DSAC Agenda 06/01/2011 R DEVELOPMENT
SERVICES
ADVISORY
COMMITTEE
JUNE 1 , 2011
AGENDA
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE
AGENDA
June 1, 2011
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 May 4, 2011 Meeting
IV. Public Speakers
V. Staff Announcements/Updates
A. Public Utilities Division Update - Nathan Beals
B. Fire Review Update - Ed Riley
C. Growth Management Division/Transportation Planning - Jay Ahmad
D. Growth Management Division/Planning & Regulation Update - Jamie French
VI. Old Business
A. Reconsideration of previous RPZ motion (from April 6, 2011)
(see minutes of May 4th pages 4 & 5) [David Dunnavant]
B. Review & Approve the Letter going to the Commissioners re: RPZ's
C. School Board Impact Fee subcommittee update [Amy Patterson]
D. Project Request Application Questionnaire and process update [Claudine Auclair]
VII. New Business
A. +/- 47 page State Audit of the Health Department [Ken Rech]
VIII. Committee Member Comments
IX. Adjourn
Next Meetina Dates
July 6, 2011
August 3, 2011
September 7, 2011
October 5, 2011
November 2, 2011
December 7,2011
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
GMD Conference Room 610 - 3:00 pm
Fire Plan Review - Time Frame Summary
April-11
Number
of
Reviews
Number
of
Days
Average
Time in
Days
#011st %011st
Reviews Reviews
Approved Approved
Percentages
Within Time
Frames
Architectural Reviews
Total 482 944 1.96
1 st Review 367 823 2.24 286 78% 100/10 Days 10 Day Max
2nd Review 90 90 100 98/3 Days
3rd Review 22 28 1.27 100/3 Days
4th Review 3 3 1.00 100/3 Days
Total 2-4 Reviews 115 121 105 98/3 Days 5 Day Max
Fire Sorinkler Reviews
Total 38 46 1.21
1 5t Review 30 40 1.33 17 57% 100/10 Days 2 Day Max
2nd Review 6 4 067 100/3 Days
3rd Review 2 2 1.00 100/3 Days
Total 2-3 Reviews 8 6 0.75 100/3 Days 2 Day Max
Underaround Reviews
Total 7 8 1.14
1st Review 5 7 1.40 2 40% 100/10 Days 2 Day Max
2nd Review 1 1 1,00 10013 Days
4th Review 1 0 0,00 100/3 Days
Total 2-4 Review 2 1 0.50 100/3 Days 1 Day Max
Fuel & LP Gas Reviews
Total 3 0.33
1st Review 3 1 0.33 3 100% 100/10 Days 1 Day Max
2nd Review 0 0
Total 2nd Review 0 0
Hood & FSUP Reviews
Total 7 8 1.14
1 st Review 2 4 2.00 50% 1 00f1 0 Days 3 Day Max
2nd Review 2 2 1.00 10013 Days
3rd Review 2 2 100 100/3 Days
4th Review 1 0 000 100/3 Days
Total 2-4 Reviews 5 4 0,80 100/3 Days 2 Day Max
Fire Alarm Reviews
Total 91 141 1.55
1 st Review 70 128 183 39 56% 100/10 Days 4 Day Max
2nd Review 16 11 069 94/3 Days
3rd Review 5 2 040 100/3 Days
Total 2.3 Reviews 21 13 0.62 95/3 Days 5 Day Max
Summary
1 st Review 477 1003 2.10 348 73% 100/10 Days
Corrections 151 145 0.96 98/3 Days
Overall Totals 628 1148 1.83
OfficeoflheFireCodeOfficial
2800N.HorseshoeDr
Naples.Fl34104
Collier County Government
Growth Management Division/Planning and Regulation
Standard Operating Procedures
Process Name:
INSUBSTANTIAL CHANGE TO
SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN (SDPI)
SITE IMPROVEMENT PLAN (SIPI)
COMBINED PROCESS
Responsible Section: Land Development Services
Process Manager: Ray Bellows, Planning Manager
Last Reviewed/Revised: May 2011
Prepared by: Glenda Smith, Budget Analyst
Updated by: Claudine Auclair, Business Center Manager
Process: Insubstantial Change to SOP (SDPI) and SIP (SIPI)
Last Revised: May 2011
I. OVERVIEW OF PROCESS AND PURPOSE
The following is an overview of the new process established for the reviewing Insubstantial Changes
to Site Development Plan (SDPI) and Insubstantial Changes to Site Improvement Plan (SIPI). We
are also introducing a new process identified as the combined process.
LDC 10.02.03 B.
An insubstantial change to a site development shall be acceptable where the following conditions
exist with respect to the proposed change.
· There is no South Florida Water Management District pennit or modification needed
· There is no new access proposed from any public street
. There is no addition to existing buildings however a maximum area of 300 sf of non-air-
conditional space used for storage will be pennitted
· There is no proposed change to building footprint or relocation of any building
· The change does not result in an impact on or reconfiguration of preserve areas
· The change does not result in a need for addition environmental data
· The change does not include the addition of any accessory structure that generates
additional traffic
· The change does not trigger the requirements 0 LDC Section 5.05.08
· There are no revisions to the existing landscape plan that would alter or impact the SDP
(Refer to iDC J O. 02. 03 B. for additional information)
II. PROJECT SCREENING
The applicant will submit a Project Screening fonn and submit to the Intake Team
electronically- (Exhibit A) along with a copy of either the original Site Development Plan or
Site Improvement Plan or any other drawing clearly identifying the proposed changes.
Review of the Project Screening fonn will be done by the Horizon Intake Team (HIT) to
confinn if the project qualifies as an SDPIISIPI or if a pre-application meeting is required for
the proposed scope of work. Review by the team will be completed within two (2) business
days.
The team will utilize additional information provided by each department to confinn the
correct project type. Member of HIT include: Christine Willoughby, Kirsten Wilkie, Fred
Reischl and Michael Levy. If the project does qualify for either SDPI or SIPl, staff will
contact the applicant to infonn them of the detennination and ask them to submit their
application. Staff will infonn the applicant of all necessary documentation and number of
copies required for review.
Page 2 of 14
Process: Insubstantial Change to SOP (SDPI) and SIP (SIPI)
Last Revised: May 2011
In the event a determination cannot be made by the team, they will consult with a project
manager or senior planner who will assist in determining the project status.
The team will also determine if the project can be submitted through the combined process.
The following is a list of proposed scope of work that can be submitted through our new
process: COMBINED PROCESS (building permit and SDPVSIPI submitted at the same
time).
Change in type of construction (building, transportation, and zoning)
Sprinkler addition (Craig Calis, John Walsh)
Screening fences (Carolina only will review)
Equipment Pads (Carolina, Mike Sawyer)
Utility (Grease trap, water line) (Craig Calis)
Dumpster enclosure (George Cascio, Mike Sawyer and Carolina Valera
Canopy (for sites without a SDP or SIP)
III. A. Processing of Application (Minor Project -less than four reviews) - Business Center
Intake:
. Applicant must have appointment for a sufficiency review with intake team staff liaison
. Review application package for completeness referring to Application checklist and checklist on
pre-application meeting notes (only if a pre-application mceting took place)
. Applicants will submit minimum number ofrequircd copics as determine in the project screening
process
. Enter project into Cityview - Refer to Cityview Project Start procedures (Attachment "Cl"J
. H.LT. Team will be responsible for the review of the application (with the exception of fire and
addressing)
. Minor project will not be distributed to staff. If review cannot be completed by H.LT. Team, a
review meeting will be set with additional reviewers.
IlIl. B. Processing of Application (Full Distribution) - Bnsiness Center Intake:
. Applicant must have appointment for a sufficiency review with intake team staff liaison
. Review application package for completeness referring to Application checklist and checklist on
pre-application meeting notes (only if a pre-application meeting took place)
. Applicants wiJ1 submit twelve (12) copies of their applications for processing
. Enter project into Cityview - Refer to Cityview Project Start procedures (Attachment "C1 ")
. Attach route sheet (Attachment "D ")
IV. Distribution - Business Center Intake Team Liaison:
Assemble review packages - Refer to Cityview Distribution procedures (Attachment "C2 'J
The Business Center Intake Team Liaison will prcpare the application package for the SDPI/SIPI for
distribution..
If the project will require more than four reviewers, the Liaison will complete the following steps:
. Prepare/review packages
. Label documents
. Make copies of Route Sheet
Page 3 of /4
Process: Insubstantial Change to SOP (SDPI) and SIP (SIPI)
Last Revised: May 2011
. Distribute to reviewers on route sheet
Reviews should be completed by all reviewers within seven (7) business days.
V. Review Comments:
. If the project requires less than four reviewers H.LT. Team will be responsible for the review of
the application (with the exception of fire and addressing)
· If required, the Business Center Intake Team Liaison will set-up a separate meeting with the
review group to complete the review of the application. The review will be completed within
three (3) business days
. Reviewers will enter comments in Cityview.
. Reviewers will review and enter any deficiencies on the Cityview Reviews sheet under
Corrections
o Refer to Cityview Completing a Review procedures (Attachment "C3 ")
. Review packages will be returned to Intake Team
VI. Review Developer Commitments (Zoning Planner)
· Sign on to the Collier County Intranet Home page
. Click on "Visit CTS Site"
. Click on "Status Report by Project"
· Check "Show all Projects" and choose from dropdown, or type in PUD name
VII. If Review Outcome is Rejected (Intake Technician)
. Create a resubmittalletter showing rejection comments
. Fax or email rejection letter to applicant
. Hold packages for resubmittal
VIII.
.
.
.
.
IX.
:.-
.
.
:.-
.
.
.
.
ResubmitaI - Business Center Intake
Applicant must have appointment for re-submittal sufficiency review
Applicant and Intake staff will review packagc for sufficiency and to ensure that all review
comments are addressed
If sufficient, Intake staff will enter resubmittal in Cityview - Refer to Cityview Re-Submittal
Processing procedures (Attachment "C4 ")
Package will be forward to Intake Technician for distribution
Final Approval
Intake Team Liaison:
After all reviews are completed, the Liaison forwards file to Engineering Review Manager
** On project reviewed by special team, approval will be done by the lead.
Engineering Review Manager:
Draft final approval letter and forward to Engineering Review Technician for typing
Sign Final Approval letter
Cull file
Stamp drawings
Page 4 of14
Process: Insubstantial Change to SOP (SDPI) and SIP (SIPI)
Last Revised: May 2011
);> Final Distribution - Engineering Review Technician:
After Engineering Review Manager has sIgned Approval
. Distribute appropriate copies
. Notify applicant to pick up
X. Inspections
· If required, the applicant will call the Inspections Supervisor to schedule an inspection
XI. COMBINED PROCESS
The COMBINED PROCESS will allow the applicant to submit both an Insubstantial
Change to either a Site Development Plan or Site Improvement Plan at the same time.
Both building permit fees and Insubstantial Change Review fees will apply.
The following projects have been identified by staff as meeting the criteria for the
combined process review. This new process will follow the same as described above in
the SDPI/SIPI review process.
> Change in type of construction (building, transportation, and zoning)
> Sprinkler addition (Craig Calis, John Walsh)
> Screening fences (Carolina only will review)
> Equipment Pads (Carolina, Mike Sawyer)
> Utility (Grease trap, water line) (Craig Calis)
> Dumpster enclosure (George Cascio, Mike Sawyer and Carolina Valera
> Canopy (for sites without a SDP or SIP)
Review time for project applied for under the combined process should be the same as a
minor review under the SDPVSIPI process.
Page 5 oj 14
Process: Insubstantial Change to SOP (SDPI) and SIP (SIPI)
Last Revised: May 2011
3. DOCUMENT MANAGEMENT
Original file is stored in Growth Management Division/Planning and Regulation Records
Department
Page 60f/4
Process: Insubstantial Change to SOP (SDPI) and SIP (SIPI)
Last Revised: May 2011
Page 7 of /4
-<
E-<
Z ~
~ 0
~~
:= ...
~~
E-<
E-<
-<
ii:
if>
0-
"
'"
"
if>
0-
"
if>
2
.
'"
c
ro ~
6j
~:vo
cm~
~ ~o
2~~
, c
~ (jj ~
- '"
J; ~ ~
~:;;~
(/) \ol <D
:i; ~ cr:::
2 e ~
O-O-~
~ ,
,!gu ""- ~
~~~l
. ! II
~ :: <;.
~a.
.
:tJ ~
H
a:J!
<I--~
~~g
~E~
~~~
JeWOlsn::.
~~g>",
~ j '" ~
g 0: ~ aJ ..
i~'~~
~ !w-
~ .~~
;;;::.::>.--a
{f~3g.
~]U
h",~
",1-.:;)1
~ ~~
w :;;
~ 0> ~
-e"~~
ld
": g' ~
~w,.
iF'&!
E
41, _
~3~
~f&
(; ..,4
~ V
,
.
~~2
~15
En
------.-J
O^!leJIS!U!WP'f
pue 5UO!leJadO
qJ \11 . ~
r;; S,-, (j :;l'
l:;: ~~ ~.~
'.~.~PI
~"oa::;:
w-" !!!
~
'" ~
~~ i~
'~i :~
~;~ ~
Ip,
!gl~
~ !
'?!'_~~
~~~J.~
~F~!j
l!! 8,l~ ~
~H~8
~c ~ 1ij
& Q;
SM8!^8l::1
l' ~"S~
~~~~
S2Er>1?
~ -~ ~ ~
"".g--a::
m
~ Iii,,,
~g"il~
~sH )
2'~ li8
.f.-'
" "
luewe6euew
911.:1 :lIUOJI:)813
pue luawn:)oa
ATTACHMENT B
Application
(application attached)
Process: Insubstantial Change to SOP (SDPI) and SIP (SIPI)
Last Revised: May 2011
ATTACHMENTC
Intake Checklists
POO3 AddresSingChe<:;kl.ist -------------- ......
POO~ Alllllil;!ltlQn .... .... /............. ...
P029 Cover letter ..... ... .......... ....... . ....../ ....
P049 Fees' . ... . / <.
PHS Site Plans
----"-
Page 10 of /4
Process: Insubstantial Change to SOP (SDPI) and SIP (SIPI)
Last Revised: May 2011
A TT ACHMENT D
Route Sheet - SDPI
Site Development Plan Insubstautial Change (SDPI)
Route Sheet
SDPI-
RE\":
PROJECT:
DATE:
Dl"L:
REYlIWER MUST RECORD ....,MOUJ\"T OF IDlE SPEJ\"T OJ\" RE\"lIW:
hours
IZlE"lGINEERINGWAITRMGMT:_
Dr;~'AwiYbilitrl.l'ttm-{~rillI..FPLeIC) OSFU'MDPennit DEllpeer"iRepon-capy DOpiaicndCoSl
DCCl15tNc:DocCostE>timlIe DR.01,\',DDC DStDm!DterCllc'i D~PJu; Dl..anl1iaptPIa.ll
DAKhiuctunlP\..m; DSittPLm
ISl IR"'''SPORTATION ENGINEERING:
ISl AIH:
DS~ OTIS DShKI...iplmgPlm
o E"lGIl'iEERlNG UTILITlIS: _
DU'mr MMI!f Si.zia.r; [JED:\' Pmteaicm PemDti DJ:\aQb~ 'A)!er DMi.:D Cak:'s []iltJlier II: SftV A\'IIil.lAner:'>
DEnp!:I!.e(iR2pOl1(Ollll []Fklrida\liaferAV1I11bility OCmsll1JdJuI1ConEstimab! D'iib!Pl.uJ
DProtib~Wlm!:'5ftrerPA!jl<<1 D'iFu..1dDPelmir: DFireFkJwReport DFiaH}'dIIllf DI..ml.dK4pI!Pim
ISl FIRE:
DF;;n;Rf!port DFlfI'HydLml: D~gPIan ~~Plm OAlcl1i.l:KnnlPlm.. DSileP1Ill.
ISl ZO"lING PL\]"~"IR:
DU.S.PonalkrlmI.- ""TIWm;m'lyDeoi!d [JUlli&d54nPlm Q..eaerQ{~ D'ns DES
[]Aai.ili Ds'\llWT Ol.iPlingPl.m DUndiuptPLm DArchilKm!1lPbn~''FloarEvel DSaeP1m
o L'i\1ROl\A.lENTAL:
o CO"lSERYA TION EASfii[l\'T
Das Dsrv.~PIllllil: DUSACOE~ D.As:ia.iJ(if~tm) DSuJ\~ DI...IcdiUpl!PIa.ll
DSllfP1m DColllier.'3tiClllEa!.tm!ml;(<<g.t:..w.) OTrtltOJlillllln(Mg&:All)
0.IDDRESSIN"G:~'ii!fcPl..uts o Addmsmg<.1l<<.lllill
ISl L\l\1lSC.\PE:
DI.iplIinfPLm~Aerial., DI...an.:lsc.ipePlan DArLhI~!UWPiaIl5 DSW!PlllI1
1Sl.\RCHITECTURA!.:
D~Plm DAeriIJ~I.aOO5upePlan DArdllrec:ruralPlanli DSirePlm
ISl COA IMPACT FEES:_
DSaePLm
ISl IR","SPORTATION PATHWAYS:
DSIlePlm OTIS D~lIMt~~
o PEllC.\..:.'\" B.-\.Y SER\1CIs' nrs,nucT, if locate-d ill PelkaD 8a,- prD
o OUlER:
PltaSf- rtiurn to Land Dt-,.tlopmtDf St-l"\ius IHpartllW'nt i<<hnicUDS
Page J J of J 4
Process: Insubstantial Change to SOP (SDPI) and SIP (SIPI)
Last Revised: May 2011
Route Sheet - SDPI
Sit~ Impl'ovem~nt Plan Insllbstantial Chang~ (SIPI)
ROllt~ Sh~~t
SIPI-
REV:
PRO.JECT:
DatE':
Dn::
RE\lEWERMUST RECORD AMon, OF IDlE SPL'<f0:'; RE\lEW,
hours
J8l E:';GINHRThG \HTERMG~IT,_
Ot'lWry'A\'aiabWrJ.'~mv::.FPLI!l[) D~'MDPemlit DEncicef~Riplrl-{~' DOpmioollfCost
DCCll1S1l'UC1iGaConE..ltim.m! OltOir.Due D<.iIclirmDefCalt'\ O~Pl.aa Dl..mdoupIPlm
D-ohchiternnl P!Di 0 Slh! PlIn
J8l TR.1..'lSPORB TION L'lGINHRlNG,
J8lADA'_
DSilePlam OTIS O'iIrftfI..ipu:ir:lgPIMI
J8l ENGThLERThG UTILITIES,_
OV.mrMecelSi.mg [JEn~'ProltCliolt~ DiIoIMlJtWil!K!:IetlJl.Clk's OWnJ"dc'jelo'tJA\llil.umn
DEngiDMr'IIt!pon(orit! []F1ori.dIVw'.ltetA1I1i1ab:ili1y D~CostE~ DS~Pl.m
DPo1i!bLeV,'Itet&:SflJl!rRqcn DSFlrMDPe:mil OFireFiOlll'R!pGn Ofi1l!H~lhmt OUad>upePan
J8lFlRE,_
OFin!Fluw~ DF~HyllJur OLl;hlingPLul o..mdsclpfPluJ D~Plam OSllePlm
J8l ZO:-lThG PU/i:>"ER,
OU.S.Pl>mlkn.....r-- t::IW"mmtyDeed []L'miiedSignPlan []L<<terufA~ om om
0Asi.ili Dsurwy Dl.ighIingPlan O~PI.m DA1d1ftau.ra:Pl.Im/FloolEvel DSiJe;Y.wi
J8l LWIROl"MEl'n.U,
o CO:';SER\"ATION HSEME:l\,
Om DSF1l'MD~ DJ..;~COEPtmlI DAelW;(i!mt;1~) O';.IIr\~ O~PIim
DSilrPlul DCllll6wv.Jtioo~(lX].tAll) D1i1le~Il(<<gJ:AU)
J8l ADDRESSING,
o 5itePLm> ~Addre;singCheo:iliit
fZj L-I",\llSCAPE,
DI..igbring P1m""""'L]""""Amili 0 I..mdscJpl! Plan DArdlitKrunI ~ DSite Plan
fZjARCHITECTIRU,
D~P1m DAE1al\"1jI...u1d>apePl.5n DArthrtKnnlPlIIlIi DSirePlm
D PELIC-\.."- BAY ~ER'lCI~ DISTRICT, I1100000tMl m PlI!lkAQ Ba.,.. PU)
fZjOTHER,_
Plust rt'turn fo L.lDd Dnrlopmrnl Srnkes lHpartment technicians
Page 12 of 14
Process: Insubstantial Change to SOP (SDPI) and SIP (SIPI)
Last Revised: May 2011
ATTACHMENT E
Additional Staff Guidance Resources
Page /3 oj /4
Process: Insubstantial Change to SOP (SDPI) and SIP (SIPI)
Last Revised: May 2011
MEMORANDUM
Gron1h JInnagtmtllt Dit"irioJl/P14l1l11ing 1J1Id Regullltion
Lall4 Det'nopmr"t S,Il1e,,,
I 0: LaDd Dt'rt.wpment SenicfS Staff
'"'"
from: William D. Loftm Jr" P ,E" Dit'Ktor,
Land Dtnlopment Stl'\iCfS
Date; JUDe-~. .2010
Subj<<t SDP Io,ub,,,,.lial fb..ge (SDPij W..p.. .\fIt!' Appro".1
LDC: Section lO.0203.B.4.b ,tate, that SDPs ooll'remain valid and m for", for three (3)
yem from the date of the SDP appro\'ll1etter unless actual construction is commenced. It
ha, already botn drtmninod that SDP Amendmtnts are subject to thi, three'l~ar period.
but the liftspan of an SDP Insub.tantial CbanJle bas Dev'" botn dlrectIy ad<lresStd. This
melllO IS inttllded to confum that tile three'l~ar ptnod "I'I'li.. to SDPIs as well as SDP As
and SDP" and that tile period begins with tile date of tile SDPI Approval I..tt", The
dete.rmiILanoo. is consistent with the pro\1sions of the l.DC ina::m:uch as the fe\ision to an
appcoved SDP by an SDP Amendment or an Insub,t.ml1al ~ becomes tile final plan
of record.
