Agenda 12/09/2014 Item # 11D 12/9/2014 11 .D.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Recommendation to provide direction to replace the Fiscal Impact Analysis Model with an
alternative approach for estimating projects' fiscal impacts on public facilities and services; and,
provide direction to initiate necessary amendments to the Land Development Code and the Future
Land Use Element of the Growth Management Plan.
OBJECTIVE: For the Board of County Commissioners (Board) to review the attached White
Paper on the Fiscal Impact Analysis Model (FIAM) and alternative approaches, and consider
providing the staff-recommended direction.
CONSIDERATIONS: The Future Land Use Element of the Growth Management Plan requires
Stewardship Receiving Areas (SRA) within the Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay and
Rural Villages within the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District to be fiscally neutral to the County tax
base. Presently, the Board-adopted FIAM is required for the evaluation of public facilities and
services impacts for both SRA and Rural Village development.
To date, there have been no Rural Villages approved within the County, and the Town of Ave
Maria is the only approved SRA. As required by the Growth Management Plan and Land
Development Code regulations, a FIAM for the Ave Maria SRA was submitted to the County for
review and subsequently approved by the Board in 2005 as part of the approval of the SRA.
At the time of the original Ave Maria SRA approval, at least one Commissioner expressed
concerns about the validity of the FIAM. During the required five-year review of the Ave Maria
SRA, multiple Board members expressed concerns about the FIAM's ability to accurately
estimate costs and revenues resulting from the project's ongoing development. Based upon these
concerns and recognizing at least one additional SRA application is expected to be submitted to
the County in the near future, which would be subject to this FIAM requirement, the Growth
Management Division Administrator directed staff to research fiscal impact
models/methodologies used in other Florida counties and to look at alternatives to the FIAM.
Over a period of+8 months, staff prepared and distributed a survey to the other 66 counties in
Florida soliciting their use of fiscal impact and economic tools; spoke with the staff of those
counties that have specific fiscal neutrality requirements within their comprehensive plans;
traveled to Charlotte County for a demonstration on a fiscal/economic model that is currently
being used by that county and other Florida counties; conducted research of other counties that
use fiscal modeling; and, held internal discussions about fiscal impact analysis methodologies.
Staff discussed and narrowed the various options: (1) retain the FIAM; (2) use a model being
used by another jurisdiction; or, (3) utilize a Developer Contribution Agreement (DCA) with
criteria to be established. While staff believes the FIAM remains a valuable planning tool, it
must be updated annually which requires extensive staff time, and staff must be trained in its use
and certified —which requires expense and time. Use of other models also require staff training
and annual updating, or reliance upon a contracted economist; also, it is staff's perception that
the Board may not endorse another model which comprises similar complexities, data inputs and
Packet Page-555-
12/9/2014 11 .D.
calculations as the FIAM. A DCA is a tool that is far less complex than the various models, thus
easier to understand; can be vetted through the public hearing process; and, the Board has
experience and familiarity reviewing these documents.
FISCAL IMPACT: The fiscal impacts are the costs associated with preparation of the necessary
amendments to the GMP and the LDC, and provision of the required public notice. Existing
staff will prepare the necessary amendments which are expected to be included within existing
scheduled cycles of amendments.
GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN (GMP) IMPACT: There are no GMP impacts resulting
from the requested action.
LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS: This item is approved as to form and legality. It requires a
majority vote for approval. [SAS]
RECOMMENDATION: To direct staff to initiate amendments to: FLUE Policy 4.18 to
replace the specific reference to a "fiscal impact analysis model" with a more general reference
to the County's method for evaluating fiscal neutrality; and, LDC Section 4.08.07, to replace the
Fiscal Impact Analysis Model and its criteria with a requirement for a Developer Contribution
Agreement with criteria.
Prepared by: Michele Mosca, AICP, Principal Planner, Comprehensive Planning Section,
Planning and Zoning Department, Growth Management Division/Planning and Regulation
Attachments: Fiscal Impact Analysis Model White Paper
Packet Page-556-
12/9/2014 11 .D.
COLLIER COUNTY
Board of County Commissioners
Item Number: 11.11.D.
Item Summary: Recommendation to provide direction to replace the Fiscal Impact
Analysis Model with an alternative approach for estimating projects'fiscal impacts on public
facilities and services; and, provide direction to initiate necessary amendments to the Land
Development Code and the Future Land Use Element of the Growth Management Plan.
