (3)
Net Impact Cost
Net Impact Cost per Functional Resident (4)
(1) Source: Table 16
(2) Source: Table 17
(3) The present value ofthe average annual capital improvement credit per incident
using an interest rate of 5 percent over a capital ization period of 25 years,
(4) Difference between the impact cost per resident (Item I) and the capital
improvement credit per resident (Item 3)
$71.55
$0.26
5%
25
($3.66)
Calculated Emergency Medical Services Impact Fee Schedule
Based on the analysis presented in this report, an emergency medical services impact fee
schedule was developed for residential and nonresidential land uses and is illustrated in
Table 19. In addition, the table presents the current fee and the percent difference
between the current and calculated fees. An explanation ofthe effect of changes to the
demand component on the calculated fee is also provided in Table 19,
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc.
August 2010
27
Collier County
EMS Impact Fee Update Study
(1)
-
::::J
"C
(1)
.s::::
u
en
(1)
0')(1)
"r""U-
-
CI) U
-C'G
.eo.
~E
-
E-c
r.c
~
~
c.
~
=
eI/
.c
U
""
oS
=
Q
'"
&1
~
.... ell
= bJ)
ell =
l:: CIl
ell.c
~U
....
=
ell ell
"" ell
;r..
U
"C
(1)
-
C'G
-
::::J
U
-
C'G
o
-;
't~=
s.@~
~~&:
ell Q
ZU;;
Q..
-; =
= .S:
.s ~
'tj:;
= Q..
:I Q
r..~
....
~....
=
ell
....
U
=
...
ell
Q
U
...
'C
;::J
tl
CIl
Q..
8
....
ell
'"
;::J
"C
=
CIl
..;j
Cl.l
oS
bJl
I':
o
~
I':
,9
"5
..0
';::
...
'"
:a
Cl.l
.c
...
I':
o
cd
(;j
"0
"0
~
<d ,
"8.t
~ '';:::
~~~
"'" \0 V)
N N N
I I I
\01'-","
~~~
.... N "'"
.... .... ....
~~~
~
~
...
=
ell
:s
'"
ell
~
\ON....
C'!~~
00 V) V)
00 0'\ 0
~~....
~
o .... \0
""!"":"'!
.... .... ....
::l ::l ::l
-0-0-0
...
~ t) ~
CI) ~ 0
.... CI) S
cd ....
::l cd ....
C" ::l 0
~ ~g
00'\"'"
V) 0'\ CI)
.... "'" ~
;j N ::l
.c.slr
]....00
d ~ s:; ~
~.3.....;'N
.;;;
ell
~
,,; oj
~ (;j
..2",-0
Cl.l<<j
~ 'E g
I': :>,_
cd (,) Cl.l
g. ;j ;g
gg..s
Oga:l
~O>
O"gU
'iil -0 a
I': ::l ....
-0'03
~ ,5 8
::l.g....
'gE~
0.."'-
~~8
'" cd Cl.l
g"8.oS
';> ~ s
~ .c 0
p..E-<<l:::
~ ~
I'- C')
I ....
I
00 00
~ ~
C') C')
V) V)
~ ~
"'" "'"
N IX!
o \0
V) "'"
~ ~
"'" 0'\
I'- ~
o 0
s
o
e
Q.
::l
Q
""
~
-cf
ell
...
.~
'"
'"
-<
..:-
=
ell
'{ii
=
CIl
""
E-<
Q)
~
s
o
cJ:: 00'"
cd ....
(;jia
~<
o :>,
-0-;::
CI) Cl.l
"'-0
]i:ii
"'.....
Q) 0
_~!:o
E~
~t::e
a cd p..
0.. fro
13 Q I':
U cd ::l
0-00
"0 .- U
~ a &.c
~~~
o..Cl.l"O~
~oSuz
~~
~z
I
~~
0'\
~
00 I'-
IX!~
00 V)
"'" V)
~~
N N
I'- 00
00
s
o
e
-0 ::l
]-0
Q)
o
~
~
.....:l
$
g
'0
cd
~
Cl.l ~
~ '>
::r:;.::s
~"g
.- ...
'" '"
.... ,-
::l '"
z<
-0
I':
cd
S
Cl.l
-0
Cl.l
.c
...
.....
o
I':
o
.~
"'3
(,)
<<j
(,)
Cl.l
.s
,5
~
:.a ~
< 3 .s
z~~
< ~
z ~
I
~
\0
\0
\0
C')
~
"'"
V)
o
Cl.l
,t;:
'"
-;
=
.8 ~
... CIl
&1 p..
ti >
~~
~
'"
'0 0
...
.c CIl
bb....
I': I':
~ .g
.... cd
o ....
... CI)
"c;j s::
'> ~
o 0..
~ ..6
1':-0
o Cl.l
or;; ~
'~ "8.
~~
~~
\0 0
I'- V)
I I
g-s
::3.8
OtIJ
U Cl.l
~1ii
..... '0
=0-
o::J
U Cl.l
Q.l
tI..
...
(,)
cd
0-
S
.....
tIJ
~
w
00 00 \0
00",""":
cxicxi......c
.... V) ....
~ "'" 00
orl~
~
00000
O'\I'-~
No\V)
........ 0
~ C') "'"
....~
~
00
N
0'\ "'" co
...."":~
00'\ V)
....
'"
Cl.l I':
.c"O Cl.l
'E.c ~
.D ~ ~
Cl.l
Cl.l
I':
.~
~
u
.s
ul
Q.l
1ii
'u
o
'"
'"
<
c(!
....
Q.l
.:: 3
50
IN
Q.l
ea ~
'00.0
.S ::3
E--<
.c
...
'!i
....
Cl.l
CI) (;j
'" Cl.l
.....c
gE-<
~ U ,~
'f;j ~ ~
~c3~
(1)
-
::::J
"C
(1)
- ..c:
"Co
(1)U)
~ (1)
.- (1)
-u.
c:
0-
o 0
_cu
ene.
"r""E
~~
.e(1)
C'G-
J-..!
::s
o
-
C'G
o
E-c
r.c
~
~
C-
Q,)
~
I:
CIl
..::
U
'"
.s
=
Q
II>
CIl
&!
.... 41
I: ~
41 I:
y CIl
"'..::
~U
....
5 Q,)
'" Q,)
;r..
U
-;
~~ Et!.
~GI'}:::l -=
El@~~
- ...... = .-
~ ~ r.. ~
zut~
Q,
-; E
E:::l
.... '"
~'3
::s go
r..~
~
5
'0
IS
C.l
Q
U
...
'S
;:;J
~
'"
Q,
e
"'"'
41
II>
;:;J
"0
I:
'"
...;l
'1::;"::; -d
c: c: c:
t.s t.s t.s
888
(1) (1) (1)
"0 "0 "0
000
... ... ...
~~~
c: c: c:
t.s t.s t.s
..c:: ..:: ..::
000
~~~
~~~
00 00 00
NNN
. . I
I' 0\ V
~V'!V'l
V'l\O~
&'} &'} &'}
I'V'lM
01'''''':
-i-iV'l
&'} &'} (A
\0 I' 00
000
000
... .... ....
c: c: c:
(1) (1) (1)
"0 "0 "0
EEE
ell ell ell
~
~
Z
~
0\
t'-:
\0
&'}
o
-
o
....
c:
(1)
"0
::l
....
ell
-d
c:
t.s
8
(1)
"0
o
....