,,: Gary Hamson. Buildmg Official
Peggy Jarrtll, Addcessing
Cornspondtnc< File
Page /40f14
May 4, 2011
MINUTES OF THE COLLIER COUNTY
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE
MEETING
May 4,2011
Naples, Florida
LET IT BE REMEMBERED that the Collier County Development Services
Advisory Committee, having conducted business herein, met on this date at
3 :00 PM in REGULAR SESSION in Conference Room #610, Collier County
Growth Management Division/Planning & Regulation, 2800 N. Horseshoe Drive,
Naples, Florida, with the following Members present:
CHAIRMAN:
Vice Chair:
William Varian
David Dunnavant
Ray Allain (Excused)
James Boughton (Excused)
Clay Brooker
Laura Spurgeon Dejohn
Dalas Disney Excused)
Marco Espinar
Blair Foley
Reagan Henry
George Hermanson (Excused)
David Hurst (Excused)
Reed .J arvi
Robert Mulhere
Mario Valle (Excused)
ALSO PRESENT: Nick Casalanguida, Deputy Administrator, GMD Planning & Regulation
Judy Puig, Operations Analyst - Staff Liaison
Jamie French, Director - Operations & Regulatory Management
Jay Ahmad, P.E., Director - Transportation Engineering (Absent)
Ed Riley, Fire Code Official- Fire Code Office
Nathan Beals, Project Manager - Public Utilities
May 4,2011
I. Call to Order:
Chairman William Varian called the meeting to order at 3:03 PM and read the
procedures to be observed during the meeting.
II. Approval of Al!enda:
Chanrzes:
. Under Item Y, "Staff Announcements/Updates" -
D. Growth Management Division/Planning & Regulation Update
will be heard first.
Blair Foley moved to approve the Agenda as amended. Second by Marco Espinar.
Carried unanimously, 9 - O.
III. Approval of Minutes - April 6, 2011 Meeting:
Robert Mulhere moved to approve the Minutesfor the April 6, lOll meeting as
submitted. Second by Reed Jarvi. Carried unanimously, 9 - O.
IV. Public Speaker:
Richard D. Yovanovich, Esq.
V. Growth Manal!ement Division - Staff Announcements/Updates:
D. Planning and Regulation: Nick Casalanguida, Deputy Administrator - GMD
. Mr. Casalanguida introduced Attorney Richard Y ovanovich of Coleman,
Yovanovich & Koester, P.A.
. Topic: A letter sent to County Manager Leo Ochs by Mr. Y ovanovich and
copied to the Board of County Commissioners concerning an alternative
method of collecting and tracking Impact Fees
Richard Yovanovich:
. Regarding the payment schedule for Impact Fees - originally 50% was due at
the time a Plat or SDP was submitted and the remaining 50% was due three
years later.
. The format was revised and the second payout period was extended due to the
economy from three to five years.
. The BCC offered a different option: the first year payment would be 20% with
a 20% Letter of Credit, and additional payments of 20% to be made over the
following four years.
. He noted if the second year payment of 20% was not made, Staff could attach
the Letter of Credit and his clients could lose their vesting.
. Proposal: first payment of33% to be due at application and the balance paid
when the building permit was pulled
Nick Casalanguida:
. Staff supports the proposal
. He asked DSAC for their recommendation
2
May 4,2011
(David Hurst arrived at 3:09 PM)
Reed Jarvi moved to approve the proposal and forward the recommendation to the
Board of County Commissioners. Second by Blair Foley.
Nick Casalanguida clarified the entire project would be vested when the first payment
of33% was made and vesting would not be lost. The Certificate of Public Facility
Adequacy ("COA") would run with the land. The payment schedule will be reviewed
and revised if economic conditions improve.
Motion carried, 10- O.
A. Public Utilities Division: Nathan Beals, Project Manager - Public Utilities
. No updates to announce
. There were no questions
B. Fire Review: Ed Riley, Fire Code Official- Fire Code Office
. Monthly Activity Report for March was submitted.
. Reviews conducted: 808
In response to a question, Mr. Riley noted the application for the Certificate of
Occupancy has been made for the new Fire Office building. Move-in would occur in
three to four weeks after the CIO is issued.
C. Transportation Planning Division: Jay Ahmad, P.E., Director - Transportation
Engineering (Absent)
. No report
D. Planning and Regulation: Jamie French, Director - Operations & Regulatory
Management
. An increase noted in the number of Building Permits issued during April
o Primarily remodeling permits (re-roof, installation of shutters,
installation of AIC units)
o An increase in new home starts within established communities (GL
Homes, Stock Development, Lennar)
. There has been an increase in the number of inspections requested in both
residential and commercial
o Inspections were usua1ly conducted within 24 hours after ca1l-in
Q. How is staff time paid for the Flood Plain Management Committee? Which fund is
used?
A. No one from Fund I \3 participates on the Committee. He was not sure of the Cost
Center - it could be from either Fund 101 or 111.
Chairman Varian stated he applied for a building permit for a clubhouse renovation
which consisted ofremodeling two bathrooms. He was told to supply a copy of the
SDP because it was noted on the checklist. He questioned why an SDP cover sheet
]
May 4,2011
was necessary since the work to be performed consisted of painting, changing toilets,
sinks, and tiles. He stated he was charged a $125.00 Zoning Fee which he did not
understand.
Jamie French stated he would investigate and asked for the Permit number.
Mr. French noted Claudine Auclair's Kaizen committee has been examining the
permitting process to determine where redundancy exists and will implement new
policy within the next month. Digital submission options will reduce the required
number of copies and plans. He stated if a project's plan is scheduled for three or four
reviews, at least five copies will be needed.
Re: "CityView"
. The "go live" date has been changed to May 15th
. New taxes and fees necessitated recalculation and revisions to system
. C-D Plus will work in tandem with CityView for the next six months
New Tooic: RPZ Motion (See: April 6,2011 Minutes)
David Dunnavant directed the Committee's attention to Page 7 of the Minutes.
["David Dunnavant moved as follows:
The Board of County Commissioners asked DSA C to review the RPZ
adoption by Utilities as a back-flow prevention standard for Collier County.
After exhaustive study and review, DSAC has determined that there is not
an inherent danger in the current Double Detector Check Assembly Valve
system. Although an enhancement would be provided by the installation of
RPZs, the cost and nominal benefit of the enhancement does not warrant
implementation and the additional expense to the County's citizens.
The final recommendation is that the Board of County Commissioners
repeal the currently adopted Utilities Ordinance which implements RPZs
as the only accepted back-flow device and return to the original Double
Detector Check Assembly Valve ("DDCA'') system that has been in place
for year.
Second by Chairman Varian. Carried unanimously, 13 - o. '1
He suggested changing the word "year" to "years."
Chairman Varian asked the Committee to review a draft of the letter to be submitted
to the Board of County Commissioners containing DSAC's recommendation.
He suggested the letter should be jointly signed by David Dunnavant as Chairman of
the Subcommittee as well as himself.
Nathan Beals noted he will supply the correct number to Judy Puig to identify the
Resolution to the Ordinance.
4
May 4,2011
David Dunnavant stated he inadvertently omitted referencing the pressure loss caused
by the installation ofRPZs. It is an additional issue that supports DSAC's
recommendation to the Board to repeal the Resolution.
He proposed adding the following language at the end of the third sentence of the first
paragraph:
"Additionally, implementation of RPZs would create an increased friction
loss to the system, in comparison to the Double Detector Check Assembly
Valve, which would alter fire sprinkler design in future huildings that would
require this new back flow device."
Reed Jarvi suggested placing the sentence at the conclusion of the second sentence in
the paragraph.
Robert Mulhere suggested the issue is the "significant cost versus the nominal
benefit" since it is a costlbenefit analysis.
David Dunnavant suggested that he confer with Chairman Dunnavant to review and
revise the recommendation letter.
SUffffestion:
. David Dunnavant and Chairman Varian will independently review the letter
and email their changes to Judy Puig to incorporate into a final version.
. At the June DSAC meeting, Mr. Dunnavant will withdraw the Motion made
during the April 6th meeting and substitute the new language as his motion.
. The recommendation letter will be presented to the Committee at the June
meeting for approval.
Consensus: An item entitled "Reconsideration of Previous Motion (April 6, 2011)"
will be added to the June Agenda.
VI. Old Business:
A. Watershed Management Plan Projects and Alternatives - Mac Hatcher
. Robert Mulhere stated he is a consultant on the project and he recused
himself from voting on the issue to avoid the appearance of conflict of
interest.
. He further stated he may participate in the presentation as appropriate.
A Power Point presentation was given by Moris Cabezas and Peter DeGolian of
Adkins/DHI.
(A copy of the presentation was emailed to the Committee.)
Topics included:
. Current Stormwater Management Approach
. County Growth Projections
. Water Quality and Pollution Load Issues
. Current Canal Capacity (limited)
5
May 4,2011
. Objective:
o Implement a sustainable Stormwater Management Program through the
implementation of Low Impact Development ("LID") techniques
. Promote effective site planning
. Promote preservations of the natural system
. Reduce development costs
. Reduce costs of future drainage system improvements
Issue: How to provide water quality credits for new developments?
It is not feasible under the current State regulations.
Collier County requires that new development or redevelopment projects meet
150% of the State's water qualify requirements.
Problem: By making ponds 50% larger, there is no gain in efficiency to treat
pollutants.
Recommendations:
. Modify the Land Development Code to require treatment by LID and create
incentives for implementation of LID techniques
o Allow 18- foot width on local roads using cluster development standards
o Allow design of swales on local roads
o Allow in-ground percolation type retention systems
. Changes to Parking Design Standards
o Reduce length of aisles
. Changes to Landscaping Requirements for vehicular use areas and Rights-of-
Way
It was noted Sarasota County developed a Stormwater Manual of LID techniques
which could be utilized as a reference to create standards for Collier County.
. Change focus of Stormwater Utility from dependence on Ad Valorem taxes to
a fee structure, based on discharged run-off volume
. Encourage developers to market areas with lower assessments
With reference to Golden Gate Estates, Robert Mulhere summarized:
· Certain lands with high ecological value have been identified while other lands
have relatively low development activity
o Identified lands ("Horse Pen Strand") have significant hydrologic
potential for re-charge and an ecological value, i.e., habitat
. Proposal: Create an Oversight Committee to evaluate and analyze the TDR
("Transfer of Development Rights") Program
o Process is estimated to take one-year
Q. Why would a new TDR Program work any better than the current program which
doesn't work?
(,
May 4,2011
A. (Robert Mulhere) It has to be designed to work. There was some significant
activity in the eastern portion of the Estates, but it stopped due to the economic
downturn. There were purchases -- arms' length transactions - but there were no
actual developments. There were two or three potential developments that were
beginning to work through the system.
He suggested part of the focus should be to minimize the additional extractions that
might occur if someone wanted to use TDRs in a project, which was one of the
reasons why some of the projects stopped.
He continued the value of the TDR in an urban area should be explored, especially
in a re-development or in-fill opportunity.
Mr. Mulhere agreed the existing Rural Fringe Mixed-Use ("RFMU") District has
not worked as intended. The proposed TDR Oversight Committee could consider
why it hasn't worked and what changes could be made to the RFMU District.
Other reasons why RFMU has not worked:
. A minimum purchase price was established which was not fair to the
market place
. The land was too highly valued in the early part of the Program - five acre
tracts (or less) were selling at approximately $80,000 to $100,000 per acre
which exceeded the value of the TDRs
. The number ofTDRs that could be generated from the land was changed
but then the economic downturn occurred
It was noted the Low Impact Development Program would be County-wide, but
only certain areas would be included in the TDR Programs. The TDRs could be
transferred into one or more of the identified Receiving Areas to incentivize - a
compact, rural village could be developed.
Robert Mulhere mentioned there are multiple TDR Prorgrams in the Code which
are rarely used. The new TDR Program mayor may not have a connection to the
RFMU District.
Moris Cabezas stated another goal was to provide mitigation opportunities within
each of the functional watersheds that have been identified. He stated technical
memos were available outlining how the watersheds would be set up. Additional
protection areas were recommended based on analysis of the vegetation and habitat
versus what is currently protected.
Robert Mulhere added some examples of Comprehensive Plan Amendments and
Land Development Code Amendments have been provided. The details for the
incentive based regulations have not been developed yet.
Discussion continued concerning costs. It was noted the 150% requirement (extra
volume) has accomplished very little - "diminishing return of benefit."
Blair Foley noted there are deficiencies and a plan is needed. Opportunities to
incorporate LID techniques are possible in the redevelopment projects.
7
May 4, 2011
Robert Mulhere said the point was to look at what could be done and incentivize
the options. It would be too costly to try to retrofit existing facilities.
Marco Espinar noted a comprehensive look at the entire Development Code,
including Landscaping and the Architectural Standards, is necessary.
David Dunnavant questioned the motivation - is there an existing problem to be
worked through or to deal with future problems?
Moris Cabezas stated the way things are being done must be changed and
alternative, long-term solutions developed. For example, the canals are failing and
flooding will become a serious problem.
There was further discussion concerning the 150% rule and the Southwest Florida
Water Management District.
Robert Mulhere stated the Comprehensive Stormwater Rule that was promoted by
the DEP ("Department of Environmental Protection") is not moving forward due to
the involvement of other Federal agencies.
Moris Cabezas clarified the new Stormwater rule would give credit to developers
for LID applications. That was the main change. It was supposed to be approved
in July but probably will not happen.
Clay Brooker noted one statement from the memo, "Land not used for construction
of treatment facilities, i.e., the additional 50% retention pond area, can be turned into
home sites." He was not sure the statement was true especially when considering
the other factors that detern1ine the number of homes that can be placed on a certain
amount of property, i.e., open space requirements, density limitations, preserve
requirements, etc.
He continued the Future Land Use Element of the Growth Management Plan allows
for density bonuses.
Robert Mulhere stated the controlling factor is what the market will bear at the
time.
David Hurst noted there is a difference between how the Code reads and how the
professional community solves the problem, i.e., a retention pond is not increased
by 50% in circumference -- it is dug 2 to 3 inches deeper. He stated Staff needs to
be made aware.
Discussion continued concerning whether holding the water longer on the land
would increase its quality and the effect of green space on it.
Q. What is needed from DSAC?
Mac Hatcher stated the purpose of the presentation was to obtain support from
DSAC for the concept of moving forward with investigation of whether or not the
LID concepts can be developed, together with incentives, to create a functional
plan to improve water quality, increase water retention, and is economically
feasible for developers to implement.
Q. What is a realistic time frame to accomplish these goals?
Bob Mulhere stated it would be at least a year before LDC Amendments were
drafted.
Q. Would the TDR program be mandatory or voluntary?
Bob Mulhere confirmed the Plan is designed and intended to be voluntary.
8
May 4,2011
David Dunnavant suggested breaking the fiscal impact into components, i.e.,
public sector and private section in order of magnitude.
Bob Mulhere stated a more detailed analysis of each phase is needed. He further
stated DSAC could recommend accepting the concepts with the condition that the
LDRs and Comprehensive Planning Amendments will be brought before it prior to
submission to the Board of County Commissioners.
David Dunnavant questioned how much should DSAC recommend is to be spent
on time and effort for a voluntary program.
Bob Mulhere noted someone would have to monitor it and the RLSA is a
voluntary program. The geographic area encompassed approximately 100,000
acres. He stated the BCC would make the final decision.
Peter DeGolian estimated the land was approximately 30 square miles.
David Dunnavant stated hc could not support the concepts without a better
understanding.
Reed Jarvi stated the Subcommittee understood the concepts but did not have any
figures on costs. He was involved with LED on a project in the past and
questioned the viability of the costs then. He noted the project was not completed.
He recommended obtaining more information on the actual costs of each phase
and how the incentive program would work, i.e., one rain garden in a shopping
center will not work but 50 might.
He continued the number was large because each item was relatively small in
scope. Therefore a number was needed on a scale larger than a demonstration
project, and the estimated true time line is closer to four years before actual
implementation.
Bob Mulhere reiterated the BCC directed the creation and establishment of the
Watershed Management plan. There are a number of stakeholders who except to
see the plan developed.
Chairman Varian asked if a regulatory agency involved, such as the EP A, was
involved and threatening to impose sanctions.
Moris Cabezas stated there is indirect involvement currently, but it is a regulatory
program and something has to be done or penalties will be assessed.
Chairman Varian noted it was aimed at new development but would not affect
older, established developments.
Reed Jarvi stated a retrofit of existing canal system was possible. He continued
some filter marshes were proposed to address the current issues. The easier answer
as far as cost is concerned is to fix it at the source now rather than waiting.
Mac Hatcher noted eventually restrictions would be placed on NPDES ("National
Pollution Discharge Elimination System") Permits.
He continued negotiations are just beginning on the Gordon River Extension and
there is a huge project at Lake Trafford but the amount of credits is not known for
what the State has dredged out of the Lake.
He stated the State is asking, "What is the County going to doT' regarding various
projects. The next assessment cycle is 2012 and most of the bodies of water
currently designated as impaired will be set up for DEP ("Design for the
Environment Program") audits.
9
May 4,2011
Marco Espinar questioned whether the EP A was forcing new quality standards for
nutrient criteria and would this program meet the criteria.
Mac Hatcher stated standards for South Florida have not been disclosed by the
EP A, but the TND ("Traditional Neighborhood Design") Element that has been
determined for the Gordon River Extension will probably become the benchmark
against which other projects will be judged.
He further stated it will be a while before the Nutrient Criteria is resolved. He
noted numerous court cases have been filed against the EP A for criteria set for the
Panhandle and for Peninsula, Florida. The Department of Environmental Protection
has petitioned the EP A to have the program returned. It will be several years before
the issues are resolved.
Laura Spurgeon DeJohn requested clarification of exactly what DSAC was being
asked to endorse -- the Memo itself or the summarized points.
Mac Hatcher replied the summarized points. DSAC was being asked to endorse the
concepts contained -- a physical plan document is in development.