Meeting Date: 12/9/2014
Prepared By
Name: MoscaMichele
Title:Planner,Principal, Comprehensive Planning
11/13/2014 6:13:06 PM
Submitted by
Title: Planner, Principal, Comprehensive Planning
Name: MoscaMichele
11/13/2014 6:13:07 PM
Approved By
Name: PuigJudy
Title: Operations Analyst, Community Development&Environmental Services
Date: 11/14/2014 11:57:57 AM
Name: BosiMichael
Title: Director-Planning and Zoning, Comprehensive Planning
Date: 11/19/2014 9:46:47 AM
Name: CasalanguidaNick
Title: Administrator-Growth Management Div,Business Management&Budget Office
Date: 11/23/2014 10:28:29 PM
Name: StoneScott
Title: Assistant County Attorney, CAO Land Use/Transportation
Date: 11/26/2014 10:14:23 AM
Packet Page-557-
12/9/2014 11 .D.
Name: KlatzkowJeff
Title: County Attorney,
Date: 11/26/2014 1 0:59:19 AM
Name: IsacksonMark
Title: Director-Corp Financial and Mngmt Svs, Office of Management&Budget
Date: 12/1/2014 8:48:30 AM
Name: FinnEd
Title: Management/Budget Analyst, Senior, Transportation Engineering&Construction Management
Date: 12/1/2014 11:24:11 AM
Name: OchsLeo
Title: County Manager, County Managers Office
Date: 12/1/2014 1:31:41 PM
Packet Page -558-
12/9/2014 11 .D.
Fiscal Impact Analysis Model
White Paper
Purpose:
The purpose of this paper is to: (1) discuss the County's use of the Fiscal Impact Analysis Model
(FIAM) for determining development impacts on public facilities and services; (2) address the
use of fiscal impact analysis modeling within other Florida jurisdictions; (3) identify alternative
methodologies to address the fiscal neutrality requirement for projects located within the Rural
Land Stewardship Area (RLSA) Overlay and within the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District
(RFMUD) of the Future Land Use Element of the Collier County Growth Management Plan;
and, (4)provide recommended alternative to the FIAM.
Background:
The Establishment of the Fiscal Impact Analysis Model(FIAM)
The Growth Management Act of 1985 required local governments to adopt comprehensive plans
that were financially feasible and included concurrency management.systems — with acceptable
adopted levels of service for potable water, sanitary sewer, drainage, parks, solid waste and
transportation—to ensure that needed infrastructure to support development was available when
the impacts of development occurred. Generally, under the concurrency management system, if
required public facilities and services were not available at the time of new development then the
development could not proceed.
In July of 2000, the Growth Management Study Commission was appointed to address various
growth management issues within the State. One of many significant issues addressed by the
Commission was the coordination of future land use plans with infrastructure planning and
budgeting. The Commission believed concurrency was flawed and an inadequate tool for
managing growth.
In 2001, The Growth Management Study Commission issued a Final Report which included
recommendations for the establishment of a uniform methodology to evaluate the costs and
benefits of local land use decisions. The creation of a uniform methodology was viewed as an
improved approach to concurrency management for local governments' decision making and
accountability, and for measuring the costs and impacts of new development compared to the
revenues generated and benefits created.
In 2002,the Department of Environmental Protection contracted with Fishkind and Associates of
Orlando to establish a uniform statewide fiscal impact analysis model to measure public facilities
and services impacts created by new development.
Fishkind and Associates developed the Fiscal Impact Analysis Model (FIAM) for local
governments to use as a tool to improve land use decisions based on true project costs. The
FIAM is an Excel-based model that estimates the costs and revenues associated with
development using a modified per capita approach. The Model is location specific, utilizing
community data, such as budgets, impact fees,population figures,visitor estimates, etc.
Page I 1
Packet Page-559-
12/9/2014 11 .D.
FIRM in Collier County
The Board of County Commissioners approved the use of the FIAM in October of 2007 as a
supplemental planning tool to address the fiscal neutrality requirements of the Future Land Use
Element (and Land Development Code) for Stewardship Receiving Areas (SRA) located within
the RLSA and Rural Villages located within the RFMUD of the Future Land Use Element of the
Growth Management Plan. The specific fiscal neutrality requirements for these developments
are provided below.
The RLSA —Stewardship Receiving Area (RLSA Policy 4.18 of the Future Land Use Element)
• The Stewardship Receiving Area will be planned and designed to be fiscally neutral or
positive to Collier County at the horizon year based on a cost/benefit fiscal impact analysis
model acceptable to or as may be adopted by the County. The BCC may grant exceptions to
this policy to accommodate affordable-workforce housing, as it deems appropriate.