~
c:
t.s
..c::
< 0
__ 0
ZZ
<~
Z~
I
<00
Z~
V'l
&'}
V'l 0
I't'-:
-ioo
&'} M
&'}
I' I'
~V'!
00
....<+-<
c: ell
(1) 0
"00
E o.
eIl_
..c ..c
.... ...
'~ '~
(1) (1)
~ ~eIl
=a~o5
u5u"O
...."o....E
o .a .9 tI)
'2 ell c: 0
::l .... ::l 0
e~~~"1
,go(1)ol'
o "00 ~ ou; ~ ....c:
~ .~ ~ ,~ ~ ~
,_ c: 0 c: .... ..c
:I:~~~~U
'0
o
-5'0
tIl 0
~ ~~
.s +-01 CI)
.... fi ~
.-5 8:g
.... Q) 0-
~U3~
-
..c::
tb
c:
~
....
o
....
'Vi
'>
"0
c:
t.s
0.
.t:
...
.... c:
g, 0
>- .~
o ....
c: (1)
t.s c:
go <Ii ~
8 .s ,e
o 0 .b
"O~"o
~ ~ ~
"'[1ii"'[
~'O~
~~
ON
VM
I I
I' 0\
~~
V'l V'l
&'} V'l
-
&'}
0\ M
r"l C"'J
M V'l
&'} 0
-
&'}
V'l V'l
:;~
1:;':il
(1) 0
"00
.a 0",
eIl_
Cl.)
at;j
U .~
~ ~
O:I:
o
't;j
....
"0
c:
(1)
<+-<
o
(1)
ell
::l
"0
c:
t.s
(1) 000
ta ~~~
J,..... ............
c: c: c: c:
,9 0 0 0 -d -d
~ .'~'~'~~~
t~ttt88
c: c: c: c: c: (1) 4l
~~ ~~~"O"o
0.(1) 0.0.0..2.2
.t: .s 'E 'E 'E ~ ~
;<+-<"O"O"Oc:c:
4l 0 Cl.) (1) (1) t.s t.s
~~~~~...t::..s:::
"0 c: "0 "0 "0 0 0
0. ,- 0. 0. 0. 0 0
~8.~~~zz
~~~~~~
O\I")Mr<lOOo\
r<lr<lr<lr<lNN
I I I I I I
OONO
V'lt'-:ClC!
r:-...:......M
V'l N 0
-.... ....
&'} &'} &'}
0\ 00 r<l
\O""':C"'J
oOV'lr<l
00 I' \0
&'} &'} ....
&'}
OV1("f1V-l"-
V....O\I'r<lt'-:
..0 No\o\-i\O
0\ 00 \0 V"l V"l .......
&'} &'} (A &'} (A ....
(A
N....r<lOOON
""':C"'J~ClC!00t'-:
....................00.......
<+-< <+-< <+-< <+-< <+-< <+-<
r.n ~ r.n en tI) en
000000
000000
00.0.000.
...... ...... ....... ....... ...... .......
-;
'u
I:
CIl
=
ri:
"0
I:
CIl
Q,)
Y
I::
....
o
~
~~tIl
~tIltllO
tIlooO
"'0000.
~oooo
-: o.oo~
oOooc:
,. 0 N V '"
~....... I I....t::
00 I ....... ........ ..... C1.)
gogg~s
~~gg~o
V'l V'l .... N bl) t;j
4l (1) 4l Cl.) (1) 0
o 0 0 0 0 ,-
lBSSSS"g
ooooo~
€~
::lB
000
u Q)
~~
._ '0
::::::0.
o::J
U Q)
4l
~
+-'
U
o;l
0.
S
......
00
~
~
CJ'\
N
u
..5
<Ii'
Q)
~
'0
o
ell
ell
<
c(l
....
Q)
.:::~
60
IN
Q) +-'
~ gj
'Obi)
.5 ::l
E-<
~
::::J
"C
(1)
_ .s::
"Co
(1)U)
::::J (1)
.= (1)
-LL
c:_
o 0
o C'G
-c.
~E
~"C
.e(1)
C'G-
J-.!
::s
o
-
C'G
o
E-c
r.c
~
~
-;
.... OQ = ~
~ ~ .S: t!.....
S'@ts 5
.......a:5!
"'QZ ~ ro.. ~
zutl:l:i
Co
-; 2l
=<=
.S: ~
'ti:;
= Co
&:~
~
a.
~
=
"'=
-=
u
""
oS
=
o
'"
~
~
.... 41
5 bJ)
CJ =
"" ~
41-=
~u
....
=
41 ell
"" Q,l
Sro..
u
~
...
~....
5
'0
~
~
o
U
-0
C
d)
.....
o
d)
'"
::l
-0
C
~
U d) U U
1ij 1ij 1ij 1ij
......... L..;""
C C C C
o 0 0 0
.~.~ .~.~
.... L.o 0 .... .....
d)d)Cllld)d)
cCccc
~ ~ L'! ~ ~
,& ,& ~ ,& .&
.... ......... .... a...
.;:;;~~.;
d)d)0d)d)
1ij ~ .L1 ~ !d
]. "8. ,5 "8. ].
:J :J 8. :J :J
~ ~ ~ ~
0\ 0\ M .......
..... M ('f') M
I I I I
"d'
"1
--
"d'
--
~
-- V'l 0
co -- co
ocoo
I"- "d' N
N N N
~ ~ ~
r"l
I"-
..t
--
--
~
r"l -- V'l
r"l 0 I"-
..0 r-: N
\0 \0 V'l
-- -- --
~ ~ ~
0\
'-'=!
--
V'l \0 V'l
"d' "d' N
N N N
....
'=
;::J
....
CJ
..
Co
El
....
.....
'"
o
o
o.
-
~ ~ ~
~;g~
'" '" '"
000
000
o. o. o.
-- -- --
"'QZ
Q,l
Q,l ro..
'" ell
;::J ""
" ..
= ,q
.~ 00 'IS
.... '" d)
~ ~
... .0
Co:l(;j
== .0
~ -~
~oo
~
oo
~ 0
~ g
o.
o
--
....
o
~
oo
o
o
o
o.
V'l
-
- 0
o 0
o 0
00
V'l -
0.3 T9 0<<;
~ ~ ~
....
d)
Co
'"
d)
d) <Ii
>. ~
.9 ::l
c.0J)
at+::
d). ~
~~ ~ti ~
........ H C+-c ....
C ceO c
-d 0 O-d o..c-d-d 0
c 'iij 'iij c 'iij ~ Iii a '~
e~~e~~aad)
~ ~~~ ~.9~~ ~
.s ,& ,& .s ,&:~ .s .s ,&
~~~~~>~~~
a]]a]"2aa]
..c 1;; ;j..c 1;; ~ ..c ..c 1;;
u,,-o u-o_.u U-o
o c. c. 0 c. '2 0 0 15-
Z:J:JZ:J:::sZZ:J
~~~~~~~~ ~~~~
-r"l-NCOo\COI"- I"-COCO\O
r"lr"lr"lr"lNNr"lN 'NNN
I I I I I 1 I I I I I
U U
1ij 1ij
.... ....
c c
o 0
~ .~
.... ....
d) d)
c c
~ ~
,& ,&
.... ....