Clay Brooker stated while the goals are laudable, some middle steps were missing, i.e.
how will this be funded, before Staff can be asked to draft LDRs.
David Dunnavant asked:
. How much time will it take in manpower and cost? How long will it take?
. What are the end-result benefits that the County will achieve?
Robert Mulhere stated it seemed as if a specific implementation strategy with steps
and funding was being requested. The BCC may also want to see a more detailed
strategy for implementation.
He suggested a recommendation could state that DSAC was generally supportive of
the concepts but had concerns regarding specifics/details, and expected to review a
final implementation plan in the future.
Chairman Varian summarized it appeared the concept was acceptable but there were
too many issues to be resolved before a formal vote could be taken.
Clay Brooker moved to recommend to the Board of County Commissioners that
DSAC is generally in support of the ideas and concepts of improving water quality
and quantity but before a directive to Staff to draft LDRs or Comprehensive Plan
Amendments was given, DSA C would prefer to review a detailed implementation
strategy including, but not limited to, the issues of timing andfunding.
Second by David Hurst.
David Dunnavant asked Mr. Brooker ifhis motion could be amended to include
proposed benefits.
Clay Brooker agreed to add "proposed benefits" to the Motion as follows:
.... recommend to the Board of County Commissioners that DSAC is generally
in support of the ideas and concepts of improving water quality and quantity but
before a directive to Staff to draft LDRs or Comprehensive Plan Amendments
was given, DSA C would prefer to review a detailed implementation strategy
including, but not limited to, the issues of timing, funding, and proposed benefits.
10
May 4,2011
Motion carried, 9 - "Yes "/1 - "Abstention" by Robert Mulhere.
VII. New Business:
(None)
VIII. Committee Member Comments:
. Chairman Varian was wished a "Happy Birthday."
Next Meetinl! Dates: (Meetings will commence at 3:00 PM unless noted below.)
June 1, 2011
July 6, 2011
August 3, 2011
September 7, 2011
There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned
by order of the Chairman at 4:40 PM.
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
ADVISORY COMMITTEE
William Varian, Chairman
The Minutes were approved by the Board/Committee on
"as submitted" [_J OR "as amended" [_J.
,2011,
11
I,
Co.. 'r County
'rt1i!l1iiP'Jl1W"lllJlh, 4lJtmilk I'
!,W;uHlijjiJi1J1J . mlHppF 'U~J:iw,!i'( i;'llil1JlllliHWIi1!1i1tF".,;,HtIlHliLU!IjWi
SCHOOL IMPACT FEE
UPDATE STUDY
DRAFT REPORT
March 31, 2011
Prepared for:
Collier County
3299 Tamiami Trail East, St 303
Naples, Florida 34112
ph (239) 252-8097
fax (239) 252-3602
Prepared by:
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc.
1000 N. Ashley Dr., #100
Tampa, Florida, 33602
ph (813) 224-8862
fax (813) 226-2106
E-mail: nkamp@tindaleoliver.com
073069-02.10
DRAFT
COLLIER COUNTY
SCHOOL IMPACT FEE UPDATE STUDY
Table of Contents
I. Introduction.. .............. ....................... ......... ........ ...... ...... ...... ..... ........... ..... 1
II. Methodology ............................................................................................. 2
III. Inventory ................................................................................................... 3
IV. Service Area and Enrollment..................................................................... 4
V. Facility Service Delivery ............................................................................. 6
VI. Cost Component ........................................................................................ 8
VII. Credit Component ................................................................................... 15
VIII. Net Impact Cost per Student................................................................... 26
IX. Student Generation Rates ....................................................................... 28
X. Calculated School Impact Fee Schedule.................................................. 30
Appendix A - School District Inventory
Appendix B - Supplemental Unit Cost Information
Appendix C - Distribution of Inventory for Indexing
Collier County School District ~
Schoo/Impact Fee Update ~ ~
Tindole-Oliver & Associates, Inc.
March 2011
DRAFT
I. Introduction
The last major update of the technical support document for Collier County's School
Impact Fee was completed and adopted in 2006. To comply with
the technical study update requirements of the impact fee
ordinance and given the recent changes in variables affecting the
impact fee, Collier County (referred to hereafter as the County)
retained Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. (TOA) to update the
school impact fee schedule. The study methodology is
documented in the following 10 sections of this technical report:
. Methodology
. Inventory
. Service Area and Population
. Facility Service Delivery
. Cost Component
. Credit Component
. Net Impact Cost per Student
. Student Generation Rates
. Calculated School Impact Fee Schedule
. School Impact Fee Schedule Comparison
The last technical
support document
.f(H' the County's
School Impact Fee
was completed in
)f)f)(j
Information supporting this analysis was obtained from the Collier County School
District (the District), Collier County, and other sources, as indicated.
Collier County
Schoollmpoct Fee Update
~
Tindafe-Oliver & Associates, Inc.
March 2011
1
DRAFT
II. Methodology
The methodology used to update the school impact fee is a consumption-based impact
fee methodology, which has been used to calculate the previous school impact fee for
Collier County as well as several school impact fees throughout Florida, including, but
not limited to fees in Orange, Osceola, Citrus, Highlands, and Brevard Counties. A
consumption-based impact fee charges new development based upon the student
generation rate (demand), or the number of students a dwelling unit is
expected to generate over the life of the home. A consumption-based
impact fee is intended to charge new growth the proportionate share
of the cost of providing a new student station available for use by new
growth.
A consumption-
based methodology
has been used jiJr
this study.
The impact fee calculations contained in this report are based on the most current and
local data available, consistent with the 2006 Florida Impact Fee Act. Should one or
more variables affecting the impact fee change significantly, a recalculation of the
impact fee would be necessary prior to the scheduled update of the study. Changes
that could potentially trigger a recalculation of the impact fee include, but are not
limited to, significant changes in the student generation rate, a considerable change in
costs, in amount or sources of revenue available for expansion, or a decision to incur
additional debt to fund new capacity.
Tindole-Oliver & Associates, Inc.
March 2011
2
Collier County
Schaal Impact Fee Update
(l)
DRAFT
III. Inventory
The Collier County School District provides public education facilities that are available
to all school-age residents of Collier County. As such, this analysis will consider all public
elementary, middle, and high school level facilities and the students attending these
facilities located throughout and living within Collier County.
The District currently operates 48 traditional public schools that
serve the students of Collier County and its municipalities,
including 29 elementary schools, I multi-level schools, 10
middle schools, and 8 high schools. The District also operates a
number of other programs, including alternative learning programs, technical schools,
and adult learning centers in the county. To ensure that the impact fee reflects only
classroom space for traditional schools, adult, technical, and alternative learning schools
are not included in the inventory and impact fee calculations. The District's current
school inventory is provided in Appendix A, Table A-I.
Collier County School
District operates 48
traditional schools as
well as otherlJpes oj"
schools.
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc.
March 2011
3
Callier County
Schaal Impact Fee Update
m
DRAFT
IV. Service Area and Enrollment
The Collier County School District provides public education facilities that are
available to all Pre-Kindergarten thru 12'h grade (PK-12) students throughout the
entire county. Attendance boundaries can be redrawn to balance school enrollment
with available school capacity and therefore can serve different geographic areas
over time. As such, the appropriate impact fee district for public schools is
countywide.
Table 1 presents the historical student enrollment since 2005, as well as projected
enrollment through 2015. Historical enrollment figures are based on the 4th Month
Membership Counts for Years 2005 through 2010, and on 2'd Month Membership
Count for 2011. Projections for future years are obtained from the Capital
Improvement Plan FY 11-30.
In order to be consistent with the inventory used in the impact fee analysis, the
enrollment figures presented in this table only include those students attending (or
projected to attend) the schools listed in Appendix A, Table A-l. The annual percent
change for the enrollment is presented, as well as a three-year average to account for
fluctuations. Table 1 reflects that student enrollment is expected to remain stable
over the next two years, and then start to increase again.
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc.
March 2011
4
Collier County
Schoo/Impact Fee Update
~
DRAFT
Table 1
Collier County Enrollment
Annual Percent 3-Year
Year Enrollment Change Average
2004/05 40,719 N/A N/A
2005/06 41,690 2.4% N/A
2006/07 41,737 0.1% N/A
2007/08 41,230 -1.2% 0.4%
2008/09 41,098 -0.3% -0.5%
2009/1 0 41,600 1.2% -0.1%
2010/11 41,611 0.0% 0.3%
2011/12 41,368 -0.6% 0.2%
2012/13 41,833 1.1% 0.2%
2013/14 42,218 0.9% 0.5%
2014/15 42,819 1.4% 1.2%
Source: Collier County School District (enrollment figures
correspond to the schools listed in the existing inventory
provided in Appendix A, Table A-I). Historical figures are
based on the 4th Month Membership Counts for 2005 through
2010, and 20d Month Membership Count for 2011.
Projections for future years are obtained from the Capital
improvement Pian FY 11-30.
Tindale~Oliver & Associates, Inc.
March 2011
5
Caiiier County ~.
School Impact Fee Update V:- '"
DRAFT
V. Facility Service Delivery
Schools that were recently constructed or planned to be constructed by the District over
the next 20 years are similarly designed in square footage and student stations. These
"prototype" schools have been or will be constructed to different
standards than the older existing schools due partially to the
mandate of the class size reduction following the 2002 amendment
to Article IX of the State Constitution. The result is fewer
More efficient.
reeent!v huilt
proto(\pe fiu:i!ities
are llsed to measure
the service delivery
levels.
permanent net square feet per permanent student station than
older schools previously constructed in Collier County. Reference
to net square feet pertains to the most recent figures published per
the Florida Inventory of School Houses (FISH) Report for the District, as of May 10, 2010,
for the most recently built elementary and middle schools. Since the District has not
built a new high school since 2003, design characteristics of future planned high schools
obtained during the previous update study are used as an estimate. Similar to the
elementary and middle schools, high schools that were programmed in the 2006 Capital
Improvement Plan included fewer net square footage per student station compared to
the existing high schools. Therefore, the prototype square footage and student stations
for each school type will be used to establish the facility service delivery (FISH net
square feet per permanent student station) for the impact fee.
Table 2 illustrates the facility service delivery in Collier County, which is 139.1 FISH net
square feet per permanent student station for elementary schools, 144.9 FISH net
square feet per permanent student station for middle schools, and 161.2 FISH net
square feet per permanent student station for high schools.
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc.
March 2011
6
Collier County
School Impact Fee Update
w
DRAFT
Table 2
Facility Service Delivery
School Type
Descriplion Elementary Middle High
Permanent Net Square Footage(1) 497,943 170,529 290,085
Permanent Student Stations!') 3,581 1,177 1,800
Net Square Feet per Student Station(3) 139.1 144.9 161.2
(1), (2) Source: Florida Inventory of School Houses Report for Collier County School District,
dated May 10, 2010. For elementary schools, recently built Eden Park, Mike Davis,
Parkside, and Palmetto elementary schools were used. For middle schools, recently built
Cypress Palm was used as proxy. For high schools, estimates included in the 2006 Capital
Improvement Plan for High School EEE were used, which provided a more conservative
figure compared to the existing inventory.
(3) Permanent FISH net square footage (Item 1) divided by permanent student stations (Item 2)
Tindale-Oliver & Associates~ Inc.
March 2011
7
Collier County
Schaal Impact Fee Update
~
DRAFT
VI. Cost Component
The capital costs of providing educational facilities includes several
components, such as the school facility cost, transportation cost, and
ancillary facility costs. This section addresses each of these
components.
FACILITY COST PER STUDENT STATION
The cosl ofa school
includes various
componenls, such as
.facilily cost (buildings
and land), Iransportalion
costs, and ancillary
.facility cosls.
The first step in determining the cost of providing public schools to
Collier County residents is to calculate the facility cost per student station. Several cost
components must be considered when calculating the total cost of constructing a
school, including architect/site improvement costs; construction costs; furniture,
fixtures, and equipment (FF&E) costs; and the cost to purchase the land. Each
component of the school facility cost is described in more detail in the following
subsections.
Architect/Site Improvement. Construction and FF&E Costs
To determine the administration, architect/site improvement, construction, and FF&E
costs associated with building a new school in Coliier County, the following information
was evaluated:
. New schools that were bid in 2006 or later in Collier County, including five
elementary schools and one middle school. These schools were completed in
2007 and 2008, and were not found to be representative of the recent cost
decreases.
. Insurance values of existing schools, which provides a conservative estimate
since insurance companies do not insure more permanent parts of the
structures, such as the foundation, etc.
. School cost estimates provided by the Collier County School District;
. School cost information collected from 11 other Florida counties; and
. Discussions with industry architects.
Detailed information on building cost information is included in Appendix B.
Tindale~Oliver & Associates, Inc.
March 2011
8
Collier County
Schoo/Impact Fee Update
~
DRAFT
Table 3 presents the cost per square foot figures for the architect/site improvement,
construction, and FF&E cost components for each school type. For illustration purposes,
Table 3 also presents the weighted average figure for each cost component, based on all
three school types that are planned to be built over the next 20 years.
land Cost
For each school type, the land cost per square foot is based on a value of $75,000 per
acre. This cost per acre is based primarily on a review of the location of planned schools
over the next 20 years and vacant land values in these areas. The results of the land
value analysis are documented in Appendix B.
The land cost per square foot of building by school type was developed based on the
acres per 1,000 permanent net building square feet for the future prototype schools.
The resulting land value figures used for each type of school are presented in Table 3.
Net Interest Cost
It should be noted that, when a School District incurs debt to fund additional capacity,
interest carrying costs need to be added to the school facility construction costs. Over
the past five years, Collier County School District obtained 85 percent of the funding for
new or expanding schools by issuing Certificates of Participation (COPs). As such,
interest cost incurred during the construction period is also included in Table 3. The
figure includes an downward adjustment of 15 percent to account for the expansion
projects funded with cash.
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc.
March 2011
9
Collier County
Schaal Impact Fee Update
~
l-
LL
<l:
0:::
C
l'Il
Qj
.J:l
~
c:
o
...
III
...
VI
...
c:
Qj
"lJ
j
...
VI
...
Qj
Co
...
VI
o
u
>
.'!:
u
III
u..
o
o
.c:
u
VI
~
z
"!
~
CD
cr>
...j
....
~
ai
M
~
(j)
o
d
c
o
fd
ii5
'E
'"
"C
::>
ii5
(j;
0..
Q)
'"
L.L.
~
CO
::>
c-
en
~
z
CD
....
<=>
....-
CD
N
cr>
N
M
M
"'"
CD-
N'
-",
OJ
'"
>-
<=>
N
X
'"
z
'"
05
~ '"
.2 C
~'"
'0 C
CO ~
0.. E
CO 0
Uu
~ Vi
c 0
lij U
a::~
ro '(3
c CO
o L.L.
~ 0
"C 0
<C -5
en
~
""
~
~
'"
on
"!
N
~
'"
<=>
N
~
~
'"
on
o
~
'"
'"
<5
o
L.L.
~
CO
::>
C-
en
~
'"
0..
00
o
U
0>
-~
c
c
CO
0..
~
'"
CO
L.L.
M
M
r--:
on
~
'"
<=>
<=>
.0
r--
y;
<=>
<=>
o
CD
~
'"
<=>
<=>
.0
....
~
'"
"-
<5
o
L.L.
~
CO
::>
C-
en
(j;
0..
00
o
U
c
o
1:5
2
00
c
o
U
on
....
o
N
'"
on
r--
N
N
'"
<=>
00
o
N
'"
on
00
ro
~
'"
~
<5
o
L.L.
~
CO
::>
C-
en
~
'"
0..
00
o
U
W
O/l
L.L.
L.L.
on
<=>
M
~
'"
<=>
cr>
N
~
'"
00
""
on
~
'"
00
<=>
N
~
'"
@:
<5
o
LL
~
CO
::>
C-
en
(j;
0..
00
o
U
"C
C
CO
-'
M
cr>
o
~
'"
on
cr>
M
~
'"
M
U":!
M
~
'"
on
""!
r--
'"
eo-
~
-"
CO
L.L.
(j;
0..
00
o
U
0>
C
-~
~
CO
U
00
~
'"
'E
Q)
z
r--
r--
N
~
N
'"
on
""!
CD
M
N
'"
~
cr>
o
N
N
'"
M
cr>
M
cr>
~
'"
g
<5
o
L.L.
~
CO
::>
C-
en
~
'"
0..
00
o
U
~
'"
CO
L.L.
<ii
<5
f-
'"
It')
....-
~
M
...
C>
00
~
cO
M
...
C>
~
C>
N
M
...
'"
r--
en
oti
N
...
g;:
C
o
:;
..
-
In
-
C
Gl
"'0
::>
in
~ N
Gl "
2":0
Ul '"
o f-
o Q) Q.j
~ ~ ~ ~
.u a a
..
LL 25:Ei
~
~
'"
E
..,
~
"
~
~
o
u
c
o
c
o
.,
~ '"
.!:!: E
o 0
u'C
"
-E]!
E '2
.g OJ
co
-0
Q) ~
.~ u
.B .~
-".c
~ ~
" '"
:0 C
E t:
:;::; :J
~ -0
" C
" .-
.c .c
~ ~
:s .~
-0 C
" 0
VI 'Vi
'" ~
-" "
.... ~ :;
u m :0
E VI
VI ~ -g
Ci :J ro
00
'"
~
o
o
~
o
o
.c
u
'"
>
~
c
"
o
u
o
o
.c
u
'"
C
c
"
o
u
:"
'"
" J'J
O"u
~E
.:0_ " ~
0.:.0
~ -
~ 0
o 0
U.c
" U
> ~
'';:::::; .....
U "
".c
o.~
~ 0
:" E
" e
,s~
,-0
" "
0. C
~'ro
.0
o
o
u
0'
';>
...
...
:>-
"-
<:
o
0:
"
"
E
"
>
o 0
~ 0
Q.c ~
E U -0
- VI.:o
- .c
..g ~
Q"
(3 0
~
~
u
E
~
~o
",'
-0
.~
u::
c
~
o
~ .~
U ~
~ "
" "
0.-;;;
c>
0-0
~ c
e!C.!
o.w
~ ?cf
.3 :u
" >
~ '"
"-0
-5 ~
<; >
~ ~
~ c
w "
~ 8
:" "
",,s
6- .!::
~.c
~ ~
~ '3:
c ~
'" 0
E 0
~-5
o.~
o :"
o "
o ~
....-I' .2
liJo
0.
W C
00 0
ro'~ >
~ u ro
~ ~ E
-E ~ ~
c" .c
o n:: a:i tJ
-g.o x'5
~.~ ~ is
.~ ~ ~~
Q) -.;: a.....
0. "" ~
~ b c ~
o~-g2
o Q) -0 C
-5 a. :J
Vl+-'U
.c ~ c
~ 8 .~
Q) .:::!
.E~E
~ '"
g b E
4- ro 0
~ OJ ~
~ a. .....
0" 0 "
VlO-E
~ 0 ~
~~' ~
t::'^"Vl
o ~ '"
u 0 ~
-g ~ rtl
~ U ~
'" w
.c
~
o:i
x
i'i
c
"
0.
0.
c""
" c
U
:"
-0
"
-0
"
U
.S OJ
.~ ~ -::a
;:0
."
~
~
o
U -0
" W
.c "
f- e
vi 0
0-"
o -0
.c c
~ '"
".c
w ~
c i3
C.c
o ~
"B '3:
E tJ
~ ~
5"0
U ~
E c
Vl .Q
-0 ~
C C
" '"
~ 0.
~ ~
~ c
Q) 'u
U '"
" 0.
C '"
" U
.c "
~ .c
oo~
.!:: '0
~ *
~ '"
~ <-<
]~
~ ~
.E '"
E
'x
o
~
0.
'"
-0
W
"0
C
.2
~
U
'5
~
is
w
.c
~
~
'"
,s
~
U
"
~
"
,s
J'J
c
"
~
~ B
0..*
:"",
t:<-<
o >
U -"
00-0
C ~ .