Techniques that may promote fiscal neutrality such as Community Development Districts,
and other special districts, shall be encouraged. At a minimum, the analysis shall consider
the following public facilities and services: transportation, potable water, wastewater,
irrigation water, stormwater management, solid waste, parks, law enforcement, and schools.
Development phasing, developer contributions and mitigation, and other public/private
partnerships shall address any potential adverse impacts to adopted levels of service
standards.
The RFMUD Receiving Lands—Rural Village (Rural Fringe Mixed Use District of the Future
Land Use Element)
• A Rural Village may only be approved after demonstration that the Village will be fiscally
neutral to county taxpayers outside of the Village. An analysis shall be conducted and
submitted in conjunction with the PUD rezone and/or DRI application evaluating the demand
and impacts on levels of service for public facilities and the cost of such facilities and
services necessary to serve the Rural Village. This evaluation shall identify projected
revenue sources for services and any capital improvements that may be necessary to support
the Village. Additionally, this analysis shall demonstrate that the costs of providing
necessary facilities and services shall be fiscally neutral to County taxpayers outside of the
Village. At a minimum, the analysis shall consider the following: stormwater/drainage
facilities; potable water provisions and facilities; reuse or "grey" water provisions for
irrigation; central sewer provisions and facilities; park facilities; law enforcement facilities;
school facilities; roads, transit, bicycle and pedestrian facilities and pathways; and solid
waste facilities. Development phasing and funding mechanisms to address any impacts to
level of service in accordance with the County's adopted concurrency management program.
Accordingly, there shall be no degradation to the adopted level of service for public facilities
and infrastructure identified above.
Survey of Florida Counties' Use of Fiscal Impact Analysis Tools:
Staff conducted a survey of the other 66 counties in Florida to determine their use of economic
tools and/or fiscal impact analysis tools for evaluating land use petitions for fiscal or overall
benefits to their respective county. Of the 66 counties surveyed, 25 counties responded (37%),
and of those counties, only 3 evaluated projects' fiscal impacts on public facilities and services.
Page 12
Packet Page -560-
12/9/2014 11 .D.
• Charlotte County (fiscal impact analysis conducted on economic development projects
only) and Hardee County use Impact DataSource — a fiscal impact analysis tool
customized for each respective county; and
• Sarasota County allows developers to submit a fiscal impact analysis/methodology of
their choice that is reviewed and evaluated by an independent economist selected by the
County.
Note: County staff met with Charlotte County staff to view the Impact DataSource model. The
Model is designed exclusively for Charlotte County based on their budget information and other
county-specific data. The Model is Excel-based, estimates indirect economic effects, estimates
local government revenues and costs, and integrates economic and fiscal impact analyses.
As a follow-up to the Charlotte County meeting, staff contacted the developers of the Impact
DataSource Model. The Texas based company develops customized models for public or quasi-
public entities, including cities, counties, states and economic development councils (EDC).
Their client list in Florida includes: Charlotte County, Hardee County, City of Clearwater, Metro
Orlando EDC, City of Ormand Beach, Osceola County, City of North Port and Sarasota County.
Fiscal Neutrality Requirement within other Florida Comprehensive Plans:
In addition to the two fiscal neutrality provisions required for projects located within Collier
County's RLSA and RFMUD, staff was able to find only two other counties that have fiscal
neutrality regulations within their comprehensive plans— Sarasota County and Volusia County.
Sarasota County requires a fiscal neutrality evaluation for projects located within the boundaries
of their Sarasota 2050 Plan. Similar to Collier's two rural lands programs, their Plan provides
for compact development, preservation of environmentally sensitive lands and open space, and
requires development to be fiscally neutral to their taxpayers.
To address the fiscal neutrality requirement, Sarasota County allows developers to submit a
fiscal impact analysis methodology of their choice that is reviewed and evaluated for fiscal
impacts by an independent economist selected by the County.
Volusia County requires a fiscal neutrality evaluation for projects located within the boundaries
of their Farmton Plan. The Farmton Plan is a long-term planning initiative that provides for
sustainable development and preservation of environmentally sensitive lands, relies on Smart
Growth techniques for development, and requires infrastructure to be privately funded.
To address the fiscal neutrality requirement, Volusia County staff worked closely with an
Orlando based consultant to develop a fiscal neutrality checklist. The checklist will be used for
each submittal and refined as needed on a case-by-case basis.