- -
-0 -0 -0
d) d) d)
1d 1d 1d
-0 -0 -0
C. C. c.
:J :J :J
U
1;;
....
c
o
.~
....
d)
c
d)
OJ)
c.
';::
-
U
1;;
....
c
o
.~
....
d)
c
d)
OJ)
,&
....
-
-0
d)
1;;
].
:J
....... 0\.............. O("f"')C'\-v
~~:;;:;;~~~~
\Or"l"d'''d'O\\O''d'O\
N N N N ........................
~~~~~~~~
o \0 V'l 0\ 0\ 0\ t-- l"-
I"- CO,-,=! N CX! 0 0\--
..0 cO V'l ..t -- ..0 0 0\
CO V'l \0 \0 "d' -- 0\ r"l
............................ ..............~......
~~~~~~ ~
V'l "d' "d' N 0\--"d'V'l
I"- r"l "d' "d' 0 ~ <"! :l
N N N N N - -- ,~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~~~~~'t;
en OOCIJ tI)(I)O
000000
000000
0.0.0.0.0.....:
...... ....... - ....... ......
~
oo
o
o
o
o
V'l
-
,
~
oo
o
o
o
o
o
N
--
o
o
o
V'l
-
~
oo
o
o
o
o
o
"d'
I
-
o
o
o
o
N
~
tZl
o
o
o
o
o
\0 --
I
--
o
o
o
o
"d'
>.
~.....
.0 '"
d) 0
U 0
,- 0
~ .
d) -
'"
~
tZl
o
o
o
o.
o
o.
'"
d)
(;j
Ooo
o 0
o -
o:::s
0<
o -0
....:~
~:J
>-0
o c
~
~
d)
Z
-
d)
d)~
.... ....
o ~
~ E
~ ~
'... ::l
E-ctZl
I
--
o
o
o
o
\0
-- -- --
ota ota ota oil 0;;
~~~~~
0-6
S B
OOO
u d)
....~
~"O
_0-
O::J
U Q)
&
....
~
0-
S
......
fZ)
~
u:l
CO V'l \0 0\
o "d' 0\ r"l
OOr-:r-:
o ....... \0 t"'--
..q..q......-
~~~~
\0 N "d' r"l
<,,!<,,!COC!
-\(')0.......
I"- 0\ N r"l
M N.............
~~~~
o
r"l
t--V'lCOr"l
'<I:r"l~~
\f')~"""""",
't;~'t;
o c. 0
0_0
0d)0.
-:'tE.............
.....
'"
o
o
O.
'"
c.
a
:::s
p..
~
o
-s
'[i:
~ e
o 0
Cl5V5
d) d)
U U
C C
d) d)
'2 '2
d) d)
> >
C C
o 0
uu
u
c
......
'"
E
tIl
'u
o
en
en
<
~
d)
....
o
-
'"
....
d)
C.
::l
oo ~
t: 0
e ~
~ gf
o ....
g.e
.s ~
8 ~
O..c
:I:p..
....
Q)
.:::~
00
IN
Q) ....
<<i ~
"0 OIl
.5 ;::l
E-<<
0)
-
~
"C
0)
_.s::
"C(,)
O)CI)
::s (1)
.= (1)
-u..
c:_
o (,)
(,) C'G
-c.
~E
~"C
.eO)
C'G-
J-.!!
~
(,)
-
C'G
o
E-c
r.c
~
~
';
ts~c
~ li'-l.g
~@-g
':1;;~
~ Q
ZU~
Co
~
~
~
C
~
..c
U
100
.s
C
o
'"
~
~
.... Q)
5 ~
y C
100 ~
~..c
ll-cU
....
C
e t
E;1i;;,
U
- c
~ 0
C+l
.g ~
't-;
C Q,
~~
~
M
""'....
C
G.l
:g
~
-
""'....
C
G.l
....
y
I::
~
o
U
....
'a
;;J
ts
~
Q,
S
....
,....
't:l
G.l
=
.S
....
C
o
y
'-'
....
~
G.l
G.l Ii;;, ,S
~ t ~
't:l ~ 0;
C a :;::
~ ri5 ~ '"
'" .s b/)
~lZlC
100 ~ .~
~ ::3 lZl
_ ,t:: ::;;a
.; E C
.... ::3 <d
~u..c:o
...
o
Q,
'"
o
~
o
i5..
E
o
't:l
C
'"
o
e
C
-d 0
= .~
'" ...
E g
o 0
't:l b/)
.s Q,
o ';:: 0
b/) - ...
C 't:l ::3
'" 0 b/)
..!::"t;;t+::
~ ~ "8...-:::
ZZ~3
~~ ~
Z~ N
I I
~~
ZN
""
N
li'-l
0\ co
C"!""
\O..,f
- I"-
li'-l-
li'-l
""I"-
Nli"l
ON
..... .....
'" '"
00
00
On On
- -
0;
o
..9
'"
c
o
't:l
o
'"
'"
.D
o 0
'ta ~
... ...
c c
o-d-d 0
'"t;;...- = c: .~
'" '" ...
o E E 0
Coo c
g't:l 't:l ~
.9 .s .s Q,
.p ~ ~ 'E
't:l c C 't:l
o '" '" 0
"t;;.c.c"t;;>.
....... ....... 't:l 0 0 't:l 't:l ....... .......
::: ~ .c. 0 0 c.. ::s ~ ~
ZZ~ZZ~tiZZ
~<(~~~ ~<(<(
zz~~~ !::zz
I I I I
~~~~~:
0\ NOCO
....... CO ....... .......
li'-l li'-lli'-lli'-l
0\ ""
I"- 0\
..,f..,f
li"l -
-li'-l
~
co N I"- - \0 CO
NC"!C"!O-~
NOoo\--
.....
'"
O~td
o 0 0
0., 00 tn
-
2
.c
......E-<
C I
'" 0
C ... >
o. ~ OJ::
o '" Cl
.2: 1: Q)--
oE!C:!
[!l, [il ~ '"
,5 ti 0 ~
> ~ E't:l
'" ::3 0
lZl 0 E-< 0
::;;a ,- I u..
c~~ti
<d ::3 ,_ '"
c:oO':I:u..
..... 0\
"'1~
CO -
- -
li'-l \0
~
li"lN
1":""
co..,f
1"-.....
li'-l-
~
.....~.
'" .D '"
o 0 g
o 0
On 'E '0
-otS
'"
c
o
.~
-
C/)
o 8
.g 'E
.....:l 0
~lZl
.8 "'fii
= '"
0'0
.....<(<(
:]ZZ
I"-
-
li'-l
-0\0
'<l;....."'1
-o\li"l
""01"-
li'-l-li'-l
~
- --
ci~:
>.
"'..........
.D '" '"
000
000
,- 0 On
i::___
o
'"
~.c
'" '"
:;:: ~ ~
"';>0;
l3~C/)
o U 0
C,) "1:j :;
';> E <(
... '" i:::'
~ E ;::l
.... .s ><
'0 ::3 ::3
lZl<(.....:l
o
"t;;
...
c
-dodO
c C'~
'" '" ...