.~ 3 w
~ C "0
~ ~ ~
~ 0 E
:D "0
'- "'0 ~
22 Q)
.s :g -E
~:g-E
"
.c
U
'"
"
.2
00-
E
"
=eN
~ E
o "
.E~
~ ~
~ :t;
0" _
~ 0
~ 0
".c
c U
~ ~
".c
o.U
~ '"
~ "
o ~
U 0
>~
:t= "'C
'u :g
'" c
~ '"
00..
.2 ~
v: ~
'" '"
"b-E
~ ~
w c
-E .g
>'"
-" t:
-0 ~
" 0
:.= '-
_ 0. W
....... '.j::; .n
:J "S E
.s E ~
m <-< w
V1 E -5
E " c
~ ~ 0
c il
o 0 VI
0:;::; rc
_2.0
~ VI .~
rtl ~ Q)
" " 00
0" -0 '"
VI :J OJ
~ ~ >
~ :.: ro
C -0
U:; eLl 2
a.~..c
~ E .~
~ ~s
:t::: '-
w "
'u a... a.
'" ~ >
~ ,,~
020
o 0
-5~-5
~ '" ~
" " w
-5 ~.~
4- W U
Eo c ~
" ~
~~~
~~
Ee:
'" "
~ ~
<: 0
""
ag
.~ ~
"'''-
at
o
Q
~
C
o
-'"
U
V)
o
...
G
"
'^
"
<;
.~
o
:::
'<
""
~
.~ ~
(Sb
,,"
c-'"
" "
<: 0
1::::0
DRAFT
TOTAL FACILITY COST PER STUDENT BY SCHOOL TYPE
The total facility impact cost per student for each school type is based on the facility
cost per student station figures derived in Table 3, and is typically calculated by dividing
the cost per student station by the ratio of current student enrollment to available
capacity (number of permanent student stations typically adjusted by 100% for
elementary schools, 90% for middle schools, and 95% for high schools). The adjustment
of dividing the cost per student station by the ratio of current student enrollment to
available capacity converts the cost per student station to a cost per student. In
addition, this calculation accounts for the current surplus or shortage in permanent
capacity and adjusts the costs accordingly. If there is excess capacity (e.g., currently
more permanent student stations than expected students), then the total facility cost
per student increases because the cost of building excess capacity is being recouped.
Similarly, if there are currently more students enrolled than available capacity, the cost
per student is adjusted downward.
In the case of Collier County, there is currently 9 percent more permanent capacity
available than students in the elementary schools, 17 percent more permanent capacity
available than students in the middle schools, and 15 percent more capacity available
than students in the high schools. Based on discussions with District staff, this excess
capacity is a result of the decline in the economy and more of a timing issue than a
policy decision to consistently provide this level of capacity. In addition, the District's
level of service standard calls for an enrollment-to-FISH capacity ratio of 95 percent for
elementary and middle schools, and a ratio of 100 percent for high schools. As such, the
adopted level of service standards are used in the calculations, which resulted in a lower
cost than applying the current ratio of enrollment to the total available capacity. As
presented in Table 4, the resulting weighted average cost per student is $32,506 per
student. Using the achieved LOS, this figure would have increased to approximately
$36,200 per student.
Tindafe-Oliver & Associates, Inc.
March 2011
11
Collier County
Schaal Impact Fee Update
(l)
l-
LL
~
Cl
-=t
<IJ
.c
{!!.
<IJ
Q..
~
o
o
..s::
u
II)
>
.c
.....
c:
<IJ
"'C
::::l
.....
II)
...
<IJ
Q..
.....
VI
o
U
.....
u
C'tl
Q..
E
>
.'!:
'u
C'tl
u..
C'tl
.....
~
- -c:
lii 0
"C ~
.E U5
fJ)
~
'"
c.
-
VI
o
U
-
<J
'"
c.
E
>-
=
"C::;
'"
LL
<D
""'
....-
~
""
ffl
o ~
00 ....
~ N
<Xi....
""
ffl
o ""'
~ ....
o 00
NO
""
ffl
<D <D
I'- 00
en. ""'
<DN
N N
ffl
.2
z;-
C '(3
'" '"
"0 C.
::l '"
if.) u
~
'"
c.
U;
o
U
.~
"u
'"
LL
N .......... :::!i2..
I'- ~ 0
~_ <0_ ~
.... ....
::f ""'
Z ~
",,-
<0
C>
""
N'
..,
....
<D ""
N en
en <0
N('o')
..,
....
;:
<Ii
C
~
<0
~.s::;
.g~
~ <Ii
C ~
::> ~
o c
::: <Ii
<0 0
o ~
~ ~
" <0
<Ii ~
~ ~
<0 <Ii
<Ii U
U ~
~ .~
.!!! fr
~ ~
o ~
o .~
.s::; .s::;
U >-
~
~ vi
2 ~
c -
<Ii ~
E ~
<Ii C.
OJ E
O'>ef!.ef!.<.DQ
..- l.O 0 'o::::t 00
...... ex) 0 0 ""'"
N .......... 'o::::t- 00
..,
....
6:
ro
'"
>-
o
o 0
o ..c:
..c: <.)
<.) CfJ
CfJ ~
~
~ 23
C3 c;
C; ~
N .f>
C
'"
E
e
c:
w
i]
ro
'"
>-
c
'"
"0
::l
if.)
0>
oS
u;
'x
w
....
""
o
0>
00
""'
....
o
N
c
'"
"0
::l
if.)
0>
c:
~
Ox
w
'#. eft
"" ""'
00 en
cf!. cf!. ~
0; :35 'o::::t_
<D
"
~
Ou
'"
c.
'"
U
c
'"
c:
'"
E
~
'"
0-
0>
c:
~
'x
w
.8
C
'"
E
o
C
W
0>
c:
.~
Ox
w
en
"'E
'"
"0
c:
'"
if.)
'"
<.)
'2:
'"
CfJ
a
'"
>-
'"
-'
a ~
o 15.
~ .g
0::: <(
<0
en
..,
co'
N
....
~
o.s::;
-:!:::
.i:";:
'w ij
<0 <0
~.o
u"
cu'ro
-5 c.
~ bJl
<0 C
.s::; <Ii
~.o
] ~
"0 <0
C .s::;
(l) .~
.0 .s::;
32 ;:
::> ~.
- 00.....
U ..co~
a VI u bO
E .::: b.O ro
_ C.s::;
b .-t::J ~
:.::: .d:.~ ~
'0 ~ >- 0
~ .o..cQJ
_ ~~.o
~ <1.' .E Oc
.e .~ Q) =
& ('lj -g ~ .~
~ ..9:! OJ :; .....
Q) ..c ~ 1ti ~
~~<(:5E
ro V'l c..
c '"0 QJ QJ 'O..Q
g.s~:::oQJ
.- ..s::: ::J ::J..c: >
:g.~aa~~
<t: Q)--
5: ::'!C!.
<0
-i!!
'"
'"
>-
o
N
><
'"
z
'"
5
~
.f>
z;-
'u
'"
c.
'"
U
"0
'"
c:
c:
'"
0-
t:::
-
c::
{:
.2
CI)
...
'"
Q.
-
VI
o
U
~:
<0
~
-.8
o <Ii
<Ii bJl
> ~
~ <Ii
" >
<Ii <0
~ bJl
C. C
O.s::;
~ .9!J
<Ii <Ii
.s::; ;:
~ >
>.0
.0"
" <Ii
<Ii ~
"O!!!
':; ::J
.- U
"m
.!:::! U
~ .~
"""
~ ~
c "
~ ""
8%
.~ Q,I
-~
at;
"
"-
i:
c
"
.<:
<.>
V>
'"
E
<Ii
:!::
~
~
C <0
E 0 ~
~1tio
t:'"'
~ ~
c ~ X
<Ii C <Ii
" <Ii C
~-gQJ
__Vl+-,..c:
u u ~ Vl .......
';:: 'C (l) .....
..... +-' c.. QJ 0
O.!:::!.!:!!..... 0..;:-
o VI"'" L..L.
o 8 00
OOo~U<Ii
U ~ .s::;
...c..c:rou_
~~c.rnc
i:' ~ E E~
_ c c >-'- Q)
N ::::l :::l +-' >- c::
E88~~fii
Q)........~~c..
~~.~Q)->
('ljoo:5~'"5
E U U ,,; ro co
~ 0" 0" 0 a; g-
.:=.~~o~u
>'""1 <-l..c:-oro
.'!:: ""'"' """' ~ Q) C
+-'u>->- -0
.~ ~ l.J.. l.J.. to ~ :e
t; G 5 5 :c 'Qj :g
o +-' a:: a:: "0 S: ro
_ c """' -+.> C Q) QJ
o Q) t:: c: ro ...s::: ..c:
.,g ~ CD CD ~"' I- ;
UEEE,,-,-.o
V'l ... ~ ~ "'C LI'l _
>OJccoEE~
c~Q.Q. ..OJ"'C
5-~..s~~:J
u~ 2:;;t:
~CbbC~~
.~ OJ ..... ..... OJ rn Q)
"'C 05. 05. E ~ ~
8.3aa~rnVl
~ Q) t: 8
OJ 0 OJ QJ OJ OJ >
~o~~...cUo"!::::
:J ".;: :J :J ::: o~ "w
o rn 0 0 0 OJ rn
V"J 0:::: V"J V"J u.. Vl_
~;;~~E
'"
...,
G
.!::
~-
Jl:
"
'u
"
~
~
<<
<><l
~
"
.~ ......
08
,,'"
-o-S
"" ~
~ "
>=::~
DRAFT
TOTAL COST PER STUDENT
In addition to the facility cost per student calculated in the previous table, the total
facility cost per student includes two additional cost components: the capital costs
associated with providing transportation services and ancillary facilities. Both of these
cost components are calculated on a per-student basis and are not dependent on school
type. Each of these additional cost components is discussed in further detail below.
Transportation Costs
The first additional capital cost component is the cost of providing transportation
services to students. The District currently owns 361 buses used for student
transportation at an average value of approximately $103,000 per bus, which includes
related equipment such as radios, GPS, cameras, etc., and is consistent with bus costs
observed in other school districts. In addition to its bus fleet, the District has 271
support vehicles, which include vehicles such as cars, vans, trailers, and trucks. The
value of the support vehicles varies depending on the type of vehicle, with an average
value of approximately $18,000 per vehicle, based on the information provided by the
District. The result is a total value of $42.1 million for transportation services, including
$37.1 million for buses and $5.0 million for support vehicles. The total value of the
transportation fleet is divided by the District's enrollment for schools included in
Appendix A, Table A-1 (presented in Table 1). The result is a cost of $1,011 per student
for transportation services, as presented in Table 5.
Ancillarv Facilities Costs
The other additional capital cost component is for the ancillary facilities that are
necessary for the District to provide support services for students, schools,
transportation services, and administrative personnel. The District currently has
approximately 200,500 FISH net square feet of permanent ancillary facilities for
maintenance, warehouse, and administrative functions. Current values of each existing
ancillary facility depend on the type of facility and were based on the insurance values,
with the weighted average value equaling approximately $175 per FISH net square foot
(or $150 per gross square foot).
The cost of land for ancillary facilities also is included in the ancillary facility values. The
land value for ancillary facilities is the same as that used for schools ($75,000 per acre).
TindaJe~Ofiver & Associates, Inc.
March 2011
13
Collier County
Schoo/Impact Fee Update
~
DRAFT
The ancillary facility cost per student is based on the existing inventory, which is valued
at $42.1 million, including $35.3 million for buildings and $6.8 million for land. Based on
the current enrollment, the result is a cost of $1,012 per student for ancillary facilities,
as presented in Table 5.
Table 5
Transportation Services and
Ancillary Facility Cost per Student
Description Figure
Transportation Services Cost per Student
Total Value ofTransportation Services(1) $42,089,017
Enrollmentfor 2010/11 School Year(2) 41,611
Total Transportation Services Cosl per Student(3) $1,011
Ancillary Cost per Student
Building Value for Ancillary Facilities(4) $35,301,600
Land Value for Ancillary Facilities(S) $6,825,000
Total Ancillary Facility Value(6) $42,126,600
Total Ancillary Facility Value per Student(7) $1,012
(1) Source: Collier County School District. Total value is based on the current inventory of 361
buses valued at $103,000 each and 271 support vehicles, with an average value of $18,000
per vehicle.
(2) Source: Table 1
(3) Total value of transportation services (Item 1) divided by the current enrollment (Item 2)
(4) Source: Collier County School Oistrict. Building value is based on the permanent FISH net
square footage of current ancillary facilities and varies based on the type of facility. Overall,
the estimated weighted average cost is $175 per permanent net square foot.
(5) Based on a weighted average cost of $75,000 per acre. See Appendix B for further detail on
land value estimates.
(6) Sum of the building value (Item 4) and land value (Item 5) of the District's current inventory of
ancillary facilities.
(7) Total value for ancillary facilities (Item 6) divided by the current enrollment (Item 2)
!indole-Ofiver & Associates, Inc.
March 2011
14
Collier County
Schoof Impact Fee Update
m
DRAFT
VII. Credit Component
To ensure that new development is not being overcharged for construction of future
student stations, any non-impact fee revenue that will be generated by new
development and that will be used towards the capital expansion of school facilities
must be included as a credit to reduce the total cost per student. It is important to note
that a credit for school impact fees Is not given for revenue generated by new
development that is used for capital renovation of existing educational facilities or for
maintenance or operational costs.
Based on a review of the District's historical expenditures over the past five years and
planned expenditures over the next five years, it has been determined that revenue
credits will be provided for the following state and local revenue sources:
. State revenue:
o Public Education Capital Outlay (PECO)
. Local revenue:
o Ad Valorem Capital Improvement Tax (CIF); and
o Local Capital Improvement Fund.
. Future remaining payments for existing debt service (portion for expansion) that
will be repaid with non-impact fee revenues.
STATE REVENUE CREDIT
The Florida Statutes authorizes several sources of revenue for school districts, including
Public Education Capital Outlay (PECO) and Capital Outlay & Debt Service (CO & DS) that
can be used for the construction of capital facilities. With regards to state revenue, over
the past five years, the District used a portion of PECO revenues for the construction of
additional permanent capacity. Over the next five years, the District does not have any
programmed capacity expansion projects in its Work Plan. As such, the credit is based
on an average of 10-year period to reflect this fluctuation and provide a generous credit,
which results in a conservative impact fee.
The state revenue credit per student is calculated by dividing the total amount of state
revenue by the average enrollment during the ten-year period from FY 06 to FY 15. As
Tindole-Oliver & Associates, Inc.
March 2011
15
Collier County
Schaal Impact Fee Update
~
DRAFT
presented in Table 6, the resulting state revenue available for the capital expansion of
public schools in Collier County is $28 per student.
Table 6
State Revenue Credit per Student
Revenue Source 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010-2015 Total
PECO(I):
Lake Trafford Elementary $67,097 $171,851 $238,948
Immokalee High School $29,110 $29,110
Big Cypress Elementary $534,937 $183,716 $718,653
Total Capital Improvement Expenditures $986,711
Average Annual Capital Improvement Expenditures(2) $98,671
Average Student Enrollment (FY 06 through FY 15)13) 41,720
Capital Improvement Credit per Student(4) $2
Capitalization Rate 5%
Capitalization Period, Years 25
Present Value of Annual State Revenue Credit(S) $28
(1) Source: Collier County School District
(2) Total capital improvement expenditures divided by 10 years.
(3) Source: Table 1
(4) Average annual capital improvement expenditures (Item 2) divided by average student
enrollment (Item 3)
(5) Present value of annual state revenue credit (Item 4) at S percent interest rate over a 25-
year capitalization period. The interest rate is provided by the District staff and represents
an estimate of the interest rate the District is likely to pay for future bonds.
LOCAL REVENUE CREDIT
The Collier County School District uses two separate local revenue funds for capacity
expansion expenditures:
o Local Capital Improvement Fund, which is funded with non-ad valorem revenues;
and
o Capital Improvement Tax, which is an ad valorem tax.
Tindale~OJiver & Associates, Inc.
March 2011
16
Collier County
Schaal Impact Fee Update
~
~1
DRAFT
Local Capital Improvement Fund
The Collier County School District uses a fund called "Local Capital Improvement Fund"
to capture miscellaneous non-ad valorem tax revenues. A portion of this fund is used
toward capacity expansion projects, which amounts to a credit of $99 per student.
Table 7 presents these calculations.
Table 7
local Capital Improvement Fund Credit per Student
Revenue Source 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010-2015 Total
Loca/ Capital Improvement Fund (1) :
Golden Gate High School $9,906 $8,653 $18,559
Sea Gate Elementary $81 $81
Elementary Schooll/Veteran Memorial $108,811 $8,565 $117,376
Site Acquisition $245,940 $2,701,739 $37,201 $2,984,880
Total Capital Improvement Fund Expenditures $3,120,896
Average Annual Capital Improvement Fund Expenditures(2) $312,090
Average Student Enrollment (FY 06 through FY 15)13 41.720
Capital Improvement Fund Credit per Student!') $7
Capitalization Rate 5.0%
Capitalization Period, Years 25
Present Value of Annual Local Capital Improvement Fund Credit per Student!') $99
(1) Source: Collier County School District
(2) Total capital improvement expenditures divided by 10 years.
(3) Source: Table 1
(4) Average annual capital improvement expenditures (Item 2) divided by average student
enrollment (Item 3)
(5) Present value of annual state revenue credit (Item 4) at S percent interest rate over a 25-
year capitalization period. The interest rate is provided by the District staff and represents
an estimate of the interest rate the District is likely to pay for future bonds.
Capital Improvement Tax
The Collier County School Board has the authority to levy ad valorem tax to generate
revenue for capital. Referred to as Capital Improvement Tax (CIT), this revenue is used
for both capital renovation and expansion projects, as well as technology, vehicles,
buses, and maintenance. In Collier County, the millage rate for generating CIT revenue
is 1.5 mills.
Tindafe-Oliver & Associates, Inc.
March 2011
17
Callier County
Schaal Impact Fee Update
~
DRAFT
The calculation of the CIT credit is a four-step process. First the portion of CIT revenue
that is used toward capacity expansion projects is determined. Table 8 presents
capacity expansion projects that were funded with the CIT over the past five years.
Table 8
Portion of Capital Improvement Tax Revenue Used for Expansion
Revenue Source FY06 FY 07 FY08 FY 09 FY 10 Total
Capita/lmnfovement Tax (1)
Naples Hiah Gvm 12,000 12,000
Sea Gate Elementarv 1126.410 11,299,113 11.425,523
Hiahlands Elementary 145,404 145.404
lake Trafford Elementary 1571 15,843 184.970 122,322 1113,706
Estates Elementa 14.643 13,810 1140,683 1149,136
Immokalee Hiah School 14,321 1155,679 $74,285 1234,285
Big Cypress Elementarv 1175,295 12,594,057 1360,352 123,322 13.153,026
Villaqe Oaks Elementarv 1222.019 1222,019
Calusa Park Elementarv 177.452 1483,643 135.616 17,020 1603,731
New Middle School EE/Cypress Palm 1881,978 1411,130 11,293,108
Lorenzo Walker Technical Hioh School 110.347 1662,838 1673,185
Elementary SchoollNeteran Memorial 1609,798 12,888,343 12,380,141 1204,197 16,981 16,089.460
Reserved for Future ElementarvSchool 1475,530 1119,543 1595,073
Hiqh School EEE 137,256 137,256
Bus Acnuisitions 12.064,139 11,251,659 13,315,798
While Fleet Acquisitions 152,052 161,730 1113,782
SileAcauisition 19,469,960 14.169,390 17,356.479 1196,649 1526,746 121,719.224
Site and FacilitvTestinq 1189,141 1134,687 143847 134,920 147,969 1450.564
ImmokaleeArea Plannina 125,754 125,754
Permillinq Services 1305,685 1258,777 1144 283 1154,575 10 1863,320
Construction Blu80rintina 1204,078 197.425 1100.446 136,851 116,551 1455,351
High School Athletic Imnrovement 11101,094 18,235878 13.566,968 1463,593 1493,139 113,860,672
Tolal CapitallmorovementExpenditures 115.733.731 121,862.545 115.344,686 11.327,724 11,172,691 155,441.377
Averace Annual Capital Improvement EXDenditures(2l 15.544,138
Average Annual Capilallmprovement Tax Revenues (FY 06-FY 1S)P) 1117,444,168
Percent of Capital Improvement Tax Used for Expansion Proiects(4) 5%
(1) Source: Collier County School Di5trict
(2) Total capital improvement expenditures divided by 10 years.