Concerns with the FIAM:
Certain counties and cities involved in the State's initial rollout of the FIAM have since
discontinued the use of the Model as a fiscal tool within their respective jurisdictions. The
reasons provided for discontinuing the use of the Model varied from one jurisdiction to another.
However, some common concerns raised by FIAM users included: (1) Model calibration
requires manual input of large amounts of data; (2) calibrated Model requires rigorous testing by
Page 13
Packet Page-561-
12/9/2014 11.D.
the analyst; (3) limited opportunities for training and certification; (4) uncertainty concerning use
of the Model and its outputs; (5) open-code format; (6) time and expense required for annual
updates; and, (7) Model lacks economic analysis component.
Collier County staff's concerns regarding the FIAM are similar to those expressed by the other
Florida jurisdictions. In particular, the limited use of the Model only for SRAs and Rural
Villages raises the question of whether the benefits of using the Model outweigh the costs to
maintain it and train staff. Additionally, the Board of County Commissioners has expressed
concerns about the Model's validity, including its open-code format.
Alternative Models:
In addition to the aforementioned survey, research conducted by staff indicates that there are a
variety of fiscal and economic models being used in Florida for the purpose of evaluating
projects for their economic and/or fiscal impacts. Further, many jurisdictions use a single model
that provides both economic and fiscal outputs. Or, in some instances,jurisdictions rely solely
on an economic model to determine the project's overall benefit to a community, or use a fiscal
impact analysis model/methodology to determine fiscal impacts only. Some of the models below
are capable of evaluating projects for both economic and fiscal impacts. Research indicates the
commonly used economic and fiscal impact models in Florida include, but are not limited to:
RIMS II IMPLAN REMI WebLOCI Quick Impact
Policy Insight and Total Impact
Type of model Input/output Static input- Regional Fiscal Impact Economic&Fiscal
multipliers only output modeling economic& Impact
Policy modeling
Geography Counties,states Counties,states, Multi-county Counties& Counties,cities&
regions zip codes regions& states cities states
Estimates indirect No,but Yes Yes Yes(not Yes
Economic effects multipliers can primary
be used to do so function)
Estimates local gov't No No No Yes Yes
revenues and costs
Incentives analysis No No No Yes Yes
(return,payback
period)
Calculates net No No No Yes Yes
present value
Format Viewer file or Desktop Desktop Web-based Excel-based
spreadsheet application application application application
Major strengths/ Affordable& Level of Robust Provides Integrates
advantages accessible industry detail; forecasting& detailed cost economic and
multi region policy analysis estimates fiscal impact
modeling capability analyses
Limitations No built-in Ignores dynamic Expensive& Requires Lack of industry
modeling changes in complex input of large detail &advanced
economy over amounts of modeling
time data capability
Vendor U.S.Bureau Minn.IMPLAN Regional GA Tech. Impact DataSource
Economic Group,Inc Economic Innovation
Analysis Models,Inc. Institute
Source:The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill,School of Government
Page 14
Packet Page-562-
12/9/2014 11 .D.
Conclusions:
The requirement for development to be fiscally neutral to the County's tax base remains vital to
sustained growth in Collier County. In order to ensure that there is an appropriate linkage
between infrastructure planning and budgeting, and the County's future land use plans, the
County should continue to require fiscal neutrality evaluations for projects located within the
RLSA and RFMUD. However, based on staffs research, it is evident that there is no standard
methodology or approach throughout the State of Florida for conducting fiscal impact analysis
modeling for developments to determine their public facilities and services impacts on their
respective jurisdictions. The various models listed on page 4 also generate some of the same
concerns as for the FIAM.
Staff discussed the various options: (1) retain the FIAM; (2) use a model being used by another
jurisdiction; or (3) utilize a Developer Contribution Agreement (DCA) with criteria to be
established. While staff believes the FIAM remains a valuable planning tool, it must be updated
annually which requires extensive staff time, and staff must be trained in its use and certified —
which requires expense and time; further, it is clear that generally the Board does not endorse the
use of the FIAM. Use of other models also require staff training and annual updating, or reliance
upon a contracted economist; also, it is staffs perception that the Board may not endorse another
model which comprises similar complexities, data inputs and calculations as the FIAM. A DCA
is a tool that is far less complex than the various models, thus easier to understand; can be vetted
through the public hearing process; and, the Board has experience and familiarity reviewing
these documents.
Recommended Course of Action:
That the FIAM requirement be removed from the GMP and LDC and be replaced with the
requirement for a publically vetted DCA, with criteria to be established — including performance
standards, and a five-year re-evaluation requirement.
Page 15
Packet Page-563-