E E 0
o 0 C
't:l 't:l ~
.s .s Q,
g ~'E
~ ~ 1l
-fi-fi,rg
zzg
~~~
CO CO 0\
NNN
I I I
- 0\ \0
- V) ~'i
li"l1.O..,f
\0 ~ 0\
~ ~
"" li"l-
OC!I"-N
\O..,fr-:
"" ~ \0
~ ~
0\ I"- 0\
\0 0 0\
000
..... ..... .....
'" '" '"
000
000
00 On
- --
o
~ :g
oc 0
-.c
'" 0
::3 ...
] "0 ~
100..5:;::
-= .:E ..!.
= ]1: ,S
];:j~
....
-
o
c
'"
'"
~
'0
C
<d
5
II)
'0
o
.c
-
o
....
o
.c
:::
'"
o
'"
;::l
'0
C
~
o
;S
'"
o
1il
U
:a
.S
'0
C
<d
d
o
'"
'c
'"
0..
5
o
U
II)
~
to;!
o
'0
'>
o
....
0..
o
.....
.....
"5
U
!+::
.....
:a
00 0"
:~
:g~
f-<t+::
5,s
,g.....
- ~
'" 0..
8 .5 ~
- ~
~1il ~
0.. ;S '"
5_ .c
.- c 0
-0 :a
~ a :::
>,0.. ....r
.0 5 '8
'0 0 ;::l
o U .....
:a-g a1
'p ~ ;.....
"55 ~
5 ~ :a
:::- ] to;!
5"'" a
2.8 ~
e.~ 0
i:: bI) ~
o c 1il
'u ~ U
S ~ >, '"
r<'l 0 0"0 ~
.....ocE;::l
"Ouo"''O
~ c..;:: 1;; ~
.9 ro.s-
~.!S~o:::
~ ~ ]-~ ~
::g 0.. U
~..... &l.S ~
rto;! "'_
a~'O~
Qj '_ ""0 Q,) 0-
'" U ~ ,_ bI) '0
~Sc~~..5
,~ ~ ~ Q: 'fi I
~ --- ~
c,~c z
.~
,....
o
o
'"
Q,
lZl
><
o
u::
'-'
~
'"
~
o,g
5E
000
u 0
~~
._ '0
:=0..
O::J
U 0
o
~
.....
~
0..
5
....
00
~
w
.....
r<'l
u
c
....
'"
o
"t;;
'u
o
'"
'"
<
c(l
....
o
.::':3
00
IN
0-
ta ;g
"Obi)
.S ;::l
f-<<
APPENDIX A
Supplemental Cost Data
DRAFT
Construction Cost Estimate
In determining the appropriate unit cost for building construction, the following analyses
were conducted:
· A review of recently built EMS stations and other buildings in Collier County;
· A review of recently built or bid fire/EMS stations in other Florida jurisdictions;
· Collier County EMS station insurance values; and
· Discussions with architects regarding recent fluctuations in construction costs.
In Collier County, the last EMS station was built in 2006 for a total cost of$338 per
square foot. As such, construction cost associated with this station does not reflect the
recent decrease in building costs,
TOA contacted several jurisdictions to obtain more recent cost information. The bids and
estimates received in 2010 ranged from $190 to $215 per square foot (excluding
furniture/fixture/equipment, site preparation cost, permits, fees and other similar
expenses). The following chart presents the building construction cost trends based on
bids, estimates, and other information obtained during the previous impact fee studies
completed by TOA. As presented, the variation in station costs is relatively minor,
especially since 2005.
Figure A-1
Fire/EMS Station Construction Cost per Square Foot
(Excluding Collier County Data)
$250
$200 ---
7
$150
."
$100 I_EXCICOllierl
$50
$0
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Source: Other Florida jurisdictions. It should be noted that although the figures in the chart
represent the building construction cost in general, there may be situations where site preparation
or other similar costs were included. The chart is included to provide a general understanding of
construction cost trends for fire/EMS stations,
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc.
August 20 I 0
A-I
Collier County
EMS Impact Fee Update Study
DRAFT
Discussion with architects suggested a building construction cost of $145 per square foot,
excluding furniture/fixture/equipment, site preparation cost, permits, fees and other
similar expenses. Addition of these costs would increase the total building cost to $210
per square foot.
In addition, the average insurance value of EMS stations in Collier County is $160 per
square foot, again excluding furniture/fixture/equipment, site preparation cost, permits,
fees and other similar expenses. Addition ofthese costs would increase the total building
cost to approximately $230 per square foot. 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 ifthe structure was damaged or lost.
Given this information, an average building value of $220 per square foot is used for the
current station value. Table A-I provides a summary of information considered in
determining this figure. Given that the insurance reports and information from the
architects tend to provide more local information, the mid-point ofthese two estimates
was used, which provides a conservative figure compared to the experience of other
jurisdictions.
Table A-1
Total Building Cost per Square Foot
(2010)
Insurance
Cost Component Reports (1)
Building Cost per Square Foot $160
Site Preparation Cost per Square Foot (5) $40
Other Cost per Square Foot (6) $32
Total Building Cost $232
(I) Source: Collier County Facility Management
(2) Source: Data obtained from other Florida jurisdictions
(3) Source: Discussions with architects
(4) Based on buildings constructed in Collier County over the past five years
(5) & (6) Building cost per square foot multiplied by the appropriate percentage. For example,
in the case of insurance reports, the site preparation cost per square foot is calculated by
multiplying the building cost of$I60 per square foot by 25%, and other cost is calculated by
multiplying the building cost of $ I 60 per square foot by 20%,
Source
Other
Jurisdictions (2) Architects (3)
$207 $145
$52 $36
$41 $29
$300 $210
Percent
Added (4)
25%
20%
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc.
August 2010
A-2
Collier County
EMS Impact Fee Update Study
DRAFT
Land Value Estimate
In order to determine land value for future EMS station land purchases, the following
data/information was evaluated:
· The market (or just) value of parcels where current EMS stations are located
based on information provided by the Collier County Property Appraiser;
· Most recent land purchases for future EMS stations;
· Vacant land sales and market/just values of all vacant land in areas where future
EMS stations will be built; and
· Land use characteristics of the areas where current EMS stations are located.
It should be noted that EMS stations typically are located in commercial areas. The
following table provides the land value of all stations when land was owned by the
County and also presents land use characteristics of the area where each station is located
based on data provided by the Collier County Property Appraiser and Collier County. As
presented, out of 12 sites, only three are in residential areas as opposed to six that are in
commercial areas. The remaining three stations are in areas with unique characteristics,
such as the beach area, fairgrounds, etc, The average value of all land amounts to
approximately $232,000 per acre, while the value of land in commercial areas averages
$310,000 per acre and the land value in residential areas is $31,000 per acre.