(3) Source: Revenues for FY 06 through FY 10 are provided by the District staff. Source for
estimated revenues for FY 11 through FY is i5 2010-2011 Work Plan.
(4) Average annual capital improvement expenditures (Item 2) divided by average annual
capital improvement tax revenues (Item 3)
Because there are no programmed capacity expansion projects over the next five years,
these years are not shown in the table. However, the annual average figures are
calculated based on a ten-year period. As shown, approximately 5 percent of the CIT
revenues are used for capacity expansion. This figure is used in the calculation of annual
capital improvement tax revenue per student (Table 9).
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc.
March 2011
18
Callier County
School Impact Fee Update
w
DRAFT
The second step involves the calculation of total taxable value by type of residential land
use, based on information obtained from the Collier County Property Appraiser
database. The total taxable value is then divided by the enrollment by type of
residential land use to determine the average taxable value per student. It is recognized
that nonresidential properties also pay ad valorem taxes. However, because these land
uses do not pay a school impact fee, a credit is not required to be provided for this
revenue.
Third, the annual tax payment per student is calculated. The average taxable value per
student is divided by 1,000 and then multiplied by the appropriate millage rate (the
amount taxed per $1,000 of taxable value) included in the budget. The annual CIT
revenue per student is calculated based on the percent of CIT revenue available for
capacity expansion. It should be noted that an additional portion of the CIT revenue is
used to repay the existing debt issues that were used to fund expansion projects. This
portion is addressed separately under the debt service credit. Table 9 presents the
credit for the "cash" portion of the CIT revenues.
!indole-Oliver & Associates, Inc.
March 2011
19
Collier County
School Impact Fee Update
~
~1
"''"
~ ~
" "
~ "
(3 a.
'"
~ '"
.... '" ,.... ~ <0 ~ It
~ 8
co co ~ 0 <F> ~
0 N ~ ~ l() u
<F> "
N co <F> a.
,.... .s
<F>
(;
"
..c
u
'"
>
....
v ;j)
/'ll ~ ,.... '" ,.... ~ <0 E
a. l() 0 N 0 <0
<0. ,.... ~ "" l() ~ '"
/'ll <F> ""
U ~ ,....- ",,- <F>
~ ~ <F> C
... N 0 Q
J2 N 0 ~
<F> 0 C
..... '"
OJ a.
x
.c b <li
/'ll "0 >-
-
<li 'u
.- "0 '"
/'ll .:; a.
~ 0) .... l() "" ~ 0) 'C '"
,.... "" co 0 <0 u
co. co ~ "" l() <F> N ~ ~
<F>
,.... ~ ~ 0
OJ N N <F> E E -
:J 0) <li <li <li
c: <F> "" "" :c
OJ - ..!!1
<li
> C - '"
<li '" >
C'l OJ E ~ '"
OJ 0::: <li -
0 OJ) c
X ~ ~ <li a
.c c u '"
~ <li ~
~ E <li
- a.
.... c '" >-
<li
c: "0 - .0
OJ <li " '0. "0
~ - '" .'l!
E '" ~ u
.0 <li >- a.
OJ ~'" '" ..c .0 ""
> ;::" - - "0
::> '-"-' '" >- "
0 '" c: Cl .0 ~ E
... > '" ~ "0 a.
a. -c <li <li ~ V">
'" ::> .!i>
E m U5 "0 E
25 -c: '" :~ - "
'" ~ - u E <li
0 ~ c.. .~ 'C
x '00 '" "0 ""
'" a. ~ - M
c: c. <( ~ ~
/'ll f- .... i:3 -
.'!: 0: '" ?:- >0 E c
'" c. E
:;c C x '13 t_ -0 <li <li
a. :g w '" <li 0 <li "" "0
6" '" c. a. 0 - 0 "
/'ll '" '=- ..c -
U -c 0 -c ?:- '" 0 ..c u - ~
'00 5: 0_ ::> '13 U ~ u <li Vl C ~
U5 "- Vl " >- <li
&. G: C '" ~ <li
/'ll c. .e >- >- '" _"0 a.
C '" ~ Q; '" - - > c " -
:J -c '" c c " ~
'" '" ::> -So c. U VI :> :> <li c
c: -c E U5 - ~ c 0 0 :c 0 ~ <li
.~ Q) c: .e '" u ~oo E
c: e u u '" G
Q; ro '" E x ~ >-
oCt E ~ ~ <li <li -!O
C c::: Q) :>. ~ .'l! '" <li '"
c: c. 25 - :c a.
::> W :>. '" -0 ~ '"
0 '" Q) '" .!!! "- -0 -0 '" '" '" x '"
C 0> "- U f- '" ~
U ::> 'm LL u U ., > .S!
'" '" -
'" x >- c ..!!! ro u
-c > :;,: '" <i U <li cu <li <li -" <li "
::> f- -' :E u u :> ~
u u ~ ~
U5 Q) C ~ ~ ~ :> '" :> c ~
25 2 ro ro " :> x <<
'" <li 0 '" 0 c
0 '" '0. ::> f::' ::> 0 0 '" Vl f- V"> <( o;,s
~ x c: c: Vl Vl ~
0 '" '" c: Q) c: -;:i~M~U;-l:OE '"
N f- U <i "- <i .~ ~
a ~
f- a
.i> '"
LL ..c
<i " u
c::: " ~
" "
Cl i:: ::;
DRAFT
The final step in this process is to calculate the present value of the annual CIT revenues
per student. This calculation includes two components. The first component annually
increases the tax revenues over a 2S-year period, since CIT is a continuous revenue
source for the District. For each home type, percent of homes that are homesteaded is
obtained from the Collier County Property Appraiser database. According to State law,
the increase in taxable value of homestead property is capped at three percent or at the
Consumer Price Index, whichever is lower. A review ofthe 2S-year historical CPI data
for the Miami-Ft. Lauderdale area indicates that the average annual increase also has
been three percent, consistent with the maximum increase allowed by State law. To
allow for adjustments due to sale of properties, etc., an average increase of 4 percent is
used for homesteaded properties. The average annual increase in the value of non-
homesteaded properties is estimated at S percent based on the historical trends.
According to the information obtained from the Collier County Property Appraiser
database, approximately 99 percent of the single family homes are homesteaded. This
figure is 11 percent for multi-family homes, and 38 percent for mobile homes.
The second component brings the resulting annual CIT revenue figures per student back
to present value. The discount rate used to determine the present value is five percent,
which is based on information provided by the District. Table 10 presents these
calculations.
Tindafe-Oliver & Associates, Inc.
March 2011
21
Collier County
Schaal Impact Fee Update
~
+-'
l:
QJ
"0
::s
+-'
V'l
...
QJ
C-
.'!:
"0
QJ
...
U
QJ
::s
l:
QJ
>
QJ
0 c:::
~ X
QJ ~
.0
~ +-'
l:
QJ
E
QJ
>
0
...
C-
E
ra
.'!:
c-
ra
U
ra
::s
l:
l:
<C
l-
LL
<(
n::
Cl
~:
c
o
z~
~
~ ~
E :;;
o ~
:J: E
~~
.0
o
'"
oooo~~~~oooooo~oooooo~
00000000000000========
~~~~~w~~w~wwwwwwwwwwww
~---------------------
",'"
~ ~
CO 0
~'"
ag.
.~ ~
"'"-
(3 t
o
"-
~
c
o
..c:
w
'"
1!~I-
n:l.... ":
> '0 -
- ~
c ~
~ U
0_
~ 0
0:
!~I'
u~
~ ~ H ~I
g ~ a.. > u
i j ~ ~I:
~ I- .g
- ~
U;;;
-'O~ 10
I:: ....._.
~ ~ ~
~"'iU ~
"- > U
~II
~ ~~s"I:
~g;-=-g
~a:~u
:E- -=1:
.., ~ g .
~ t::-g
:; Ou;
'"
~~ l:;ll~
. n:l a.. > u
]~ I
llJ E ::: ":
~~ w"-.
'iiJ a..ffi
c ,... ~
Ui U ~
~ - '0 ~ 1.0 .
~~(J):!=
~g;-='g
Ea:~u
o
i ~ ~ I~' ~
U- a.~
(J) !::-g
m <.>_
c w
Ui
=ON~=~~~~~~~roNmro=~~~~~
=~=m~==~roM~N~~ro~~~v~m~
wwww~~rororom~66~~N~M~~~W
-----------~~~~~~~~~~~
-----------
=~mMroN=~==~=~=~=~=~~=~
=~roro~~==~~~~MMNN~~==mm
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
=~m~Nomm~~ro~~mm~~m=~wm
=N~~=M~~N~=N==MroN=~=~=
wwww~~~~rororommm6o~~NNMM
--------------~~~~~~~~
--------
c
o
Z~
. ~
~~
~ ~
U- 0
+:::I:
"5
'"
========~==~=~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~-~--~--~~~-~~~--
w~mNNNm~w~~~~~O~~N~~N~
w~~~O~Nm~~~~~~m~w=ON~W
~~~~NNNNNNNNNmmMmm~~~~
~~--------~-------~---
~~@~~~~~~~~~~~~2~~~~~~
---~-------~---~------
WMO~~NOOO~W~~~W~OOON~OONW
w~~~~O~~Nm~~w~OO~~Nm~w~
~~~~~NNNNNNNNNNNmmmmMM
----------------------
'"
'"
~~~~~~m~~mm~~~m~~m~mm~
WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW
----------------------
mNWO~=N~N~N~~O~~~~~~~M
W~~oo==m~OO~~Nmm~~~W~=m
----~---~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
------~-------
mm=~~W~~~MMN~ooom==~~w
WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW~~~~~~
----------------------
~N~=~~~O~=NWo~m~m~m~~~
W~~~===mmmOO~~~NNmm~~~
----------~~~~~~~~~~~~
------------
~
.s
",'
'"
"
'<3
0
'"
'"
""
""
~
'"
." ....
9 ....
a
'"
~ ..c:
0 w
'" ~
~ 0
;:: ~
c
~
o
~ ~
0.:.=
- ~
0>
O~Nm~~W~=m~~~~~~~~~~~~
~
~
>-
Ee:
"'- ,. ..,. "'''
~ ~
~ '" ;! " "
.0 - c: " "
0 13 Q.
0 :::>
~ "Q ~ "
Q) Q) ~ It
OJ) ~
<0 <0 :3 ~
~ .D w
c: .~ "
Q) Q.
u ~ '" ~
~ Q) E
Q) E <5
0. Q)
ro 0 '" "
.r; -<:
"'- "'- c: "Q w
"Q 0 "Q V,
00 ..,. Q) <0
;;; M 0 :~ "Q Q)
'C "Q <0 ~
Q) ~
"Q Q) Q)
.... 0. <0 ~ E
c: ;;:- c: ~
c: Q) 0
ClI 0 <0 E .r;
""C E .., "Q 0 Q)
Q) <0
:J ~ c: .r; ~
'" <0 i: <0
.... <0 '"' ~
lI) Q) ~ 0 <0
OJ) '0. c: c: .r;
... <0 <0 Q) ~ ~
ClI ~ u
"'- c: u ~ 0 ~
Co ~ Q) ~ Q) - Q)
..,. .;c U <0 0. Q) E
.~ - - ~ Q) '" ~ 0
Q) >- <0
""C 0. J., - .~ .r;
0 -
ClI "Q N E ~ 0
... Q) <0 ~ Q)
~ Q)
U <0 ~ :J OJ)
.~ Q) E Q) <0
> ~ ~
ClI "Q 0 'x <0 c:
- :J -'= <0 1:' Q)
""C Q) E u u
c: Q) ~ ~
ClI ClI .r; ~ "Q .!: Q)
:J "'- ,. ~ Q) ro 0.
:> ..,. >- ~ " Q)
c: ~ :J
ClI .D Q) .r;
'';:; a:: "Q ~ ,g c: ~
Q) c: >-
c: Q) ~ <0 <0
X ~ c: .D
0 <0 Q) Q) .te
{J. Q) ~ .r; .r; <'0
U ~ c: ~ f- "Q '"
- u Q) c: Q)
.... c: u 0 <..i ~
C ~ u
c: .~ Q) "Q ~ Q)
.-l Q)
ClI Q) 0. Q) .r;
~ ~- ~
ClI E :J U"l <0
~ .D .!!! OJ)
..0 "'- <0 <0 <0 c:
ClI ;;: > .~ ~ :c
{J. :> ~ ~~ Q) rl
~ Q) .EIl
0 ;;; ;;; .r; E Q) .r; Q)
~ E ~
... ~- Q) Q) - "
Co ~ ~ 0 0 >-
E <0 <0 .r; Q) .D
Q) ~ .D "Q ~
>- c: <0 Q) :J "Q
OJ) Q) ~ "Q <0 Q)
c:"Q <0 <0 U ~
ro .- :J "Q Q) Q) .!!!
.~ c: ~ ~ ~ .D :J
<0 ~ Q) ~ ..!:
Co E ~ .~ Q) Q) <0
Q) E "Q
ro 1:' 0. <0 <0 ~ U
~
U "'- "'- Q) 0.0 E u .>2
m ..,. Q) :J o..r; 'C Q)
m .r; <( ~ ~ ~
;;; c: 0 ~ ~ ~
ro ~ Q) >-- c: 6 :J
:J ~ > t Q)
0 Q) Q) E "0 "Q
c: ~ ~ Q) ~ c:
0. <0 ~ 0 .!!!
c: f- Q) ~
c:i U 0 ~ :J .r; .r;
oct ~ u u G
~ 0. c: 'C V) U
<0 ro >- .- <0 >- <0 .!::
Q) Q)
>- :J ~ <0 Q) ~ ~'
c: c: c: ~
~ c: :J :J -'1 :J 0 "
0 c: - ~
<0 0 <0 0 .~
- - u c: > vi u "" w
en 0 ~ <0 Q) "Q ~ "Q "
~ Q) Q) "Q .r; c: ~ Q) ~
ID :0 Q) Q) ~ ~ ~
U :J Q) U <(
'" "0 ~ ~ ~ "0
ro ID <0 <0 <0 0 ~ x ""
ID -ID = f- > u E - ro u <0 ~
1n ro ~ :;:; ~ ~ .~
ID ~ " :;; c: u ...
" ro Q) c: Q) ~ 'C Q)
M ..,. 15 E ~ ID > U Q) U Q) :J :: <0 9 ...
N N >- 0 u rn <( ~ ~ ~ 0 0 ~ a
I- :IO E '" ~ :J Q) :J Q) U ~ :l Q) '"
Ll- e 1n -" 0 ~ 0 .r; u .>2 0 > ~ -<:
<( ID " ID ~ V) "'- V) f- <0 .r; V) 0 " w
e ~ :;; = " ~
0:: c '" " "
ID c e rl~ro~ 0:~
Cl "- <( :;: >=: :;;
ro :;; ~
~ ~ c
ID
ID >- ~
'" u ~
c In
;;;
C
ID
~
ID ID
.>: -'"
DRAFT
DEBT SERVICE CREDIT PER STUDENT
While the District has no programmed capacity expansion projects in its Five-Year Work
Plan, the outstanding debt service, referred to as Certificates of Participation (COPs),
related to past capacity expansion projects must still be repaid. The District uses a
combination of impact fees and ad valorem revenues to repay the debt service.
Therefore, a credit is given for future ad-valorem payments toward debt service related
to capacity expansion projects.
As presented in Table 11, the debt service amounts to approximately $8,300 per
student.
!indole-Oliver & Associates, Inc.
March 2011
Collier County
Schaa//mpact Fee Update
24
m
l-
LL
<(
~
o
..-t
..-t
QJ
.0
~
...
c:
QJ
"'tl
::::l
...
VI
...
QJ
Co
.~
"'tl
QJ
...
U
QJ
u
';>
...
QJ
VI
...
.0
QJ
o
'"
U
'2:
'"
en
~ -
'" ~
0..1:
- '"
:.c "t:J
_ '" ::l
.c ~ -
'" 0 en
o
- 0>
o '"
~ .:
- .,
., E
> '"
1:~
"'-
~ -5
ll.1-
~
o
LL
0>",
'" ::l
'c C
.- en
., -
E '"
'" '"
~ E
>.
.,
ll.
- 0)2
0 - '" en
~ 0 'c -
'"
'" en 'n; '"
.c ~ E
E ., E
~ >.
::l '" .,
:z ~ ll.
"'(ij
::l
'"
'"
<(
'"
0>
.,
~
'"
.it
"
--
'"
'"
E
"0
~
'"
w
M
-$
'"
'"
E
>.
.,
ll.
N
-",
o
'jjj
'"
.,
~
W
tilif8
<f> <f>
~O'<T
(O~fi5
~ ~ ~
'<T '<T '<T
1[)
~
00
~
o
1[)
(")
<f>
;2;
o
N-
o
00
N
<f>
N 00
~ 00
~ I'-
<f> <f>
(")
~
N
o
1[)
<D
a
CeoQ)N
o co ("f) l.{')
L{').,-t-M
c5 LC'- 0- I..()
OOMr-OO
<.00.,-0
M'(,,)-LO~
ffl-Efi-f::Ftf::Ft
1[)
<D
'<T
N
'<T
~8
om
<Do)
;:t;2;
M'~
(") <f>
<f>
08;2;
;;;OO'<T
<f> -
N
<f>
o
m
'<T
~N
'<T '<T
18~'<T
o~
M'~
(") m
~ 00
0'
1[)
~
<f>
N
'<T
I'-
~ m-
<f> (")
<f>
~ 1[)
~ <D
~ '<T
N-
'<T
I'-
1[)
I'-
0-
1[)
00
(")-
(")
<f>
"--N("I")~N<.DN
'"
o
~
c..
.'<:5 Q)Q.l Q) Q)
. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
co VJ.!Ll.!!2 CflJ!l cn.!Ll
a...!!2 .!L1.!ll
'"
o
:;::;
0..
.<:
U
en
'"
o
-
O(J)
lll~
100
U1[)
""m
'Em
"'~
o
(J)
D-
O
o
en
~
C>
C>
N
(J)
D-
O
o
.0
~
o
o
N
(J)
D-
O
o
N
o
o
N
(J)
D-
O
o
en
N
C>
o
N
(J)~
D-o
00
o en
1[) 1[)
88
N N
(")
fB
0'
N
<D
...=-
o
~
<f>
1[)
(")
<D
N
<f>
~
1[)
N
'<T
N (")
I'- ~
(") ~
oo::t"- 0)-
N I'-
~ (")
N- cD
~ 1[)
~ <f>
<f>
(")
m
o
g
'<T
,...:
(")
N
<f>
<D I'-
~ ~
<D
-CD CD
::l ::l
V> V>
.!!2.!Ll
(J)
D-
O
o
?B
o
N
c
o
-c
'"
~
ro
..0
'"
=>
-C-C
~ i"
co u
'" '"
~ .~
~ B::
oo~
.S ~
"'""6 C"'O C
Q) 0 "ro v OJ
Co..!: E..c >
u ~....... "tiO
~ ro .~~
c ...... +-' aJ
:J B ~ ~
8~~~~
.~ U +-' uN
o'~ '0'0 Ci::
E QJ VI -I-'
U a. :J QJ "'
Q.j c ro V1
:c ~ ,2 :: ~ ~ .....
Q):J~~~Ec
oa~UJ~o~
.sEx,-~c~
o QJ 0.. Q) a..
1-;::;-
~
(")
>-
~
'u
m ro
~ a.
(") rJ
cO-c
<f> '"
-c
c
=>
~
~
ro
E
J')
u
'"
'0
~
a.
'"
""
~
~
o
'"
00
ro
~
c
'"
u
~
a.
'"
E
~
o
~
~
c
=>
o
u
u
ro
o
~
-c
~
~
=>
'i5'
ro
c
ro
.2
""
u
ro
'"
~
<f>
m
<D
1[)
N
'<T
o
00
00
0)
N
N
N-
00
<f>
.E
~
~
c
'"
E
>-
ro
a.