Table A-2
Land Value of Existing EMS Stations
Station Description Location Acres Land Value Total Land Land Ule
per Acre Value
Near residentiallbcach. next
Station 44 766 Vanderbilt Beach Rd., NaDles 34108 0.72 $740521 $533,175 to fire station
Station 70 4741 Golden Gate PkwV,- NaDles 34116 0.91 $437,838 $398,433 Commercial
StatiDn 30 112 South 1st Str..~ Immokalee 34142 1.23 $87,140 $107,182 Commercial
StatiDn 21 11121 East Tamiami Trail, Nanles 34113 0.09 5325,935 $29,334 Commercial
Station 10 14756 ImmDkalee Rd., Nanles 34120 1.50 $35,000 $52,500 Fairaroundslaa land
Station 71 95 13th 51. SW, Nanles 34117 2.00 $18,000 $36,000 Residential
SlatiDn 24 2795 AimDn Rd. NDnh, Nanles 34105 0.50 5250,000 $125000 Commercial
Station 75 4590 Santa Barbara Blvd, NaDles 34112 1.89 $50,000 $94,500 Residential
8075 Lely Cultural Pkwv, NaDles 34113 Ne.t tD library, pan Dfa
EmerJl.ency Services CDmDle. 4.06 $47,602 $193,264 larger acreage, mix use
Vacant Land for Station 73 790 Loaan Blvd, NaDles 34119 2.41 $25,232 $60,809 Residential
Vacant Land for Station 49 Herita.e Bav ProDertv 1.50 $435,600 $653,400 Commercial
Vacant Land for Station 411 16140 & 16144 PerfDnnance Wav, NaDles, 34110 0.99 $326,700 $323,433 Commercial
Total I \Vei.hled Avera.e (aU narcel. 17.80 5146,462 $2,607,030
Tolall \Vei.hled Averaae (commercial Darcels) 5.22 5313,560 $1,636,782
Tolall \Vei.hled Avera.e (residenlial DarceIs) 6.30 $30,367 $191,309
Avera.e (aU Darcels $231,631
Avcraec (commercial parcels\ $310,536
Averae:e (residential parcels $31,077
Source: Property Appraiser, Collier County (only the stations/parcels where land is owned by the
County are included).
TindaIe-OIiver & Associates, Inc.
August 20 I 0
A-3
Collier County
EMS Impact Fee Update Study
DRAFT
Table A-3 presents the most recent land purchases were made for EMS stations. As
presented, the value per acre ranged from approximately $104,000 to $682,000, with an
average value of $393,000. The wide range in the value of these two parcels is primarily
because of the land use characteristics of their location. While the first parcel with a
lower value is located in a residential area, the second is located in a commercial area.
The table also presents the current value of these two parcels as shown in the Property
Appraiser's database. The current value ranges from $25,000 to $327,000 per acre, again
indicating the difference in the value of residential and commercial parcels.
Table A-3
Recent land Purchases for EMS Stations
Property
790 Logan Blvd.. Naples. 34111
16140 & 16144 Perfonnance Way, Naples 34110
Date
2006
2007
Purchase
Price
$250,000
$674,897
2010 Just Value per
Acreage Cost per Acre Acre
2.41 $103,734 $25,232
0,99 $681,714 $326,700
Total I Weighted Average (all parcels) $924,897 3.40
Averaee
Source: EMS Department and Property Appraiser, Collier County
$272,029
$392,724
$113,012
$175,966
The land value included in the previous impact fee study was $325,000 per acre. This
value was determined based on vacant land sales in 2004 and 2005. As presented in
Table A-4, 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$310,000.
Table A-4
Adjusted land Values
Property
Time Frame Land Value(l) Value
Change(2)
2005 $325,000
2006 $425,133 30.81 %
2007 $448,303 5,45%
2008 $422,660 -5.72%
2009 $362,854 -14.15%
2010 $310,240 -14.50%
(I) 2005 land value reflects the average land value per
acre included in the 2006 EMS Impact Fee Report,
which was based primarily on 2005 data,
(2) Source: Property Appraiser, Collier County
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc,
August 2010
A-4
Collier County
EMS Impact Fee Update Study
DRAFT
According to the information provided in the 2009 Annual Update and Inventory Report
(AUIR), three of the planned or programmed EMS stations will be in the North Naples
area, and the forth one will be in the Golden Gate area. The County already owns the
land for three ofthe four stations. The forth parcel is expected to be located in the North
Naples area. To determine the value of land for future stations, a vacant land sales
analysis was conducted in these areas. However, because there were no commercial
parcel sales with 1 to 3 acres in 2010, and because future EMS stations are likely to be
located in commercial areas, the current value of all vacant commercial and residential
parcels was evaluated. Table A-5 summarizes this information.
Table A-5
Commercial versus Residential land Values
(1 to 3 acres)
Average Land Value
Residential Commercial
North Naples $123,679 $498,769
Golden Gate $25,542 $344,029
Countywide $40,255 $373,558
Source: Property Appraiser, Collier County
Area
Table A-6 provides a summary ofthe analyses shown so far. As presented, residential
land values reviewed ranged from $25,000 per acre to $124,000 per acre. The range of
land values was $344,000 to $499,000 per acre for commercial land. Based on these
figures, an average value of $40,000 per acre is used for land in residential areas, and
$350,000 per acre for parcels in commercial areas. Currently, the EMS station inventory
includes three stations in residential areas, and six stations in commercial areas, which
equates to a ratio of 33 percent residential and 67 percent commercial. As presented in
Table A-7, applying these percentages to the estimated land value in residential versus
commercial areas results in a combined land value of approximately $250,000, which is
found to be a reasonable estimate for the impact fee calculation purposes.
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc,
August 2010
A-5
Collier County
EMS Impact Fee Update Study
DRAFT
Table A-6
Summary of Land Value Analyses
Variable
Current land value of all EMS stations
Current land value of EMS stations located in commercial areas
Current land value of EMS stations located in residential areas
Countywide residential land value
Countywide commercial land value
Average value based on most recent land purchases
Average iust value of the most recent land purchases
Value ofland based on changes in land values since 2005
Commercial land value in areas for future planned EMS stations
Residential land value in areas for future planned EMS stations
Source: Tables A-I through A-5
Land Value per Acre
$231,631
$310,536
$31,077
$40,255
$373,558
$392,724
$175,966
$310,240
$344,000 to $499,000
$26,000 to $ I 24,000
Table A-7
Weighted Land Value
Residential
Commercial
Weighted Average Land Value(3)
(I) Based on the distribution of current stations
(2) Estimated based on the analyses summarized in Table A-6
(3) Distribution (Item I) multiplied by land value per acre (Item 2) for each land use
and added
33%
67%
Land Value per
Acre(Z)
$40,000
$350,000
$247,700
Land Use
Distribution(l)
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc.
August 20 10
A-6
Collier County
EMS Impact Fee Update Study
COLLIER COUNTY
2010 FIRE/RESCUE SERVICES IMPACT FEE
UPDATE STUDY
Ochopee and Isles of Capri Fire Control and Rescue Districts
DRAFT REPORT
Prepared for:
Collier County
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc.
w
August 30, 2010
07320.05
~ Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc.
~ Planning and Engineering
August 30, 2010
Ms. Amy Patterson
Impact Fee Manager
Collier County Growth Management Division
2800 North Horseshoe Drive
Naples, Florida 34104
RE: Fire Impact Fee Update Study
Dear Ms. Patterson:
Enclosed is the Draft Technical Report for the Collier County Fire 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.
~n~~
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
COLLIER COUNTY
FIRE/RESCUE SERVICES IMPACT FEE
Table of Contents
Introduction ............................................................................................................ 1
Inventory .........................,.,.....,.,.....".........,......,...........,...,.................. .............. 1
Service Area and Service Delivery............................................ ................................ 3
Cost per Incident .............,................................,.....,..............,..,............,.................. 4
Credit per Incident............."........................................................,............................. 5
Net Impact Cost......................................................................................................... 7
Demand Component......,.....................,................................,.................................... 7
Calculated Impact Fee Schedule ......... .... .................................................................. 8
Tindale-Oliver and Associates, Inc.
August 20 10
Collier County
Fire Rescue Services Impact Fee
COLLIER COUNTY
2010 FIREIRESCUE SERVICES IMPACT FEE UPDATE STUDY
I. INTRODUCTION
Fire-rescue impact fees are used to fund acquisition and expansion of fire-rescue service-
related capital assets required to address the additional fire-rescue service demand created
by new growth. The unincorporated Collier County is served by seven fire districts. Of
these, five are independent and two are dependent Districts. The last update of the fire
impact fee was completed in 2005, with adoption in 2006. Per the requirements of the
impact fee ordinance, the County retained Tindale-Oliver & Associates (TOA) to update
the impact fees for the dependent districts, including the Ochopee and Isles of Capri Fire
Control Districts.
This report summarizes the 2010 Fire Services Impact Fee Update Study and will serve
as the technical document in updating the impact fee ordinances for the two dependent
districts.
There are several major elements associated with the development of the fire-rescue
impact fee. These include:
· Inventory of Existing Capital Assets and Level of Service
. Service Area and Service Delivery
. Cost Component
. Credit Component
· Net Fire-Rescue Impact Cost
. Demand Component
· Calculated Fire-Rescue Impact Fees
These items are all discussed in subsequent sections of this document for each District.
INVENTORY
The Isles of Capri Fire Control and Rescue District (ICFCRD) owns one station, and the
Ochopee Fire Control and Rescue District (OFCRD) owns two stations. Consistent with
the methodology used in the previous technical study, and given that neither District has
TindaIe-OIiver and Associates, Inc, Collier County
August 20 I 0 Fire Rescue Services Impact Fee
immediate plans to add future stations and do not have debt service on any existing
buildings, the impact fee will be based only on vehicle and equipment value. As
presented in Table 1, the OFCRD owns $1.7 million worth of vehicles and equipment,
and the ICFCRD owns $1.2 million worth of vehicles and equipment. Table 1 presents a
detailed listing of these assets.
Table 1
OFCRD and ICFCRD Inventory ofVehicIes and Equipment (1)
Total
Description Units Unit Cost Replacement
Cost
Ochopee:
Pumper 1 $380,000 $380,000
Engine 2 $380,000 $760,000
Tanker 1 $210,000 $210,000
LT-60 (Expedition) 2 $41,000 $82,000
Brush Truck(2) 2 $0 $0
Attack 1 $85,000 $85,000
Support 1 $34,000 $34,000
Boat 1 $115,000 $115.000
Total Equipment - Ochopee 11 $1,666,000
Isles of Capri:
Engine 2 $410,000 $820,000
Brush Truck 1 $80,000 $80,000
Boat 1 $180,000 $180,000
Support Vehicle 1 $28,500 $28,500
Chief Vehicle 2 $37,100 $74.200
Total Equipment - Isles of Capri 7 $1,182,700
(I) Source: OchopeelIsIes of Capri Fire Control & Rescue Districts
(2) Vehicles are loaned to the County by the State,
Tindale-Oliver and Associates, Inc,
August 2010
Collier County
Fire Rescue Services Impact Fee
2
SERVICE AREA and SERVICE DELIVERY
As mentioned previously, the ICFCRD and OFCRD are dependent districts and part of
the Collier County Government. The primary service area for each district is the
geographic area within the district boundaries.
Table 2 provides a summary of fire/rescue incidents the Districts responded to over the
past five years. As presented in the table, between 2005 and 2009, the average number of
incidents was 662 in the OFCRD and 813 in ICFCRD. The overall decrease in the
number of calIs during this period is due partially to economic conditions, which reduced
travel, especiaIIy on 1-75, in the case of the OFCRD. In the case of the ICFCRD, some of
the decrease in the incident volume is due to the change in the District's response
protocol. In addition, the District experienced fewer brush fires in more recent years.
Table 2
OFCRD and ICFCRD Fire/Rescue Incidents(l)
l;~-:C:;~;-: "I~~~dt~~=J~~~~0:,{i~{[i('t'<:~1)1r-- _J
','~'- "1>=.~~-'- -- --;~~""rc-~_~- ---9F~ -.;:'----c- '--~r;-'-- ---'~
f'" \"l~jl"m1- ~,~l[: ~~, t~ '" ,- ---::. ~ ,,- 'o..;:t"'''- :', \..': f~.lj rJ ~"~ ::C.,~'-'''' ,t ~~': \ ~.~ l~iZ~f>1 I
, ' , ':t Hwd(Hn'l~r," :'" I I IElHcil~lD(~ '1 - _, i
~ _ ~._______j _ ~ _.. _*~_~.~_~_ i~~~~~\ .JL ----'-_ e_~__ \ v t~"h~\~ J
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
746
N/A
737
595
571
742
666
634
1,080
1,026
599
687
675
902
771
654
Avera e 662 813
(I) Source: National Fire Incident Reporting System
It should be noted that during the 2005 through 2009 period, the ICFCRD responded to a
large number of calls from outside the district. To determine incidents originated within
the district, the number of incidents where the District provided mutual aid and automatic
aid (net of aid received) is subtracted from the total number of calls. Table 3 shows this
calculation.
Tindale-Oliver and Associates, Inc,
August 2010
Collier County
Fire Rescue Services Impact Fee
3
Table 3
ICFCRD Fire/Rescue Incidents
Originated within the District
<;"""'~:V""""";,lJ~.~~~ "'cr, ;:~~-'p.-:~,':;;,*,~~~r~ ~~~ .-~
!",., -, J" -.,-'?~:l ~" '0 -'Hii:!~:lt ~~" " "lit 'N'~1!",.,'3fl " ,,' ;-" ',I
(""'~\;;~~f.-,E";~~':.~ ~ ,,~ 'I . ~,,~:. ~..... Ff"",...,: r_,(tf~'/;j
~ ^':U("l".IJ-,, "7 (Jll~ __ :"'n ~ljll\'...lrlr(:J~~~'1
~~ JL L'f)~ldr~I'JI'_\ _.J~;j';'l!~~,JL.:._~---':",~
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
Average
(1) Source: National Fire Incident Reporting System
(2) Source: National Fire Incident Reporting System.
Represents mutual and automatic aid given net of aid
received.
(3) Total incidents (Item 1) less net aid given (Item 2).
Represents incidents originated within the District.
1,080
1,026
599
687
675
698
625
361
442
344
382
401
238
245
331
319
For the impact fee study purposes, an appropriate measure of service delivery is calls per
station. Between 2005 and 2009, the OFCRD handled an average of 331 calls per station
annually, while the ICFCRD handled an annual average of8I3 calls per station, of
which, approximately 319 originated within the District.
COST PER INCIDENT
Table 4 presents the value of vehicles per incident. This figure is approximately $2,500
for the OFCRD and $3,700 for the ICFCRD.
Table 4
Capital Cost per Incident
Cost Component
Total Vehicle and Equipment Value(1)
Number ofIncidents --2005-2010 Average(2)
Total Vehicle and Equipment Value per Incident(3)
(I) Source: Table I
(2) Source: Tables 2 and 3
(3) Total capital value (Item I) divided by the average number ofincidents (Item 2)
OFCRD
$1,666,000
662
$2,517
ICFCRD
$1,182,700
319
$3,708
Tindale-Oliver and Associates, Inc.