00
c
c
ro
E
'"
_ a:
'" ..
'" u
"0 'C
::l t:
00
(J)
D-
o
o
I'-
o
o
N
:=:
"'Cl
l!!
o
'"
U
.~
'"
en
'"
""
~
00
c
tJ .~
c ro
'" u
E-c
>- c
ro ro
a.....
~~
:~ ~
ro>--
E E
~ e *'
'0:;1.0
~ ~ 2-
ro =>....
~~~
~~..o
Oem
:u OJ I-
.0 E c
E == C
:J e ::
ceo
'" '"""
...c no VI Q)
...... C "'0 ...c
-g "gj .g ~
ro"'O QJ QJ
..... QJ a. 6
c a. ~
EQJ ..2 ~ ~
'" >- '"
~ 5i 0 E
a. ""0 .-i p
..c Q) OJ ~
U ..... ....c c
(1J QJ +-' Q)
~ :: ~ ro
o VI > ::J
Q) ~ 0 c
.... :J QJ C
ro tlO VI ro
~ t;: ~
~ ~ ~
'" c u
~ '" c
~ E
.~ e ~
.s ~ ~
M~
-c
m
""
~
.~
~
u
m
.0
~:"2
E ~
'" 00
'" c
~~
~ .~
~1=C
mE
a. c
00 0
C '.j:j
,S 0
m a.
E '"
'"""
~ ~
'" ~
"" ~
~ iij
'0'<=
'" i"
~ Vl
~
C
'"
E
>-
m
a.
00
.~
c
'm
E
i"
m
'0
~
'0
'"
'" =>
~ro
~ >
'" ~
> c
m '"
'" ~
"" i"
~"-
>-
E QJ ..0 vi
..... 00-0 <lJ
~, ~ Q) III
'"-c~
~ ~ :~ ~
..2_"0 a.
.~ E M.~
~ E ""
>- Q):'=
W ~ s:
.~ III ...:..:
~ ~ u
m c m
Qj aJ ..0
~ E -c
-F: ~'ro
_a.a.
0000
c .S
c ~
E .~
i" u
ro .~ vi
B e:: ~
....... .:E c
o (JJ g;
~ "'0 ~
<U
>
~~
Ee::
"''"
t: c
"'"
o Q
v::,
~
~ ~
at
o
Q
!:
c
o
"'
u
'"
"'
'"
u
.!;:
~'
'"
~
o
'w
o
'"
~
<t
o<l
~
'"
.~ ""'"
aB
<L~
:g ~
c 0
1::::;;
DRAFT
VIII. Net Impact Cost per Student
The net impact fee per student is the difference between the cost component and
the credit component. Table 12 summarizes this information by land use.
First, for each land use, the total impact cost per student is determined. This is the sum
of the weighted average facility impact cost per student from Table 4 and the
transportation and ancillary facility cost components per student from Table 5. While
the school facility cost figures differentiate by school type, they do not differ by type of
residential land use. As previously mentioned, the transportation and ancillary cost
components are calculated on a per-student basis and do not differ by type of school or
by type of residential land use.
Second, for each land use, the total revenue credit is determined. This is the sum of the
state revenue credit per student from Table 6, local capital improvement fund credit
from Table 7, capital improvement tax revenue credit from Table 10, and the debt
service revenue credit per student from Table 11. The state revenue credit, local capital
improvement fund credit, and debt service credit are calculated on a per-student basis
and do not differ by type of residential land use. The capital improvement tax revenue
credit also is calculated on a per-student basis but, due to the adjustment for
homestead exemption, this revenue credit per student varies by type of residential land
use.
Third, the net impact cost per student is determined, which is the difference between
the total impact cost per student and total revenue credit per student.
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc.
March 2011
26
Callier County
Schaal Impact Fee Update
~
DRAFT
Table 12
Net Impact Cost per Student
CosUCredit Element Single Family Multi Family Mobile Home
mpac os
Facility Impact Cost per Student(1) $32,506
Transportation Impact Cost per Student(2) $1,011
Ancillary Facility Impact Cost per Student(3) li..QJ1
Total Impact Cost per Student(') $34,529
Impact Credit
State Revenue Credit per Student(5) ($28) ($28) ($28)
Local Capital Improvement Credit per StudentlS) ($99) ($99) ($99)
Capital Improvement Tax Revenue Credit per Studenti') 1$1,541 ($4,111 ($144
Debt Service Repayments Credit per Student(B) !.R.llil !.R.llil !.R.llil
Total Revenue Credit per Student(') ($9,987) ($12,557) ($8,590)
Net ImDact Cost
Net Impact Cost per Student(1O) $24,542 $21,972 $25,939
tC t
(1) Source: Table 4
(2), (3) Source: Table 5
(4) Sum of the total facility impact cost per student (Item 1), transportation service cost per student (Item
2), and ancillary facility cost per student (Item 3)
(5) Source: Table 6
(6) Source: Table 7
(7). Source: Table 10
(8) Source: Table 11
(9) For each land use type, the total revenue credit per student is the sum of the state revenue credit per
student (Item 5), local capital improvement fund credit per student (Item 6), capital improvement tax
revenue credit (Item 7), and the debt service credit per student (Item 8).
(10) For each land use type, the net impact cost per student is the total impact cost per student (Item 4)
less the respective total revenue credit per student (Item 9).
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc.
March 2011
27
Collier County
Schaal Impact Fee Update
~
DRAFT
IX. Student Generation Rates
The number of students living in a household typically varies depending on the type of
residential housing. Therefore, school impact fees are typically assessed based on the
specific student generation rates for different types of residential land uses.
Collier County's currently adopted school impact fee developed the student generation
rates using Public Use Microdata Sample (PUMS) and Census 2000 data. Because these
data sources are becoming outdated and, in the past several years, additional data have
become available, this impact fee study employs a new methodology using Geographic
Information Systems (GIS) to develop the student generation rate for Collier County.
Specifically, GIS was used to link student addresses to parcels in the Collier County
Property Appraiser's database in order to generate the number of students per unit by
school type and land use based on the latest tax roll. This process is described in more
detail below.
Determination of Total Housing Units by Type of Land Use
Depending on the purpose, there are multiple ways a dwelling unit can be classified in
terms of the type of residential land use. For the purposes of this analysis, the building
codes in the Property Appraiser's database are used to determine the student
generation rates for the single family detached, multi-family, and mobile home land
uses. For all land uses, the total number of countywide units for the 2010 tax year were
extracted from the parcel database based on the appropriate building code.
Determination of Students by School Type and Land Use Code
The determination of the number of students per land use was completed using the
following process.
First, the Collier County School District provided a GIS shapefile containing geocoded
student addresses. Each student address was linked to its respective parcel in the
Property Appraiser database using address point data provided by Collier County.
The student generation rates used as the demand component for the impact fee only
includes those students for which the impact fee is based, or students attending those
Tindole-Oliver & Associates, Inc.
March 2011
28
Collier County
Schaa/lmpact Fee Update
~
DRAFT
schools listed in Appendix A, Table A-i. Therefore, the school code associated with each
student record was used to exclude students attending schools or other facilities not
included in the impact fee inventory.
As previously mentioned, once the GIS shapefile with the geocoded student addresses
was provided, the second step in the analysis was to link each student address to data
from the parcel database. This allows for determining which type of land use is assigned
to a given parcel (or address) where a student lives. This was accomplished by spatially
joining the student address to the respective parcel in the database using GIS.
Approximately 9S percent of the students were successfully linked to a parcel. The
remaining 5 percent included students with addresses outside of the county or
addresses that did not match an address in the address point layer or were not
associated with one of the land uses included in the schedule.
The results of this analysis are presented in Table 13, which includes the student
generation rates calculated for each of the three land uses, based on the methodology
described above.
Table 13
Student Generation Rates
Single Family
- Less than 1,500 square feet 0.32
- 1,500 to 2,499 square feet 0.35
- 2,500 square feet or greater 0.39
Multi Family 0.11
Mobile Home 2,007 9,221 0.22
(1) Number of students for each residential land use type based on the GIS
analysis linking student addresses and parcel data from the Collier County
Property Appraiser's database.
(2) Source: Collier County Property Appraiser
(3) Number of students (Item 2) divided by the number of units (Item 1) for each
residential land use type. Figures for different tiers of the Single Family
Detached land use are calculated by multiplying students per housing unit
figure of O.3S by ratios developed based on national persons per household
data derived from the 2007 American Housing Survey (92% for smaller homes,
111% for homes with 2,SOO square feet or more).
Tindole-Oliver & Associates, Inc.
March 2011
29
Collier County
Schaal Impact Fee Update
~
DRAFT
X. Calculated School Impact Fee Schedule
To determine the calculated school impact fee for each residential land use under each
fee schedule scenario, the net impact cost per student is multiplied by the student
generation rate. The resulting net impact fees are presented in Table 14. The table also
presents a comparison to the adopted impact fee levels prior to the implementation of
50 percent reduction.
Table 14
Calculated School Impact Fee Schedule
Net Impact Net Impact
Impact Cost per Students Cost per Adopted Percent
Residential Land Use Unit Studentl per Unit) Unitl' Fee(4) Change(5)
Single Family
- Less than 1,500 square feet du $24,542 0.32 $7,853 $9,613 -18%
- 1,500 to 2.499 square feet du $24.542 0.35 $8,590 $10,755 -20%
- 2,500 square leet or greater du $24.542 O.3g $9,571 $11,703 -18%
Multi Family du $21,972 0.11 $2.417 $3,344 -28%
Mobile Home du $25,939 0.22 $5,707 $6,687 -15%
(1) Source: Table 12
(2) Source: Table 13
(3) Net impact cost per student (Item 1) multiplied by the students per unit (Item 2) for each land use
for each school type
(4) Source: Collier County Impact Fee Schedule, February 14, 2010. Reflects the level of school
impact fee prior to the 50 percent decrease implemented recently.
(5) Difference between the calculated fees (Item 3) and adopted fee (Item 4)
TindaJe-Qfiver & Associates, Ine.
March 2011
30
Co/lier County
Schoof Impact Fee Update
~
APPENDIX A
School District Inventory
Table A-l
Collier County School District Existing School Inventory
.. ."
Elementary Schools
Avalon
Big Cypress
Calusa Park
Corkscrew
Eden Park
Estates
Golden Gate - North
Golden Gate - South
Golden Terrace - North
Golden Terrace - South
Highlands
Lake Park
Lake Trafford
Laurel Oak
Lely
Manatee
Mi ke Davis
Naoles Park
Osceola
Palmetto
Parkside
Pelican Marsh
Pinecrest
Poinciana
Sabal Palm
Sea Gate
Shadowlawn
Tommie Barfield
Veteran's Memorial Elementa
Village Oaks
Vineyards
Total- Elementary School
..-
.,
PK-S
PK-S
PK-5 I
PK-5.
PK-611J1i1
PK-5Iin~
PK-5 1
4-5 ilt!
PK-5
4-51.,
PK-6 .
PK-5
PK-6
PK-5
PK-5
PK-5,
PK-51mm
PK_5,lflf Pi',
':>111':
PK-S !H!
PK-5
PK-51
PK-5
PK-6
PK-5
PK-51'
PK-5
PK-5
PK-5 I
PK-5
PK-6
PK-5
.,. ..
h,
1968
1986111n
20021,1
1998 I,
2008
2oo3, ,
1973
2003
1988 i
2003 .
1965
1989
1989 ,
19921
1989
1993 I
2008
1973
2002
2008
2007,
1995 i!F
1962
19731 I
2003 I,
1964 ,II
1959
1972
20061
1986
1989 ,
Jill
'.
87,159
126,280
162,587
132,855 I
119,564
136,945
108,149! 11
68,648 'I, I
94,788
78,594 ,
126,151: L
87,1091!111111
127,OO6f!1fl!1
103,273 n
127,211 II
110,0491Il11il
126,345 II
98,873
141,815
124,822 j .II
127,212
141,452 .
132,508
108,139
142,867
117,580
92,657
111,921
154,999
116, 166~" I
132,326' I
3,666,050 II
, ,
'.
466
940 "
924
828
824
779
797
409
747 !
589
808
570
881 ,I
687
821
766
919
739
767
919
919
846 III!!
854
7631,1
772111111
898 i'
660
600, Ii
:~~II
901
24,125
-.
...
466
940
924
828
824
779
797
409
747
589
808
570
881
687
821
766
919
739
767
919
919
846
854
763
772
898
660
6oo
893
839
901
24,125
Collier County School District ~
Schoo/Impact Fee Update ~~
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc.
March 2011
A-1
Table A-l
Collier County School District Existing School Inventory
(Continued)
Middle Schools
Corkscrew
Cress Palm
EastNa les
Golden Gate
Gulfview
Immokalee
Manatee
North Na les
Oakri d e
Pine Rid e
Total- Middle School
High Schools
Barron Collier
Golden Gate
Ever lades (it
Gulf Coast
lmmokalee
Lorenzo Walker Technical
Lely
Naples
Palmetto Rid e
Total - High School
1,028
1,177
990
1,007
641
1,245
1,329
986
1,323
1,119
10,845
1,837
1,989
520
1,833
1,629
575
2,013
1,921
1,924
14,241
49,211
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc.
March 2011
Collier County School District ~.
School Impact Fee Update ~1
A-2
APPENDIX B
Supplemental Unit Cost Information
Building and Land Value Analysis
This Appendix provides additional information on the methods used to estimate
building and land values for the school impact fee.
Building Construction Costs
To determine the administration, architect/site improvement, construction, and FF&E
costs associated with building a new school in Collier County, the following information
was evaluated:
. New schools bid in 2006 or later in Collier County;
. Insurance values of existing schools, which provides a conservative estimate
since insurance companies do not insure more permanent parts of the
structures, such as the foundation, etc.
. School cost estimates provided by the Collier County School District;
. School cost information collected from 11 other Florida counties; and
. Discussions with industry architects.
The following paragraphs provide further detail on this research and analysis.
Since 2006, the Collier County School District built five elementary schools and one
middle school. These schools were completed in 2007 and 2008. Table B-1 presents
cost figures for these schools, which results in an average of $203 per square foot for
construction and site work, $11 per square foot for soft cost such as
design/architectural fees, etc., and $20 per square foot for FF&E, for an average overall
total of $234 per square foot. Given that these schools were built prior to recent
decreases in construction costs, this sample was not found to be representative of the
current value.
Tindale-O/iver & Associates, Inc.
March 2011
B-1
Collier County School District
Schoo/Impact Fee Update
m
Table B-1
Cost Data on Recently Built Schools
Year ConstructlOn,On-,
School Name BUilt Off,Slte Costs Soft Cost FF&E Total
Elementarv Schools:
Parkside Elementary 2007 $216.00 $8.00 $20.00 $244.00
Veteran Memorial Elementary 2006 $164.00 $6.00 $18.00 $188.00
Eden Park Elementary 2008 $234.00 $8.00 $24.00 $266.00
Mike Davis Elementary 2008 $188.00 $7.00 $19.00 $214.00
Palmetto Elementary 2008 $225.00 $15.00 $21.00 $261.00
Averaae -- Elementarv Schools $205.40 $8.80 $20.40 $234.60
Middle Schools:
Cypress Palm Middle 2007 $191.00 $19.00 $19.00 $229.00
Averaae --All Schools $203.00 $11.00 $20.00 $234.00
Source: Collier School District
As part of the construction cost analysis, TOA reviewed the current insurance value of
school buildings. This analysis resulted in a unit cost of approximately $140 per square
foot. It should be noted that insurance values are typically considered to be a
conservative estimate for construction costs since more permanent portions of the
buildings, such as the foundation, etc. are not insured because they would not have to
be rebuilt if the structure is damaged or lost.
Historical and recent bid information is obtained from 11 other Florida counties,
including:
. Brevard;
. Charlotte;
. Hernando;
. Lake;
. Manatee;
. Orange;
. Osceola;
. Palm Beach;
. Seminole;
Tindale-OJiver & Associates, Inc.
March 2011
B-2
Collier County School District ~
Schaal Impact Fee Update ~1
. St. Lucie; and
. Volusia.
The following chart presents the trend for construction costs based on the information
obtained from these counties. It should be noted that school costs tend to vary from
one district to another at any given time due to differences in design, amenities, site
issues, etc. However, Figure 1 is included to provide an order-of-magnitude trend line
over the past 10 years. Figures included represent only the construction and site work
cost, excluding soft costs and FF&E.
Figure B-1
Construction Cost Trends (Construction & Site Cost per FISH NSF)
Other Florida Counties
$200
$150
$100 I
r
I
!
I
$50 I
~".~
L.. ........................~~..~._.
/~
~...............~
>:........ ..--.....-::: ~
^ ^^ ^ ^ ^^~^^_^~,.,,~...~::~..~_._.._.M_...mww..
$0
0 n N '" "" '" '" .... 00 '" 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 n
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
N N N N N N N N N N N
Bid Year
Source: Data collected from other Florida counties (excluding Collier County)
TOA also contacted several industry architects and construction companies, including
those that were involved in building schools in Collier County. Discussion with the
architects and construction company representatives suggested a unit cost of $160 to
$200.
Tindale-OJiver & Associates, Inc.
March 2011
8.3
Collier County School District
School Impact Fee Update
~
Finally, the School District provided estimates that ranged from $145 to $175 per square
foot. More specifically, the estimates for construction and site work were $145 per
square foot for elementary schools, $160 per square foot for middle schools, and $175
per square foot for high schools. In addition, the cost associated with FF&E, technology,
and soft costs such as planning design and architectural fees was estimated at 20
percent of the construction cost. These estimates were provided by one of the District's
contractors, which were also reviewed and found to be reasonable by the District's
facilities staff.
Table B-2 summarizes the construction data obtained from this research effort.
Table B-2
Construction and Site Work Cost Data Summary
Construction and Site
Data Source Work Cost per Sf
<,
Average Insurance Value of Existing Schools $140.00
2010 Bid Data from Other Florida Jurisdictions $120 - $145
Industry Architecls and Construction Companies $160 - $200
Collier County School District Estimates $145 - $175
Collier Count Schools BUilt 06 08
$203 00
Given this information and analysis, the estimates provided by the District are found to
be reasonable and reflective of recent cost decreases. More specifically, a unit cost of
$145 per square foot is used for elementary schools, $160 per square foot for middle
schools, and $175 per square foot for high schools. The estimates for soft costs and
FF&E were based on the 20 percent additional cost estimate that was also provided by
the District, which were distributed between FF&E and 50ft costs based on the
distribution trends observed in previously built schools in Collier County.
Land Value
In order to determine land value for future school land purchases, the following
data/information was evaluated:
. The market (or just) value of parcels where current schools are located based on
information provided by the Collier County Property Appraiser;
!indole-Oliver & Associates, Inc.
March 2011
8-4
Collier County School District rn
School Impact Fee Update ~ ~
. The value of land based on the value used in the previous impact fee study,
adjusted for land value changes reported by the Property Appraiser; and
. Vacant land sales and market/just values of all vacant land in areas where future
schools will be built.
The current land value of existing schools averages to $80,000 per acre, based on the
information obtained from the 2010 Property Appraiser Database.
The land value included in the previous impact fee study was $202,000 per acre. This
value was determined based on programmed land purchases in the 2006 Capital
Improvement Program, land value of the existing schools at that time, and available
appraisals. As presented in Table B-3, this value is adjusted based on changes to
property values since 2006 as published by the Collier County Property Appraiser, which
results in a current estimated value of $147,000.
Table B-3
Adjusted Land Value
Property Value
Time Frame Land Value") Change(2)
- 2006 $202,051
- 2006 to 2007 $213,063 5.45%
- 2007 to 2008 $200,876 -5.72%
- 2008 to 2009 $172,452 -14.15%
- 2009 to 2010 $147,446 -14.50%
(1) 2006 land value reflects the average land value per acre
included in the 2006 School Impact Fee Report. Values for
remaining years were calculated based on the countywide
average property value changes reported by the Property
Appraiser.