August 20] 0
Collier County
Fire Rescue Services Impact Fee
4
CREDIT PER INCIDENT
To avoid overcharging development for the fire rescue impact fee, a review of the capital
financing program for fire rescue services was completed. The purpose of this review
was to determine any non-impact fee revenues generated by new development that is
being used for the expansion of the type of capital facilities included in the inventory
(Le., vehicles and equipment). Revenue credits are then applied against the cost per
incident so that new development is not charged twice for capital expansion expenditures.
Revenue Sources for Caoital Exoenditures
An analysis of the historical capital expansion expenditures and associated funding
sources for the five year period from FY 2005/2006 to FY 2009/2010 was completed for
the two districts. Based on the information provided, the OFCRD's main sources for
capital expenditures are the Municipal Service Taxing Unit (MSTU) and impact fees.
However, the MSTU was used only to purchase buildings while new vehicles were
purchased with impact fee revenues. In addition, according to the 2009 AUIR, there are
no plans to use non-impact fee funding sources for future vehicle and equipment
purchases. As such, no credit is necessary against the impact cost in the case of the
OFCRD.
Over the past five years, the ICFCRD received and expended funds from the Department
of Homeland Security, FEMA Grant on vehicles. Although there are no programmed
non-impact fee funding toward future vehicles and equipment, to calculate a conservative
impact fee, a credit is given based on the historical data.
Table 5 summarizes capital expenditures for the last five fiscal years as well as the
calculation of the capital improvement credit per incident. The capital improvement
credit per incident was calculated using the average capital expansion expenditures
during the last five years, As presented in Table 5, the result is an average annual
expansion expenditure of $157 for the ICFCRD.
Tindale-Oliver and Associates, Inc,
August 20 I 0
Collier County
Fire Rescue Services Impact Fee
5
-.
-
'-'
rI:l
~
l.
=
.....
....
"0
=
~
c..
ll"l
~
-
~
In .....
....
~ c..
- ~
,.Q u
~
&-c -
~
u
....
l.
Q
.....
rI:l
....
==
Q
~
U
~
U
~
~ 0 0 <= <= 01 ~
bIl 0 0 <= <= - r--
~ q 0 <= <= ~ vfJ
'"' lri' = =
~ Vl Ifl
~ N N Ifl Ifl -
~ N N ~ ~
~ ~
~
~
....
0
E-c
f--' - t-- - I--
<= <= .....
- ~ M
- M
01
<=
<=
N
- - I-- Q
Vl
~ V
01 N
s:
00
<=
<=
N
t- - I-- -=
'"' 00 00
~ <= ~ M
~ = N
>- ~
- l'-
~ <=
(,I <=
l't.l
~ N
I-- - - fQ
r-- .....
~ 0
<= V
<=
~
I,Q
<=
<=
N
I-- '0" "0 ~
I,Q N
<= 0 0 <= 00
<= 0 0 <= M
~ Vln lri' =
Ifl N N Ifl
<= ~ N N
<= ~ ~
N
-- t- - -
a ~
'j:; 'j:;
0. Q,
.... ~ ~
= u u
~
'"' ..... ....
c 0 0
< .~ '" '"
~ ~
~ Vi '"
~ ...... -
r..:l U , I
~ ~ .... I ....
'"' 0 '" =
= c Cl.) ~
'" ....
.... ~ ~ 'tl
.,. 'j:; ..... C- 'y
'tl .-:: = '" :.a
= - 'j:; =
= (,I Q
~ ~ I 0. -
Q, ;;J 00 '" Cl.) ~ '"'
>< ~ 0. U ~
r..:l ~ 'tl '"' ~ ..... =-
= = u:l 0 ....
.~ ~ .... (;j :a
Gj :a '"
~ Cl.) Cl.) .... ~ ~
E-c '" E ~ = .~ '" '"'
~ ~ ...... u
~ ..t:: 0 ..t:: U I
(,I u t:C u >< -;
.;: .... .... '"
~ .... ~ r..:l Cl.) 1::
'"' P.c 0 P.c ~ =
~ -; Cl.) =
00 Cl.) .... Cl.) .... "0
.... Cl.) =
Q = Q 'Q. 'u <
-; 'bQ ~ 'bQ >
.s E ~ < Q
= Q ...... ~
.~ u:l .... u:l U (;j (;j bIl
'"' ~
= Cl.) ~ Cl.) -; ~ ~ '"'
1,= .... .... .... Q Q ~
ii: ~ ii: 0 Q Q >
~ c::l E-c < < <
oCl.)
Q Cl.)
~tI..
o t)
U ~
.... 0.
.~ S
--
-0 rs
u u
.~
Cl.)
00
Cl.)
~
u
'"
Cl.)
~
Cl.)
....
~
....
u
'.5
'"
is
Cl.)
is
....
..s
'"
1::
Cl.)
"0
'u
.S
(;j
~
Q
Q
.~ <<S
.... Cl.)
ti ~
is t
Cl.) "0 >
~ 0 ~
CJ .;:: IU
"'Cl.) ..s::
Cl.) 0. .....
~.... .....
~~ .D
'0"'" -g
....Cl.) "0
1:: ~ '>
OCl.) :.a
U..s:: '"
Cl.).... Cl.)
........ ....
.- Cl.) .E
tI..> :.a
.... 0 Q
g. ~ Cl.)
u.E ~
c...... .- IU
0'8 M_
'" Cl.) Cl.) .a
Q.) c...-.-
Vi~~g.
-Cl.)E-<u
Q) ~ Cl.)
u ~ 8 ~
.... Cl.) .... ....
g..:: g ~
00.....00<
\0
d
Q
-
",n
Cl.)
1;;
'u
o
'"
'"
<
"0
&i
....
Cl.)
>0
.- -
00
IN
Cl.)....
~ :g
"00.0
,S ~
E-<<
,-...~..-..,-...
-NMV
........" '-' '-' '-'
NET IMPACT COST
Table 6 summarizes the calculation ofthe net fire rescue impact cost per incident which
is the difference between the total impact cost and the total revenue credit. This results in
a net impact cost of $2,517 per incident in the case .ofthe OFCRD and $1,499 per
incident for the ICFCRD.
Table 6
Net Impact Cost
OFCRD ICFCRD
Calculation Step Impact Cost Revenue Impact Revenue
Credits Cost Credits
Impact Cost
Total Impact Cost per Incident (I) $2,517 $3,708.00
Impact Credit
Average Annual Capital Improvement Credit (2) $0.00 $156,74
Capitalization Rate 5% 5%
Capitalization Period (in years) 25 25
Capital Improvement Credit per Incident (3) $0,00 ($2,209.08)
Net Impact Cost
Net Impact Cost per Incident (4) $2,517 $1,499
(I) Source: Table 4
(2) Source: Table 5 for the ICFCRD. No credit is given in the case ofthe OFCRD,
(3) Present value of average annual capital improvement credit per incident using an interest
rate of 5% over a capitalization period of25 years.
(4) Capital cost per incident (Item I) less total revenue credit per incident (Item 3)
DEMAND COMPONENT
In determining the revised impact fee for each land use, it is necessary to determine
service delivery to residential versus non-residential land uses, To do so, the number of
calIs received from each type of land use was compared to the square footage of each
land use within the two districts. The square footage figures were obtained from the
CoIlier County Property Appraiser's FY 2010 Tax RoIl database. Table 7 presents the
distribution of calls and the incidents per square foot for residential and non-residential
land uses.
TindaIe-Oliver and Associates, Inc.
August 20 I 0
Collier County
Fire Rescue Services Impact Fee
7
Table 7
Land Use Distribution of Incidents
5-Yr Average Incidents Per
Incidents(2) Square Foot
OFCRD ICFCRD OFCRD ICFCRD OFCRD ICFCRD
Residential 1,717,327 3,118,786 410 239 0,00024 0.00008
Non-residential 932,199 133,557 252 80 0,00027 0.00060
(1) Source: Collier County Property Appraiser's Office parcel database
(2) Source: National Fire Incident Reporting System
Land Use
Square Feet(l)
CALCULATED~ACTFEESCHEDULE
Based on the net impact cost and the distribution of the calls among land uses, a revised
impact fee schedule is prepared. The revised fee is calculated by multiplying the number
of incidents per square foot by the net impact cost per incident for the two districts.
Table 8 presents the calculated impact fees for both districts,
Table 8
Calculated Impact Fee Schedule
Ochopee and Isles of Capri Fire Control and Rescue Districts
Land Use Incidents Per Calculated Unit Existing Unit Percent
Square Foot(!) Impact Fee(2) Impact Fee(3) Change(4)
Ochopee Fire Control and Rescue District
Residential 0,00024 $0.60 sf $0,75 sf -20%
Non-Residential 0.00027 $0.68 sf $0,21 sf 224%
Net Impact Cost per Incident(S) $2,517
Isles of CaDri Fire Control and Rescue District
Residential 0,000080 $0.12 sf $0.44 sf -73%
Non-Residential 0,000600 $0.90 sf $1.15 sf -22%
Net Impact Cost per Incident(S) $1,499
(I) Source: Table 7
(2) Incident per square foot (Item I) multiplied by net impact cost per incident (Item 5)
(3) Source: Collier County Impact Fee Schedule
(4) Difference between the current and calculated fee
(5) Source: Table 6
As shown in Table 8, the calculated fee for residential uses in the OFCRD is $0.60 per
square foot (or $600 per 1,000 square feet), and $0.68 per square foot (or $680 per 1,000
square feet) for non-residential land uses. These figures represent a decrease for the
residential land uses and an increase for the non-residential land uses. The primary
TindaIe-OIiver and Associates, Inc,
August 2010
Collier County
Fire Rescue Services Impact Fee
8
reason for the increase in the non-residential fee is the change in the distribution of calls
between residential and non-residential land uses since the last study.
In the case ofthe ICFCRD, the calculated fee is $0.12 per square foot (or $120 per 1,000
square feet) and $0.90 per square foot (or $900 per 1,000 square feet) for non-residential
land uses. These fees represent a decrease from the current fees,
Table 9 presents a comparison of current and calculated fees for the OFCRD and
ICFCRD to fire impact fee implemented by other fire districts within Collier County.
Table 9
Impact Fee Comparison(l)
Fire District
(per square foot)
Residential Non-residential
OFCRD (currentp)
OFCRD (calculated)
$0.75
$0,60
$0.21
$0.68
ICFCRD (current)(2)
ICFCRD (calculated)
$0.44
$0.12
$1.15
$0.90
Big Corkscrew $0.82 $0.87
East Naples $0.22 $0.26
Golden Gate $0.25 $0.39
Immokalee $1.11 $0.32
North Naples $0.28 $0.99
(I) Source: Collier County Impact Fee Schedule
(2) Source: Table 8
It is recommended that the Districts continue to cap the fee for residential land uses.
Based on data obtained from the American Housing Survey and National Personal
Transportation Survey, it is apparent that beyond a certain square footage, the number of
people in a residential unit begins to taper off. Although larger structures may be more
likely to catch on fire, their possibility of using fire services does not increase
proportionately. This square footage was determined based on a review of the data from
the sources indicated above, as well as discussions with County representatives. With
this cap, the highest fee charged for a residential dwelling unit will be $2,400 ($0.60 x
4,000) in the OFCRD and $480 in the ICFCRD ($0,12 x 4,000).
Tindale-Oliver and Associates, Inc.
August 2010
Collier County
Fire Rescue Services Impact Fee
9
A cap for non-residential land uses is not needed because as the size of these uses
increases, the number of people at these uses (e.g., offices, maIls, other retail, etc.)
continues to increase.
Tindale-Oliver and Associates, Inc,
August 2010
Collier County
Fire Rescue Services Impact Fee
10
C~e-Y Count;y
~-
~ .0-.__
Growth Management Division
Planning & Regulation
MEMORANDUM
To:
Development Services Advisory Board
From:
Stephen Lenberger, Senior Environmental Specialist
Date:
September 28, 2010
Subject:
EAC Ordinance amendment
This memo is to inform you that on September 28, 2010 the Board of County Commissioners
approved changes to Ordinance No, 2009-32, the Environmental Advisory Council (EAC)
Ordinance. The amendment was revised in order to maintain consistency with Board adopted
changes to Growth Management Plan (GMP) Conservation and Coastal Management Element
(CCME) Policies 6.1.1 (13) and 6.1.8, and Land Development Code (LDC) amendment to
subsection 10.02.02.A. A major change was to replace the requirement of an Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS) with Environmental Data Submittal Requirements. The EAC's Ordinance
needed to be amended since the EAC was required by Ordinance No. 2009-32 to function as an
EIS review board.
Approval of the Ordinance amendment will result in less petitions being taken to the EAC.
Petitions previously required by Ordinance No. 2009-32 to be heard by the EAC but now not
required to be heard by the EAC, include the following:
1. Single-family residences within the Special Treatment (ST) or Big Cypress Area of Critical
State Concern / Special Treatment (ACSC/ST) zoning overlays.
2. Excavation permits over 500,000 cubic yards. (Commercial excavations will be reviewed
by the EAC through the CU or PUD rezone process instead.)
3. Preliminary or final plats and Site Development Plan (SDP) submissions for development
or site alteration on a shoreline, except for projects on Undeveloped Coastal Barriers or
in the ACSC/ST zoning overlay.
4. Smaller and less environmentally sensitive projects which previously would have
required an EIS and be required to be heard by the EAC, but which do not meet the
criteria in the revised Ordinance. Previously, EIS and EAC thresholds were based
primarily on the size of the project and not necessarily whether the site was
environmentally sensitive or not.
Development orders now required to be reviewed by the EAC include Conditional Use (CU) and
rezone applications. Final development orders such as Site Development Plans (SDPs),
excavation permits and subdivision plats/construction plans (PPLs), will, for the most part, not
be reviewed by the EAC. The EAC will continue to review projects in environmentally sensitive
areas as provided for in the Ordinance.
'i'..,:
W
(3r~...lh r.t"'\Ol]ei"€!'IOMSO'1' P;3j'l~ir.ll & Regu'ation . 2500 Nolth Horsesh~e D;j~e' Nap!es. AcM.. 34 to.: . 239.252.24CO . IWfoV oa::ierG(l'I.nel.