(2) Source: Property Appraiser, Collier County
Collier County School District's Capital Improvement Plan (FY ll-FY 30) indicates that all
future schools included in the 10- and 20-Year Plans will be built east of County Road
951. An analysis of property values for the size of parcels used for elementary, middle,
and high schools suggest a range of $60,000 to $90,000 (excluding the parcels for high
schools due to small sample size). Table B-4 presents this information.
Tindole-Oliver & Associates, Inc.
March 2011
B~5
Callier County Schoo/ District ~,
Schoo/Impact Fee Update ~~
Table B-4
Just Market Value of Vacant Land - East of CR 951
Number of Vacant
Acreage Cost per Acre Parcels
- 10 to 30 Acres (Elementary) $87,514 22
- 20 to 50 Acres (Middle) $60,667 3
- 40 to 80 Acres (High School) $131,250 1
Weighted Averaoe (10 to 50 Acres) $75,988 24
Source: Collier County Property Appraiser Database, 2010
Based on this information, an average value of $75,000 per acre (mid-point of $60,000
and $90,000) is found to be a conservative estimate and is used in the study.
Tindafe~Oliver & Associates, Inc.
March 2011
8-6
Callier County Schaal District m"
Schaal Impact Fee Update ~ ~
APPEN DIX C
Distribution of Inventory for Indexing
Classification of Inventory Value for Future Indexing Calculations
Currently, Collier County indexes its school impact fees on an annual basis. This reduces
the likelihood of a situation where major adjustments become likely during updates due
to the time between the adjustments. Table C-1 presents the classification of the
inventory for future indexing purposes. This distribution will be used until the technical
study is updated next time.
Table C-1
Classification of Inventory Value
Percent of
Item Current Value[11 Total[21
Planning/Construction $1,305,384,656 81%
Land $118,267,500 7%
FF&E $154,309,157
BusesIVehicles $42,089,017
Subtotal- All Equipment $196,398,174 12%
Total Value of the Inventory $1,620,050,330
(1) Total net square feet and acreage of inventory (Table A-1) multiplied by the average
cost per square foot for planning and construction, land, and FF&E from Table 3. Total
cost for ancillary facilities and buses/vehicles is from Table 5.
(2) Percentage of each component out of the total value
Tinda/e-Ofiver & Associates, Inc.
March 2011
[-1
Collier County School District ~
Schaal Impact Fee Update ~~
EXHIBIT "A"
PROJECT SCREENING
*This application will determine the requirement for a Pre-Application meeting or confirm
SDPI/SIPI status
Collier County Government
Growth Management Division
Land Development Services
CD~r County
~ '-~ -
2800 North Horseshoe Drive
Naples, Florida 34104
Phone (239) 252-240() Fax (239) 643-6968
www.colliergov.net
5/13/2011
Name of AGENT(S):
Step One: APPLICANT / OWNER INFORMATION
FIRM:
------------------------------------
ADDRESS: ___________________________________________ CITY
STATE ________________
ZIP __________ - ______________
TELEPHONE: C____) ______ - _______ EXT.: _______ CELL: <--___) ------ - -------
FAX: <--___) ______ - _______
E - MAl L ADDRESS: ______________________________________________________--------------
Name of OWNER(s):
ADDRESS: ___________________________________________ CITY
STATE ________________
ZI P __________ - ______________
TELEPHONE: <--___) ______ - _______ EXT.: _______ CELL: C____) ______ - _______
FAX: <--___) ______ - _______
E-MAIL ADDRESS: ______________________________________________________-------------
I PROPERTY LOCATION/DESCRIPTION
PROPOSED PROJECT NAME: __________________________________
SITE ADD RESS ______________________________________________________----------------------
SECTION/TOWNSHIP /RANGE: ______/ ______/
PROPERTY I.D. #
(list all property ID's associated to this proiect: use a separate sheet if necessary)
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
LOCATION OF SUBJECT PROPERTY (proximity to closest major intersection or road):
Current Zoning Designation: ________________ Type of Development
Proposed:____________________________
5/13/2011
Total Area of Project: __________ # of Units __________ Density ___________ Non-Residential Sq. Ft:
SCOPE OF WORK
DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT OR PROPOSED WORK:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(If the proiect has a current SDP or SIP or anv other plans available. please provide a copv and c1earlv
identify the proposed scope of work).
Type of Development Proposed: (Commercial, Industrial, Residential, Mixed Use or Other):
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Area of Project or building sq. ft.: ______________________ No. of Residential Units:
I hereby submit and certify the application to be complete and accurate. I certify that the
improvements are only limited to the proposed scope of work.
---------------------------------------
SIGNATURE OF AGENT
DATE
STEP 1WO: ZONING
Is there zoning in place* for the proposed Project, Development? Please note that if this project
requires a Boat Dock Extension you need to check NO below.
YES: D
Proceed to STEP 3
NO: D
A Zoning Petition pre application meeting is required. You will be contacted by
staff to arrange meeting date and time. "
"In place zoning includes standard County zoning designations and allowable uses per LDC section
2.03.00, including PUD's, Boat Dock Extension, and conditional uses. Please note that your project
or development use or uses must be permitted as principal and accessory use(s) in the current
zoning district in order to proceed to step 3.
5/13/2011
STEP THREE: DEVELOPED SITE
Is the current parcel/site currently developed? (Does the site already contain buildings, has the site
been cleared of vegetation, or does the site contain other site development elements?)
YES: 0
Proceed to STEP 4
NO: 0
A SOP pre application meeting is required. You will be contacted by staff to
arrange meeting date and time. *
STEP FOUR: SITE PLAN TYPE
Is there an existing SOP or SIP for this project or development? (Contact the County Growth
Management Business Center or Records Department if you do not have this information.)
Project Number: _____________________
YES: 0
Proceed to STEP S
NO: 0
Proceed to STEP 6
STEP FIVE: ADDITIONAL SQUARE FEET PROPOSED
Will the proposed Project or Development include additional useable/occupied building Square
Footage, Floor Area, or Impervious Surfaces?
YES: 0
A pre application meeting is required. You will be contacted by staff to arrange
meeting date and time. *
NO: 0
Proceed to STEP 6
STEP SIX: SDPA OR SDPI DETERMINATION
5/13/2011
It appears that the project does qualify for either an SDPI or SIPI. Would you like to request a pre-
application meeting for the SDPI or SIPI to discuss your proposed development with staff? Yes D
No D
Can you confirm that the project meets all of the LDC criteria as per Section 1 0.02.03.B listed below?
Yes D No D
If the response is "no", staff will contact the applicant to schedule a pre~application meeting
LDC 10.02.03 B.
An insubstantial change to a site development shall be acceptable where the following conditions
exist with respect to the proposed change.
. There is no South Florida Water Management District permit or modification needed
. There is no new access proposed from any public street
. There is no addition to existing buildings however a maximum area of 300 sf of non-air-
conditional space used for storage will be permitted
. There is no proposed change to building footprint or relocation of any building
. The change does not result in an impact on or reconfiguration of preserve areas
. The change does not result in a need for addition environmental data
. The change does not include the addition of any accessory structure that generates
additional traffic
. The change does not trigger the requirements 0 LDC Section 5.05.08
. There are no revisions to the existing landscape plan that would alter or impact the SDP
(Refer to LDC 10.02.03 B. for additional information)
The applicant has the abilitv of automaticallv requestinq a Pre-Application meetinq at anv time.
** Based on the information provided in the project screening, staff will review against additional
criteria in order to determine if the project still qualifies for an SDPI or SIPI. Staff may contact the
applicant with additional questions or th schedule a pre-application meeting.
PLEASE SUBMIT THE PROIECT SCREENING FORM ALONG WITH ANY ADDITIONAL INFORMATION TO:
Michaellevv@collierqov.net
5/13/2011
EXHIBIT" A"
PROJECT SCREENING
*This application will determine the requirement for a Pre-Application meeting or confirm
SDPI/SIPI status
Collier County Government
Growth Management Division
Land Development Services
CD~'" County
~ "- ~- -
2800 North Horseshoe Drive
Naples, Florida 34104
Phone (239) 252-2400 Fax (239) 643-6968
www.colliergov.net
5/13/2011
Name of AGENT(S):
Step One: APPLICANT / OWNER INFORMATION
FIRM:
------------------------------------
ADDRESS: ___________________________________________ CITY
---------------------------------
STATE ________________
ZI P __________ - ______________
TELEPHONE: <--___) ______ - _______ EXT.: _______ CELL: <--___) ______ - -------
FAX: <--___) ______ - _______
E - MAl L ADDRESS: _______________________________________________________-------------
Name of OWNER(s):
ADDRESS: ___________________________________________ CITY
STATE ________________
ZIP __________ - ______________
TELEPHONE: L____) ______ - _______ EXT.: _______ CELL: <--___) ------ - -------
FAX: L____) ______ - _______
E - MAl L ADDRESS: ______________________________________________________--------------
I PROPERTY LOCATION/DESCRIPTION
PROPOSED PROJECT NAME: __________________________________
SITE ADDRESS ______________________________________________________----------------------
SECTION/TOWNSHIP/RANGE: ______/ ______/
PROPERTY 1.0. #
(list all property ID's associated to this proiect: use a separate sheet if necessary)
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
LOCATION OF SUBJECT PROPERTY (proximity to closest major intersection or road):
Current Zoning Designation: ________________ Type of Development
Propo sed: ____________________________
5/13/2011
Total Area of Project: __________ # of Units __________ Density ___________ Non-Residential Sq. Ft:
SCOPE OF WORK
DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT OR PROPOSED WORK:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(If the proiect has a current SDP or SIP or any other plans available. please provide a cOPV and c1earlv
identify the proposed scope of work).
Type of Development Proposed: (Commercial, Industrial, Residential, Mixed Use or Other):
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Area of Project or building sq. ft.: ______________________ No. of Residential Units:
I hereby submit and certify the application to be complete and accurate. I certify that the
improvements are only limited to the proposed scope of work.
---------------------------------------
SIGNATURE OF AGENT
DATE
STEP lWO: ZONING
Is there zoning in place* for the proposed Project, Development? Please note that if this project
requires a Boat Dock Extension you need to check NO below.
YES: 0
Proceed to STEP 3
NO: 0
A Zoning Petition pre application meeting is required. You will be contacted by
staff to arrange meeting date and time. *
"In place zoning includes standard County zoning designations and allowable uses per LDC section
2.03.00, including PUD's, Boat Dock Extension, and conditional uses. Please note that your project
or development use or uses must be permitted as principal and accessory use(s) in the current
zoning district in order to proceed to step 3.
5/13/2011
STEP THREE: DEVELOPED SITE
Is the current parcel/site currently developed? (Does the site already contain buildings, has the site
been cleared of vegetation, or does the site contain other site development elements?)
YES: D
Proceed to STEP 4
NO: D
A SDP pre application meeting is required. You will be contacted by staff to
arrange meeting date and time. *
STEP FOUR: SITE PLAN TYPE
Is there an existing SDP or SIP for this project or development? (Contact the County Growth
Management Business Center or Records Department if you do not have this information.)
Project Number: _____________________
YES: D
Proceed to STEP 5
NO: D
Proceed to STEP 6
STEP FIVE: ADDITIONAL SQUARE FEET PROPOSED
Will the proposed Project or Development include additional useable/occupied building Square
Footage, Floor Area, or Impervious Surfaces?
YES: D
A pre application meeting is required. You will be contacted by staff to arrange
meeting date and time. *
NO: D
Proceed to STEP 6
STEP SIX: SDPA OR SDPI DETERMINATION
5/13/2011
It appears that the project does qualify for either an SDPI or SIPI. Would you like to request a pre-
application meeting for the SDPI or SIPI to discuss your proposed development with staff? Yes D
No D
Can you confirm that the project meets all of the LDC criteria as per Section 1 0.02.03.B listed below?
Yes D No D
If the response is "no", staff will contact the applicant to schedule a pre-application meeting
LDC 10.02.03 B.
An insubstantial change to a site development shall be acceptable where the following conditions
exist with respect to the proposed change.
. There is no South Florida Water Management District permit or modification needed
. There is no new access proposed from any public street
. There is no addition to existing buildings however a maximum area of 300 sf of non-air-
conditional space used for storage will be permitted
. There is no proposed change to building footprint or relocation of any building
. The change does not result in an impact on or reconfiguration of preserve areas
. The change does not result in a need for addition environmental data
. The change does not include the addition of any accessory structure that generates
additional traffic
. The change does not trigger the requirements 0 LDC Section 5.05.08
. There are no revisions to the existing landscape plan that would alter or impact the SDP
(Refer to LDC 10.02.03 B. for additional information)
The applicant has the ability of automatically requestinq a Pre-Application meetinq at any time.
** Based on the information provided in the project screening, staff will review against additional
criteria in order to determine if the project still qualifies for an SDPI or SIPI. Staff may contact the
applicant with additional questions or th schedule a pre-application meeting.
PLEASE SUBMIT THE PROJECT SCREENING FORM ALONG WITH ANY ADDITIONAL INFORMATION TO:
Michaellevv@collierqov.net
5i13/2011
Office of the Fire Code Official
Summary of Plan Review Activity
April-11
Architectural Reviews
Sprinkler Reviews
Underground Reviews
Fuel & LP Gas Reviews
Hoods & FSUP Reviews
Alarm Reviews
SOP Reviews
Total # of Plans Reviewed
Number of Work Days
Average # of Plans Reviewed per Day
ASAP Reviews per Building Department
Total # of ASAP Reviews.
Total ASAP Reviews per Day
.Overtime Reviews are not included in this figure
Scheduled Meetings/Hours:
Classes and Seminars attended by FCO:
4/5 Florida Building Commision, Tampa
4/12 LP Gas Inspection Class, Naples
Total Overtime Hours for the Fire Code Office
*Overtime Hours Reimbursed by Contractors
Ed:
Bob:
Jackie:
Ricco:
Maggie:
482
38
7
3
7
91
58
686
20
34
6 Per County
18 AC Change Out
6 Low Voltage
4 Tents
34
2
31.5 Hrs.
26.75 Hrs.
6.5 Hrs.
68.17 Hrs.
3.34 Hrs.
Participant(s)
Ed Riley
Linda, Jackie, and Maggie
o
o
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 tile Fire Code Official
2800 N. Horseshoe Or
Naples. FL 34104
Agenda Item No. SA
October 12, 2010
Page 1 of 16
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Recommendation to consider adopting an Ordinance amending Chapter 74 of the Collier
County Code of Laws and Ordinances (The Collier County Consolidated Impact Fee
Ordinance) by amending the Educational Facilities (School) Impact Fee rate schedule, which
is Schedule Six of Appendix A, to provide for a reduction in rates, recommended by the
District School Board of Collier County and providing for a retroactive effective date of
October 8, 2010.
OBJECTIVE: That the Board of County Commissioners (Board) considers adopting an
Ordinance amending Chapter 74 of the Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances (The Collier
County Consolidated Impact Fee Ordinance) by amending the Educational Facilities (School)
Impact Fee rate schedule, which is Schedule Six of Appendix A, to provide for a reduction in rates,
recommended by the District School Board of Collier County and providing for a retroactive
effective date of October 8, 2010.
CONSIDERATIONS: Collier County has collected impact fees on behalf of the District School
Board of Collier County since 1992 with the impact fees being used as a funding source for
growth-related capital improvements related to educational facilities. The last full study of the
School Impact Fees was adopted by the Board on May 9, 2006. The current School Impact Fee
rates, established through the annual indexing process were adopted by the Board on April 28,
2009 via Ordinance No. 2009-17.
On August 19, 2010, the District School Board of Collier County voted unanimously to
recommend a 50% reduction of School Impact Fees for a period of two years.
The following is a side by side comparison of the current adopted School Impact Fees and the
proposed fees reflecting a 50'1:, reduction.
School Impact Fee Category Current Rate Proposed Rate
Mobile Home/RV Park $6,687.38 per unit/site $3,343.69 per unit/site
Multi-Family $3,343.68 per dwelling unit $1,671.84 per dwelling
unit
Single-Family less than 1,500 sf $9,612.82 per dwelling unit $4,806.41 per dwelling
unit
Single-Family 1,500 - 2,499 sf $10,755.41 per dwelling unit $5,377.70 per dwelling
unit
Single-Family 2,500 sf or larger $11,702.91 per dwelling unit $5,851.45 per dwelling
unit
A full update study is currently in process related to the School Impact Fees. The first draft of the
study is scheduled to be released to staff in early October. The study will then be reviewed by the
County advisory committees, prior to being prescnted to the District School Board for their review
and recommendations, which will then be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners. The
current schedule estimates the School Board will review this study in January 2011.
Agenda Item No. SA
October 12. 2010
Page 2 of 16
The outcome of the study, and corresponding impact fee rates, is unknown at this time; therefore,
one possible option is to implement the recommended reduction of 50% to the School Impact Fee
rates until such time that the study is completed. In the event that the Study recommends a rate
that is lower than that established by the 50% reduction, the rates could then be further adjusted to
reflect the findings of the study. If the findings of the study recommend a rate that is greater than
that established by the 50% reduction, the lower rates could remain in effect, at the agreed
direction of the School Board and Board of County Commissioners.
Regarding the reduced rates remaining in place for a period of two years, current impact fee
regulations require that impact fees be indexed in the mid-years between formal updates. While it
appears that the intent of the School Board's recommendation is to keep the fee constant for two
years, statT recommends that once the study is complete and the percentage of reduction is
finalized, that the reduction remain in place for one year. At the conclusion of the one-year period,
County and School District staff will review the available permitting data, financial information
and indexing calculations to determine if any further decreases are required.
FISCAL IMPACT: Revenue projections related to impact tees depend heavily on the permitting
trends during the corresponding time period and will directly affect the impact fee revenue stream.
The specified reductions are proposed to be retroactive to October 8, 2010; therefore, any permits
applied for on or after that date will receive the lower rates. The statutory minimum 90-day notice
is not required for impact tee reductions.
Below is the revenue generated by School Impact Fees for the last 6 years, including FY 20 I 0
(year-to-date through July).
FY 2005
FY 2006
FY 2007
FY 2008
FY 2009
FY 2010 (through August)
$8,008,800
$6,504,256
$9,508,200
$5,020,045
$4,519,724
$7,649,606
School Impact Fees are assessed only on residential construction. The increase in revenue in FY
20 I 0 is associated to an increase in residential permitting activity over the prior year.
Based on the proposed 50% reduction in impact tee rates, and assuming the construction activity
continues at a similar level the anticipated reduction in revenue is estimated at $3.8 million.
The staff report prepared by the District School Board staff for the August 19, 2010 agenda item is
attached as back-up to this Executive Summary. The differences in annual collections provided in
the School Board document and those listed above are related to different timing of the School and
County fiscal year, and deterral payoffs, refunds, etc., that are tracked separately in the County
reports.
2
Agenda Item No. 8A
October 12, 2010
Page 3 ot 16
GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: The Capital Improvement Element (ClE) of the Collier
County Growth Management Plan (GMP) states: "Future development will bear a proportionate
cost offacility improvements necessitated by growth."
Upon completion of the impact fee update study, staff will report back to the Board with the
findings and the established impact fee rates that may be imposed. The update study is used to
establish consistency with Section 163.31801, Florida Statutes, which is the Florida Impact Fee
Act 2006, requiring the most recent and localized data be used in impact fee calculations.
LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS: This item is legally sufficient for Board action. - JAK
RECOMMENDATION: That the Board of County Commissioners:
1. Adopt an Ordinance amending Chapter 74 of the Collier County Code of Laws and
Ordinances providing for a 50% reduction to the Educational Facilities (School)
Impact Fee rates and providing for a retroactive effective date of October 8, 2010;
2. Direct that, consistent with the School Board recommendation, that the reduced rates
remain in place for a two-year period, provided that the required annual indexing
establishes rates that are at or above those implemented by the initial 50% reduction;
and
3. Direct the County Manager or his desib'l1ee to report back to the Board at the conclusion
of the ongoing study process with the findings of the report.
Prepared by: Amy Patterson, Impact Fee and Economic Development Manager
Growth Management Division - Planning and Regulation
Attachments:
I) Proposed Ordinance Amendment; 2) Chamber of Commerce School Impact Fee Correspondence
3) August 19,2010 School Board Staff Report; 4) Correspondence from District School Board Chairman to
Board of County Commissioners Chairman
3
Agenda Item No. SA
October 12, 2010
Page 4 of 16
COLLIER COUNTY
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Item Number:
Item Summary:
SA
Recommendation to cOW;lder adopting an Ordinance amending Chapter 74 of the Colllef
County Code of Laws and Ordinances (The Colier County Consolidated Impact Fee
Ordinance) by amending the Educational FaCllites (School) Impact Fee rate schedule, which
IS Schedule SIX of AppendiX A to prOVide for a reduction in rates, recommended by the
District Sctlool Board of Collier County and providing for a retroactive effective date of
October 8. 2010
Meeting Date:
10/12/201090000 AM
Prepared By
Amy Patterson
Community Development &
Environmental Services
Manager -Impact Fees & EDC
Date
Business Management & Budget Office
10111201012:38:19 PM
Approved By
Judy Puig Operations Analyst
Community Development & Community Development &
Environmental Services Environmental Services
Date
1011/20101:36 PM
Approved By
Nick Casalanguida
Director ~ Transportation Planning
Date
Transportation Division
Transportation Planning
1011120103:47 PM
Approved By
Jeff Klatzkow
County Attorney
Date
1014120109:55 AM
Approved By
OMB Coordinator
Date
County Manager's Office
Office of Management & Budget
10141201010:00 AM
Approved By
Therese Stanley
Office of Management &
Budget
Manager - Operations Support ~ Trans
Date
Office of Management & Budget
1014/2010 4:22 PM
Approved By
Susan Usher
ManagemenUBudget Analyst, Senior
Date
Office of Management &
Budget
Office of Management & Budget
10/4/20104:40 PM
Approved By
Leo E. Ochs, Jr,
County Manager
Dato
County Managers Office
County Managers Office
1014120105:12 PM
Agenda Item No. SA
October 12, 2010
Page 5 of 16
The Gre~ter N~ples Ch~mDer of Commerce
Serving all of Collier County
July 28, 2010
Hon Kathleen Curatolo, Chair
Collier County School District Board
5775 Osceola Trail
Naples, FL 34109
RE: School Impact I<'ee
Dear School Board Members:
The Chamber's Public Policy leaders wish to share our thoughts as you discuss the school impact
fee and the District's capital plan during your July 29th, 2010 Board meeting. We hope our
comments may help you halance your impact fee policy recommendations to the Board of
County Commissioners.
Given our current economic challenges, wc think it is important we put matters into context. We
hopc you agree it is important to generatc sufficient capital revenue to both mcct the District's
capital needs and resonate with the needs of Collier County's economy. Indeed, we helievc it is
critical that the District adopt fiscal policy that is responsive to the severe recession currently
impacting the overall socioeconomic health of our great community.
As you know, the best estimates are that Collier County has lost approximately 15,000 jobs in
our construction, development and related industries. The affects of this massive job loss in our
community have becn profound. When combined with the national recession, stock market
volatility, financial crisis and foreclosure epidemic, most families, businesses, and municipalities
are being forced to reset and rethink budgetary priorities responsive to our new economic
realities.
The good news is that Collier County School Board has been adroit and need not panic. Your
decision last fall to advance a referendum to move one quarter mill from capital to operating
accounts has helped stabilize the District's operating budget. This forward thinking has helped in
so many ways. Thc Chamber was pleased to join with many collaborative community
constituents to support you in this effort. Together, we all were instrumental in achieving the
referendum's success.
1390TamiamiTrail North - Suitel10- Naples, Florida 34103 - Phone (239)252-6376 - Fax (239) 262-8374 . www.ndpleschamber.org
Kathleen Curatolo
Ju/y 28,2010
Page 2 of3
Agenda Item No. 8A
October 12, 2010
Page 6 of 16
In this same collaborative spirit, we ask you to consider recommending to the County Board of
Commissioners that school impact fees be lowered.
We believe all in Collier County would be best served bv lower impact fees for the next few
years as we attempt to recover from the recession.
Current Collier County impact fee policy is to assess the maximum impact fee that is legal. We
suggest the School District consider balancing the amount of impact fee with other
socioeconomic considerations such as job creation, local economic benefit and additional new
homc construction. We refer you to the findings in the Collier County Fiscal Stability rcport
completed by Patrick Anderson for more detailed analysis (see attached).
We believe there is considerable evidence that the amount of the school impact fec could be
lowered or even eliminated for a time. Your current School District capital plan recognizes
Collier County will not need a new school for approximately 10 years. In fact, it has been several
years since the County built a new school. Our school population has been arguably static for the
past three years with student enrollment increasing plus or minus some one thousand students
annually, But, also, please note that the School Board staff has budgeted between $4 million and
$6 million dollars in impact fee collections annually in your current five-year plan. These dollars
appear to be budgeted to construct a $30 million fund for future school construction.
Recognizing that no school caused by growth is slated to start in the next five years, it seems that
the reduction of this impact fee would not impair thc currcnt capital plan.
We recognize the County, in co-operation with the District, is completing an updated education
impact fee study in the next few months. Prudcnce suggests it may be wise to advance the
discussion of lowering school impact fees over the coming months in conjunction with a
thorough review of the findings in the county's study.
Al~o, we ask you to consider requestinir immediate deferral of the collection of the
education impact fee until a home is completed.
Current County policy is to collect impact fee taxes prior to starting a construction project. For a
residential single family home, the combined eleven (II) impact fees total approximately
$40,000 of which approximately $11,000 is for thc education impact fec, This upfront impact fee
tax is paid prior to the first work start and groundbreaking. Most projects are not funded until the
closing with the end user whcn the home is finished. Bank financing for new construction is
scarce. Construction companies now are forced to use their own cash to fund construction. For a
company that builds more than one homc at anyone time, this up-front payment becomes a
significant dcal breaker to building any homes at all. We believe deferring impact fee collection
until the issuance or certificate of occupancy, when the home is completed and prior to a
homeowner taking legal possession, will stimulate our economy and spark noticeable, additional
new home construction,
Kathleen Curatolo
July 28,2010
Page 3 of3
Agenda Item No SA
October 12. 2010
Page 7 of 16
In summary, we believe all in Collier County would be best served by lower school impact fees
for the next few years as we attempt to recover from the recession. Second, by deferring the
collection of the education impact fee until a home is completed, we could help stimulate the
local economy and job employment.
Please know that wc appreciate the opportunity to share these suggestions with you and stand
ready to continue to try to support and assist you in your deliberations in the days ahead.
Respectfully submitted for The Chamber's Public Policy Leaders,
~rJ1~
Michael V. Reagen, Ph.D.
President & CEO
The Greater Naples Chamber of Commerce
& Leadership Collier Foundation
MVRJlf
cc:
Dennis Thompson
Michele LaB ute
Agenda Item No. 8A
October 12, 2010
Page 8 of 16
REGULAR BOARD MEETING
AUGUST 19, 2010 - 3:00 P.M.
DR. MARTIN LlJTHER KING, JR. ADMINISTRATIVE CENTER
August 19, 2010 . Regular Board Meeting
Agenda Item #50
~
Impact Fees for Educational Facilities
Florida Statute
163.31801
Federal Statute
School Board Policv
Item TVDe
Action Requested
Action Tvne
Capital Outlay Funds
Executive Summarv
At the request of the School Board, this item is placed on the agenda with supporting information. The
attachment provides relevant information regarding school impact fees, including the current amount, pertinent
state statute, and Collier County ordinance. The District uses impact fees to help pay capital debt service.
The Board of County Commissioners (BCC) has the authority per state statute to set impact fees, including fees
for educational facilities. The School Board can make a recommendation to the BCe. Currently the BCC has
retained a consultant to analyze the data and recommend the amount of future impact fees. The District is
continuing to provide data to the consultant as requested. The tentative schedule is that the consultant's
recommendation is to be presented to the School Board in December or January.
At the July meeting of the School Board, staff was asked to bring back information on two items. They are:
. What would be the impact on the capital budget of reducing school impact fees by 50%7
o Over the iast three years, the amount of impact fees collected have been:
. 2009-10: $7,516,807.74
. 2008-09: $4,797,703.92
. 2007-08: $5,793,570.65
o It is difficult to predict future revenue, however, staff has conservatively estimated a minimum impact
fee revenue in the five year capital budget as:
. 2010-11: $4 million
. 2011-12: $4.5 million
2012-13: $5 million
. 2013-14: $6 million
. 2014-15: $6 million
o Using the 2009-10 actual revenue of $7.5 million, the impact of a 50% reduction would be
Agenda Item No. 8A
October 12, 2010
Page 9 of 16
REGULAR BOARD MEETING
AUGUST 19, 2010 - 3:00 P.M.
DR. MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR. ADMINISTRATIVE CENTER
approximately $3.75 million per year. Using the conservativeiy estimated revenue in the budget, the
impact would be a reduction of between $2 million and $3 million per year or a total of
approximately $12.75 million for the five year period, Projects in the capital budget have been
reduced and the capital plan is developed on essential items only. The reduction in funds would
have to be made up through use of carry forward funds which is possible for the first few years but
would become more difficult in the outer years. The capital budget reduction from 2.00 mills to 1.25
mills along with the reduction of assessed property values has made reliance on carry forward funds
of critical importance in balancing the budget. One item that can be of help is the Self Insured
Retention (SIR) fund of $15 million. This fund covers the District for damage not covered by our
insurance, which has a very high deductible. Any unused funds in SIR, would increase the carry
forward.
. What would be the impact of delaying the payment of impact fees until the Certificate of Occupancy is
issued?
a According to our contact at Collier County, we could delay the collection of impact fees until the
Certificate of Occupancy (C/O) is issued. According to the County, developers sometimes slow their
progress toward a C/O while looking for a buyer. This delay in revenues could, in effect, practically
eliminate or greatly reduce our impact fee revenue for one year or more. Again, the carry forward or
the SIR would have to be used to make up for the loss of revenue.
Leaal Aooroval
Mr. Fishbane has reviewed the attached information.
Recommendation
The capital budget revenue has and continues to significantly decrease due to decreased millage and decreased
assessed property values. A decrease In impact fee revenues will add to this adverse condition. Staff
recommends that the School Board delay action until receiving the analysis of the data and recommendation
from the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) Consultant.
District Mission/Belief
We believe that we must base all of our decisions on evidence and the best interest of students.
Contact
Michele LaBute, Chief Operational Officer, 377-0210
Financial Imoact
Agenda Item No. SA
October 12, 2010
Page 10 of 16
REGULAR BOARD MEETING
AUGUST 19, 2010 - 3:00 P.M.
DR. MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR. ADMINISTRATIVE CENTER
A 50% reduction in impact fees is estimated to reduce capital budget revenue between $2 million and $3.75
million per year.
Collecting impact fees at C/O rather than at the time of permitting, could delay collection of impact fees for one
year or more.
Budaeted
No
Recurrina Costs
Yes
Attachment: Imoact Fee Info.pdf
~m~
~~[
QJ" Collier c~.e-.
Agenda Item No. 8A
October 12, 2010
Page 11 of 16
KATHLEEN CURATOLO, Chair
JULIE SPRAGUE, Vice Cbair
PATRICIA M. CARROLL, Member
STEVEN J. DONOVAN, Member
ROY M. TERRY, Member
". ;.\",':.:""
i~~\, l
Lcm
August 23, 2010
Honorable Commissioner Fred Coyle
Chair, Board of County Commissioners
3301 E. Tamiami Trail
Naples, Florida 34112
Dear Commissioner Coyle,
At our regularly scheduled meeting on Thursday, August 19, 2010, members of the
District School Board of Collier County voted unanimously to recommend a 50%
reduction in school impact fees over a twenty-four month period.
On behalf of School Board members, we are requesting that this recommendation be
placed on a BCC agenda for your discussion and vote. The favor of your reply would
be most appreciated.
~/u
Kathleen Curatolo
Chair: District School Board of Collier County
cc: Leo Ochs, Collier County Manager v
Dr. Dennis L. Thompson, Superintendent of Collier county Public Schools
COLLIER COUNTY CHARACTER EDUCA nON TRAITS
Citizenship Cooperation Honesty Kindness Patriotism Perseverance
Respect Responsibility Self Control Tolerance
THE COLLIER COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOL SYSTEM IS AN EQUAL ACCESSIEQUAL OPPOR11JNITY INSTITUTION FOR EDUCA TIQN AND EMPLOYMENT
Agenda Item No. 8A
October 12, 2010
Page 12 of 16
ORDINANCE NO. 2010-
AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING CHAPTER 74 OF
THE COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES
(THE COLLIER COUNTY CONSOLIDATED IMPACT FEE
ORDINANCE) BY AMENDING THE EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES
(SCHOOL) IMPACT FEE RATE SCHEDULE, WHICH IS SCHEDULE
SIX OF APPENDIX A, TO PROVIDE FOR A REDUCTION IN
RATES; PROVIDING FOR CONFLICT AND SEVERABILITY;
PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION IN THE COLLIER COUNTY CODE
OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES; AND PROVIDING FOR A
RETROACTIVE EFFECTIVE DATE OF OCTOBER 8, 2010.
WHEREAS, on May 13, 1992, the Board of County Commissioners adopted Ordinance
No. 92-33, the Collier County Educational Facilities System Impact Fee Ordinance, thereby
establishing the County's then applicable Educational Facilities Impact Fee rates; and
WHEREAS, on March 13, 2001, the Board of County Commissioners adopted
Ordinance No. 2001-13, the Collier County Consolidated Impact Fee Ordinance, repealing and
superseding all of the County's then existing impact fee regulations, and consolidating all of the
County's impact fee regulations into that one Ordinance, codified in Chapter 74 of the Collier
County Code of Laws and Ordinances (the "Code"); and
WHEREAS, on June 26, 2007, the Board of County Commissioners adopted Ordinance
2007-57, thereby adopting the "Collier County Impact Fee Indexing Study," and amending the
Code to reflect the new indexing provisions and amended rates; and
WHEREAS, on April 28, 2009, the Board of County Commissioners adopted Ordinance
No, 2009-17, amending the Code to implement revised indexing methodology and thereby
established the current Educational Facilities Impact Fee rates; and
WHEREAS, Educational Facilities Impact Fees are collected by Collier County (the
"County") and transmitted to the District School Board of Collier County (the "District") for the
purpose of funding growth-related capital improvements and in accordance with the "Interlocal
Agreement for Collier County Educational Facilities Impact Fee Ordinance" between the County
and the District; and
WHEREAS, the District uses impact fees to supplement the funding of necessary capital
construction and/or improvements to facilities required to provide public educational facilities to
Agenda Item No. 8A
October 12, 2010
Page 13 of 16
serve new population and related development that is necessitated by growth in Collier County;
and
WHEREAS, as Section 74-502 of the Code states that impact fee studies should be
reviewed at least every three years, the County retained Tindale-Oliver and Associates,
Incorporated (the "Consultant"), to review the existing Educational Facilities Impact Fees and
recommend changes to the fees where appropriate and this study is currently in process; and
WHEREAS, on August 19, 2010, the District voted unanimously to recommend a 50%
reduction in Educational Facilities (School) Impact Fees over a twenty-four month period; and
WHEREAS, on August 23, 20 I 0, the Chairman of the District School Board of Collier
County provided correspondence to the Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners
requesting that the recommendation be placed on a Board of County Commissioners agenda for
discussion and vote.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that:
SECTION ONE. Appendix A of Chapter 74 of the Collier County Code of Laws and
Ordinances is hereby amended as set forth in the attachment to this Ordinance.
SECTION TWO. CONFLICT AND SEVERABILITY.
In the event this Ordinance conflicts with any other Ordinance of Collier County or other
applicable law, the more restrictive shall apply. If any phrase or portion of this Ordinance is held
invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a
separate, dis1inct, and independent provision and such holding shall not affect the validity of the
remaining portions.
SECTION THREE. INCLUSION IN THE CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES.
The provisions of this Ordinance shall be made a part of the Code of Laws and
Ordinances of Collier County, Florida. The sections of the Ordinance may be renumbered or re-
2
Agenda Item No 8A
October 12, 2010
Page 14 of 16
lettered and internal cross-references amended throughout to accomplish such, and the word
"ordinance" may be changed to "section," "article," or any other appropriate word.
SECTION FOUR. EFFECTIVE DATE.
This Ordinance shall be retroactively effective as of October 8, 2010.
PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED by the Board of County Commissioners of Collier
County, Florida this _ day of , 20 I O.
ATTEST
Dwight E. Brock, Clerk
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
By:
By:
FRED W. COYLE, Chairman
, Deputy Clerk
APprl.ve...d ~a~... to form
and I gal 'l~l~i~~:
-co.-i- ..1
1r'f'''~,
,
3
APPENDIX A - SCHEDULE SIX
Agenda Item No. SA
October 12, 2010
Page 15 of 16
EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES (SCHOOL) IMPACT FEE RATE SCHEDULE
Effective July 27, 211119 October 8. 2010
Impact Fee Land Use Category
Mobile HomelRV Park
Multi-Family
Single Family Detached House
Less than 1,500 sq. ft.
1,500 to 2,499 sq. ft.
2,500 sq. ft. or larger
$6,687.38
$3,313,(i8
$9,612.82
$19,755.11
$11,702.91
Rate
$3.343.69
$1.671.84
$4.806.41
$5.377.70
$5.851.45
Per Unit/Site
Per Dwelling Unit
Per Dwelling Unit
Per Dwelling Unit
Per Dwelling Unit
Underlined text is added; Struol, lR.ough text is deleted
Page 4 of4
Agenda Item No. SA
October 12. 2010
Page 16 of 16
~
t8D . Friday, October 1, 2010 . Napi.. DaDy News
.' ,
.. ,
NOTICE OF INTENT TO CONSIDER ORDINANCE
Notice is hereby, given that on October 12, 2010 in the Boardroom, 3rd Floor, Ad-
minirtration BUIlding, Collier County Government Center. 3301 East Tamiami Trail.
Naples, Florida, the ,Board of County Commissioners will consider the enactment of
a County Ordinance. The meeting WIll commence at 9:00 A.M. The, title of the pro.
posed Ordinance is 3$ follo'vVS;
AN ORDINANCE OF THE' BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER CO.UN-
TV, FLORIDA, AMeNDING CHAPTER 74 OF THE: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS
AND ORDINANCES (THE' COLUER COUNTY CONSOLIDATED IMPACT FEE ORDI.
NANCE) BY AMENDING TH~' EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES (SCHOOL) IMPACT, FEE RATE
SCHEDULE, WHICH IS SCHEbuL, SIX OF APPENDIX A. TO PROVIDE FOR A REDUC-
TION IN .RATES; p,R"OV1DING FOR"COfo,lFLlCf AND SEVERABIliTY; PR,OVIDtNG FOR IN~
CLUSION IN THE COLLIER COUNTY COOE OF LAWS AND ORPINANCES; AND PRO'
VIDING FOR A DELAYED EFFECTIVE DATE OF OCTOBER 18, 2010.
Copies of the proposed Ordinance' are on file with the Clerk to the Board and are
available for inspection. Alllnterested parties are invited to attend and be heard.
NOTE: All persons wishing_ to speak on any agenda Item must register with the
County administrator frior. to presentation of the agenda item to be addre.ssed.
Individual speakers wi! be limited to 3 minutes on any item. In any case, written
materials intended to be considered by the Board shall be submitted to the appro-
priate County staff a minimum of seven days prior to the public hearing.
If you are a person with a disability who needs any accommodation in order to par-
ticipate in this proceeding, you are entitled, at no cost to you, to the provision of .
certain a.ssistance. _ Please contact. the Collier County Facilities ManagementDe~art~
ment, located at 3301 Tamiaml -Trail East, Building W, Naples, Floriaa. 34112, (239)
252~8380, Assisted listening. devices __for the, hearing impaired are available in the
County Commissioners' OffJce.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
COLlIERCOUNiY, FLO~.IDA
FRED COYlE, CHAIRMAN .
DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK
By: Ter~a Polaski, Deputy Clerk
(SEAL) .
Ortnhpr 1 )01 0
Nn1R7o;44